That is what you said to me in #180.
Now you say:
You are defining a God for me? Why thank you : )
You tell me to do something, I do it, and then you act surprised. How else can I help? However, you also added:
Sadly your 'God' has no attributes and is nothing more than a figment of your imagination, a brain fart. As are all Gods.
Au contraire. My God is all attributes so just pick one and disprove it.
Is it really possible to prove a negative? If so, then you will be the first to accomplish it. If not why are you insistent on it?
Why does God bother you and others of like mind so much? Why are you so determined that He is not there? If you think I am foolish and that I believe in superstition and fairy tales, why do you care?
It seems obvious that you and the others are either oblivious to, or forgiving of, the weaknesses and gaps in science and especially in the theory of evolution, yet unforgiving of the idea of God. Why is that? Are you aware of the spiritual nature of man, a nature that is just as real as the physical/material aspects of man? Or do you simply deny that is the case and instead believe that man is a self-contained box and an evolving animal no different from the rest of the species? Do you know that all living things have most of their DNA in common, that there is little difference in the DNA of the fruit fly, man, and grass? I suppose that could be an argument in favor of evolution, so do you believe in an uncaused cause as the beginning of everything? How did time and space evolve, or are we only talking about Earth? The questions could go on but they are asked for a purpose, that being to expose the frailty of thought and knowledge themselves. A belief in an intelligent design, in an original creator of that design and an ever-present overseer of that design is more reasonable to some of us than believing in an uncaused cause and in continuing random mutations leading to progress. Does and uncaused cause and continuing random mutations leading to progress seem reasonable to you?
How funny : ) So your GOD is full of crap (an attribute) I don't see him crapping in my toilet (he would have to be crapping eternally in all toilets) Therefore I have falsified your concept of GOD.
Is it really possible to prove a negative? If so, then you will be the first to accomplish it. If not why are you insistent on it?
No, that is why I asked for a definition of God. I can falsify that. If you say that GoD is undefinable I say fine it is a meaningless tautology then, which is just as good as a falsification.
Why does God bother you and others of like mind so much? Why are you so determined that He is not there? If you think I am foolish and that I believe in superstition and fairy tales, why do you care?
I don't care. I was pointing out Betty Boops lack of logic.
It seems obvious that you and the others are either oblivious to, or forgiving of, the weaknesses and gaps in science and especially in the theory of evolution, yet unforgiving of the idea of God.
Au contraire, I always seek for truth. I detest bad science more than you, and I will agree that much of the soft science is bad. Part of the beauty of science is knowing that we have to live with uncertainty.
Are you aware of the spiritual nature of man, a nature that is just as real as the physical/material aspects of man? Or do you simply deny that is the case and instead believe that man is a self-contained box and an evolving animal no different from the rest of the species?
That is a nonsensical statement full of self contradictions (man no different than the rest of the species?).
Do you know that all living things have most of their DNA in common, that there is little difference in the DNA of the fruit fly, man, and grass?
All life evolved from the first life forms, what is your point?
I suppose that could be an argument in favor of evolution, so do you believe in an uncaused cause as the beginning of everything?
Yes, there is no cause and effect.
Does and uncaused cause and continuing random mutations leading to progress seem reasonable to you?
Uncaused cause doesn't make any sense, because there is no cause. You need to administer a Rorschach test someday : )
Good post...I’ve said that it wouldn’t surprise me that God could come down and sit some of these libs down on His knee and try to explain He exists to them and the response would be something like:
NO you don’t exist! I’m dreaming, or it’s a trick or I was drugged, or I’ve lost my mind...anything and I mean ANYTHING but acceptance of the truth.
Sadly, this is eternity for some of ‘em. Or so it would seem, but God did say ALL would know who He is, eventually.
Which is even worse, spending eternity wishing they had listened instead of heard! And even listened instead of talking just to arrogantly hear themselves talk at any and all costs!
In Aristotle, "uncaused cause" goes by other names, too — e.g., prime mover, first cause. (God certainly qualifies as an uncaused cause Himself.) Without a first cause, we are stuck with the problem of a universal infinite regression....
But I suspect this is not what LeGrande means by uncaused cause. Who knows? He rejects all causes, period. I do not see how such a position can be reconciled with science.