Feb 16, 2010 -- 9:38PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

My point, precisely.

That wasn't your point.  You said my "sense" of logic evaded you.  I corrected your reference about logic.  How was THAT your point?

Feb 16, 2010 -- 8:44AM, Kwinters wrote:

SDP,

You're wrong on a vital point.

The circumstantial evidence you cite actually supports the idea of an infinite number of gods.

There's all the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Pagan gods, the Nordic gods, the Hindu gods, the African gods, the Tibetan gods, the Chinese gods, the Native American gods.

And those are all the gods just from one species on this planet.

Given there is a probability of life on other planets, and intelligent life on them - or that more forms of intelligence may emerge on this planet in some distant future - there are also ALL the gods that those other species worship.

Therefore if you're going to use what you've presented as your 'evidence', then you really should be a polytheist.

 

All of these "gods" are the result of subjective partial vision. They result from some type of energy passing into man's subjectivity. We can't know what God is. We can only know him to the extent he reveals himself (keeping in mind God has no gender, it's just a manner of speaking). And his revelation depends upon our individual capacity to receive it.

To understand what God is he would have to alter us in the process. This he will not do, freedom is a gift. But he gives us the freedom to alter ourselves. This, we must choose for ourselves, individually.

God is singular, one.

A very wise man once compared the kingdom of heaven to the tiniest of seeds, a mustard seed. That tiny seed is planted in everyone (the kingdom of heaven is within you). It can remain a tiny seed or it can grow into a tree. Our choice, but it has to be according to God's rules.

But all this has little to do with this thread........but I'll try not to refuse any question, or not comment on a post.

sdp  

Feb 16, 2010 -- 10:21PM, Cryano wrote:

Feb 16, 2010 -- 9:27PM, Ken wrote:

Feb 16, 2010 -- 7:43PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

sdp: Let me ask a question. Is it possible that God exists?

"Ken": Yes. (Sorry, not meaning to speak for you......but I think the answer obvious....just skipping to my reply........sdp).

sdp: Then I don't need to posit a singularity (or more specifically, a beginning boundary) to make God possible. The existence of God is possible, period.

Now, is it still unclear to you why Hawking went to the trouble to "create" a universe without a beginning boundary?

sdp 

If God is possible, what difference would it make whether the universe had a beginning boundary or not?

I don' think you are allowed to ask logical questions like that.

"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in his sleep, "that I breathe when I sleep is the same thing as I sleep when I breathe!"

...............

sdp

"Now, is it still unclear to you why Hawking went to the trouble to "create" a universe without a beginning boundary?"

Yes, very unclear. But a more interesting question is: "Why does it matter?"

Feb 16, 2010 -- 10:29PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Feb 16, 2010 -- 9:55PM, F1fan wrote:

Feb 16, 2010 -- 9:38PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

My point, precisely.

That wasn't your point.  You said my "sense" of logic evaded you.  I corrected your reference about logic.  How was THAT your point?

I didn't find your logic logical.

Yet you didn't point out my flaws.  I suspect you didn't like the content, nor my following the rules of logic.  Your post 52 does violate logic since you make many untrue statements that are not qualified as true with any evidence or premises.