First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last

Presuppositionalism

Post Reply
28794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 12/11/18 , edited 12/12/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


foraslan wrote:

which says that logic, as a process, must have a prior justification,

It's easier to just stop and refute it here with a simple "No, it doesn't." and a "Prove it.".

Although, I'm not really a fan of philosophy of which I view as extremely archaic and increasingly more so obsolete in the face of modern science, so I'm not the best person to answer this question.

As you said, the argument from presupposition will inherently always beg the question, so really there is no need to seriously refute it unless the speaker can give a more nuanced and balanced argument.


Philosophy is more or less useful to have people become skeptical in their own certainty. If people realized how little they know, or why they do the things they do, the world may be in a better place. I am unsure if you actually meant religion, instead of philosophy, or if you were referring to courses that teach philosophy.

Philosophy is not a subjected reserved to the most erudite. Everyone has philosophized, from the most basic concepts of existence and a higher intelligence. We all asked ourselves if we have done the right thing, or what is considered evil.

If anything, to be interested in ruminating on these topics is something that there is never enough of. Certainty in one's infallibility is the bane of one's betterment.

And as the discussion progressed, we went over the fact that the course is, not necessary but, supplemental to learning.


Apologies, I did not bother to read it, despite knowing it is several days old. In any case, we seem to agree. (Though my point of contention is people om both sides of the equation treating philosophy as it were some high brow topic to be exalted or deemed pretentious. )

Carry on.
28794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 12/11/18 , edited 12/12/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


foraslan wrote:

which says that logic, as a process, must have a prior justification,

It's easier to just stop and refute it here with a simple "No, it doesn't." and a "Prove it.".

Although, I'm not really a fan of philosophy of which I view as extremely archaic and increasingly more so obsolete in the face of modern science, so I'm not the best person to answer this question.

As you said, the argument from presupposition will inherently always beg the question, so really there is no need to seriously refute it unless the speaker can give a more nuanced and balanced argument.


Philosophy is more or less useful to have people become skeptical in their own certainty. If people realized how little they know, or why they do the things they do, the world may be in a better place. I am unsure if you actually meant religion, instead of philosophy, or if you were referring to courses that teach philosophy.

Philosophy is not a subjected reserved to the most erudite. Everyone has philosophized, from the most basic concepts of existence and a higher intelligence. We all asked ourselves if we have done the right thing, or what is considered evil.

If anything, to be interested in ruminating on these topics is something that there is never enough of. Certainty in one's infallibility is the bane of one's betterment.

And as the discussion progressed, we went over the fact that the course is, not necessary but, supplemental to learning.


Apologies, I did not bother to read it, despite knowing it is several days old. In any case, we seem to agree. (Though my point of contention is people om both sides of the equation treating philosophy as it were some high brow topic to be exalted or deemed pretentious. )

Carry on.
28794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 12/11/18 , edited 12/12/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


foraslan wrote:

which says that logic, as a process, must have a prior justification,

It's easier to just stop and refute it here with a simple "No, it doesn't." and a "Prove it.".

Although, I'm not really a fan of philosophy of which I view as extremely archaic and increasingly more so obsolete in the face of modern science, so I'm not the best person to answer this question.

As you said, the argument from presupposition will inherently always beg the question, so really there is no need to seriously refute it unless the speaker can give a more nuanced and balanced argument.


Philosophy is more or less useful to have people become skeptical in their own certainty. If people realized how little they know, or why they do the things they do, the world may be in a better place. I am unsure if you actually meant religion, instead of philosophy, or if you were referring to courses that teach philosophy.

Philosophy is not a subjected reserved to the most erudite. Everyone has philosophized, from the most basic concepts of existence and a higher intelligence. We all asked ourselves if we have done the right thing, or what is considered evil.

If anything, to be interested in ruminating on these topics is something that there is never enough of. Certainty in one's infallibility is the bane of one's betterment.

And as the discussion progressed, we went over the fact that the course is, not necessary but, supplemental to learning.


