the God term
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2013, 05:35 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 05:27 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 05:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is an infinitely non-repeating number, not eternal.

You can't just redefine words to suit your own ideas. Give it up.
If you recall, I provided the oxford dictionary definition of eternal to explain what the word eternal means. You brought up Pi.

No, I didn't.

You were the one who said pi is eternal.

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
16-04-2013, 06:15 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 05:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 05:27 PM)childeye Wrote:  If you recall, I provided the oxford dictionary definition of eternal to explain what the word eternal means. You brought up Pi.

No, I didn't.

You were the one who said pi is eternal.

I think we have yet another example of someone who has come here to address us all as one homogeneous atheist.

I mentioned Pi therefore we all mentioned Pi.

This pi-eyed-child won't be around much longer.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2013, 06:21 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 05:31 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 05:24 PM)childeye Wrote:  All I've said is God is Love, that moral goodness in mankind. How you expect me to put a precise value on Love is beyond my knowledge to be able to comply. That does not negate the plausibility of my contention.
Actually it does negate it, in fact your "argument" has been obliterated numerous times already. There is nothing more to say.

Well, save for shoo fly
Where has it been proven by anyone here that Love is not God?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2013, 06:26 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 06:21 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 05:31 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Actually it does negate it, in fact your "argument" has been obliterated numerous times already. There is nothing more to say.

Well, save for shoo fly
Where has it been proven by anyone here that Love is not God?

Burden of proof shifting. Drinking Beverage

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2013, 06:46 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 06:21 PM)childeye Wrote:  Where has it been proven by anyone here that Love is not God?

It's your theory. You have to prove it, not challenge others to disprove it. So far, the proof you've provided seems to be your own ideas and personal experiences, and seems to require faith in god. If you feel that's adequate, then you've made your argument as best you can.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
16-04-2013, 06:46 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 06:26 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 06:21 PM)childeye Wrote:  Where has it been proven by anyone here that Love is not God?

Burden of proof shifting. Drinking Beverage

Yes, the goal posts are being moved by this person, each time their argument is refuted in any way (like when they said there was no empathy before monotheism). It's pathetic, disingenuous and weak of them. But whatever....


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2013, 06:49 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 05:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 05:27 PM)childeye Wrote:  If you recall, I provided the oxford dictionary definition of eternal to explain what the word eternal means. You brought up Pi.

No, I didn't.

You were the one who said pi is eternal.
Oh my gosh. Here is from your post #272 wherein you cite another poster saying this:
What is your god's factual value?

Pi (in the sky)?


I answered thus:
Actually the equation of Pi is probably a good measure of value. After all, how does one measure that which is eternal?

Please note that the term eternal is pertaining to God, not Pi. Pi is being used as a good description of measure because the calculating of it goes on and on forever as far as we know. This simply means that we cannot measure that which is eternal.

Then you said:
Pis is not eternal, it is irrational.

Hence you brought up pi as not being eternal, even though I was saying from the get go that eternal things cannot be measured. However, I thought you were aware of what I was applying eternal to, God not pi. So I assumed when you said pi is not eternal, you didn't know that the calculating of pi went on forever, which is why I said pi is eternal.
Sheesh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2013, 06:51 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 06:46 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 06:26 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Burden of proof shifting. Drinking Beverage

Yes, the goal posts are being moved by this person, each time their argument is refuted in anyway. It's pathetic, disingenuous and weak of them. But whatever....

It took some time but when I did actually get an honest answer out of him, he basically said it's presupposition. Since then he has attempted to walk that back but thats nothing new.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 06:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 06:46 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Yes, the goal posts are being moved by this person, each time their argument is refuted in anyway. It's pathetic, disingenuous and weak of them. But whatever....

It took some time but when I did actually get an honest answer out of him, he basically said it's presupposition. Since then he has attempted to walk that back but thats nothing new.

It's what they all do when they come here. They make some statement like "don't you agree that widgets are wompids" and they expect all of us to say..."wow that's amazing, no one has ever put it like that! I believe now". But no, instead they are told to present proof of their ideas -- 30 pages later they back peddle and bloviate.

Then one day they go away....only to be replaced with someone else..who makes another asinine claim and wonder why I say, "shoo fly," to them.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2013, 07:15 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 06:46 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 06:26 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Burden of proof shifting. Drinking Beverage

Yes, the goal posts are being moved by this person, each time their argument is refuted in any way (like when they said there was no empathy before monotheism). It's pathetic, disingenuous and weak of them. But whatever....
But that is not entirely what I said. I said if God is empathy as I claim then empathy could not have come before monotheism nor visa versa. For that would be a false dichotomy. How is it disingenuous to say that if God is thee God, then he has always been God? Obviously your belief of no gods or God precluded you from even considering the common sense in such a statement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: