@bawomol,

bawomol:

the kind of proof am asking for is the existence of a "God" and how "God" transformed to the God of peace from the God of war.

You're only asking for the "proof" of the existence of God based on your worries about a transformation which you have not clearly defined. My offer (to which you referred in your quote) was pointing out the type of "logical proof" you were seeking - how have you stated what it is?

One could be bland and blank as a matter of testing the waters because they are not sure what next they would say - which I presume is what you're doing; else I would not be reading such oblique appeals to "proof" where I clearly asked for what type of "logical" proof you were seeking. The field of logic is broad, please make your pick.

bawomol:

in what ways have u experienced God.

In varied ways. And yes, my experience(s) may not tessellate with your idea of "proof", but that in itself does not suppose that you hold ace simply because you deny them based again - on no logical proof or understanding of your own premise in the first place.

bawomol:

at it can, the bohr atomic model can be discussed but that doesn't mean the atomic model is true. anything, real and unreal is open for discussion and analysis.

Either way, those arguing for and against theories of scientific disciplines advance their logical arguments rather than make excuses of denying this, that or the other - as you have consistently done! And then again, I did state that we are dealing with a "being", unless your analogy has a way of referring to atomic model as a "being".

bawomol:
just logic, my science deals with the big bang theory and evolution. lets stay on topic please.

You would see that I have not even delved into any theory for the existence of God, while trying to stay on the topic. The one thing that I've been doing so far is follow your lead and present the fallacy of your own analogy and presentations all the while, just so we can come to a common ground for the discussion that may be of interest to both of us on the existence of God. To open a thread with a psychotic MPD as a starter does not tell me you're asking for a discussion at all - and I've sated that several times already.

bawomol:

it actually does, there is a big difference between a calm person and a violent person. why anyone would deny this is mystifying.

What then is the difference you postulate? That the calm person never at anytime expresses the very opposite of calmness - panic, anxiety, unease as possible alternatives to your static psychiatric display of emotions as earlier? Ever heard of synonyms and antonyms while you quickly sweep these ideas under the carpet?

Dude, opposite emotional display (as you touted yours conveniently) do not lead to the NON-existence of a being! The core issue here is not the personality display, but rather your working assumptions - that God does not exist! I'd be enthused that you clear your grounds first on that, before accusing a "being" of having a personality that worries your thinking. If I'm averse to your personality display, it would be foolish indeed to infer from my dislike of your personality that you therefore do not exist (and it has nothing to do with whether or not I've met you heretofore).

bawomol:

i told u the reason i am unable to do this already. the ball is in your court to show he/she/it exists.

Your inability to do this already demonstrates that your repeated assertions are unnecessary; and it would be almost theatrical for me to humour you on the excuse of that veil behind which you have been hiding your propositions.

That you suppose I could not adduce "proof" for the existence of the God I believe in, should not mean that your inability to "prove" your own premise therefore triumphs over my convictions. At best, you are simply unable to hold[b] your[/b] tuff - not even philosophically - and on which premise you cannot breast the tape on your course here!

bawomol:

actually no, newton sent a detailed explanation to his peers and this was widely accepted. there are only vague descriptions of this "God"

I presume Newton's premises were never put to the test and therefore swallowed wholesale, yeah? That alone tells me what type of phylosophical idealism you're proposing, and I just can't wait to tease you on yours!

In any case, there are a lot of critiques that have been conducted on Newton's Calculus when it comes to applications. I'm not a scholarly mathematician myself; but the few such critiques I've perused thereto really make me wonder that anyone would speak of the idea that Newtn's students must have been so glib to "accept" his theories without question. It was not too long ago that one such works was recommended in our class - "The Principia : Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". But there again, I've yet to look at John L. Greenberg's critique on applications of Newton's calculus. When it comes to applications, that's when we see the weaknesses, limitations and problems of theories which have been initially accepted widely.

bawomol:

in sociological experiments, kids that weren't exposed to religion, saw no need or having belief in a supreme being. people base their religious beliefs on what they hear and not what they experienced.

