Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I Am Vs Where did God come from?

DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 3:50:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.

You're trying to rationalise the universe / cosmos/ using the constraints of how we perceive what is around us. For example few people can even start to envisage infinity let alone think beyond the four dimensions in which we live.

Another thing that you're doing is failing to realise that just because we don't understand something today the only possible answer is that "god" is involved.

If you look at history, especially recent history you will see that the number of things and phenomena that were once attributed to god have been reducing in number at an ever increasing rate leaving the parts that people still use "god" as the explanation becoming fewer and fewer.

Sorry, there is no god. There is the yet unexplained but there is no god.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 5:24:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.:

Asinine, circular, illegitimate question, straw man, non-sequitur... Those are the words and descriptions that come to mind.

How does any of that prove God? All you've done is substituted to the word "God" to these attributes. It's nothing more than you declaring it. Substitute it with "Allah," and you create the same effect. Is that therefore proof that Allah exists? To you, no, of course not. So why would you expect anyone else here to have some kind of epiphany?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 9:06:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
Prove it.
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
Prove it.
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
Prove it.
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
Prove it.
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..
Thoughts please.

Those are my thoughts.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 9:13:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Thoughts please.

I am that I am.

why God?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 9:49:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 3:50:54 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.

You're trying to rationalise the universe / cosmos/ using the constraints of how we perceive what is around us. For example few people can even start to envisage infinity let alone think beyond the four dimensions in which we live.

Another thing that you're doing is failing to realise that just because we don't understand something today the only possible answer is that "god" is involved.

If you look at history, especially recent history you will see that the number of things and phenomena that were once attributed to god have been reducing in number at an ever increasing rate leaving the parts that people still use "god" as the explanation becoming fewer and fewer.

Sorry, there is no god. There is the yet unexplained but there is no god.

"God of the Gaps" is the worst case of extrapolation I have ever seen given credibility. So, just because "things attributed to God" has decreased with an increase in scientific knowledge, the trend must continue all the way to 0. Apply the same method to any other correlatory set of data, and you'll get some pretty absurd results.

Also, the entire position really takes a straw man position. It says that God is in opposition to natural laws. But if God is omnipotent, would it not make sense that there is a reason for these natural laws and that, being God, He could do His work whilst maintaining the order of the universe?
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 3:45:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 5:24:19 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.:

Asinine, circular, illegitimate question, straw man, non-sequitur... Those are the words and descriptions that come to mind.

How does any of that prove God? All you've done is substituted to the word "God" to these attributes. It's nothing more than you declaring it. Substitute it with "Allah," and you create the same effect. Is that therefore proof that Allah exists? To you, no, of course not. So why would you expect anyone else here to have some kind of epiphany?

It does NOT prove God, and I never said it did.

What it DOES do is expose the question " Where did God come from? " as pointless as all of the words used, apart from 'God', denote time and space which are clearly creations.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 4:59:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.

Here are my thoughts:

You claim God always existed.
You present 0 evidence to support this claim.
Therefore, I see no reason to lend any credibility to that claim.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 8:00:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 3:50:54 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.

You're trying to rationalise the universe / cosmos/ using the constraints of how we perceive what is around us. For example few people can even start to envisage infinity let alone think beyond the four dimensions in which we live.

Another thing that you're doing is failing to realise that just because we don't understand something today the only possible answer is that "god" is involved.

If you look at history, especially recent history you will see that the number of things and phenomena that were once attributed to god have been reducing in number at an ever increasing rate leaving the parts that people still use "god" as the explanation becoming fewer and fewer.

Sorry, there is no god. There is the yet unexplained but there is no god.

Way to dodge the issue and go off on a completely irrelevant tangent.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 8:18:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.

Replace it with 'What created God?' then.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 2:53:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/22/2010 4:59:06 AM, Floid wrote:
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.

Here are my thoughts:

You claim God always existed.
You present 0 evidence to support this claim.
Therefore, I see no reason to lend any credibility to that claim.

No.. I simply expose the question " Where did God come from? " as SELF-REFUTING.
The Cross.. the Cross.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 2:54:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/22/2010 8:18:08 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/21/2010 3:21:29 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
When people say things like " Ok, smarty pants.. Where did GOD come from? " they simply do not see their own question.

So let's examine it:

" Where " denotes space; God CREATED space!
" did " denotes time; God CREATED time!
" God " His Name Is " I Am. " Self evident/existent: Eternal!
"come " denotes travel; travels takes space and time.. BOTH creations!
" from " again denotes travel but in the past tense..

