Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by ARC150, Mar 19, 2006.
And I'm glad I help you getting there!! ;-)
imo if they held their convictions highly enough, they would fight against God without any thought or hope of victory or of finding a weakness, simply to demean and belabour all of his defforts.
You left out this one:
3- God does exist but is not the Judeo-Christian God.
Of course!! My reasoning was obviously about this particular god!! An unknown obscur god is definitively a possibility (remote in my eyes, but still in the realm of possibilities)!!!
And that god's name could be mine. My username. not my real name. The God I believe in is to whom I tribute my username to.
"The Father" stopped talking to people when "The Son" came down to earth, so if any people could "hear" any type of deity's "voice" then it would be "Jesus", not "The Father", [but this is assuming that you believe what's in the text of the Christian's "Bible", which i don't]
do you have links to sites about these pagan gods you named yourself after
i'm seriously interested
Look for books on Atlantis. Alot of them talk about how the God and King of Atlantis was the Egyptian God Ptah, the God of creation. I worship Ptah.
You can probably find more info in books on Egyptian Mythology.
so, when pagans ask their dieties to do things, and things actually change in an apparent re3sponse to those requests, then that's really Satan/demons... i'm not buying that
so, there aren't any websites about any of this?
I'm afraid I haven't had the chance to read this entire thread in detail, just those posts relevant to the original topic. I can see two problems with this argument, first it is faulty logic to look at something after the event and talk about the chances/statistics involved in what has come to be and then expanding these slim chances to envoke a creator. It's the same as me commenting that "oh my god, what were the chances of me seeing the car with a numberplate F156 DEW today in the street?" I know it has happened, and thus cannot use that to analyse the probability of an event. The chances of life developing through 'mere chance' may be slim (or otherwise), but the very fact we are here to see that means it has occured, and then using an argument based on the 'chances' of this happening is not valid.
But, in my mind, above this, the argument is fundamentally flawed by more than such logic. Unlike all life, watches do not have a simple heirarchically nested pattern of development with a well documented process by which they formed. A watch has gone straight from a mess of metal to a designed artifact through the intervention of man - there is no other way. That man is 'so well designed' is explicable using evolution over an extremely long time span, and thus does not require any supernatural intervention.