jayriginal:

Having faith in an impersonal God is like saying I have faith that my car will start in the morning. I don't think faith is the appropriate word to use in either circumstance.
Believing in a personal God is what requires faith.

Don't see how you justify the first sentence.

Many people believe an impersonal force created the universe and call that GOD. This requires FAITH also.

We have not even defined or agreed what is a personal or impersonal God. I suspect were we to attempt to do so it would revolve around self awareness. Although IF GOD exists and created everything then it is somewhat arrogant for us to think we can define him. Be aware of some of the characteristics would be the best we could hope for.

KoloOyinbo:


Don't see how you justify the first sentence.

Many people believe an impersonal force created the universe and call that GOD. This requires FAITH also.

We have not even defined or agreed what is a personal or impersonal God. I suspect were we to attempt to do so it would revolve around self awareness. Although IF GOD exists and created everything then it is somewhat arrogant for us to think we can define him. Be aware of some of the characteristics would be the best we could hope for.

A personal God would be one with stated attributes. These attributes are taken on faith and the personal God knowingly and willingly created for a purpose.

jayriginal:


A personal God would be one with stated attributes. These attributes are taken on faith and the personal God knowingly and willingly created for a purpose.

You mean the attributes I stated? If would have tried to be more precise and specific if I thought you were leaving it up to me! LOL.

I'm sure there must be more (either implicit or explicit) but the Self Aware thing seems fundamental!

If this gets any 'heavier' I will need some kai kai and 'bushmeat' - (the two legged kind)! LOL

KoloOyinbo:


I think you would have to ask the agnostic. Besides if you are not sure if a God exists or as in the case of an atheist believe God does not exist then you don't have any Characteristics to go on!

If we accept (for the sake of the argument) that God exists then as God created the Universe such a God would be infinitely beyond our understanding or feeble attempts to define. I have my own person way of thinking of God but again THATS JUST ME. Others may well disagree and are very entitled to do so.

I don't mind the questions at all! If you want you can email them direct to me. I hope you are getting something from my answers even if it is just curiosity!

If it helps any I consider myself a non denominational Christian although I am SOOOOO liberal in my thoughts that MANY people would not consider me Christian. (Again MANY other debates there)!

The agnostic does not have nor creates God, the theist does, and we rely on the definitions given by the theists. The agnostic does not enjoy an independent source of knowledge that supplies the information on God. How did we know God was metaphysical? because the theist said so.

I appreciate your open mindness.

Kay17:


The agnostic does not have nor creates God, the theist does, and we rely on the definitions given by the theists. The agnostic does not enjoy an independent source of knowledge that supplies the information on God. How did we know God was metaphysical? because the theist said so.

I appreciate your open mindness.

YOU were the one asking what God the agnostic had in mind not me! Some agnostics are more of I don't care than I cant decide and so may have nothing in mind! That why I said you should ask them.

There is NO independent source of knowledge. IF there was then we could PROVE one way or the other!

IF God exists then he (again a presumption that God is HE) existed before the Physical Universe and independent/outside of its Physical Laws hence the term metaphysical.

KoloOyinbo:


You mean the attributes I stated? If would have tried to be more precise and specific if I thought you were leaving it up to me! LOL.

I'm sure there must be more (either implicit or explicit) but the Self Aware thing seems fundamental!

If this gets any 'heavier' I will need some kai kai and 'bushmeat' - (the two legged kind)! LOL

No I didn't mean attributes according to you. I mean attributes according to any particular religion pronouncing its God and demanding faith.

KoloOyinbo:


YOU were the one asking what God the agnostic had in mind not me! Some agnostics are more of I don't care than I cant decide and so may have nothing in mind! That why I said you should ask them.

There is NO independent source of knowledge. IF there was then we could PROVE one way or the other!

IF God exists then he (again a presumption that God is HE) existed before the Physical Universe and independent/outside of its Physical Laws hence the term metaphysical.

C'mon! Multiverses which are hypothesized to be outside our universe, does that make it metaphysical?! NO, it does not. Rather people just play around with words like physical and spiritual and transcendental without any real implication.