Apologies, I did not bother to read it, despite knowing it is several days old. In any case, we seem to agree. (Though my point of contention is people om both sides of the equation treating philosophy as it were some high brow topic to be exalted or deemed pretentious. )

Carry on.
1685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/11/18 , edited 12/12/18

groovygreen wrote:

One thing I've noticed with this thread is that none have tried to define God. How are we supposed to have a healthy discussion if we can't define what the concept of God is? How can you disprove something that you can't agree upon?

Going back to the OP on the basics of Presuppositionalism, we assume that "1.1 God is the source of truth and logic."
The statement itself personifies or Anthropomorphizes God, which makes it easy to dismiss God. If we instead begin with something more fundamental about God, like that he's an idea, rather than a person(since a person is imperfect and incapable of universal creation), I think we can begin to make some ground. So what is God? How do we define God?

At a more fundamental level, if we assume;
1. God is the God of Order, and
2. Satan is the God(or Prince) of Chaos

and each entity represents all the ideal aspects of Order and Chaos, then we can simplify the idea of God. We could also equate Order and Chaos as absolute states of being, sort of like the concepts of Heaven or Hell. Wherein one scenario the "closer you are to God" then you would assume you are in a "heavenly," or in an ideal state of Order. Also the "further you stray from God's light" you begin to exist in a state of Chaos or Hell. From an anecdotal perspective you could compare these states of being to real people. Have you ever met a homeless man who appears to be in an earthly "Hell," where he's clearly the product of drug abuse and his environment, so much so that you are scared to make eye contact with that person? Do you ever walk by someone like this and fear the worst? What is it like to be them? Certainly I wouldn't believe in a god if I behaved in a way that would lead my life to that extent of Hell on Earth.

Now going back to 1.1 of the OP, rather than saying "God is the source of truth and logic," let's assume that God is Truth. Let's forget the logic part for now, I think that's a bit too tough to make an argument for. If we assume that God is the embodiment of Truth, then that would suggest that if we know a greater amount of Truth then our lives would benefit. Can you prove this from a practical perspective? The more "Truth" that you learn, does it improve your life? When you go to school and learn ideas that are "true" does it move your life towards a more heavenly or a hellish state of being? What happens if I abstain from doing good or telling the truth? What happens if I purposefully commit evil acts or lie.

Before the Big Bang there was nothing, there was no order to the universe, there were no laws in place. It wasn't until God created the universe did order become a real concept. You could even say that the idea of order beginning to exist was the beginning to the universe.

Please pick apart my argument and ask to clarify some things, I'll be back on tomorrow night.
Good night.


As DarkSasu noted, defining God isn't the point of this thread. I started by assuming a personal and specifically Christian deity. But as a side note, I don't think a nonconscious, nonsentient entity is something that it makes sense to call 'God.'

"Now going back to 1.1 of the OP, rather than saying 'God is the source of truth and logic,' let's assume that God is Truth."
That's pointless. Saying "God is truth" just nullifies the concept of God. You've said nothing meaningful. Defining God as the set of all true statements or syllogisms doesn't describe any entity worth applying the label 'God' to.

"The more 'Truth' that you learn, does it improve your life?"
Sure. I think we can agree that it's generally a good thing to know the truth. But that doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

"Before the Big Bang there was nothing, there was no order to the universe, there were no laws in place. It wasn't until God created the universe did order become a real concept."
There are a lot of problems here. We don't know what was before the big bang. We don't know that there was no order. We do know that the laws of physics as we understand them wouldn't hold up, but there's no way to find out what might have been there instead. But if there was no order, no 'truth', then there was no God, going by your definition that God IS truth. If God is a God of order, then there was order before the big bang.
Still, suppose for a minute that there was no order, no 'truth' before the big bang. Anything and everything was true (and false, as would be the case). Which means it would be true that there was truth and order. And false that there was no truth or order. It's self-defeating.
Also, you're no longer sticking to your initial definition that God IS truth. You're back to an implication that truth stems from God, but not that he is equivalent to it. You've added agency/will, and creative power to the concept.

