Premier Rock Forum

NerblyBear wrote:

matthew wrote:Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself?

How so? The concept "existence" exists just as much as the concept "love" exists. Neither of these concepts are God, who doesn't exist--in fact, who couldn't possibly exist given his alleged traits.

matthew wrote:Any proposition made about "existence as existence" is an equivocation on the part of a human person.....and "existence as existence" cannot fit into something which is merely a part of it: A Human Intellect

matthew wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:

matthew wrote:
Your definitions of God which other people use do not correspond to my argument about the nature of God and I have argued that God is TO BE.

could you elaborate, or give me links to your post if you already did that, on how god is "to be"? cause i smell good ol' ontological argument here.

"To Be" is not a thing in the sense that we can form a concept of it because it is at once the most immediate and most universal reality and is not out of necessity a part of any-thing. One might object and then say that because I have established that since "To Be" is not a thing in the sense which are immediate, it thus IS-NOT strictly in the sense of that quality which is most universal of all actually existent things. In plainer language, this is to state the proposition "'To Be' IS NOT". But this proposition is self-evidentially absurd. Having said this "God" is only "thing" by linguistic equivocation.

steve wrote:

matthew wrote:Any proposition made about "existence as existence" is an equivocation on the part of a human person.....and "existence as existence" cannot fit into something which is merely a part of it: A Human Intellect

...so, according to you, we should ignore everything you're telling us about the nature of existence, because your feeble human intellect cannot know it, and your statements are all equivocations.

matthew wrote:my intent here has been to open up people's minds to the only REAL mystery- God/Existence, instead of dwelling on the "well, we just haven't observed it yet" sort-of "mysteries" in natural science. Accepting that former sort of mystery is nothing else than a simple choice when all's said and done. It IS black and white.

matthew wrote:...my intent here has been to open up people's minds to the only REAL mystery- God/Existence, instead of dwelling on the "well, we just haven't observed it yet" sort-of "mysteries" in natural science. Accepting that former sort of mystery is nothing else than a simple choice when all's said and done. It IS black and white.

steve wrote:

matthew wrote:...my intent here has been to open up people's minds to the only REAL mystery- God/Existence, instead of dwelling on the "well, we just haven't observed it yet" sort-of "mysteries" in natural science. Accepting that former sort of mystery is nothing else than a simple choice when all's said and done. It IS black and white.

Has it dawned on you that this "existence/god" mystery is only a mystery to you bcause you ignore the work done in explaining it and removing the mystery.....

NerblyBear wrote:

matthew wrote:my intent here has been to open up people's minds to the only REAL mystery- God/Existence, instead of dwelling on the "well, we just haven't observed it yet" sort-of "mysteries" in natural science. Accepting that former sort of mystery is nothing else than a simple choice when all's said and done. It IS black and white.

j

Actually, the real mystery is how you can continue to hold on to this unjustified belief in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

matthew wrote:I am totally convinced that the "argument" between religion and science is really an argument between two religions really

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote: I've never understood why the Internet grossly increases a person's threshold for suffering fools. Why engage idiots? Just say no.

matthew wrote:Intelligibility implies an underlying intelligent agent. I think this is kinda hard to disprove, unless you have an agenda

Even an individual eukaryotic cell is terribly complex and has parts that have no function independent of their integration with the rest of the cell. Attributing the origin of irreducibly complex parts to the ubiquitous "well, it developed over millions of years" is a just God-of-the-gaps (albeit sans God) theory dressed up in a scientific guise.