I just wanted you to realize that God is an overly subjective idea because if atheists decide to create their own Gods to disprove whilst the agnostics create theirs that is defined beyond proofs and theists . . . do what they do best create GOD, there would be confusion and no effective dialogue. That is why I insist theists have the sole responsibility of proving God's existence. In the absence of such, it is valid to dismiss an ineffective proof.

Kay17:


C'mon! Multiverses which are hypothesized to be outside our universe, does that make it metaphysical?! NO, it does not. Rather people just play around with words like physical and spiritual and transcendental without any real implication.

I just wanted you to realize that God is an overly subjective idea because if atheists decide to create their own Gods to disprove whilst the agnostics create theirs that is defined beyond proofs and theists . . . do what they do best create GOD, there would be confusion and no effective dialogue. That is why I insist theists have the sole responsibility of proving God's existence. In the absence of such, it is valid to dismiss an ineffective proof.

There is no proof of multiverses and they are irrelevant to this either way.

You second paragraph is merely a restatement of the basic unsupported atheistic ideas which have to be taken on FAITH alone precisely because they are unsupported.

You CANT prove Gods existence or NON existence so why you keep introducing this irrelevancy is unknown. So nobody has the responsibility of proving anything.

In the absence of a PROOF either way the individual is free to take either choice on a personal basis. You seem to have trouble grasping this and yet it a very simple point.

I have stated my own personal reasons why I choose God and find that for me it is a much superior choice. If I did not then I would have to be agnostic as atheism seems too alien to the nature of the majority (personal observation). It just seems to have absolutely nothing to offer. Might still be true of course but is such a miserable and empty creed that I (again personal observation) cannot understand its attraction to any human.

If you get something out it (an illusion that your are more rational than a Theist {NO we are both equally less rational than the agnostic} or some idea that you are freer as you only have your own personal moral code to follow {newsflash - most theists do this themselves or choose freely the set of beliefs which coincide with their own values}) then good for you - enjoy. But please realise that the opposing point of view is every bit a valid as you. As for the atheists who attack Theism I pity and dismiss them even more than the misguided Theists who think there is a proof of God.

Hope that answers your questions and gives you a deeper understand of these two points of view.

jayriginal:


No I didn't mean attributes according to you. I mean attributes according to any particular religion pronouncing its God and demanding faith.

OK. I was trying to keep things to a general Theist level. If we introduce specific religions then everything gets very quickly complicated as they will never agree except in the most general sense.

I have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that we were talking about monotheistic ideas rather than Polytheistic.

I suppose the main attribute is existence and we must consider present or absent!

KoloOyinbo:


OK. I was trying to keep things to a general Theist level. If we introduce specific religions then everything gets very quickly complicated as they will never agree except in the most general sense.

I have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that we were talking about monotheistic ideas rather than Polytheistic.

I suppose the main attribute is existence and we must consider present or absent!

Monotheistic ideas will do as they present less complications.

I'm not particular about any specific religion. All I'm saying is that each religion defines its God with attributes they claim to know through revelations of sorts. That's what I'm referring to as a personal God.

KoloOyinbo:


There is no proof of multiverses and they are irrelevant to this either way.

You second paragraph is merely a restatement of the basic unsupported atheistic ideas which have to be taken on FAITH alone precisely because they are unsupported.

You CANT prove Gods existence or NON existence so why you keep introducing this irrelevancy is unknown. So nobody has the responsibility of proving anything.

In the absence of a PROOF either way the individual is free to take either choice on a personal basis. You seem to have trouble grasping this and yet it a very simple point.

I have stated my own personal reasons why I choose God and find that for me it is a much superior choice. If I did not then I would have to be agnostic as atheism seems too alien to the nature of the majority (personal observation). It just seems to have absolutely nothing to offer. Might still be true of course but is such a miserable and empty creed that I (again personal observation) cannot understand its attraction to any human.

If you get something out it (an illusion that your are more rational than a Theist {NO we are both equally less rational than the agnostic} or some idea that you are freer as you only have your own personal moral code to follow {newsflash - most theists do this themselves or choose freely the set of beliefs which coincide with their own values}) then good for you - enjoy. But please realise that the opposing point of view is every bit a valid as you. As for the atheists who attack Theism I pity and dismiss them even more than the misguided Theists who think there is a proof of God.

Hope that answers your questions and gives you a deeper understand of these two points of view.

I have respect for all views, that is why I believe a dialogue is occurring between the various views.

Yes there is no proof for the Multiverse, yet the idea remains that physicality or whatever it means cannot be categorically be restricted to our universe like you proposing.

If I asked you to define this God you talk about, whose definition would you use?

Their's only one KoloOyinbo who's believes his over the top in worldly knowledge. And besides there's to much evidence to prove others wise, that God don't exist.
Read up on the Spear of Destiny, the Holy lance-a book was written after proven evidence, that God does exist, that same Spear that pierce into Jesus side on the cross. Some say, the Germans or the Russians have the Holy lance hidden?

One may ask-why hide anything that belongs to the truth.
Look at the Roman Catholic Church they also committed that same crime, they hid the truth away from God's people for centuries.

See the word of God was written for all "God's creation, but the Catholic Church, had other idea's, they knew if people found the truth about Christ, they couldn't have the full control of the world's population any longer. That's why you have a Pope, he controls Rome and the world who follows after him.
The Church had committed this crime against God, this crime is beyond measure, Only God can forgive.

Since time begin, many of our men and women have now found the truth, and no-man has control over us any longer, only Jesus is our Lord and saviour.
And even to this day Pope Francis is calling all believers, from different dominations to become once again under a New World Religion.
Why the Church of Rome wants to be in full control again.

The Church changed what was a Jewish language, into a Latin version, so few could only understand, while many were still confused, the Catholic Church went through a lot of hidden trouble, if God didn't exist.

It was certain men and women, who had found the hidden secrets about the truth that God does exist, like in the 1500's AD William Tydale who was burnt to the steak by the Catholic Church, because he found the truth, he knew the Latin language and he had rewritten what was Latin to a English version so everyone could understand the truth about Christ.

All the apostles were murdered because of the truth, even the Roman Catholic Church had Emperor Nero to Crucify Peter {Who the Catholic Church declares He was the founder and their first Pope} he was murdered by crucifixion, up side down, after they decapitated the apostle Paul .
Why, because God exist.

Don't be confused-the evidence is everywhere "God exist, plenty of evidence if you know where to look. Most people start from the bible..

KoloOyinbo:


Yes I do. By FAITH. If you could prove God then it would invalidate FAITH. Have we not had this discussion before or am I confusing you with someone else?

brocab:
Their's only one KoloOyinbo who's believes his over the top in worldly knowledge. And besides there's to much evidence to prove others wise, that God don't exist.
Read up on the Spear of Destiny, the Holy lance-a book was written after proven evidence, that God does exist, that same Spear that pierce into Jesus side on the cross. Some say, the Germans or the Russians have the Holy lance hidden?

One may ask-why hide anything that belongs to the truth.
Look at the Roman Catholic Church they also committed that same crime, they hid the truth away from God's people for centuries.

See the word of God was written for all "God's creation, but the Catholic Church, had other idea's, they knew if people found the truth about Christ, they couldn't have the full control of the world's population any longer. That's why you have a Pope, he controls Rome and the world who follows after him.
The Church had committed this crime against God, this crime is beyond measure, Only God can forgive.

Since time begin, many of our men and women have now found the truth, and no-man has control over us any longer, only Jesus is our Lord and saviour.
And even to this day Pope Francis is calling all believers, from different dominations to become once again under a New World Religion.
Why the Church of Rome wants to be in full control again.

The Church changed what was a Jewish language, into a Latin version, so few could only understand, while many were still confused, the Catholic Church went through a lot of hidden trouble, if God didn't exist.

It was certain men and women, who had found the hidden secrets about the truth that God does exist, like in the 1500's AD William Tydale who was burnt to the steak by the Catholic Church, because he found the truth, he knew the Latin language and he had rewritten what was Latin to a English version so everyone could understand the truth about Christ.

