binnyboy wrote:Frank, my defs are legit. I even double checked them just now. I cut out the defs that didn't apply, and chose the closest one to our situation from the rest.
Bin, gimme a break, willl ya. You cut out anything that didn't fit neatly into what you wanted to end up with...and that is distortion.
In any case...even with the distortions...you never did substantiate you over-reaching, gratuitously insulting nonsense about: "Many god-pushers advocate an appeal to faith over reason, and that is the definition of a fool! Look it up! "
Quote: If you insist, I'll waste an hour or two copying every definition of faith and reason, but you could have done the same just to show everyone how wrong I was.
Do what you want...I'm not going to waste time proving that you are wet in suggesting that "an appeal to faith over reason" is the definition of a fool.
Quote:I don't like quoting because
1. It's boring to read
2. It's condescending
3. It often addresses the specific wording of a thought rather than the thought itself. I tend to believe both parties can get a lot farther if they just open up and say what they mean rather than having a trench battle of words.
All that
may be true...but quoting has the advantage of being exactly what the person said...rather than your interpretation of what was said.
I'm very careful in my wording...often revising comments several times before posting them.
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:Quote:Gods are usually thought of as omnipotent, and I think omnipotence is impossible. e.g., an omnipotent god would be able to make a wall so strong that even he himself couldn't break it down
Okay...so maybe people are wrong about the omnipotent part! Maybe there are gods...but they cannot do things that are definitionally impossible.
This SEEMS (just as I said) to suggest that you'd rather offer an alternate interpretation of the power of gods, as opposed to saying, no, binny, you've got it wrong... gods can be omnipotent.
But that is not what you said at all, Bin.
You said:
Quote:So you seem to agree. An omnipotent god is impossible (though you conject about a "god" that can do things that are not definitionally impossible).
And I called you on this, by writing:
Quote:No I don't...and I did not say, nor intimate that I agree.
I merely pointed out that humans may be wrong about that item.
I have no idea if omnipotence is impossible...and I suspect neither do you. But...it is alright with me if you want to assert stuff you do not know.
Do you understand my position on this "Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it" nonsense?
And quite honestly....I do not agree with you at all that omnipotence requires that a god do the definitionally impossible.
Look...this is not something unique with me...not by a long shot. This seeming paradox to omnipotence is something that has been argued by legions over the years. Bottom line: There is no paradox. This is a game being played by people pretending to be able to show logical reasons for atheism.
You might try this: Go to Google and type in a search parameter of: "Can God make a rock..." ... and take a look at the results. It will be in the millions. You could spend the rest of your life reading discussions of this item...and for the most part, even intellectual atheists show contempt for it.
Quote: As SOMEbody said before, I can only go on what you say, since I don't know what you really think. But that's not some general property of people on these threads though. You can tell what some people are getting at because they use clear language that also happens to be uncluttered by a bunch of quotes.
Well, Bin, I am me...and I am quite capable of putting my thoughts into words that can be clearly and easily understood. I do not need you paraphrasing what I say...because on the few occasions you have done that, you have distorted what I've said. In fact, that is a major problem in what we are discussing here...the fact that your paraphrasing of what I have said, distorts what I actually said.
Use quotes.
Quote:And YES, I am, as they say, serious as a heart attack about the tail. Please blow off my doors. In fact, if you would be so kind, let's just have a short discussion in the following way: I'll post after this, a separate post, and make it very short. Please do not quote it, but rather post a short reply that addresses it separate from whatever you have to say about anything else.
Okay...I will be delighted to blow your doors off.
Let start at the beginning.
Here is what you originally wrote:
Quote:You also have implied that you believe anyone who believes anything particular about a god will have some logical point wrong. But you believe that thinking there is NO god is equally fallable.
Well, Frank, let me ask you this:
Do you don't have a tail?
Hint: according to your previous argument, your answer, for consistence to apply to your answers, should be "I don't know".
After all, just because there's no evidence you have a tail doesn't mean you don't have one.
So...suppose you provide quotes from me which support the premise upon which this...thing...is based.
I'll take it from there.
Keep in mind...you are going to provide quotes from me which imply that I believe something.
ANYTHING!
You don't even have to stick to the stuff you say I inferred "I believe."
And so that I do not unnecessarily limit you...please feel free to use quotes from any of the thousands that I have posted in any of the hundreds of threads here on A2K...and if you have access to any Abuzz records...please feel free to use any of the 5 times that many posts I had over there.
Provide anything that substantiates your initial premise.
And then we will debate.
Oh, by the way, Bin...don't lean against the doors. Ya never know when they're gonna fly off.
One other thing (seriously, my new friend)...I hope you aced your tests yesterday.