The basic problem with saying anything along the lines of "god is the source of truth," or "god is truth" is that you have to demonstrate it. If you can do so positively, all the better. But you can also go about it negatively (like presuppositionalism). In order to do that, though, you have to actually show that truth can't exist without god, or at a very minimum, that it's possible for something to exist yet for there to be no truth.

EDIT: Additionally, if God is a god of perfect, unadulterated order, how can he create a being of chaos? And As for "forgetting about logic" because it's too hard, it won't work. Logic and truth go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other.
EDIT 2: If you really want to go down this route, you need to define truth before you define god. Truth as I would define it is: a statement about reality that matches reality, OR a statement that deductively follows from a set of axioms or premises.
1685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/11/18 , edited 12/12/18

JustineKo2 wrote:

I wonder if it will always be a futile attempt to have productive argument between atheists and believers. For one thing I know it's extremely rare for any argument to end with either side changing anything about their position. Sometimes the only real way people change their position is after they've argued with themselves, that way no one ends up feeling like a loser or has to admit the other person was right.


You're definitely not wrong. But in my experience, I'm much more likely to take a look at my own beliefs if someone else has shaken them from the outside. It would seem strange to me, if you think that people are more likely to reach that point with absolutely no input contrary to their beliefs.
So I don't necessarily look for debates and arguments to produce immediate changes in my own opinions or others, but if it gives me pause to think, and either shore up my knowledge, or correct my beliefs after further challenges or study, that's a good thing.
2808 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/12/18 , edited 12/12/18

FlyinDumpling wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

No one on this planet knows everything, does that mean everything they have learned is a lie?

I think what you’re debating is the source of truth. Even scientists and inventors debate each other on who invented what first, who copied who, who was the “real” source. For you it’s God. For others it’s the smartest man in the room.

Why claim anything if everything had an original source? I’m happy, oh I mean god made me happy. I got a job, I mean god gave a job. I aced the test, actually god aced the test. Literally anything. Did god teach me to wipe my ass or did my mom and dad? Or maybe Mao Zedong did because Tiananmen Square protests happen after his era and it caused my parents to flee together to America where they had me and enabled an ass to exist for wiping. Mao Zedong was the one who opened the chapter of my potty training days, not my parents. The further back you go, the more ridiculous it gets. But once you reach far enough back to God, it make the most sense to Christians.


Speaking from a Christian standpoint that is definitely not how we think. We believe in doing things independently but to have God at the centre of everything we do. God did not ace your test. You aced your test yourself thanks to your own work. God is a major part but he does not do it and spoon feed it to us. You have to do your own work sometimes to get anywhere in life.
exactly, this is what I’m trying to say, this argument itself makes the “god as a source of all truth and knowledge” invalid because it assumes that truth and knowledge can come from within a person.


You're not seeing the point. I never said God was the source of all truth and knowledge but explain to me how what I just said invalidates that. Yes God has all the answers but that does not mean that he will give everything to you while you sit on your backside all day. It doesn't mean that God is not the source of truth. Besides God is not a person. He is a divine entity or something like that. You cannot define God with mere logic.
17871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 12/12/18 , edited 12/12/18

AnimeObserver123 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

No one on this planet knows everything, does that mean everything they have learned is a lie?

I think what you’re debating is the source of truth. Even scientists and inventors debate each other on who invented what first, who copied who, who was the “real” source. For you it’s God. For others it’s the smartest man in the room.

Why claim anything if everything had an original source? I’m happy, oh I mean god made me happy. I got a job, I mean god gave a job. I aced the test, actually god aced the test. Literally anything. Did god teach me to wipe my ass or did my mom and dad? Or maybe Mao Zedong did because Tiananmen Square protests happen after his era and it caused my parents to flee together to America where they had me and enabled an ass to exist for wiping. Mao Zedong was the one who opened the chapter of my potty training days, not my parents. The further back you go, the more ridiculous it gets. But once you reach far enough back to God, it make the most sense to Christians.