All the apostles were murdered because of the truth, even the Roman Catholic Church had Emperor Nero to Crucify Peter {Who the Catholic Church declares He was the founder and their first Pope} he was murdered by crucifixion, up side down, after they decapitated the apostle Paul .
Why, because God exist.

Don't be confused-the evidence is everywhere "God exist, plenty of evidence if you know where to look. Most people start from the bible..

If proof of God existed the bible would NOT mention FAITH as it would be irrelevant!

There is no proof he does not exist either and indeed CAN BE NO PROOF either way.

We have had this argument before MANY times.

Your lac of understanding of Christianity is pathetic as your futile uneducated arguments. And your many errors above (historical including William Tyndale and factual - Greek is not a Jewish Language and the New Testament was mostly in Greek. The reason for putting the Bible in Latin by the early Church was that the Latin language did not change as it was by then academic only. Same reason Science uses it today.

I think I remember you now. Are you the guy who believes in Youtube and Illuminati and hidden bunkers all over the world?

The Catholic hate and bigotry comes out yet again even to someone who is not Catholic (FOOL).

Kay17:


I have respect for all views, that is why I believe a dialogue is occurring between the various views.

Yes there is no proof for the Multiverse, yet the idea remains that physicality or whatever it means cannot be categorically be restricted to our universe like you proposing.

If I asked you to define this God you talk about, whose definition would you use?

Yes no proof for or against multiverse we accept that either view is taken on Faith only. Just Like the Theist and Atheist position.

I will be happy to define my own PERSONAL idea of God but only privately as there are too many fools about who just challenge things with lack of thought to generate an argument and it would detract from the thread. Or if someone opens a thread (without my name this time) I may drop in from time to time with a comment.

jayriginal:


Monotheistic ideas will do as they present less complications.

I'm not particular about any specific religion. All I'm saying is that each religion defines its God with attributes they claim to know through revelations of sorts. That's what I'm referring to as a personal God.

No argument. That is a valid stance!

KoloOyinbo:


Yes no proof for or against multiverse we accept that either view is taken on Faith only. Just Like the Theist and Atheist position.

I will be happy to define my own PERSONAL idea of God but only privately as there are too many fools about who just challenge things with lack of thought to generate an argument and it would detract from the thread. Or if someone opens a thread (without my name this time) I may drop in from time to time with a comment.

Don't you think atheists, agnostics and theists have to talk about the same God, there has to be that unity otherwise there is no true dialogue.

Kay17:


Don't you think atheists, agnostics and theists have to talk about the same God, there has to be that unity otherwise there is no true dialogue.

Then there will never be dialogue for they have never agreed! Did you not know this?

When you make a statement please take a moment to reflect on the follow on consequences and what they imply.

KoloOyinbo:


Then there will never be dialogue for they have never agreed! Did you not know this?

When you make a statement please take a moment to reflect on the follow on consequences and what they imply.

But there is indeed a dialogue amongst these people, and that is why it is important they refer to the same God otherwise you can not claim the agnostic has proofs and the atheists and the theists do not.

ooman:


So easy to say. There is no god/God - Whatever. I am as certain that there is no god as I am that tortoises do not carry earth on their back.

You are so unbelievably funny sometimes ooman. This is my favorite statement of this entire thread thus far.

You couldn't forget me that easy, because one tells a few truths about ones religion does not mean one hates Catholic's, so the greater fool is you, to even believe such rubbish-you say this argument is uneducated, of course it is to you Mr KoloOyinbo, the word of God frightens you. Having little knowledge in the word' as yourself, you show strong evidence who the true hater is, you would rather throw insults and abuse to those who are learning about God each day.
And that's a normal reaction from someone who has no understanding in any truth about God. Even the Atheist who aren't interested Mr KoloOyinbo act the same as you do..

You call yourself a Christian, Jesus has given us the truth, who God is-and God exist? A fool would say, no-one can prove such evidence. Is that you?
Well I am going to re-educate you, so when this Question is ever asked again, you can tell the truth that God does exist' and living in us all.
As it's written the first commandment the Lord had given us, is Love. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, Where there's Love, God exist. God so loved the world that He gave His own begotten Son to save the world. No one has seen God at any time, because God is love.

