so..................

Well, it's not blind faith, it's knowledge. There is a difference. You demonstrate blind lack of faith, which is common among the ignorant.

I still enjoy booze, drugs, haven't been to jail in quite some time although I have a few people that I care about in there. Haven't smoked crack in about 1 year 3 months. Basically got sick of it, the feeling of the chase, it's not necessary to put yourself through the chase to have a good time.

You know what turned me towards God? God. Being with God feels good (you are with God now), but it feels even better when you know you are with God because you know you don't have to chase after stuff. God will bring you stuff when the time is right, be it yeyo, pussy, weed, blow jobs, pizza, movies, a good book, or an entertaining person such as yourself.

Eventually even you will know what it's like to have spiritual riches.

I command you to say something funny.

 

This is so old... Man's logic is impotent before that which can not be comprehended. It is a waste of time and mental energy.

But if I were to use logic... if God can create a boulder so huge that he couldn't move it, then he could easily uncreate it so that he wouldn't need to move it.

But if you're interested, I can prove that a straight line is a circle: a satellite travels forward in a straight line relative to the surface of the Erath's surface. But it goes around the world. It all depends on perspective. If you consider geostationary satellities, a point is a circle. The statellite doesn't move relative to the surface of the Earth but since the Earth moves the satellite moves. So it is standing still and moving at the same time. Not only that but it is standing still while going in a straight line which is a circle. It is a point, a straight line and a circle all at the same time.

 

None of these "questions" have answers, because they are illogical statements and have no meaning. Literally, they mean nothing, you might as well just be stringing random words together (which is almost what you've done).

Nothing exists that is immovable, no force exists that is irresistable, and if such things existed, they could not exist in the same universe, as they contradict one another. Could some object exist that could resist that which is irresistable? Huh?

Square circle? A blue spot that is red? You are just asking if something can be it's opposite. Can white be black? These kinds of "questions" are stupid, and don't deserve answers.

 

Either "God" is bound by logic and the laws of nature OR "he" is not? Which one is it? If "he" is not than he could "do" things which are illogical, right? Thus, making it all a paradox. But, if "he" IS bound by logic and nature than "he" couldn't have created it much less control it, but THIS contradicts what is constituted to be "God"! "Neither a hair falls from your head lest He wills it."-- It is a plethora of absurdity.

It's funny. Everyone "knows" this "God", but "he" seems to fit nicely in their own little subjective belief box. Yep, everyone has their own "version" of "God". But, it seems that all these different versions come into conflict too many times and bad things like "war" happen and "crusades" and "inquisitions" because my "God" is the "real God". My "truth" is the "Real Truth". My "Christianity and Jesus" = the "REAL JESUS, THE REAL CHRISTIANITY"...

There are ten million different versions of "God", "Jesus", "Christianity"...what he "really means is...", etc. etc...

The fact of the matter is that an ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-PRESENT, ALL-KNOWING, ALL-GOOD & "PERFECT" Being is self-refuting. Thus, "God" is a puff of illogic. A fantasy held on to by those who cannot face their inner "demons" without a Big Invisible Sky Daddy or some invisible Star Wars "force" to intervene and "save" them. Or to just to make them feel special or "holy".

Religion stems from belief in superstition. The rituals (prayer, fasting, etc.), the acts based on these superstitions, and the motivating force behind them-- FEAR AND/OR DESIRE...and in some cases both.

 

If it has a sense of humor.

 

Libertine, I used to rail on my math teachers (and math in general) simply because it made me uncomfortable, and I did not wish to be drawn into it.

You believe in yourself as a substitute for God. At some point that will become problematic.

 

I am no "substitute" for an Invisible Sky Daddy. "God" is the substitute or an excuse, really, for not taking responsibility for one's own dilemmas.

 

"I am no "substitute" for an Invisible Sky Daddy. "God" is the substitute or an excuse, really, for not taking responsibility for one's own dilemmas."

Well, atleast God is a better picture, you on the other hand are an entirely different matter.

 

You must have a very large brain to hold such a vast amount of ignorance.

 

There is one thing that nearly all theological scholars agree on: God is not outside the realm of 'logic' (which, by the way, is a noun, not an adjective). When you talk about some god or other squaring circles (in the relevant sense of some object being both a circle "all over" and square "all over" at the same time) you're [literally] talking nonsense. Is God "outside" of logic? No. Why? Because to answer 'yes' is [literally] incoherent. I have no idea what that would mean. It isn't merely because I'm not smart enough, but is rather built into the nature of the notion of 'being outside logic'.

