rationalskepticism.org

Cito di Pense wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:I'm a theist, let me give my two cents. This is all under the assumption that there's a God.

Among His attributes are omnipotence and being eternal.

You're using a template created by some anonymous long-ago people who were ignorant of the presence and mechanisms of electrical activity in the brain and lacked a germ theory of disease, not to mention a lot of other useful knowledge you take for granted. Here you are, on the internet, using a technology painstakingly developed using scientific principles, and you want to parrot some dogmatic shit about the characteristics of 'god'. If you want to manifest (or at least pretend) such deep ignorance, and use the templates created by the goat-roasters of long ago, carry on splendidly. Granted, some other people with philosophical leanings, who wanted to slice and dice the semantics of potency and temporality took that template and fussed around with it a bit, but that semantics has no pedigree amongst people who have not chosen to be ignorant of the history of an idea.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:Well it's not really a question that I've ever found myself thinking about. Sorry I can't give a better answer.

You're so busy believing in and contemplating your god that you haven't got time or space to think carefully about much of anything else, have you? If you assume there's a god, then you assume there's a god. Department of Tautology Department. How do you propose your question is interesting to anyone without a taste for nose-picking philosophy?