Don't mean to be insulting, but you sound like you don't
know, and you really don't give a damn.


Wrong. I care, but I also see the problem as unsolvable. I'm sure not taking
anyone's word for it. And that's all god is, a belief passed on through
generations. Pretty much how Voodoo survived into modern times. Still, I can't
prove there's no god to my satisfaction, so the possibility exists however
remote. An Athiest is certain that there is no god which is in itself a type of
close minded faith as narrow as any other.

Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing
in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god -open to
consideration, discussion and so on.

RB

Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God)
is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god -open to
consideration, discussion and so on.

RB

But with the above definition, you make a divine joke of yourself. You are
permanently seeking the answer to a question you don't believe can ever be
answered. It's the futility of academics.

EdGordonRN wrote:
Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality
(as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of
God or a god -open to consideration, discussion and so on.

But with the above definition, you make a divine joke of yourself.
You are permanently seeking the answer to a question you don't
believe can ever be answered. It's the futility of academics.

The definition doesn't mention *seeking* an answer. There's a difference
between actively looking for something, and being willing to consider new
ideas or evidence.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

The definition doesn't mention *seeking* an answer. There's a difference
between actively looking for something, and being willing to consider new
ideas or evidence.

But what evidence could there ever be of God? By the very definition and idea
of God, we have to assume that all matter and consciousness is made from God,
becuase God is the only thing that can actually exist. If that is the case,
then looking for the evidence of God is the ultimate
missing-the-forest-for-the-trees, yes/no?

Ah. I think that's a handicap most of us could live with [being rich].


It kills you.

So I take it you hate your family.

Jesus considered only one kind of relationship to be real--the oneness of God.
If I am God and my wife is God, then we are one. If I prefer to consider her
seperate from me "a wife" Then I actually hate her (that is, I work for our
separation). If I love her for real, then we are one, and that is the
equivalent of hating her as my wife--Therefore, in truth, I hate my wife
because I believe we are one, not two. That particular teaching of Christ is
difficult to understand and requires an entirely different mental paradigm
regarding relationships, love and hate.

EdGordonRN wrote:

By the very definition
and idea of God, we have to assume that all matter and consciousness
is made from God, becuase God is the only thing that can actually
exist.

You can't define god into existence.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

You can't define god into existence.

I'm just saying that if indeed there is a God, ontologically speaking (that is,
by the very nature of the word "God"), we wouldn't be able to find evidence in
nature that would stick out from nature. In other words, the very existence of
a rock, or a plant, or anything else would be overwhelming proof of God's
existence. It's not the proof of God's existence we need to look for. There
can't be proof, per se. Jesus said, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door
shall be opened. We have to believe in God first, then all the proof stares us
in the face.

EdGordonRN wrote:
You can't define god into existence.

I'm just saying that if indeed there is a God, ontologically speaking
(that is, by the very nature of the word "God"), we wouldn't be able
to find evidence in nature that would stick out from nature. In other
words, the very existence of a rock, or a plant, or anything else
would be overwhelming proof of God's existence.

IF there is a god, then some arbitrary bit of 'evidence' would prove he
exists?!?

Are you for real? Do you realise that there are people who don't believe in
god, and for whom all the 'proof' that every believer tried to cite has not
made them change their minds? The rocks and plants prove *nothing* about the
existence of god.


We have to believe in God first, then all the proof stares us
in the face.

Do you know what "proof" means?


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Wally asked: the ultimate
missing-the-forest-for-the-trees, yes/no?

Yes, but you'll never get some here to understand that and it just becomes
an argument....

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein