Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 04:36 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  What's the Modal Ontological Argument?

Modal Ontological Argument = a damn good argument for the existence of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 09:54 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 09:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 04:36 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  What's the Modal Ontological Argument?

Modal Ontological Argument = a damn good argument for the existence of God.

Thanks for yet another "answer" with zero information content. It must be a pretty shitty argument if you're not willing (or able) to say anything about it beyond vague generalities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 03:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If a burning bush told me to kill my kid, I'd check myself into a hospital to get evaluated because something clearly isn't right.

If a burning bush told you to kill your kid, you'd kill your kid.

This is why we can't have nice things.

We can't have nice things because some people believe that inanimate matter suddenly "came to life" and began talking, thinking, laughing, playing, having sex. I am not so sure that makes any more sense than a burning bush speaking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:00 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 09:48 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I know, God talking to people is a hard concept for atheists to understand..but when it comes to inanimate matter coming to life, they are all for that kind of shit Laugh out load

Is your god an inanimate thing you think is alive? Does God have matter?

Again, any point in asking you where your God came from?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 09:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 04:36 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  What's the Modal Ontological Argument?

Modal Ontological Argument = a damn good argument for the existence of God.

A damn good argument for the napkin god. Did I convert you?

[Image: 1f5c7a6acdb450ddd4911a613487da6f.jpg]

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
19-03-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 09:54 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 09:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Modal Ontological Argument = a damn good argument for the existence of God.

Thanks for yet another "answer" with zero information content. It must be a pretty shitty argument if you're not willing (or able) to say anything about it beyond vague generalities.

Except there is actual evidence for the shit.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 03:53 AM)H4ym4n Wrote:  Hey COtW ever wonder why Abraham heard gods voice commanding him to kill his kid but god sends a messenger to stop the slaughter?

Why not a personal visit from it instead?

Is it possible satan was playing god?

Dude, that is NOT what the narrative says, so what the hell are you changing the scenario for? I mean damn, you people are constantly changing the scenario to fit your close minded purposes. If you actually read the narrative, everything was orchestrated by God to test the faith of Abraham. It says nothing about Satan or anything else, that is you changing the scenario despite the fact that the actual narrative doesn't even HINT what you are talking about.

I must be in the twilight zone.

(19-03-2015 03:53 AM)H4ym4n Wrote:  What do you think it would take for you to convince an atheist to believe in your concept of reality?

They don't want to believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 09:54 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 09:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Modal Ontological Argument = a damn good argument for the existence of God.

Thanks for yet another "answer" with zero information content. It must be a pretty shitty argument if you're not willing (or able) to say anything about it beyond vague generalities.

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
  6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

It is obviously flawed - you can't get to 4 from 3, nor is 'maximally great' even defined.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:04 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 03:53 AM)H4ym4n Wrote:  Hey COtW ever wonder why Abraham heard gods voice commanding him to kill his kid but god sends a messenger to stop the slaughter?

Why not a personal visit from it instead?

Is it possible satan was playing god?

Dude, that is NOT what the narrative says, so what the hell are you changing the scenario for? I mean damn, you people are constantly changing the scenario to fit your close minded purposes. If you actually read the narrative, everything was orchestrated by God to test the faith of Abraham. It says nothing about Satan or anything else, that is you changing the scenario despite the fact that the actual narrative doesn't even HINT what you are talking about.

I must be in the twilight zone.

(19-03-2015 03:53 AM)H4ym4n Wrote:  What do you think it would take for you to convince an atheist to believe in your concept of reality?

They don't want to believe.


Just before god said, let there be light, it knew it would create Abraham. It knew it would test Abraham and it knew the test results, right?



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 05:55 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  At what point did Christ teach to kill children?

Right, so apparently it will never get to the point where God commands me to kill children, then...right?

(19-03-2015 05:55 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  If you are willing to admit that it's possible you imagine God's voice (in the case of it contradicting scripture), how do you know that you're not imagining something that is "in harmony" with it? Whether or not something matches (your interpretation of) the Bible has nothing to do with whether or not it is real.

I will assume that God knows what it will take to convince me it is him speaking to me, and should the time comes when God needs to relay a message to me, I will assume that when that time comes there will be little doubt and I won't have to play the guessing game.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: