Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Nearly Sane]

No they suggested it was though. I forgive you though because I take it you were confused about what was being said.

Fuck off. They didn't say it was the case as your post stated. Shove your faux forgiveness up your lying arse

[Alan Burns]

What's the matter with the Christians here? You can't all be as thick as this kind of comment (and Vlad's before) imply, can you? Of course, if there is an "ultimate God" (which nobody seems able to provide any good reason to think there is) then there can only be one, but what we actually see is endless different religions, denominations, cults, and sects, all describing it differently.

What we have in practice is multiple descriptions of what it is, what it wants, and what it likes.

This is all evidence of mankind trying to satisfy their instinctive need for God.
There is only one God, and we only have one lifetime to discover God and find the true purpose and meaning behind our existence.

[Nearly Sane]

This is all evidence of mankind trying to satisfy their instinctive need for God.
There is only one God, and we only have one lifetime to discover God and find the true purpose and meaning behind our existence.

He asserted

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

Fuck off. They didn't say it was the case as your post stated. Shove your faux forgiveness up your lying arse

Oh the game has come to life⚽ the Ref seems to be telling someone the are a rectangular object, no no my mistake he is taking it to the VAR, old Sane and Vlad ( two old tired pugilists of this competition ) sorry wrong sport, two old tired shin kickers ⚽ is it a yellow or red or from where I am sitting just handbags at fifty paces😀

Gonnagle.

[Dicky Underpants]

You will, therefore be able to produce those passages, in the meantime here are the passages telling us to seek God courtesy of AI,
Jeremiah 29:13
Isaiah 55:6
Psalm 105:4
Deuteronomy 4:29
1 Chronicles 16:11
2 Chronicles15:12
proverbs 8:17
Matthew 7:7
Matthew 6:33
1Chronicles 28:9
Acts 17:27
Psalm 27:8

You mention Isaiah there. Unfortunately, ten chapters later he contradicted himself in 65:1 - the text St Paul cited in Romans, which I pointed out.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Thread,

Fuck off. They didn't say it was the case as your post stated. Shove your faux forgiveness up your lying arse

Oh the game has come to life⚽ the Ref seems to be telling someone the are a rectangular object, no no my mistake he is taking it to the VAR, old Sane and Vlad ( two old tired pugilists of this competition ) sorry wrong sport, two old tired shin kickers ⚽ is it a yellow or red or from where I am sitting just handbags at fifty paces😀

Gonnagle.

I fear that neither is going to cry out "Sufficient" - which I believe is the Yorkshire term of surrender in these circumstances.

[ekim]

But God could be "everything" or, or "nothing" no-thing.

... and then there is Apophatic theology or Via Negativa .....

St Thomas Aquinas [13th C Italian philosopher]  We cannot know what God is but rather what he is not.

Meister Eckhart  [13th C German Dominican Theologian]   There is no knowing what God is.   Something we do know, namely, what God is not.

St. Augustine  [4th C Bishop]    For when we aspire from this depth to that height, it is a part of no small knowledge if, before we can know what God is, we can know what he is not.

[Outrider]

We should follow Christ first and foremost. The important, primary, “Get this right”, parts of the bible are precisely the bits YOU don’t seem to be interested in.

Because it tells us to do that in the book that advocates slavery acceptance, misogyny and homophobia... you're really not addressing the issue here. I know which bits you want people to focus on - the 'nice' bits - but why should I accept those bits and overlook the other bits, other than by making my own moral judgements which I can do without the mythology and superstition?

O.

[Stranger]

This is all evidence of mankind trying to satisfy their instinctive need for God.

FALLACY: Begging the question.

It could easily be evidence of humankind's endless tendency towards superstition (hyperactive agency detection).

There is only one God, and we only have one lifetime to discover God and find the true purpose and meaning behind our existence.

FALLACY: Argument by assertion.

And Alan continues to demonstrate that he's too frightened/complacent/bone idle/dim-witted (whichever it is) to learn about critical thinking and the avoidence of fallacies.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Thread,

Fuck off. They didn't say it was the case as your post stated. Shove your faux forgiveness up your lying arse

Oh the game has come to life⚽ the Ref seems to be telling someone the are a rectangular object, no no my mistake he is taking it to the VAR, old Sane and Vlad ( two old tired pugilists of this competition ) sorry wrong sport, two old tired shin kickers ⚽ is it a yellow or red or from where I am sitting just handbags at fifty paces😀

Gonnagle.

I thought there was something in your book saying lying was wrong?

[Gonnagle]

... and then there is Apophatic theology or Via Negativa .....

St Thomas Aquinas [13th C Italian philosopher]  We cannot know what God is but rather what he is not.

Meister Eckhart  [13th C German Dominican Theologian]   There is no knowing what God is.   Something we do know, namely, what God is not.

St. Augustine  [4th C Bishop]    For when we aspire from this depth to that height, it is a part of no small knowledge if, before we can know what God is, we can know what he is not.

Dear Ekim,

Nice, a hush returns to the stadium⚽ the recent flare as I suspected, just two old shin kickers⚽ this game may go to extra time ( no Gonnagle that is a fucking certainty ) but thank you Ekim, wonderfully played, ah! the return of the beautiful game⚽

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

I thought there was something in your book saying lying was wrong?

And

You are the most handsomest man I have ever laid eyes on, I want to have your babies ⚡⚡past master at dodging them

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

I thought there was something in your book saying lying was wrong?

And

You are the most handsomest man I have ever laid eyes on, I want to have your babies ⚡⚡past master at dodging them

Gonnagle.