Another classic excuse - blaming your weakness on "kids".   How many others do you know who base their premise and belief in God on what they have read from "books" besides what they read or hear? What about the reference you made to "books" as the mast to post your flag of belief in God?

bawomol:

my assertion that god does not exist is based on the FACT that no evidence has been found of it's existence. it's not that complex.

Your assertion is simply that - an assertion: hiding under an illogical and unphilosophical excuse. You have not presented anything that can pass for "proof" other than asserting this, that or the other and thereby coming back with the ahoy of God's existence "can not be proved or disproved". You can't leave your ideas hanging out on high seas that way and expect to make us believe you have delivered!

bawomol:

u haven't done a great job so far

I don't see what great job you would expect anyone to do on your excuses.

@bawomol
Please defend your position. Stop throwing weak punches and asking hypothetical questions. We are not conviced.

You're only asking for the "proof" of the existence of God based on your worries about a transformation which you have not clearly defined.

actually i'm not asking for proof of God's existence in this thread. all i'm asking is what caused the transformation of God from God of war to God of peace in the Bible. simple questions deserve simple answers


The field of logic is broad, please make your pick.

actually i'm not seeking a logical proof, i'm seeking a logical explanation for the change in God's temparament from the old to new testament.


And yes, my experience(s) may not tessellate with your idea of "proof"

how did u have experiences with God if he is beyond human comprehension and senses. how were u approached by God.


And then again, I did state that we are dealing with a "being", unless your analogy has a way of referring to atomic model as a "being"

the bohr's atomic model and "God" are both abstract beings that can easily be discussed without accepting they are real.


You would see that I have not even delved into any theory for the existence of God, while trying to stay on the topic.

actually u have while denying the transformation isn't clear.

That the calm person never at anytime expresses the very opposite of calmness - panic, anxiety, unease as possible alternatives to your static psychiatric display of emotions as earlier?

personal insults aside. the calm person may express opposite of calmess but overall he is at east at MOST TIMES. God said he was the God of war at first, then strangely in the new testament, claimed to be God of peace. a state of war is drastically different from a state of peace.

Dude, opposite emotional display (as you touted yours conveniently) do not lead to the NON-existence of a being!

actually no, i'm not arguing about the existence of ur christian God. didn't we agree to stay on topic.

The core issue here is not the personality display, but rather your working assumptions - that God does not exist!

again didn't we agree to stay on topic.

I[b]'d be enthused that you clear your grounds first on that, before accusing a "being" of having a personality that worries your thinking.[/b]

actually no. regardless of prior assumptions, hypothetical questions can be asked. i find it strange u guys are having problems involving the trinity and God's temparament.

Your inability to do this already demonstrates that your repeated assertions are unnecessary

actually i don't need to prove God doesn't exists, since our theist counterpart haven't proven God exists either. it would continue to be a stalemate


At best, you are simply unable to hold your tuff - not even philosophically

it's turf not tuff. philosophy isn't about proof but opinions. u have assumptions, i have mine. let's get back to the thread please. explain the trinity and God's transformation


I presume Newton's premises were never put to the test and therefore swallowed wholesale, yeah?

you are right, they were put to test, because of these tests, we had the maxwell equations, differential equations and multi-variable calculus was born. the application of newton's work, proved calculus was correct.


When it comes to applications, that's when we see the weaknesses, limitations and problems of theories which have been initially accepted widely.


all mathematical theories have limitations. nothing new here


Another classic excuse - blaming your weakness on "kids"

sociological experiments aren't classic excuses. the experiment showed the need for God is through socialization and not natural.

What about the reference you made to "books" as the mast to post your flag of belief in God

those books actually solidifed my stance about atheism. i had doubts b4 reading books. why dodge the topic bro. simple questions, simple answers.

I don't see what great job you would expect anyone to do on your excuses

circular reasoning won't get u anywhere.

Please defend your position. Stop throwing weak punches and asking hypothetical questions. We are not conviced.

this coming from a guy that posted five philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God. oh the irony

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

actually i'm not asking for proof of God's existence in this thread. all i'm asking is what caused the transformation of God from God of war to God of peace in the Bible.

In other words, you now surmise that God does exist afterall? See? You are doing the very same dribbling I hinted at several times yesterday - but no wahala.

