Cobol - Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:

Author

Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:

Alistair

2008-01-08, 6:56 pm

On 8 Jan, 03:22, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in messagenews:8ol5o39r=
pdcjq6es2n32j8bbt6gltibkee@4ax.com...
>
> I don't see the God Squad letting you get away with this :-) (even though
> anyone of any Faith who believes in God, has a pretty hard time explaining=

> the Evil in the World, if God is supposed to be all the things you
> mention...). It is all part of the 'mystery' that has to be taken on
> faith...

Perhaps, as particles have anti-particles, then gods may have anti-
gods. Satan comes to mind as an example. However, the particles are
equal in number and opposite in properties so Satan should be equally
powerful as god and his accolytes equal in number to Judson's angels.
However, Christianity seems to expect that god will prevail by dint of
superior powers. A slight flaw in the argument and, in my book, proof
of the non-existance of either god or Satan.

Richard

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

On Jan 12, 9:08 am, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't. What frustrates me is being told by a "color blind" person that
> my "seeing color" is "illogical" and "invalid" because they can't see it.
> Particularly when the "color blind" person could see in color if they
> chose to do so. If you don't want to see, fine don't see. Just don't keep
> telling me I'm illogical or stupid because I can. :-)
> --

Regardless of 'what you see', your 'intellectual arguments' are
inadequate in being a description of reality.

It is obvious (to those of us that 'see' that) that you have
constructed your argument by starting at the conclusion that you
require and then working backwards to establish the precepts necessary
for it to appear as if it was a logical argument.

Because it comes out to the conclusion that you started with you feel
that it is a satisfactory way of going about making an argument.

What _we_ "see" is that is it is a fraud.

Your argument here is that you are 'right' because you "see" things
that we don't. You "see" the pot of gold, we only see the rainbow
(and know how it is formed).

Sponsored Links