2 edits
Originally posted by howardgeeI am reminded of the book Flatland. (I don't know if any of you have read it.)
"The theist is hardpressed to present even one positive attribute or characteristic of God because "...he doesn't exist?
In it, a lowly two-dimensional triangle assaults a sphere that tries to come on to his plane. This attack on the sphere is because the two-dimensional triangle cannnot comprehend the existance of a being with attributes he can't describe. (Namely the ability to exist in multiple 3-dimension points on the same 2-dimension point)
I thought this story might present a challenge to pragmatic atheists who say that if something is real, we can always describe it. We are fettered by are inability to understand everything about the universe,
P.S. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that god is a 4-dimensional being. I am saying that it is possible for something to exist that is almost impossible to describe.
Originally posted by CodfishThe triangle talking to a sphere sounds about as likely as God existing!
I am reminded of the book Flatland. (I don't know if any of you have read it.)
In it, a lowly two-dimensional triangle assaults a sphere that tries to come on to his plane. This attack on the sphere is because the two-dimensional triangle cannnot comprehend the existance of a being with attributes he can't describe. (Namely the ability to exist in multiple ...[text shortened]... I am saying that it is possible for something to exist that is almost impossible to describe.
Originally posted by howardgeeMy only answer to your original surface question is that God is transcendant.
Please start your own thread...or answer this one.
In the course of this thread you asked a question:
"Originally posted by howardgee
Could it be that unlike you, God does not exist?"
Which is apparently the whole point you are trying to make with this thread. Surely answering the question you yourself posted in this thread is relevant to this thread?
Guess not. I will start a thread with your question then.
Originally posted by howardgeeHow about you try attacking my point instead of the medium in which it is delivered?
The triangle talking to a sphere sounds about as likely as God existing!
Ex. Me: The bible is 100% true
You: No it isn't
As opposed to:
Me: The bible is 100% true
You: You idiotic fanatic! I learned to put periods at the ends of my sentences when I was five years old!
Originally posted by CodfishVery interesting Codfish...
I am reminded of the book Flatland. (I don't know if any of you have read it.)
In it, a lowly two-dimensional triangle assaults a sphere that tries to come on to his plane. This attack on the sphere is because the two-dimensional triangle cannnot comprehend the existance of a being with attributes he can't describe. (Namely the ability to exist in multiple ...[text shortened]... I am saying that it is possible for something to exist that is almost impossible to describe.
I recced it, if for no other reason than the knee-jerk
non-response you drew from howardgee.
Oh, and howard you may be the threads creator, but
you don't own it.
1 edit
By the way, I think that the concept of a God that we can't describe is strange.
It seems to me there are two explanations:
A. There is no God. (Might be plausible)
B. The concept of God did not originate with mankind. (My belief)🙂
If B is true, then something has implanted the idea of a god in our minds.
The most profound definition of God that I've ever come across was one created by a true genius...Albert Einstein. He stated that God was the summation or total knowledge of all the laws of physics...or something to that effect.
I found the concept particularly interesting because what Einstein attempted to do was define God in scientific terms. He tried to come up with a scientific equation that would define God and he managed to do that albeit in a simple rudimentary way.
Originally posted by Codfish"Ex. Me: The bible is 100% true" - is this the real you or the ex-you?
How about you try attacking my point instead of the medium in which it is delivered?
Ex. Me: The bible is 100% true
You: No it isn't
As opposed to:
Me: The bible is 100% true
You: You idiotic fanatic! I learned to put periods at the ends of my sentences when I was five years old!
Seriously though, the 3D triangle shape in question DID actually appear to the sphere. It was sensed by the sphere, and another sphere near by would have perceived the triangle too.
God on the other hand has never been sensed by anything or anybody. Obviously I am dismissing the bible as unreliable evidence; you may as well believe that talking wolves and 3 talking bears exist as believe anything written in the book of lies.
Originally posted by howardgeeAre you dismissing the bible as a pack of lies because of some kind of evidence, or do you just disagree with what it says?
"Ex. Me: The bible is 100% true" - is this the real you or the ex-you?
Seriously though, the 3D triangle shape in question DID actually appear to the sphere. It was sensed by the sphere, and another sphere near by would have perceived the triangle too.
God on the other hand has never been sensed by anything or anybody. Obviously I am dismissing th ...[text shortened]... that talking wolves and 3 talking bears exist as believe anything written in the book of lies.
You might think that because certain parts are untrue because they disobey the laws of physics. Is that your objection?
Or is it that you despise all parts of all religous texts because you an atheist?
P.S. The bible is the most cited HISTORICAL text ever.
Originally posted by CodfishI answered your previous question, as you demanded, and all you do is change the focus and ask me another question.
Are you dismissing the bible as a pack of lies because of some kind of evidence, or do you just disagree with what it says?
You might think that because certain parts are untrue because they disobey the laws of physics. Is that your objection?
Or is it that you despise all parts of all religous texts because you an atheist?
P.S. The bible is the most cited HISTORICAL text ever.
I guess my reply shot your flatland objection down in flames and illustrated further the ridiculousness of believing in god, huh?
Originally posted by howardgeeYour assertion that no-one has ever experienced god is wrong.
I answered your previous question, as you demanded, and all you do is change the focus and ask me another question.
I guess my reply shot your flatland objection down in flames and illustrated further the ridiculousness of believing in god, huh?
We have experienced (the Christian) God. If you choose to ignore this point then it is very dificult to argue for his existence.
I am just saying that something can exist that we cannot describe very well.
God is a concept that seems to resist definition.
P.S. If you are right and my flatland objection to your claim is false, it still does not make believing in God seem ridiculous.
Originally posted by Codfish"We have experienced (the Christian) God."
Your assertion that no-one has ever experienced god is wrong.
We have experienced (the Christian) God. If you choose to ignore this point then it is very dificult to argue for his existence.
I am just saying that something can exist that we cannot describe very well.
God is a concept that seems to resist definition.
P.S. If you are right and my f ...[text shortened]... tland objection to your claim is false, it still does not make believing in God seem ridiculous.
Oh really?
Care to share your personal experience(s) with God here on redhotpawn?