Naa bay weakness ang Dios?

[brownprose]

---

@gray fox

ever heard of BEGGING THE QUESTION aka CIRCULAR REASONING before.



TA-DA.

hahahaha...

[Gray_Fox]

nope, that's how FAULTY your reasoning is. and puhhlease, there are more older TEXTS than your bible, does that mean they are much STRONGER. i dont think so.

and point is, what you are saying is pretty much pointless. that's the point.

STEER CLEAR FROM CIRCULAR REASONING.

there might be some flaws in my posts. i can admit that. I'm just a human but as you can see... you're pointing a finger on me that I said I am much stronger than anyone one of you. i never said anything like that. in fact.. i made one


I'm just telling that I believe that God is perfect like some of the people who posted here. God has no weakness and our source of knowledge about God is the bible.

you clearly misunderstood. thats why you're focusing the bible instead of God's weakness like what is said in the title of this thread.

Here is a chart that make sense from your posts.


Munzter666 says it’s a faulty to believe in the bible*. <-- sorry i was in a hurry.

[tokidoki_v2.0]

kapoy sige basi sa bible. if you can't trust your sources the only thing you can trust is yourself. so you can start with that.

let's set aside pointless and *****ic references to religious texts that each of us have already established we can't agree upon.

ockham's razor simplify the issue: Have you experienced or seen these flaws of this higher being around you? Before you answer that, of course, it would be too much for me to ask you to "unlearn" what your egotistical (gay?!) and self-serving religious leaders taught you at the time when you were actually smarter than what you are now.

[kenshinsasuke]

there might be some flaws in my posts. i can admit that. I'm just a human but as you can see... you're pointing a finger on me that I said I am much stronger than anyone one of you. i never said anything like that. in fact.. i made one


I'm just telling that I believe that God is perfect like some of the people who posted here. God has no weakness and our source of knowledge about God is the bible.

you clearly misunderstood. thats why you're focusing the bible instead of God's weakness like what is said in the title of this thread.

Here is a chart that make sense from your posts.


Munzter666 says it’s a faulty to believe in the bible*. <-- sorry i was in a hurry.

hehehe,..dili man ko motoo ni ani,...

self-righteous ug self-claim ra kaayu,...hehe,..

[Alel]

yes really. how can someone exist if he's not real? and how is something real that don't exist? like i said.. make up your mind.

e.g. - juan is real. everyone knows juan is real. but he doesn't exist... <-- another ridiculous thought.

That statement to be true, depending on the Juan you are referring.

The point is, not everything 'real' is 'existing'. But everything that 'exists' is 'real'...Same logic when you say that not all quadrilaterals are square, but all squares are quadrilateral.

Im talking about 'reality' and 'existence' here in the old philosophical sense, not common language. I am using it this way because I was hoping it would us to understand our sides better. (But it seems it is confusing you more, instead.)

so now you're questioning our source instead of the weaknesses of God. LOL.

Because your 'proof' itself is weak. That's the point!

i don't expect you to believe in our source.

Well, good. At least you now realize how unbelievable it is. Congrats.

care to tell me where will we gonna be next?

As for me, I could move on.

As for you, I think you will be stuck running around in circles with circular logic.


Alel

[Gray_Fox]

That statement to be true, depending on the Juan you are referring.

The point is, not everything 'real' is 'existing'. But everything that 'exists' is 'real'...Same logic when you say that not all quadrilaterals are square, but all squares are quadrilateral.

Im talking about 'reality' and 'existence' here in the old philosophical sense, not common language. I am using it this way because I was hoping it would us to understand our sides better. (But it seems it is confusing you more, instead.)



Because your 'proof' itself is weak. That's the point!


Well, good. At least you now realize how unbelievable it is. Congrats.



As for me, I could move on.

As for you, I think you will be stuck running around in circles with circular logic.


Alel

yeah yeah... whatever. we've heard all the insults of our belief so many times before but the bible still stands. thats how "weak" you say? oh please.....

so what you're saying is you dont believe in God (doesn't exist) but you believe in God (he is real). thats your logic? and thats how you know he has weaknesses. ok.. thanks for sharing it here. your logic doesn't make any sense on how you manage to tell that God has a weakness.

[noigwen]

if u r saying dat God has a weakness, its blasphemy!! how can u say dat he has weakness when he is perfect??

if u r arguing the existence of God, my teacher in philosophy said that God did not exist!! because when u say He exist, makita unta kuno nato Siya? hehehe.. but anyweiz, he still believe dat their is God.. God the creator.. how can such thing exist if their is no creator??

[Alel]

yeah yeah... whatever. we've heard all the insults of our belief so many times before but the bible still stands. thats how "weak" you say? oh please.....

so what you're saying is you dont believe in God (doesn't exist) but you believe in God (he is real). thats your logic? and thats how you know he has weaknesses. ok.. thanks for sharing it here. your logic doesn't make any sense on how you manage to tell that God has a weakness.

Its how you interpret it. As I said, Im not using those terms in common language, but rather in the old philosophical sense (which cause confusion, and is used less at the time being). Just drop it off if you dont understand it. Its useless if you dont. Nevermind.

And again, and i'll repeat it the 5th or 6th time, I am not referring to the god I believe that does not exist. I am referring to the god that you claim is perfect but who your own words also betray. In short,
I am questioning the reasoning behind your claims that your god is perfect.
Gets?


Alel

[The_Child]

That statement to be true, depending on the Juan you are referring.

The point is, not everything 'real' is 'existing'. But everything that 'exists' is 'real'...Same logic when you say that not all quadrilaterals are square, but all squares are quadrilateral.

Im talking about 'reality' and 'existence' here in the old philosophical sense, not common language. I am using it this way because I was hoping it would us to understand our sides better. (But it seems it is confusing you more, instead.)



Because your 'proof' itself is weak. That's the point!


Well, good. At least you now realize how unbelievable it is. Congrats.



As for me, I could move on.

As for you, I think you will be stuck running around in circles with circular logic.


Alel

Im not partisan. but in fairness to grayfox, i think he got it correct in someway that you committed a fallacy in this argument. Particularly since you mentioned that you are using old school philosophical terms. You got it mixed-up: you mentioned not all Real is Existing but everything Existing is Real. Besides that, its somehow a contradiction.

In old school philosophical terms, there are two kinds of existence, real and logical. So Existence here is the universal and the real and logical are particulars. So, you mixed them up. it supposed to be, all Real are Existing but not all existent is Real.


Cheers! so in fairness to grayfox lang. since you accused him of not understanding it, which i think he pretty much got it right, using common sense.

[Alel]

Im not partisan. but in fairness to grayfox, i think he got it correct in someway that you committed a fallacy in this argument. Particularly since you mentioned that you are using old school philosophical terms. You got it mixed-up: you mentioned not all Real is Existing but everything Existing is Real. Its only a contradiction.

In old school philosophical terms, there are two kinds of existence, real and logical. So Existence here is the universal and the real and logical are particulars. So, you mixed them up. it supposed to be, all Real are Existing but not all existent is Real.


Cheers! so in fairness to grayfox lang. since you accused him of not understanding it, which i think he pretty much got it right, using common sense.

Aw yeah, darn..hehehe...

Labels can be confusing sometimes, when they differ very thinly.

I mixed up 'real' with the concept of models of reality. Thats why.


@GrayFox: My bad...


Alel