04 Sep '07 02:58>
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis is an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? How can God not be an active agent?
I also have to wonder whether or not God is an active agent. It seems likely that God is not active.
Originally posted by whodeyI wasn't really trying to say that. I am talking about philosophy. If one is interested in philosophy, then apologetics is a cheap trick. Apologists have no interest in truth. They have an agenda to push*. If logic lines up with that agenda, then all the better. If not, then they'll use the best fallacy they can come up with.
Anything is better that accepting something on simple faith. Is'nt that right?
Originally posted by telerionAre you saying that Adam and Eve fell because they had PhD's in philosophy?
I wasn't really trying to say that. I am talking about philosophy. If one is interested in philosophy, then apologetics is a cheap trick. Apologists have no interest in truth. They have an agenda to push*. If logic lines up with that agenda, then all the better. If not, then they'll use the best fallacy they can come up with.
If you are satisfied w ...[text shortened]... have apologists for example; we just commonly refer to those apologists as "hacks."
Originally posted by whodeyIf there is a God, he must be active. It's part of his perfect nature, to always be active.
This is an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? How can God not be an active agent?
Originally posted by EinsteinMindI agree with telerion that it would be better for you to just state your argument in full: define terms clearly (including, of course, 'God'😉 and then just present all the premises needed to support your conclusion that God exists.
I think God...
is beyond space and time and yet still works through time.
Originally posted by EinsteinMindOut of interest, which fallacy? Are you talking about the Kantian criticism that existence is not a predicate?
Over my dead arse. Look at what I said above! A purley ontological argument is already defeated because it at least has one fallacy within it.
One cannot base a full argument on ontology. There are too many assumptions.
Originally posted by telerionMy point is that you are implying that those who use apologetics have no interest in the truth, rather, they simply have an agenda to push due to their faith that is unprovable. Conversly, philosophers are only interested in the truth and walk where truth may lead them, wherever that may be because they rely on logic rather than faith. Therefore, I asked if perhaps Adam and Eve had PhD's in philosophy because they lost faith in their God in favor of their own logic? Get it? Ok, perhaps it is not as funny as I thought it was at first.
I'm sorry; it's late here, and I'm missing your point right now.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf he really is mean should you be going around trying to tick him off by saying he is mean? Think man!!! If he really is real it seems to me that he is very, very, very long-suffering and merciful. That is, if he exists. Then again, we hav'nt heard from Shav in a while have we? I tried to warn him!! 😛
Adam and Eve fell because God is mean.
Originally posted by whodeyUnless my Christian education fails me, you are being very liberal with the story.
My point is that you are implying that those who use apologetics have no interest in the truth, rather, they simply have an agenda to push due to their faith that is unprovable. Conversly, philosophers are only interested in the truth and walk where truth may lead them, wherever that may be because they rely on logic rather than faith. Therefore, I asked if ...[text shortened]... d Eve had PhD's in philosophy because they lost faith in their God in favor of their own logic?
Originally posted by whodeySauron is mean too, and I have no fear of saying so.
If he really is mean should you be going around trying to tick him off by saying he is mean? Think man!!! If he really is real it seems to me that he is very, very, very long-suffering and merciful. That is, if he exists. Then again, we hav'nt heard from Shav in a while have we? I tried to warn him!! 😛
Originally posted by telerionBut is not disobeying God loosing their faith in him on some level? Granted, they believed he existed but does that mean they could still not loose their faith in him? You conceede that they disobeyed God yet you seem to indicate that they did not really loose faith in him. How can this be? For example, perhaps you believe that George Bush is real but perhaps you have lost faith in him despite this. If he gets up and says that he has won the Iraqi war do you believe him?
.
Moreover no where does it say that they lost their faith in God. They disobeyed him to be sure, but they still believed in him. How could those two deny the existence of God?