And Vkad has deliberately and blatantly mistmrepresebted the positions of bhs and jeremyp. So if you are opposed to lying then it's a problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it tells us to do that in the book that advocates slavery acceptance, misogyny and homophobia... you're really not addressing the issue here. I know which bits you want people to focus on - the 'nice' bits - but why should I accept those bits and overlook the other bits, other than by making my own moral judgements which I can do without the mythology and superstition?

O.

There is alas for your argument, things which don't apply to me.
There is an instance of God showing who laws apply to and who they don't in the vision of St Peter.

You sound then if you need reminding about the division of the Bible into the Law, the prophets, poetry and proverb and that's the Old testament, and then there is the new testament.

Collectively the OT and New Testament is information needed for Salvation since the laws themselves do not save.

So I am not compelled to hate those who hate me, I am not compelled to settle for slavery or misogyny or to hate those who hate me, in fact the opposite. I think I have said before the least we need,imho to remain of the Bible is the part that says we need salvation and Jesus provides it and at the end of the day it's that, that really offends people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And Vkad has deliberately and blatantly mistmrepresebted the positions of bhs and jeremyp. So if you are opposed to lying then it's a problem.

No, They wish for the purposes of their view that the universe could be the necessary entity for the universe to be considered a single entity since it was pointed out to them that composites cannot be necessary..

[Stranger]

There is alas for your argument, things which don't apply to me.
There is an instance of God showing who laws apply to and who they don't in the vision of St Peter.

You sound then if you need reminding about the division of the Bible into the Law, the prophets, poetry and proverb and that's the Old testament, and then there is the new testament.

Collectively the OT and New Testament is information needed for Salvation since the laws themselves do not save.

So I am not compelled to hate those who hate me, I am not compelled to settle for slavery or misogyny or to hate those who hate me, in fact the opposite. I think I have said before the least we need,imho to remain of the Bible is the part that says we need salvation and Jesus provides it and at the end of the day it's that, that really offends people.

What a lot of empty waffle to avoid the point. 

No matter how much you protest, the bible is still an incoherent, self-contradictory mess, filled with stories of an often evil, capricious, vindictive, petty, and unjust God who condones slavery and genocide.

[Dicky Underpants]

... and then there is Apophatic theology or Via Negativa .....

St Thomas Aquinas [13th C Italian philosopher]  We cannot know what God is but rather what he is not.

Meister Eckhart  [13th C German Dominican Theologian]   There is no knowing what God is.   Something we do know, namely, what God is not.

St. Augustine  [4th C Bishop]    For when we aspire from this depth to that height, it is a part of no small knowledge if, before we can know what God is, we can know what he is not.

And Meister Eckhart also said "The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me". Which has bugger all to do with "Salvation through Jesus" - Vlad's patent snake oil which he insists we must buy.

[Stranger]

No, They wish for the purposes of their view that the universe could be the necessary entity for the universe to be considered a single entity since it was pointed out to them that composites cannot be necessary..

I don't actually recall anybody accepting that there was a necessary entity, or that, if there was, your assertion that it couldn't be a composite had any validity.

You didn't seem able to grasp that the whole 'argument from contingency' is bollocks.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Ekim,

Apophatic (of knowledge of God) obtained through negating concepts that might be applied to him.

But that uses the word him.

I found this, never heard of it before but I like it.

In Prayer:
Apophatic prayer means emptying the mind of words and ideas, simply resting in the presence of God, and it can be understood as a form of centering prayer.

I am not the Ref but for me top left hand corner beautifully taken old son⚽ but I am claiming an assist

Gonnagle.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Ekim,

Apophatic (of knowledge of God) obtained through negating concepts that might be applied to him.

But that uses the word him.

I found this, never heard of it before but I like it.

In Prayer:
Apophatic prayer means emptying the mind of words and ideas, simply resting in the presence of God, and it can be understood as a form of centering prayer.

I am not the Ref but for me top left hand corner beautifully taken old son⚽ but I am claiming an assist

Gonnagle.

You will find that the Buddha used similar words about Nirvana, except that he didn't refer to Nirvana as a 'him'.

[Gordon]

No, They wish for the purposes of their view that the universe could be the necessary entity for the universe to be considered a single entity since it was pointed out to them that composites cannot be necessary..

Think perhaps you are misrepresenting again: I don't think anyone was arguing, apart from yourself blindly asserting it, for a necessary entity and they simply observed that if there was such as thing then the universe might be a candidate. You're, as usual, over-reaching.

Your 'God' is a composite since it has three bits - silly you!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't actually recall anybody accepting that there was a necessary entity, or that, if there was, your assertion that it couldn't be a composite had any validity.

You didn't seem able to grasp that the whole 'argument from contingency' is bollocks.

Vlad,

No idea. Not my problem. It’s not something I’ve said, and it’s not my job to find an answer to that.

You on the other hand have asserted that the universe is necessarily contingent on something other than itself, and your only attempt so far to justify that claim is the fallacy of composition.   

If that’s all you have, we’ll leave it where that dumps you: dead in the water.

Oh look an instance where Bluehillside treats the universe as a single entity. UNIVERSE ITSELF.

[Gonnagle]

You will find that the Buddha used similar words about Nirvana, except that he didn't refer to Nirvana as a 'him'.

Dear Dicky,

Thank you, good here ain't it a strange calm has come over the forum, won't last long but we must take our fleeting joys where we find them.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Oh look an instance where Bluehillside treats the universe as a single entity. UNIVERSE ITSELF.

FFS grow up!

Not only did he not actually use that phrase, it wouldn't mean a non-composite anyway. You never managed to come up with a coherent and logical explanation of a 'necessary entity' or why it couldn't be composite or any of the other things you made up about it.

As I said, the whole argument is bollocks.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Dicky,

Told ya

Gonnagle.