It's the same qualifications you have, I'm sure, or else you'd have a lot of contradictory ideas floating around in that head of yours.Ah, I see, we're supposed to believe in the qualifications of your chosen authority on faith. Like you do. Hmm, that sure sounds familiar... — Jake
So, you're arguing my point. I haven't claimed there is a God either, so why is it my responsibility to prove anything if it isn't also your responsibility? :brow:I haven't claimed there is a God. Thus, I take no responsibility to prove any of that. — Jake
Right. So, it is up to the claimant to define what it is their term refers too. What does the string of symbols, "god", refer to? Some religions call the universe, "god". If this is the case, then we don't have a disagreement about the nature of "god", we have a disagreement about the term we use to refer to it. Why would one use "god" when we have "universe"?Harry the discussion starts with an If - then statement - concerning the nature of God. These are quite normal - If God is X then God cant be Y - therefore there is no God. It is a very fair question to all of these arguments for someone to ask those making the claim to support the basis for their proposition they can say anything at all about the nature of God. — Rank Amateur
All unfalsifiable claims have the same amount of evidence - none. Therefore, they should all be given the same amount of weight - none. — Harry Hindu
I haven't claimed there is a God either, so why is it my responsibility to prove anything if it isn't also your responsibility? — Harry Hindu
All such propositions from both the theist and the atheist have no basis in reason - and are all propositions based on faith. — Rank Amateur
This is ridiculous. Jake's posts are even more ridiculous.think we are talking past each other - you are either missing my point, or answering the question you want to answer and not the one asked - let me try to be clearer with a classic example.
The Atheist claims - If God is the 3 O's - then God should not permit evil - therefor there is no God
My point is that neither the Atheist making the argument, or the theist attacking the argument - have any basis at all to make any proposition at all about the nature of God - All such propositions from both the theist and the atheist have no basis in reason - and are all propositions based on faith. — Rank Amateur
Atheists don't make claims about God. If they did, they wouldn't be atheists! — Harry Hindu
And I already said that atheists don't make those types of claims or else they wouldn't be atheists.Saying if god is x then god y. Is making a claim about the nature of god. Logical or not, it is a claim about the nature of god — Rank Amateur
Only theists make claims about the nature of god, so that would be a question you ask them, not an atheist.My very simple question is what is your rationale argument that you or me or anyone for supporting that we can say anything at all about what god is or is not — Rank Amateur
Your problem is that you think that atheists make claims about the nature of god. That is a contradiction. — Harry Hindu
No, it is based on the theists' claims about the nature of god. What they are saying is that IF the theist claim is true, then...The argument from evil is an atheist argument that is based on the nature of god. — Rank Amateur
No, it was based on some theist's claims about the nature of god. What they are saying is that IF the theist claim is true, then...The argument that started this thread is an atheist argument that is based on saying something about the nature of god — Rank Amateur
My point is that only theists make claims about the nature of god.My point is, that neither theist or atheist have any basis to say anything at all about the nature of god and any argument either makes that uses the nature of god as a proposition is outside reason and is faith based — Rank Amateur
My point is that only theists make claims about the nature of god. — Harry Hindu
Common definitions of "being" include simply "the quality or state of having existence" or "something that actually exists." — Terrapin Station
I'm going to stop you right there.Let me make one try putting this in form
P1. There is such a thing as the argument from evil — Rank Amateur
For the last time, atheists base arguments on the claims of theists.Conclusion: Atheists base arguments on the nature of god — Rank Amateur
No. You made a formal argument based on faulty prepositions. I already told you this. I questioned your first premise.I made you a formal argument with propositions and a conclusion. You made an emotional response. Show where the propositions are false or the conclusion does not follow — Rank Amateur
You are just too dense to get it.The argument from evil is dependent upon a theist's claim that a god is good - about the nature of god. No claim about the nature of god - no argument from evil is necessary. — Harry Hindu
No. You made a formal argument based on faulty prepositions. I already told you this. I questioned your first premise. — Harry Hindu
God is understood to be changeless, and therefore timeless, but God is also understood to be the creator of time.
If God creates the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change - from existing alone to existing along with time.
Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless? — Walter Pound
I think it's most sensible to interpret it as "in the beginning of consciousness, God created the heaven and earth" — Tomseltje
In what sense do you mean the beginning of consciousness? Do you mean once consciousness arose evolutionarily? Or something else? — Terrapin Station
The argument from evil is dependent upon a theist's claim that a god is good - about the nature of god. No claim about the nature of god - no argument from evil is necessary. — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.