Then I do not understand what reason you felt you had for bringing it up.Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yes. Have you ever heard someone say that god doesn't exist?Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Just wondering.
Just answer my question, please.Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Okay.Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
But I did.Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
What do you mean by "substance of being"?Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yes, and we can say that I exist because we can define me, as I have done. We cannot say that "god" exist if we cannot define it, because if the word "god" doesn't have a definition, then the word "god" doesn't mean anything.Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I just did. I said out loud "god, if you exist, what are you?". I got no response. I can do it again. There. I agree that to expect an answer from something you don't believe exist would be insane, but then I do not expect an answer. This does, however, not make it impossible for me to ask, which I have done twice now just for you.
If he's not responding because I haven't acknowledged his existence, don't you think that's a little childish of him? I mean, if he answered, then I would acknowledge it. Why should I have to delude myself to believe he exist before he deems me worthy a response? Why should I have to believe before I can believe? That would be insane.
I still think it's way more likely that "he" doesn't answer because "he" doesn't exist, but if he really is so petty and insecure that he needs my validation, why don't you ask him for a definition?
Yes, I did say they fail, didn't I?Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
When did I say it doesn't exist? I have all along said that I do not know what "it" is, so how could I say it doesn't? If you define "god" as "doors", then sure, I'll say that "god" exist.Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The reason why I ask for a definition of the word "god", is that without one, we can't go any further. Speaking of anything concerning "god" is futile and pointless until we have a working definition.
Yes, it needs to be logical, and it needs empirical evidence. Making things up can be fun and all that, but to pretend that it is actually true without any evidence would be irrational.Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
This doesn't really say much at all, though. This doesn't really say much at all, though. All it seem to say is that "god" supposedly created the universe, all beings and every event, which are things that "god" supposedly did, but not what "god" actually is. It's a "being", okay, and that being must be uncaused. As for non-contingent, could you please explain what you mean by that?Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Why is god "necessary", and what for?
Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and just saying "the universe has always existed" is simpler because it doesn't needlessly introduce another step.Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
In any case, I do not claim that it is so, only that that is more probable, and there's no need to invent a creator. If you wish to do that, the burden of evidence is on you.
I know, but as I said to PVC earlier, I do not look for a perfect, all-encompassing definition, just the minimum requirement that something must achieve to be "god".Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?
Bookmarks