Sentences with phrase «argument about god»

So, there is little public argument about God and nature in «Creation,» no actual manifestation of the intellectual and spiritual tumult his theories would inspire.

And the «borrowed from Zen philosophy» argument about God's will interpreting what is just and good, not mortal man, does not apply when the rules are enforced by child molesters who are as open minded as the Hitler's Youth clubs they spawned from.

He's still upset because he lost that argument about god / no god from a couple pages ago.

Your argument about God being responsible directly or indirectly in the negative events of our world would be the same regardless.

Gary, you do a wonderful service to my arguments about God - talk fans.

... psst arguments about god are discredited from the get go until gods can be properly defined and demonstrated to exist.

The atheists are seeking out arguments about God because this is their way of getting closer to destination that they are denying themselves.

since none exists, atheists lack the moral authority and the common sense to make credible arguments about god's existence and his character

In other words, consciousness controversies can be finessed in just the same way as arguments about God.

Not exact matches

Lets dispense with the creationism argument... this is really an argument about the existence of God (God being the necessary precursor for any «creationist» event).

Tony Dgee I think that the argument boils down to nonbelievers not believing in God, but in chance which they know they can't depend on to act favorably, so they do all that they can to bring about positive change for themselves.

And those that don't say that stuff instead opting to argue and dissect and article or argument for / about god doesn't show they make any positive claims to the existence of such a being, but instead to show how ridiculous and irrational somethings are.

Hi Colin, your argument about science pushing God into some small corner that will someday be illuminated is short sighted because it fails to account for the very distinct possibility that the universe is infinite, thus there are no dark corners and no final illumination... study this thoroughly and also the incompleteness theorems of the great mathematician Godel.

You were talking first about believing IN god and then about believing (the arguments of?)

This is why arguments about what god wants are as discredited as arguments about who people were in their last life or what Xenu wants amongst the rational.

That's not an argument for God, but it does tell a very different story about Him from the one told by Fry.

This is even more true for arguments about what «god» supposedly wants.

Do your rallying where it does the most good and for God sake, make your arguments about more then «so and so wants us to be poor» and «so and so just wants to be rich».

William Chip and Michael Scaperlanda renew their argument about the churches and immigration, while Gary Anderson undertakes a critical examination of the important recent book from Kevin J. Madigan and Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians and Jews.

It's also similar to an argument I made about trying not to put God in a box: pushing that sentiment to the extreme can be a form of putting God in a box labeled «not the box.»

As for the claim that if one simply waits long enough with an open heart, God will reveal Himself — that same argument is made by just about every religion.

«My BELIEF is that people reject God», Funny that L4H talks about twisting of facts when she begins the argument with a statement based on personal opinion.

I have wondered about all of the arguments about the Church doing our thinking when there is no Church requirement to carry a card identifying yourself as a Catholic, no requirement to give money or do anything other than love God and travel as well as you can on your journey to heaven.

So one of the most stupid arguments of atheists, about not «seeing» God does nothing to convince but a few fools.

The originality of Hartshorne's discussions about the nature of God, and particularly his daring and novel defense of the ontological argument, have led some to overlook the fact that, as he himself says, his primary interest lies elsewhere.

I have always gotten a kick out the argument that if you don't agree with ME about what the bible means then it must be because you don't believe God or the bible.

Not to mention, this entire post is one long and contra - biblical argument that you / we shouldn't argue about theology, without ever setting forth clear and logical propositions that NOT arguing (again, fill in whatever verb you're more comfortable with, the result is the same) theology honors God more than standing in the gap and defending the truth he has set forth once and for all.

I have yet to see any proof of a god, and most of this nonsense is about their god, so at some point their arguments or lack of them will always have that one huge hole in them.

The argument for this implication seems to be that if God is necessary being there can be nothing contingent about him.

Mascall's argument, we have seen, is that in fact we do discuss meaningfully about God in these terms without claiming that our use is univocal.

And while the possibility of being wrong about God does not mean you can not have your views and defend them, it does mean that you need to listen to the thoughtful arguments of those who disagree with you.»

Think about it; your argument is utterly absurd if your god is truly loving as you claim.

I can't spot any direct argument about the existence of god besides the first one?

Then she claims some unspecified «simple logic of cause and effect» (talk about a hand - waving argument), wherein an effect must have a cause, but a first cause can just be, and must logically be the God of the book of Genesis.

Another important insight provided by Hartshorne's work on the ontological argument is into the logical status of claims about God.

So if what Jesus said to Philip can't be used to teach us about the nature and character of God because it's historical narrative, then this same argument applies to every text in the Bible, and you can also not use anything from the Law, the Writings, the Prophets, the Gospels, or the Epistles.

One insight provided by Hartshorne's work on the ontological argument is that the concept of the existence of God is something akin to a regulative idea for the rational thought about reality which is attempted in Hartshorne's metaphysics.

It is the problematic character of this step which makes the ontological argument unsatisfactory as a proof of God's existence although in the case of Hartshorne himself it was perhaps taken, implicitly if not explicitly, when, as he tells us, «about the age of seventeen, after reading Emerson's Essays, I made up my mind (doubtless with a somewhat hazy notion of what I was doing) to trust reason to the end» (LP viii).

When people use this argument they are saying is that atheists must know everything there is to know about the universe before we can determine that their God is not included in that universe.

To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in creationism / intelligent design is in the 21st Century, here are some areas they must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo - Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.

To those who think attributing scientific results to God is a poor argument, just think about the big bang... it probably happened but where did the atoms come from to create the big bang?

Kant set the problem with his argument against any knowledge of the Ding an sich, the thing in itself, and Schleiermacher represents the first great attempt to accept that turn and still talk about God in a meaningful way.

Kuntz, Paul G., «The Ontological Argument and «God Is Dead»: Some Questions about God; Ways of Logic, History, and Metaphysics in Answering Them,» Journal of the American Academy of Religion 38, 1 (March, 1970), 55, 58 - 60, 62, 63, 64f, 66f, 68, 76.

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

Dude, If these religious folk know more about science why do they deny the parts that invalidate arguments for gods?

The arguments about the existence of god have all been exhausted.

I will here only state my belief that it will be found that the primitive kerygma arises directly out of the teaching of Jesus about the Kingdom of God and all that hangs upon it; but that it does only partial justice to the range and depth of His teaching, and needs the Pauline and Johannine interpretations before it fully rises to the height of the great argument.

My new table of 16 (or 32) options in thinking conceptually about God yields an argument for just one of the 32 options so strong that I find it reasonable to hope that metaphysics and physics will between them find a way to solve the problems Griffin outlines with characteristic ability.

The argument about «cosmic» gods comes close to a confusion of the problem.

Justin notes that Paul's rhetorical strategy here is to begin by talking about wicked people who had turned from God and gotten caught up in all kinds of sins, only to turn the argument on his readers by declaring, «Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges.