Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIn hindsight you are probably right. I shall retract the statement that "God does not exist" could be a universal truth, because evidently if God didn't exist neither would universal truth. Thanks for pointing that out.
Evidently you are unable to set your pride aside.
As such, of course you see it as a "paradox". It's a way for the arrogantly self-deluded to maintain their beliefs no matter how incoherent. They paint themselves into a corner and instead of admitting it, they take solace in calling it a "paradox".
You should ask yourself why you insist on portraying God as an incoherency.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkLet's look at where you started:
In hindsight you are probably right. I shall retract the statement that "God does not exist" could be a universal truth, because evidently if God didn't exist neither would universal truth. Thanks for pointing that out.
"The nature of truth is such that out of two contradictory statements only one can be true. Either God as portrayed in the Bible exists or he doesn't. So either the statement 'God exists' is a universal truth or the statement, 'God doesn't exist' is a universal truth. I can't see how you can claim to be rational and not realize this."
What conclusions can be drawn by applying your retraction to the above? Pay particular attention to the text in bold.
Keep working backwards to find the root of the problem.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhy don't you do the same with 'atheist morality' and let me know what conclusions you reach. You clearly are way smarter than I am. Also why don't you share some of your beliefs and enlighten us all?
Let's look at where you started:
"The nature of truth is such that out of two contradictory statements only one can be true. Either God as portrayed in the Bible exists or he doesn't. So either the statement 'God exists' is a universal truth or the statement, 'God doesn't exist' is a universal truth. [b]I can't see how you can claim to be rational and no ...[text shortened]... cular attention to the text in bold.
Keep working backwards to find the root of the problem.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThis is just an attempt by you to deflect from the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner and don't want to admit it.
Why don't you do the same with 'atheist morality' and let me know what conclusions you reach. You clearly are way smarter than I am. Also why don't you share some of your beliefs and enlighten us all?
By continuing to insist things such as "God is the source of all truth and logic, if God didn't exist, neither would truth nor logic", you continue to portray God as an incoherency.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"In hindsight you are probably right. I shall retract the statement that "God does not exist" could be a universal truth, because evidently if God didn't exist neither would universal truth. Thanks for pointing that out."
This is just an attempt by you to deflect from the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner and don't want to admit it.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThat didn't get you out of the corner as I showed.
"In hindsight you are probably right. I shall retract the statement that "God does not exist" could be a universal truth, because evidently if God didn't exist neither would universal truth. Thanks for pointing that out."
See my edit in my previous post.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you disagree why don't you tell me what you believe to be the source of truth and logic and why you believe that your view is correct and mine is false.
This is just an attempt by you to deflect from the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner and don't want to admit it.
By continuing to insist things such as "God is the source of all truth and logic, if God didn't exist, neither would truth nor logic", you continue to portray God as an incoherency.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThis is yet another attempt by you to deflect from the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner and don't want to admit it.
If you disagree why don't you tell me what you believe to be the source of truth and logic and why you believe that your view is correct and mine is false.
Let's look at where you started:
"The nature of truth is such that out of two contradictory statements only one can be true. Either God as portrayed in the Bible exists or he doesn't. So either the statement 'God exists' is a universal truth or the statement, 'God doesn't exist' is a universal truth. I can't see how you can claim to be rational and not realize this."
What conclusions can be drawn by applying your retraction to the above? Pay particular attention to the text in bold.
Keep working backwards to find the root of the problem.
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you go back and read my post you will see my admission and retraction of the sentence that you keep quoting over and over.
This is yet another attempt by you to deflect from the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner and don't want to admit it.
Let's look at where you started:
"The nature of truth is such that out of two contradictory statements only one can be true. Either God as portrayed in the Bible exists or he doesn't. So either the statement 'God exists' ...[text shortened]... cular attention to the text in bold.
Keep working backwards to find the root of the problem.
And it is yet another attempt by you to deflect from the fact that you won't answer any of my questions yet you expect me to answer yours. So lets try again.
If you disagree why don't you tell me what you believe to be the source of truth and logic and why you believe that your view is correct and mine is false.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf you go back and read my post you will see my admission and retraction of the sentence that you keep quoting over and over.
If you go back and read my post you will see my admission and retraction of the sentence that you keep quoting over and over.
And it is yet another attempt by you to deflect from the fact that you won't answer any of my questions yet you expect me to answer yours. So lets try again.
If you disagree why don't you tell me what you believe to be the source of truth and logic and why you believe that your view is correct and mine is false.
This is what is known as a "half truth". In this case, maybe just a "third truth". For one, you didn't retract a full sentence, just a part of a sentence. For another, you keep deflecting in order to keep from having to address the point of the following. It's dishonest. That you also try to pretend that this isn't the case makes it all the more reprehensible.
Let's look at where you started:
"The nature of truth is such that out of two contradictory statements only one can be true. Either God as portrayed in the Bible exists or he doesn't. So either the statement 'God exists' is a universal truth or the statement, 'God doesn't exist' is a universal truth. I can't see how you can claim to be rational and not realize this."
What conclusions can be drawn by applying your retraction to the above? Pay particular attention to the text in bold.
Keep working backwards to find the root of the problem.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd you still keep dodging my question, even if I have answered yours.
[b]If you go back and read my post you will see my admission and retraction of the sentence that you keep quoting over and over.
This is what is known as a "half truth". In this case, maybe just a "third truth". For one, you didn't retract a full sentence, just a part of a sentence. For another, you keep deflecting in order to keep from having to ...[text shortened]... ention to the text in bold.
Keep working backwards to find the root of the problem. [/quote][/b]
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat part of the following didn't you understand?
And you still keep dodging my question, even if I have answered yours.
This is what is known as a "half truth". In this case, maybe just a "third truth". For one, you didn't retract a full sentence, just a part of a sentence. For another, you keep deflecting in order to keep from having to address the point of the following. It's dishonest. That you also try to pretend that this isn't the case makes it all the more reprehensible.