Thoughts please.

Replace it with 'What created God?' then.

God, by definition, is UNcreated.
The Cross.. the Cross.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 10:02:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 2:54:17 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

God, by definition, is UNcreated.

The multiverse is also, by definition, UNcreated. Your calling everything that exists "creation" does not make it so.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 10:06:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 10:02:55 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/23/2010 2:54:17 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

God, by definition, is UNcreated.

The multiverse is also, by definition, UNcreated. Your calling everything that exists "creation" does not make it so.

There are no laws of physics that support this.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 10:10:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 10:06:37 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/23/2010 10:02:55 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/23/2010 2:54:17 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

God, by definition, is UNcreated.

The multiverse is also, by definition, UNcreated. Your calling everything that exists "creation" does not make it so.

There are no laws of physics that support this.

... I suggest you read some more physics then. This notion of God existing for all time is easily belied by the claim that matter and energy existed for all time.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 10:12:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 10:10:45 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/23/2010 10:06:37 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/23/2010 10:02:55 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/23/2010 2:54:17 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

God, by definition, is UNcreated.

The multiverse is also, by definition, UNcreated. Your calling everything that exists "creation" does not make it so.

There are no laws of physics that support this.

... I suggest you read some more physics then. This notion of God existing for all time is easily belied by the claim that matter and energy existed for all time.

Energy, time, matter and space are all bound together.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 4:54:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 10:10:45 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/23/2010 10:06:37 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/23/2010 10:02:55 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/23/2010 2:54:17 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

God, by definition, is UNcreated.

The multiverse is also, by definition, UNcreated. Your calling everything that exists "creation" does not make it so.

There are no laws of physics that support this.

... I suggest you read some more physics then. This notion of God existing for all time is easily belied by the claim that matter and energy existed for all time.

...what? How do you know this?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 4:56:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 4:54:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/23/2010 10:10:45 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/23/2010 10:06:37 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/23/2010 10:02:55 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/23/2010 2:54:17 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

God, by definition, is UNcreated.

The multiverse is also, by definition, UNcreated. Your calling everything that exists "creation" does not make it so.

There are no laws of physics that support this.

... I suggest you read some more physics then. This notion of God existing for all time is easily belied by the claim that matter and energy existed for all time.

...what? How do you know this?

I mean the that credit-less claim that God existed for all time can be taken at the same value as the claim that matter and energy existed for all time.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 5:01:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 4:56:50 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I mean the that credit-less claim that God existed for all time can be taken at the same value as the claim that matter and energy existed for all time.

yep... you don't need to add "God" to get something Eternal...

you can suggest that those things which PCP calls "contingent" are eternal.

I AM THAT I AM.

so... why God?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 5:05:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 5:01:55 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/23/2010 4:56:50 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I mean the that credit-less claim that God existed for all time can be taken at the same value as the claim that matter and energy existed for all time.

yep... you don't need to add "God" to get something Eternal...

Never said you need to.

you can suggest that those things which PCP calls "contingent" are eternal.


Yes, contingent things can be eternal. What is your point? The question isn't whether they can be it is whether they are eternal.

I AM THAT I AM.

so... why God?

Because he's a necessary being.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 5:09:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 5:05:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
he's a necessary being.

how's he necessary?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 5:11:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 5:09:35 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/23/2010 5:05:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
he's a necessary being.

how's he necessary?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 5:20:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So far as Anselm is concerned (which is the first thing on your link)

Anselm assumes "Most Perfect" includes HIS valuations.... and prolly the valuations of people generally...

are his/people's valuations themselves Most Perfect?

or could they be off?

also... I can imagine a "Most Great Island"... and it ALSO wouldn't Necessarily exist (in fact it would seem it prolly would NOT)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 5:24:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 5:20:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
So far as Anselm is concerned (which is the first thing on your link)

Anselm assumes "Most Perfect" includes HIS valuations.... and prolly the valuations of people generally...