You wouldn't know that, you fill your belly up with religious rubbish, there's not enough room for you, to even know' the true meanings of God.
For anybody who says they can't prove if God exist, either way, shows clearly he or she is not filled with the Holy Spirit, to even know the true meaning of love-and If you had the Spirit of God you would know' the love that's in you, shines out' so the world can see, God exist..
Even the atheist show love, love is spread across the nations.. God made man' so we can "all' share His love in Him, as He shares His love in as.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one, the Father of love and Jesus are one, which proves God does exist and living. God made lovers not haters-every man women and child are made in the image of God.
The truth lays within, {God is Love} Any body who believes God don't exist, is a lair, and the truth is not in them.

You need to study up on your computer history more often, From one language to another it was William Tydale and others had risk their own life's only to help save millions over the centuries, so the word of God can be preached in ones own languages around the world.
"Why would the larger's, oldest, Church standing would want to murder God's beloved people?
ANSWER>BECAUSE FOR CENTURIES IT'S BEEN THE CHURCH OF ROME WHO CONTROLS THE WORLD WITHOUT GOD..

The truth in the matter is, all those Churches that follow after Mother Church, the Church of Rome-need to turn from their sinful ways, repent and ask for, forgiveness, become a born again Christian, baptised in the Holy Spirit, and come follow after Christ.
I left you space so you can abuse me, after speaking again the word of God to you Mr KoloOyinbo.

KoloOyinbo:


If proof of God existed the bible would NOT mention FAITH as it would be irrelevant!

There is no proof he does not exist either and indeed CAN BE NO PROOF either way.

We have had this argument before MANY times.

Your lac of understanding of Christianity is pathetic as your futile uneducated arguments. And your many errors above (historical including William Tyndale and factual - Greek is not a Jewish Language and the New Testament was mostly in Greek. The reason for putting the Bible in Latin by the early Church was that the Latin language did not change as it was by then academic only. Same reason Science uses it today.

I think I remember you now. Are you the guy who believes in Youtube and Illuminati and hidden bunkers all over the world?

The Catholic hate and bigotry comes out yet again even to someone who is not Catholic (FOOL).

texanomaly:


You are so unbelievably funny sometimes ooman. This is my favorite statement of this entire thread thus far.

Perhaps it will be the favorite statement of your life if you can only think beyond your childhood inculcation.

This farce went on long enough. Regardless, an evangelicsl xtian cosmologist on kalam

www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/03/20/guest-post-don-page-on-god-and-cosmology/

Xtian doc:

In view of these beliefs of mine, I am not convinced that most philosophical arguments for the existence of God are very persuasive. In particular, I am highly skeptical of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I shall quote here from one of your slides, Bill:

1. If the universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause
which brought the universe into existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, there is a transcendent cause which brought the
universe into existence.


I do not believe that the first premise is metaphysically necessary, and I am also not at all sure that our universe had a beginning. (I do believe that the first premise is true in the actual world, since I do believe that God exists as a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence, but I do not see that this premise is true in all logically possible worlds.)

I agree with you, Sean, that we learn our ideas of causation from the lawfulness of nature and from the directionality of the second law of thermodynamics that lead to the commonsense view that causes precede their effects (or occur at the same time, if Bill insists). But then we have learned that the laws of physics are CPT invariant (essentially the same in each direction of time), so in a fundamental sense the future determines the past just as much as the past determines the future. I agree that just from our experience of the one-way causation we observe within the universe, which is just a merely effective description and not fundamental, we cannot logically derive the conclusion that the entire universe has a cause, since the effective unidirectional causation we commonly experience is something just within the universe and need not be extrapolated to a putative cause for the universe as a whole.

However, since to me the totality of data, including the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, is most simply explained by postulating that there is a God who is the Creator of the universe, I do believe by faith that God is indeed the cause of the universe (and indeed the ultimate Cause and Determiner of everything concrete, that is, everything not logically necessary, other than Himself—and I do believe, like Richard Swinburne, that God is concrete and not logically necessary, the ultimate brute fact). I have a hunch that God created a universe with apparent unidirectional causation in order to give His creatures some dim picture of the true causation that He has in relation to the universe He has created. But I do not see any metaphysical necessity in this.

