Talking in possibilities is useless, because almost everything is possible. It's best to discuss probabities, this way you're less likely to accept a false proposition.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
empiracle evidence
- Thread starter Curious George
- Start date
Talking in possibilities is useless, because almost everything is possible. It's best to discuss probabities, this way you're less likely to accept a false proposition.
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why is a god required to be infinite? And how did you jump to the bible? Have you established that it's reliable for determining the truth an accuracy of how the universe came to exist?
Disciple of Christ
Member
Thankyou,
But some people do not concede that as a probability when they don't see it as a possibility, but I believe your are correct.
Disciple of Christ
Member
Supposing we do not use the bible and we would need to define what a God "is", then how would he/she be defined in order to make him/her separate from mankind?
Please use quote feature so I can follow. Did the same thing myself when first started. Thankyou.
Last edited:
Cool. The reason why I mention that is because if we allow for possibilities, it could also be a possibility that pixies created the universe. But is that a likely scenerio? No, it's just a big fat time waster. So, normally when having a debate or discussion we tend to talk about probabilies, because if we allow for possibilies we end up talking about big foot and flying tea pots, so lets not head in that direction please.
Disciple of Christ
Member
If God is mutable (changing) then he is equal to us and therefore we are gods or he/she is no god.
Disciple of Christ
Member
Time is a construct which has been constructed within infinity. How or Who determined it?
Why do we need to define a god, have we determined that one is likely to exist? And what is a god and why would it need to be seperate from mankind? I used the quote feature throughout my posts, did you not notice? I've been here for a few years, so, not exactly new, but thanks.
Disciple of Christ
Member
If there is a God then would he/she transcend our state of being or is he limited as we are and therefore can be conquered or superceded?
I don't care about assertions, I care about evidence. You're now asserting that a god can't be changeable because it would make us gods, by what reasoning does any of that make sense? I don't even know what a god is, nor why this thing would be relevent or necessary for our universe. Other than the assertion that it is.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Transcendence does not preclude the ability of we lesser beings to understand them.
That is akin to the Dog Whisperer Fallacy.
That is akin to the Dog Whisperer Fallacy.
Disciple of Christ
Member
Clarify please.
Disciple of Christ
Member
I agree.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Potential Forum discussion V: the Dog Whisperer Fallacy by ~the Heathen Hammer ~ on Myspace
The Spiderman Fallacy isn't the only thing I came up with
Last edited:
I think the question you're trying to ask is, how did did time come to exist? The lack of an answer to that question does not in any way add one bit of credibility to the answer that a god did it. The "god did it" hypothesis needs it's own evidence and cannot simply rely on the lack of an alternative answer. Because that would be an argument from ignorance, and your ignorance is not a testament to an actual answer.
Ok, so have you determined that a god is probable and not just possible? If so, please explain.
Disciple of Christ
Member
Maybe I'm wrong , but when you responded I only got the "whys" without the the statements preceding. Was confusing to go back and forth to answer. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
Because I was asking why to everyone of your bald assertions. Next time I'll just ask one why at the end and clarify.
Am I the only one who can see how out of place theological musings have in a discussion of science? Are we to base our scientific conclusions on empirical evidence, or on theological considerations?
Disciple of Christ
Member
Like to procede , but must go. Maybe tomorrow?