Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

Satya I dont really see how you dont see the logic... I dont want to type that all over again so just reread the previous posts...It seems to me like you simply dont want there to be a God... Is this true or are you just sure that there isnt a God?
 
mjgjr706 said:
Satya I dont really see how you dont see the logic... I dont want to type that all over again so just reread the previous posts...It seems to me like you simply dont want there to be a God... Is this true or are you just sure that there isnt a God?
Click to expand...

I'm not really concerned with whether or not there is a God. I'm just trying to find the logic in your argument. You seem to be arguing that there is no original thought, without providing any real reasoning to support that belief, and that somehow your conception that there is no original thought provides evidence for a God's existence. Then in an even greater leap, you name a specific God that you feel exists, while discounting all the others, despite the fact that they are just as supported by the premise you seem to be purporting. In essence, I can't find anything that you have suggested to be "logical", just baseless assumptions. Then to top it off, rather than address my specific questions, you choose to question my motivations, in what seems like a rather blatant red herring.
 
Last edited:
I do not seek to divert anything... I just dont understand how you dont see the logic, and add to that how amendment you seem it just made me wonder... So I asked the question... I think my logic is pretty easy to understand however since you dont then whats the point? I think we can agree to disagree on this
 
mjgjr706 said:
I do not seek to divert anything... I just dont understand how you dont see the logic, and add to that how amendment you seem it just made me wonder... So I asked the question... I think my logic is pretty easy to understand however since you dont then whats the point? I think we can agree to disagree on this
Click to expand...

As I said, you can choose to leave the discussion if you wish. I may just have a better understanding of argument structure than you, as what you may perceive as logic, may simply be your own intuition. You have yet to provide a sufficient set of premises to support your conclusion, but you seem oddly convinced that what you are using is somehow logic.
 
HAHAHAHAHA... Thats funny... No matter what I say or how many times I say it no matter how many examples you are going to say this same thing... Not my fault if you cant understand the points and examples I give... I understood what you said although I see flaws which I pointed out in your logic... You seem unwilling to see anything that may discredit you argument.
 
mjgjr706 said:
HAHAHAHAHA... Thats funny... No matter what I say or how many times I say it no matter how many examples you are going to say this same thing... Not my fault if you cant understand the points and examples I give... I understood what you said although I see flaws which I pointed out in your logic... You seem unwilling to see anything that may discredit you argument.
Click to expand...

What argument have I put forth?
 
WOW... Your right there is no such thing as spaghetti and every single thought you put forth is original... LOL... Reread my friend and if you dont see it then... Well Im not much into sophistry so you probably wont see my point...
 
mjgjr706 said:
WOW... Your right there is no such thing as spaghetti and every single thought you put forth is original... LOL... Reread my friend and if you dont see it then... Well Im not much into sophistry so you probably wont see my point...
Click to expand...

So far, the only thing I have done is challenge your argument. I'm not sure why you are being so combative. I did provide a counter argument to one you provided regarding original thought. I argued that innovation is evidence of original thought. You have yet to even address that counter argument.

Frankly, your ad hominem attacks are doing nothing but detriment to your position at this point.
 
Last edited:
I read some of your arguments which you were laying out earlier... If you want to send some more your free to do so... But the point I was trying to prove I feel I have supported.... That being of the question of God in a vague sense providing argument for a God as you yourself stated

The concept of God is highly constructed. Unless you wish to argue that Zeus, Yahweh, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, are all one in the same god, then you are left with competing conceptions.

No matter the specifics or even the humor intended I only was saying it provided the argument... Thats it... In reference to my sarcasm being an attack... Sarcasm is knida my style so to speak... Im NT and its kinda my 2nd language...
 
mjgjr706 said:
I read some of your arguments which you were laying out earlier... If you want to send some more your free to do so... But the point I was trying to prove I feel I have supported.... That being of the question of God in a vague sense providing argument for a God as you yourself stated

The concept of God is highly constructed. Unless you wish to argue that Zeus, Yahweh, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, are all one in the same god, then you are left with competing conceptions.

No matter the specifics or even the humor intended I only was saying it provided the argument... Thats it... In reference to my sarcasm being an attack... Sarcasm is knida my style so to speak... Im NT and its kinda my 2nd language...
Click to expand...

Fine, I'll accept your argument that God is a social construction and does not actually exist. Assuming that is the argument you are making.

I have to say, you aren't exactly speaking very coherently at this point.
 
Last edited:
Nope I was talking about the competing conceptions... I just lumped the entire portion 2gthr...I was talking about the connecting word there unless...
 
Satya said:
Fine, I'll accept your argument that God is a social construction and does not actually exist. Assuming that is the argument you are making.

I have to say, you aren't exactly speaking very coherently at this point.
Click to expand...

I agree for the most part with this, however I think it's more or less of how you define God itself. For me God is everything, the flow of the universe(s), dimensions, matter, anti-matter, thoughts, interaction, time, etc.

Now if there was a being that could be all this but still be limited to something I'd be too ignorant to know with our current knowledge base. Because of the power difference between our society and this/these being(s), I would perhaps consider it/them a God or Godlike force until perhaps our society could match theirs... if ever.
 
Last edited:
Naxx said:
I agree for the most part with this, however I think it's more or less of how you define God itself. For me God is everything, the flow of the universe(s), dimensions, matter, anti-matter, thoughts, interaction, time, etc.

Now if there was a being that could be all this but still be limited to something I'd be too ignorant to know with our current knowledge base. Because of the power difference between our society and this/these being(s), I would perhaps consider it/them a God or Godlike force until perhaps our society could match theirs... if ever.
Click to expand...

Pantheism is a fascinating belief system.
 
Shai Gar said:
Holopantheism is the only accurate belief.
Click to expand...

Multiple truths exists and they can each be wrong at the same time.

Dealing in absolutes, the wisdom in such an act is often lacking.
 
UNLESS... Clearly the most important word in that statement... haha... Sounds a little Bill Clinton esque no?
 
I read your post too mjgjr706, and it's really hard to follow. Perhaps you could put it in syllogistic form? Here is an example of an argument in syllogistic form:

1. Justice requires that if a set of rights is given to any group of free people, that it must be given to all free people.
2. Marriage is a right that is given to heterosexual people.
3. Heterosexual people are a free people.
4. Therefore, because there exists a group of free people that are given the right to marry, it is just to give all free people the right to marry.
5. Homosexual people are a free people.
6. Therefore, because it is just to give all free people the right to marry, and homosexual people are a free people, then it is just to give homosexual people the right to marry.
7. We should be a just society.
8. Therefore, because it is just to give homosexuals people the right to marry, and we should be just, then we should give homosexual people the right to marry.



See how easy that is to follow? It leads you step by step to its conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top