So, even as the man still clearly suffers from some affliction, claiming there's historical evidence for the ressurection (let alone the life) of Jesus, this despite his also admitting his beliefs revolve around faith, he's still extra clear there's absolutely no reason to accept kalam's premises. Too much experience in the field overrides his irrational leanings it seems.

Some other folk though, they love to sit around on their armchairs and claim they've got solutions to questions they can't possibly have answers to...

brocab:
You couldn't forget me that easy, because one tells a few truths about ones religion does not mean one hates Catholic's, so the greater fool is you, to even believe such rubbish-you say this argument is uneducated, of course it is to you Mr KoloOyinbo, the word of God frightens you. Having little knowledge in the word' as yourself, you show strong evidence who the true hater is, you would rather throw insults and abuse to those who are learning about God each day.
And that's a normal reaction from someone who has no understanding in any truth about God. Even the Atheist who aren't interested Mr KoloOyinbo act the same as you do..

You call yourself a Christian, Jesus has given us the truth, who God is-and God exist? A fool would say, no-one can prove such evidence. Is that you?
Well I am going to re-educate you, so when this Question is ever asked again, you can tell the truth that God does exist' and living in us all.
As it's written the first commandment the Lord had given us, is Love. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, Where there's Love, God exist. God so loved the world that He gave His own begotten Son to save the world. No one has seen God at any time, because God is love.

You wouldn't know that, you fill your belly up with religious rubbish, there's not enough room for you, to even know' the true meanings of God.
For anybody who says they can't prove if God exist, either way, shows clearly he or she is not filled with the Holy Spirit, to even know the true meaning of love-and If you had the Spirit of God you would know' the love that's in you, shines out' so the world can see, God exist..
Even the atheist show love, love is spread across the nations.. God made man' so we can "all' share His love in Him, as He shares His love in as.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one, the Father of love and Jesus are one, which proves God does exist and living. God made lovers not haters-every man women and child are made in the image of God.
The truth lays within, {God is Love} Any body who believes God don't exist, is a lair, and the truth is not in them.

You need to study up on your computer history more often, From one language to another it was William Tydale and others had risk their own life's only to help save millions over the centuries, so the word of God can be preached in ones own languages around the world.
"Why would the larger's, oldest, Church standing would want to murder God's beloved people?
ANSWER>BECAUSE FOR CENTURIES IT'S BEEN THE CHURCH OF ROME WHO CONTROLS THE WORLD WITHOUT GOD..

The truth in the matter is, all those Churches that follow after Mother Church, the Church of Rome-need to turn from their sinful ways, repent and ask for, forgiveness, become a born again Christian, baptised in the Holy Spirit, and come follow after Christ.
I left you space so you can abuse me, after speaking again the word of God to you Mr KoloOyinbo.

As you don't say anything sensible or even have the slightest understanding of Christianity except to spout bigoted hate filled rubbish you are VERY EASY TO FORGET! (And the sooner the better )

Kay17:


But there is indeed a dialogue amongst these people, and that is why it is important they refer to the same God otherwise you can not claim the agnostic has proofs and the atheists and the theists do not.

Did you read ANY of the posts?

Where did get the nonsense that the agnostic has proof?

The agnostic realises there is no proof either way and so based on rationality cannot make a decision.

ooman:


Perhaps it will be the favorite statement of your life if you can only think beyond your childhood inculcation.

It is just funny that believers use the exact same words, except they say they do believe there is a God. Hmmm

KoloOyinbo:


Did you read ANY of the posts?

Where did get the nonsense that the agnostic has proof?

The agnostic realises there is no proof either way and so based on rationality cannot make a decision.

So your agnostic himself has no proof that God's existence cannot be justified for the absence of proofs?

And where is the rationality rooted? Because you yourself pointed out that rationality does not exist in a vacuum. AND you further pointed out that rationality can only justify validity and not truth. Since that is the case, your agnostic is merely bothered with the validity of God's existence and not the truth of his existence. I'm only following your footsteps.

Kay17:


So your agnostic himself has no proof that God's existence cannot be justified for the absence of proofs?