(by this I mean that Most Great includes Benevolent, conscious etc...)

are his/people's valuations themselves Most Perfect?

or could they be off?

also... I can imagine a "Most Great Island"... and it ALSO wouldn't Necessarily exist (in fact it would seem it prolly would NOT)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 5:33:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 5:20:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
So far as Anselm is concerned (which is the first thing on your link)

Anselm assumes "Most Perfect" includes HIS valuations.... and prolly the valuations of people generally...

are his/people's valuations themselves Most Perfect?

or could they be off?

also... I can imagine a "Most Great Island"... and it ALSO wouldn't Necessarily exist (in fact it would seem it prolly would NOT)

You asked "so why God". I answered with saying that God is a necessary being (I actually meant has necessary existence) - that is what "I AM THAT I AM" is generally taken to mean. That's he's self-existent and depends on nothing else for his existence - not contingent existence therefore necessary.

You answered with a parody of the ontological argument. I'm not advocating the ontological argument here. I was answering your question about why God is taken to be eternal (among other reasons).
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 9:17:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 5:33:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/23/2010 5:20:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
So far as Anselm is concerned (which is the first thing on your link)

Anselm assumes "Most Perfect" includes HIS valuations.... and prolly the valuations of people generally...

are his/people's valuations themselves Most Perfect?

or could they be off?

also... I can imagine a "Most Great Island"... and it ALSO wouldn't Necessarily exist (in fact it would seem it prolly would NOT)

You asked "so why God". I answered with saying that God is a necessary being (I actually meant has necessary existence) - that is what "I AM THAT I AM" is generally taken to mean. That's he's self-existent and depends on nothing else for his existence - not contingent existence therefore necessary.

what I'd like to know is HOW/WHY God is taken to be existent....

you're saying he's Taken to be... I'm asking WHY.

You answered with a parody of the ontological argument. I'm not advocating the ontological argument here. I was answering your question about why God is taken to be eternal (among other reasons).

so... why?

And My response was to Anselms Explanation of Why B/C it was the first thing which your response(link) referred to.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2010 1:22:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 9:17:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/23/2010 5:33:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/23/2010 5:20:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
So far as Anselm is concerned (which is the first thing on your link)

Anselm assumes "Most Perfect" includes HIS valuations.... and prolly the valuations of people generally...

are his/people's valuations themselves Most Perfect?

or could they be off?

also... I can imagine a "Most Great Island"... and it ALSO wouldn't Necessarily exist (in fact it would seem it prolly would NOT)

You asked "so why God". I answered with saying that God is a necessary being (I actually meant has necessary existence) - that is what "I AM THAT I AM" is generally taken to mean. That's he's self-existent and depends on nothing else for his existence - not contingent existence therefore necessary.

what I'd like to know is HOW/WHY God is taken to be existent....


...which the link explained. Which I explained about I AM THAT I AM is taken.

you're saying he's Taken to be... I'm asking WHY.


...lol are you serious? Take a look at the first post. Take at the link again.

You answered with a parody of the ontological argument. I'm not advocating the ontological argument here. I was answering your question about why God is taken to be eternal (among other reasons).

so... why?

And My response was to Anselms Explanation of Why B/C it was the first thing which your response(link) referred to.

Do you miss the point on purpose? I explained why. The link explained why. So you disagree. So what? It still gave you reasons why.

And no your response still (again) missed the point. The definition of God is the most perfect being possible. That is still not the ontological argument.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2010 8:56:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/24/2010 1:22:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Do you miss the point on purpose? I explained why. The link explained why. So you disagree. So what? It still gave you reasons why.

you gave me a link to other people's reasons.

I refuted the first one of those....

which one do you think is valuable?.. or do you have ideas on it yourself?

I suppose I could, and will, get around to reading the rest of such arguments eventually... but I'd of thought you'd be able to proffer one you thought was particularly good, and explain why.... not just link me to a hodgepodge of stuff.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2010 9:36:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/24/2010 8:56:32 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/24/2010 1:22:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Do you miss the point on purpose? I explained why. The link explained why. So you disagree. So what? It still gave you reasons why.

you gave me a link to other people's reasons.

I refuted the first one of those....


LOL, you didn't refute anything because the first reason wasn't even the ontological argument! It was a definition!

which one do you think is valuable?.. or do you have ideas on it yourself?


I think the definition is valuable. I explained why "I AM" is taken to mean necessary existence attributable to God. I'm confused as to why you keep asking "why"? As if I have to give reasons for my reasons and then more reasons for those reasons and....etc

I suppose I could, and will, get around to reading the rest of such arguments eventually... but I'd of thought you'd be able to proffer one you thought was particularly good, and explain why.... not just link me to a hodgepodge of stuff.

Why would I take my time to write out a long thesis when the link about the Anselmian conception of God already explains it well?

Anselms definition =/= the ontological argument.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!