31 Mar '06 03:03>
This all reminds me of the three witches in MacBeth who are foreseeing the future by examining the various things thrown into their brew.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI assume that a Supreme Being exists. I assume that He is charitable and compassionate
Are you assuming that the Christian/Muslim God exists or does not exist?
Originally posted by Nemesiothat His will for us is sufficiently well articulated enough that morons don't need molds that have a shape like the Blessed Virgin or fish with 'words' on it to bring them to understand that will.
I assume that a Supreme Being exists. I assume that He is charitable and compassionate
enough to interact with His faithful in a meaningful and reasonable way, that His will for us
is sufficiently well articulated enough that morons don't need molds that have a shape like
the Blessed Virgin or fish with 'words' on it to bring them to understand that will on a fish in a pet
store in Liverpool. Could you flesh this out for me?
Nemesio
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYeah, to Beltzshazzar, King of Babylon, during a feast if I remember correctly. It was Daniel's comeback tour in Babylonian (short-lived) society.
Jesus, I guess you're right. I don't recall reading that before. Who knows how much other spooky stuff is in there that I've missed.
At any rate, if it's in there, it must be true. I suppose I must believe it too now, and by logical consequence...Praise be to Allah, he who has made himself known by the writing on the fish!
Originally posted by telerionNo, you were (almost) right the first time.
Thanks for the counterexample.
Scratch "anything" and make it any logically possible thing.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOnly if that God was in Bizarro world.
No, you were (almost) right the first time.
If even one contradiction can be derived from the assumption that God exists, then any proposition at all, such as 2+2=5 can be derived and thus believed if the assumption is believed.
You were only wrong in finding that "God does not exist" could not believed.
Originally posted by lucifershammerReread the thread. Here, as in numerous others, I have readily admitted that I was mistaken. I immediately acknowledged my error in thinking that the Bible did not include an account of a disembodied hand writing on a wall.
Apparently you and no1 have no troubles believing you're infallible; but the Pope is not.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEarlier posted by you:
Reread the thread. Here, as in numerous others, I have readily admitted that I was mistaken. I immediately acknowledged my error in thinking that the Bible did not include an account of a disembodied hand writing on a wall.
No1 has also admitted mistakes. For example, in one thread he claimed that personhood, once attained, cannot be lost. I pointed out that it is lost at death, and he acknowledged his mistaken claim.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm happy to reformulate the admission in a different manner. How do you propose I word it so that it is unambiguously an acknowledgement of error?
Earlier posted by you:
"Jesus, I guess you're right. I don't recall reading that before. Who knows how much other spooky stuff is in there that I've missed."
Yep, clearly an admission of error.