"So, gunison, it's at least possible, then, that God could exist outside logic even though you may not completely understand it."
No. God, as we know Him/It would not then be God. Words and concepts mean what they do because of the shared context in which we use them (sorry nonconformists, but you're pissing in the wind if you think otherwise). This business about God existing (or doing something) outside or beyond logic is without sense. The reply to the question "Could God square a circle" isn't 'yes' or 'no'. Rather, the reply is a question, 'What is it that you mean to say?'

 

If God created logic and is above it, then "he" is not bound by it, thus all questions (even nonsense) would be applicable to the situation.

If God IS bound by logic, then we have a God that is bound by intrinsic nature and cannot have ‘created’ it.

The only retort would be that God himself IS intrinsic nature or essence, but this, again would ultimately lead to a self-contradictory ‘essence’--an impossibility because this would mean, again that everything meant nothing and vice versa and all things were irrational--even the definition of ‘essence’ itself. If this is true, then the one who denied God would be the same as the one who embraced God--yet another contradiction of the Christian doctrine.
So? Which one is right? The answer? None. There is no "Omnipotent" Being -- the law of non-contradiction cancels this out.

 

Either that or you don't think outside the box.

 

"The only retort would be that God himself IS intrinsic nature or essence, but this, again would ultimately lead to a self-contradictory ‘essence’--an impossibility because this would mean, again that everything meant nothing and vice versa and all things were irrational--even the definition of ‘essence’ itself. If this is true, then the one who denied God would be the same as the one who embraced God--yet another contradiction of the Christian doctrine.
So? Which one is right? The answer? None. There is no "Omnipotent" Being -- the law of non-contradiction cancels this out."

I can't follow this. What if God was essence? There isn't anything contradictory about that. A contradiction is when the existence and nonexistence of a state of affairs are both affirmed in the same place at the same time. There isn't anything like that in what you say. Whatever God may be, two features of God seem fairly uncontroversial to the theist:

1) God is an uncaused cause
2) There is an order in the universe that is a direct result of God's existence (which isn't necessarily to say that God created order in the same way I would create a a stapler)

I don't know definitively what (1) means. But the parameters for this sort of notion seem to be in place. That is, there is a universe which exists. If the universe is not eternal, it was created (i.e. there was a "time" when the universe didn't exist). If the universe was created by X, then something created X, Y. If Y created X, something created Y, Z... and we're on the wrong side of an infinite regress. Therefore, if the universe is created (as theists contend) it had to start somewhere, rather than nowhere. So, we get the notion of a first uncaused cause.

Here again, though, I'm not saying anything above/outside/beyond logic. I don't see where the law of non-contradiction comes into this. Even a theist wouldn't deny this law.

 

Essence- the attribute (in philosophy) that makes something what it is. If "God" was "essence" itself, then "God" would be everything itself. The thing and its opposite. A contradiction is when the existence and nonexistence of a state of affairs are both affirmed in the same place at the same time. . Darkness and light (they both have 'essence'). Everything has "essence" according to the religious and spiritualists. Thus, "God" would be everything--PANTHEISM. There goes Christianity...

The "uncaused cause" is one the most overused and weakest arguments of all. It completely flies in the face of itself...it is self-refuting. If "everything has a cause", there is no "uncaused cause". Otherwise everything wouldn't need a cause and thus the entire universe (not just the observable one) wouldn't need one either. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form.

The law of non-contradiction is all OVER this.

 

ROFL... "If I can't explain it, GOD DID IT = CHRISTIAN SCIENCE"....yep, that's really "outside" the box.

"If I can't explain, I'll use apologetics and all kinds of rhetoric gymnastics to make it fit my belief." Yep, that's really "outside" the box.

Please...don't EVEN go there. You'll stand as much a chance as a one-legged man in an asskicking contest.

 

well try again and see if you really can think outside the box.

 

*yawn* You amaze me! I didn't think it was possible for one person to possess such a vast reservoir of undiluted gibberish! You are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder.

 

and more, lets see you try something that actually is outside your little box.

 

And which faculties do you propose should I use to do this "something outside my little box"? (as you have so redundantly put it)

 

haha, I don't care , any that you have under your control.