Speaking from a Christian standpoint that is definitely not how we think. We believe in doing things independently but to have God at the centre of everything we do. God did not ace your test. You aced your test yourself thanks to your own work. God is a major part but he does not do it and spoon feed it to us. You have to do your own work sometimes to get anywhere in life.
exactly, this is what I’m trying to say, this argument itself makes the “god as a source of all truth and knowledge” invalid because it assumes that truth and knowledge can come from within a person.


You're not seeing the point. I never said God was the source of all truth and knowledge but explain to me how what I just said invalidates that. Yes God has all the answers but that does not mean that he will give everything to you while you sit on your backside all day. It doesn't mean that God is not the source of truth. Besides God is not a person. He is a divine entity or something like that. You cannot define God with mere logic.
then why are you in this thread ??

2808 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/13/18 , edited 12/13/18

FlyinDumpling wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

No one on this planet knows everything, does that mean everything they have learned is a lie?

I think what you’re debating is the source of truth. Even scientists and inventors debate each other on who invented what first, who copied who, who was the “real” source. For you it’s God. For others it’s the smartest man in the room.

Why claim anything if everything had an original source? I’m happy, oh I mean god made me happy. I got a job, I mean god gave a job. I aced the test, actually god aced the test. Literally anything. Did god teach me to wipe my ass or did my mom and dad? Or maybe Mao Zedong did because Tiananmen Square protests happen after his era and it caused my parents to flee together to America where they had me and enabled an ass to exist for wiping. Mao Zedong was the one who opened the chapter of my potty training days, not my parents. The further back you go, the more ridiculous it gets. But once you reach far enough back to God, it make the most sense to Christians.


Speaking from a Christian standpoint that is definitely not how we think. We believe in doing things independently but to have God at the centre of everything we do. God did not ace your test. You aced your test yourself thanks to your own work. God is a major part but he does not do it and spoon feed it to us. You have to do your own work sometimes to get anywhere in life.
exactly, this is what I’m trying to say, this argument itself makes the “god as a source of all truth and knowledge” invalid because it assumes that truth and knowledge can come from within a person.


You're not seeing the point. I never said God was the source of all truth and knowledge but explain to me how what I just said invalidates that. Yes God has all the answers but that does not mean that he will give everything to you while you sit on your backside all day. It doesn't mean that God is not the source of truth. Besides God is not a person. He is a divine entity or something like that. You cannot define God with mere logic.
then why are you in this thread ??


-_-....
224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Online
Posted 12/15/18 , edited 12/15/18

foraslan wrote:

So I've been interested in arguments for/against the existence of God for a while now, and sometime back I came upon presuppositionalist apologetics. Essentially, these apologists use a variant of Kant's transcendental argument for god, which says that logic, as a process, must have a prior justification, and the only possible justification is an 'unlimited being [i.e. god]'- so we are justified in presupposing the existence of such a being even if we can't prove it. Presuppositionalists put the argument on steroids, though. Basically, it goes like this:
1.1 God is the source of truth and logic.

1.2 By denying the existence of god, you are undermining truth itself, and can't know that there is such a thing as truth.

1.3 If you can't know there is truth, you can know literally nothing.

AND MOREOVER:

2.1 God revealed himself to us through the Bible and by 'writing on our hearts' the fact of his existence.

2.2 Since God is the source of truth and is by definition truthful, we know that he exists, and so does truth.

2.3 Since we know there is a source of truth (because he told us), truth itself, logic, etc., can follow.

FINAL CONCLUSION:
Atheists don't have a coherent worldview, much less a right one. Christians on the other hand, do. (To be clear, The argument isn't precisely that you can't know anything as an atheist, but that you have no reasonable claim to knowledge.)
Further implications include the idea that there are no real atheists.