And where is the rationality rooted? Because you yourself pointed out that rationality does not exist in a vacuum. AND you further pointed out that rationality can only justify validity and not truth. Since that is the case, your agnostic is merely bothered with the validity of God's existence and not the truth of his existence. I'm only following your footsteps.

Goodness. Did you think about this analytically BEFORE you wrote it? Or was it just the first thing that popped into your head!

Mind you SOME agnostics feel that ONE day there may be an answer that will then allow them to know which is the true position.

Think about the three positions and try and see which one is rational!

And if you want to follow my footsteps read carefully what I say as you don't seem even to reference it or else do so wrongly.

Finally think about what is the difference (if any) of the validity of Gods existence (or not) and the truth of Gods existence (or not).

KoloOyinbo:


Goodness. Did you think about this analytically BEFORE you wrote it? Or was it just the first thing that popped into your head!

Mind you SOME agnostics feel that ONE day there may be an answer that will then allow them to know which is the true position.

Think about the three positions and try and see which one is rational!

And if you want to follow my footsteps read carefully what I say as you don't seem even to reference it or else do so wrongly.

Finally think about what is the difference (if any) of the validity of Gods existence (or not) and the truth of Gods existence (or not).

So if there a substantial difference between the validity of God's existence and the truth of his existence, why then is the agnostic position relevant when such view is not discussing the truth of God's existence, which is what the atheists and the theists are concerned about?!

Big words from a little man, I hope you had finely learnt something, God exist. That's right God is Love, now act as a good little Christian and tell this truth to the world, God exist' and living. Stop confusing people with your rubbish-your a Christian and Christians don't lead people up the wrong path..

Amen...

KoloOyinbo:


As you don't say anything sensible or even have the slightest understanding of Christianity except to spout bigoted hate filled rubbish you are VERY EASY TO FORGET! (And the sooner the better )

Greek and Latin was the language the Romans spoke. It was Tyndale who had re-written the bible from old testament Hebrew from Roman Latin to English way back in 1528-29's AD-after burning Tyndale to the steak the Catholic Church had refuse to accept Tyndale's request, hiding the truth away from God's people for more centuries, while the Catholic's spoke the word of God in Latin to about 40-50 years ago.

Christianity was born in Israel, Jesus and His disciples spoke in the Aramaic language, close to the Hebrew language. They say most books were written in Greek, leaving a Question mark? And the Roman Catholic's preached in Latin, and as I have read, it was Pope Francis who want's to introduce Latin back in the Church once again. Another merry go around, for the unfortunate to never truly know any truths about our Lord and savour.
I wonder if they will bring back the old burning to the steak law, if anyone teaches, or even read the bible, we will die that horrible death, the disciples died.

Mr KoloOyinbo I just wanted to share the good news with you-It's been to long without communicating and it's always good when a brother in Christ writes or speaks about God. Do you feel it, do you feel the comfort of God around your life.

KoloOyinbo:


As you don't say anything sensible or even have the slightest understanding of Christianity except to spout bigoted hate filled rubbish you are VERY EASY TO FORGET! (And the sooner the better )

brocab:
Big words from a little man, I hope you had finely learnt something, God exist. That's right God is Love, now act as a good little Christian and tell this truth to the world, God exist' and living. Stop confusing people with your rubbish-your a Christian and Christians don't lead people up the wrong path..

Amen...

You have a point here?

If God could be PROVEN there would be no Atheists and no Agnostics. Nor would be be saved by FAITH.

Like I said, you know little of Christianity.

Kay17:


So if there a substantial difference between the validity of God's existence and the truth of his existence, why then is the agnostic position relevant when such view is not discussing the truth of God's existence, which is what the atheists and the theists are concerned about?!

The validity of the Agnostic position is that they refuse to go beyond rationality (a valid viewpoint). Therefore they cannot make a choice in the fact of insufficient evidence.

The other two diametrically opposed points of view are based solely on a belief or faith.

I am not sure what you are getting at when introducing the topic of the validity and the truth of Gods existence. If we do not wish to waste time on semantics then we can take them as synonymous.