You want to see a miracle?
Be the miracle.
You have the power, God given.
I read this entire thread (clearly not much going on tonight)...Xmas, if you want to argue the existence of God, you can't always come back to the "he's in me and that's all the proof I need". There isn't anything wrong with believing that, but it does absolutely nothing for you in an online debate about it. Having said that though, this debate was more about dumb little semantics then it was anything else so I guess it doesn't rally matter.
You got that right.
Plus it is always fruitless to argue semantics.
I never saw this as a debate. For me it was always a discussion simply because it consisted of opinions.
And my opinion all along has never changed, that the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proved nor disproved in an "objective" manner and has absolutely nothing to do with being illogical or logical.
I explained this by saying that to know God, is a purely "subjective" experience.
You said it best when you pointed out that it was a paradox. But you went on to say that because it was a paradox, that that made it inherently irrational or unreasonable.
I just wanted to point out at the end that a paradox is not necessarily unreasonable or irrational, rather that at this point in time it is just unexplainable, and just because something is unexplainable does not make it untrue.
That is where things bogged down into semantics.
If your belief is basically atheistic, I am quite fine with that, mine once was too. However nowadays it is theistic.
But there is no way I could ever explain the whys and wherefores. If I could, then I would.
You claimed because I "would" not that I was evading or some such which was not the case at all.
It was simply a matter that I "could" not because I had not the ability.
And further, I seriously doubt there is anyone alive who can.
I firmly believe that to know God, and the hows and whys involved in that, are totally subjective in nature.
Ummmm....you realize that I wasn't debating or even discussing this with you right? Why you keep saying "you pointed out..." And "when you said..." I'm not really sure.
You got that right.
Plus it is always fruitless to argue semantics.
I never saw this as a debate. For me it was always a discussion simply because it consisted of opinions.
And my opinion all along has never changed, that the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proved nor disproved in an "objective" manner and has absolutely nothing to do with being illogical or logical.
I explained this by saying that to know God, is a purely "subjective" experience.
You said it best when you pointed out that it was a paradox. But you went on to say that because it was a paradox, that that made it inherently irrational or unreasonable.
I just wanted to point out at the end that a paradox is not necessarily unreasonable or irrational, rather that at this point in time it is just unexplainable, and just because something is unexplainable does not make it untrue.
That is where things bogged down into semantics.
If your belief is basically atheistic, I am quite fine with that, mine once was too. However nowadays it is theistic.
But there is no way I could ever explain the whys and wherefores. If I could, then I would.
You claimed because I "would" not that I was evading or some such which was not the case at all.
It was simply a matter that I "could" not because I had not the ability.
And further, I seriously doubt there is anyone alive who can.
I firmly believe that to know God, and the hows and whys involved in that, are totally subjective in nature.
Honestly, if you don't even know who you're discussing things with on this site then it explains a lot about you and your posting style.
Sorry, I was referring to Random Guy. I got you two mixed up, my bad.Ummmm....you realize that I wasn't debating or even discussing this with you right? Why you keep saying "you pointed out..." And "when you said..." I'm not really sure.
Honestly, if you don't even know who you're discussing things with on this site then it explains a lot about you and your posting style.
"he's in me and that's all the proof I need"
Here's an example of someone who looked inside himself, and heard all the proof he needed to go on a shooting rampage:
Navy Yard shooter reported hearing voices through walls
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...lexis/2825749/
I could go on, but when God becomes indistinguishable from any other delusion, that is not very convincing to me.
Since this was directed at me:
You got that right.
Plus it is always fruitless to argue semantics.
I never saw this as a debate. For me it was always a discussion simply because it consisted of opinions.
And my opinion all along has never changed, that the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proved nor disproved in an "objective" manner and has absolutely nothing to do with being illogical or logical.
I explained this by saying that to know God, is a purely "subjective" experience.
You said it best when you pointed out that it was a paradox. But you went on to say that because it was a paradox, that that made it inherently irrational or unreasonable.
I just wanted to point out at the end that a paradox is not necessarily unreasonable or irrational, rather that at this point in time it is just unexplainable, and just because something is unexplainable does not make it untrue.
That is where things bogged down into semantics.
If your belief is basically atheistic, I am quite fine with that, mine once was too. However nowadays it is theistic.
But there is no way I could ever explain the whys and wherefores. If I could, then I would.
You claimed because I "would" not that I was evading or some such which was not the case at all.
It was simply a matter that I "could" not because I had not the ability.
And further, I seriously doubt there is anyone alive who can.
I firmly believe that to know God, and the hows and whys involved in that, are totally subjective in nature.
Believe what you want, its all on you.
I would like to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible.
The best way to do that is to wait until some evidence presents itself, or there is some good reason to believe something is true.
Not being able, or willing to even try to define something that you think truly exists is ultimately irrational, whether you want to admit it.
I agree with you, I was just trying to point out to Xmas that his argument holds absolutely no weight in a debate like the one he was allegedly not trying to have.
On the contrary, I agree with you both partially.
johnsmith, it has no weight as you say in a debate. That is why I was not arguing or debating, rather I was discussing. I thought I made this pretty clear. I will refrain on insulting your intelligence on this, but if you had been following the "discussion" then you would have seen I made this point many times.
Random, I fully understand where you are coming from because once upon a time I was an atheist too in what I believed and disbelieved. And this is why I am more than willing to "discuss" it with you.
But you keep wanting me to define something that I feel is impossible to define. And then you falsely accuse me of not wanting to define it. I made that issue pretty damn clear many times, that I CANNOT define something that I consider undefinable. How many times do I have to make this clear to you before it sinks in?
Not only I CANNOT define God, but I "do not think anyone" can adequately define God.
Do I need to keep repeating this until you get what I am saying?
You seem to think I can, even after I have told you already many times that I cannot. To me, that is what sounds very unreasonable.
You seem to want to make up your own reasons for "why" I cannot, rather than accept the truth which is that I do not have the ability.
And then you want to make up your own reasons for why I do not have the ability.
I am always willing to discuss this topic with you or anyone else, but I think it is impossible to have a debate about it.
Discussions involve "opinions", whereas "debates" involve "facts". Where our "discussion" gravitated into a "debate" was over the rationality or irrationality of the "paradox" of it.
Do you understand?
Now, having explained this, if you continue to make up your own reasons for what I am saying and fail to accept or understand what I am saying after I have told you, then I have no recourse but to conclude that you really do not want to discuss this, but rather you want someone to debate a nebulous subject with.
If that is the case and you cannot accept what I tell you, then you are merely wasting both of our time.
As you can see in the post you quoted, I clearly said you were NOT trying to have a debate.
I will have to remember this one for future use with people though....whenever I lose an argument I will just explain politely that I wasn't really arguing, I was just discussing....ya know, the way 6 year olds behave when they've lost at a race, "I wasn't even trying...."
That is your reply?
Is that a mature adult response?
We were not having an "argument". Do you not know how to have a discussion of differing points of view without thinking it is arguing, or that there has to be a winner and a loser of some fic ious message board contest?
That is pretty sad if that is the case with you.
How do you get along with people in real life that way?
Probably pretty thorny.
Because your "conclusion" has no basis in reality and is the furthest from the truth of the matter that you can get.
But in this case it's a discussion because you say so eh Xmas?
LOL, says the guy that's here to chew bubble gum and bash trolls....but hey, he's all out of bubble gum.
I was having a discussion.
What about you?
All I said was that it was an impossible subject to have a debate over.
Is that so hard for you to understand?
Yet there you were, "discussing" it for 9 pages.
So your whole intent is to try to make fun of me, troll me?
And you mean you can't handle it when someone is genuinely sincere with you and does not feel insecure that he has to make fun of you?
You don't like discussions?
It isn't unusual for a discussion to last a of a lot longer than that, or are you unfamiliar, or uncomfortable, within a discussion?
I'm only doing what you've told everyone you do, bash trolls.
Lol....let me know when you're being "genuinely sincere" on this site and I will take note, because it will be the first time.
Not with trolls like yourself, that's for sure.
By all means, bash trolls then, but with me discuss things.
Unless you are a troll.
Are you?
I'm not.
I was, and with Random too.
I alwaysd give the benefit of the doubt until you prove yourself to be a troll.
You seem to have a problem discussing things with decent people.
How long have you had this problem?
And does it stem from a basic insecurity complex, or something much deeper than that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