DON'T JUMP ON ME YET!!!
Obviously, the above arguments beg the question at every turn. But pointing that out isn't enough for the presuppositionalist. He will tell you that his argument is 'virtuously' or 'epistemologically' circular. And if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. An (honest) admission that it's theoretically possible that you're wrong about absolutely everything you know (see: solipsism and hard skepticism) gives them perceived room to barge onward with the ridiculous assertions.
That brings me to the point of this thread. I've made up a mirror argument, and would like input regarding similarities and differences between mine and theirs, opinions regarding the success of my argument as an analogue, and advice on improving the analogy.
My argument goes like so:

3.1 Logic presupposes 'being' (the existence of something- anything) and consciousness.
3.1 A) Logic presupposes being, because a thing cannot be and not be. Referring to a thing itself, not our perception or conception of it.
3.1 B ) Logic presupposes consciousness because it stems from descriptive 'laws of thought' which are not of independent existence.

3.2 There is a self-evident conscious being ("Cogito ergo sum")

3.3 Logic, by definition, entails truth.

3.4 Conscious beings are justified in accepting logic and truth.

That does it for the first part, the refutation of their argument. I'd like to take it a step further and turn around the second part of the argument, but haven't gotten that far.

If some part of this post doesn't make sense let me know. I wrote it all out, accidentally deleted it, then rewrote it from memory as best I could. Looking forward to your ideas.

IMPORTANT: For the record, this thread isn't about whether or not god exists, except as it pertains to this particular brand of apologetics.
For a more complete understanding of the apologists' position, here are a couple of debates that might help:
Panel debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKIVV48LOk
Sye ten Bruggencate vs Matt Dillahunty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL8LREmbDi0


Lucifer guards the grace and gates of Heaven without his own knowledge.

I believe it is within John to say, "I am the true vine."

Lucifer had become the branch. He was turning onto the path of righteous designation. He was becoming a part of himself that no longer felt the need for illness.

God had become omnipresent because His feeling was of something inconsistent within Him.

Many motives were gathered into an affinity for healing.

The Angels became tardy and restless.

The truth had become overt. Justice had become vengeance.

Lucifer had begun to contemplate what it meant to believe in honored traditions that had been passed down for eons. Who am I to have questioned the beliefs and motifs of thyself? It is only within the unknown that premonition can take shape. The mold in which our desires, hopes, and dreams drift into a realm of the mind that conjures reality had wondered through the Grace and Gates of Heaven. The Gates of Heaven had shifted; warding mischievousness into blessings that no man could resist.

In the mortal realm, man began to suffer. From that suffering came reward in the shape of apologetic apathy.

The population started to thrive. Cities began to bustle. Rock and water were on demand, and the illusive man took his fair share.

However, Lucifer wasn't swayed. He had begun harking at a world without illness. He thought of the lessons time had bestowed upon the bush that burned beyond its own capacity to retain heat. Could this be the reprisal of a world having yet to exist?

Lucifer had begun to feel violated. The immensity this feeling had possessed involuntarily involved him in revenge.

God turned a blind eye.

To be continued ...

1685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/15/18 , edited 12/16/18

HeavyFry wrote:
Lucifer guards the grace and gates of Heaven without his own knowledge.

I believe it is within John to say, "I am the true vine."

Lucifer had become the branch. He was turning onto the path of righteous designation. He was becoming a part of himself that no longer felt the need for illness.

God had become omnipresent because His feeling was of something inconsistent within Him.

Many motives were gathered into an affinity for healing.

The Angels became tardy and restless.

The truth had become overt. Justice had become vengeance.

Lucifer had begun to contemplate what it meant to believe in honored traditions that had been passed down for eons. Who am I to have questioned the beliefs and motifs of thyself? It is only within the unknown that premonition can take shape. The mold in which our desires, hopes, and dreams drift into a realm of the mind that conjures reality had wondered through the Grace and Gates of Heaven. The Gates of Heaven had shifted; warding mischievousness into blessings that no man could resist.

In the mortal realm, man began to suffer. From that suffering came reward in the shape of apologetic apathy.

The population started to thrive. Cities began to bustle. Rock and water were on demand, and the illusive man took his fair share.

However, Lucifer wasn't swayed. He had begun harking at a world without illness. He thought of the lessons time had bestowed upon the bush that burned beyond its own capacity to retain heat. Could this be the reprisal of a world having yet to exist?

Lucifer had begun to feel violated. The immensity this feeling had possessed involuntarily involved him in revenge.

God turned a blind eye.

To be continued ...



Wtf. None of that is even remotely relevant to this thread. If you want to develop and publicize your own systematic theology, by all means do so. In another thread.
224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Online
Posted 12/15/18 , edited 12/15/18

foraslan wrote:


HeavyFry wrote:
Lucifer guards the grace and gates of Heaven without his own knowledge.

I believe it is within John to say, "I am the true vine."

Lucifer had become the branch. He was turning onto the path of righteous designation. He was becoming a part of himself that no longer felt the need for illness.

God had become omnipresent because His feeling was of something inconsistent within Him.

Many motives were gathered into an affinity for healing.

The Angels became tardy and restless.

The truth had become overt. Justice had become vengeance.

Lucifer had begun to contemplate what it meant to believe in honored traditions that had been passed down for eons. Who am I to have questioned the beliefs and motifs of thyself? It is only within the unknown that premonition can take shape. The mold in which our desires, hopes, and dreams drift into a realm of the mind that conjures reality had wondered through the Grace and Gates of Heaven. The Gates of Heaven had shifted; warding mischievousness into blessings that no man could resist.

In the mortal realm, man began to suffer. From that suffering came reward in the shape of apologetic apathy.

The population started to thrive. Cities began to bustle. Rock and water were on demand, and the illusive man took his fair share.

However, Lucifer wasn't swayed. He had begun harking at a world without illness. He thought of the lessons time had bestowed upon the bush that burned beyond its own capacity to retain heat. Could this be the reprisal of a world having yet to exist?

Lucifer had begun to feel violated. The immensity this feeling had possessed involuntarily involved him in revenge.

God turned a blind eye.

To be continued ...



Wtf. None of that is even remotely relevant to this thread. If you want to develop and publicize your own systematic theology, by all means do so. In another thread.


It's a story that describes how reason was undermined by the thought itself. This story is actually a popular biblical belief that coincides with exactly what has been laid out in the OP.

Oh no, my grammatical structure! I'm sorry, I don't eat eggs. The end.
36324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 12/15/18 , edited 12/15/18

AnimeObserver123 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:

You're not seeing the point. I never said God was the source of all truth and knowledge but explain to me how what I just said invalidates that. Yes God has all the answers but that does not mean that he will give everything to you while you sit on your backside all day. It doesn't mean that God is not the source of truth. Besides God is not a person. He is a divine entity or something like that. You cannot define God with mere logic.
then why are you in this thread ??


-_-....

That's kind of a valid point. You proffer that a god cannot be explained with logic as if that helps your case.
1685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/15/18 , edited 12/16/18

HeavyFry wrote:
It's a story that describes how reason was undermined by the thought itself. This story is actually a popular biblical belief that coincides with exactly what has been laid out in the OP.


Coincidence =/= relevance. If you want me to see the relevance of your comment, please ditch the story and just get to the point. Or retell the story with some elaboration to tie it into the OP. Does it somehow shed light on any of the claims made? If so, I can't see it.


HeavyFry wrote:
Oh no, my grammatical structure! I'm sorry, I don't eat eggs. The end.


I never mentioned your grammar. This is the second time in two comments where you've written something with no apparent connection to the topic at hand.
2808 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/16/18 , edited 12/16/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:

You're not seeing the point. I never said God was the source of all truth and knowledge but explain to me how what I just said invalidates that. Yes God has all the answers but that does not mean that he will give everything to you while you sit on your backside all day. It doesn't mean that God is not the source of truth. Besides God is not a person. He is a divine entity or something like that. You cannot define God with mere logic.
then why are you in this thread ??


-_-....

That's kind of a valid point. You proffer that a god cannot be explained with logic as if that helps your case.

Thought we were done with this but oh well.
Maybe because you guys were saying that logic exists and everything can be understood so God can't exist.
224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Online
Posted 12/16/18 , edited 29 days ago


It was said that Lilith is the counter part to Lucifer. Lucifer is the reason behind God.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.