As for the 'transformation' you hinted at and are still forcing tenuously, you still haven't done a good job responding to my request to clarify your understanding thereto. Perhaps it may serve you a good turn to drop the hypocrisy of excusing its application to your favoured "display of emotion" in other description while seeking to fan the transformation meme repeatedly.

bawomolo:

simple questions deserve simple answers

Excuses that have become incoherent and inconsistent in yours need to be clarified - by you!

bawomolo:

actually i'm not seeking a logical proof, i'm seeking a logical explanation for the change in God's temparament from the old to new testament.

Same issue as above. Next!

bawomolo:

how did u have experiences with God if he is beyond human comprehension and senses. how were u approached by God.

That God is beyond human comprehension does not mean we have no comprehension whatsoever about God. As to being "approached" by God, I don't know where I stated that exactly.

bawomolo:

the bohr's atomic model and "God" are both abstract beings that can easily be discussed without accepting they are real.

How do you transform a "model" into a "being"?

bawomolo:

actually u have while denying the transformation isn't clear.

You did not make your idea of 'transformation' any clearer, but have only been assuming it is. And as to the delving into the theory of God's existence, I have not - and my reference thereto was to cleaqrly state it so that you would not characteristically allege I have done so, which is what you have predictably done. Second, I referenced that as a matter of your persistent call for the "proof" of the existence of God, while now bending backwards to deny that you ever made a call thereto.

bawomolo:

personal insults aside.

Where?

bawomolo:

the calm person may express opposite of calmess but overall he is at east at MOST TIMES. God said he was the God of war at first, then strangely in the new testament, claimed to be God of peace. a state of war is drastically different from a state of peace.

The idea you're espousing does not establish the notion of 'transformation' - as if He was ever at war, and then dropping all that suddenly became a God of peace. Perhaps you have the idea that He never gave peace or knew peace in the OT?

bawomolo:

actually no, i'm not arguing about the existence of your christian God. didn't we agree to stay on topic.

I've been consistent with the topic - or more precisely, following your lead without deviating. My answers are in consonance with the queries you present; and if you never made any reference to "proving" the existence of God as a sine-qua-non factor in this discussion, you would not have read any hint thereto in my rejoinders. Care to go back and review?

bawomolo:

again didn't we agree to stay on topic.

As above?

bawomolo:

actually no. regardless of prior assumptions, hypothetical questions can be asked. i find it strange u guys are having problems involving the trinity and God's temparament.

It need not be so - that is why we have also presented queries for your consideration instead of running the risk of misreading you. So far, you haven't impressed me yet with a coherent grasp of your own premise. Do you care to set me straight on that so we know where exactly your premise lies?

bawomolo:

actually i don't need to prove God doesn't exists, since our theist counterpart haven't proven God exists either. it would continue to be a stalemate

I think reference to the existence of God has been overdone - can we move on quickly now to the core gist of your worries?

bawomolo:

it's turf not tuff.

Thanks - I meant 'tuff' - please see: TUFF - which I used as an idiomatic expression. Do I expatiate?

bawomolo:

philosophy isn't about proof but opinions. u have assumptions, i have mine. let's get back to the thread please. explain the trinity and God's transformation

You proposed philosophy as your 'tuff' (your forté or perhaps strong link to unravelling your worldview); and I would have been glad to call your bluff! It didn't seem your confidence level in your proposal could be sustained - my bad!

Getting back to the thread, I do not see a transformation; nor do I suppose it would be a fair trial to imposs that idea on any discussant. That we have our differing assumptions does not pass as a means to excuse a common grund for discussion.

bawomolo:

you are right, they were put to test, because of these tests, we had the maxwell equations, differential equations and multi-variable calculus was born. the application of newton's work, proved calculus was correct.

Glad you finally saw that! Ha! To think I had to take the trouble to infer that we look at the applications of Calculus!

bawomolo:

all mathematical theories have limitations. nothing new here

Thank you, gentle sir. Next!

bawomolo:

sociological experiments aren't classic excuses. the experiment showed the need for God is through socialization and not natural.

Which shouldn't necessarily always be a resort to "kids" as the first port of call for same excuses.

bawomolo:

those books actually solidifed my stance about atheism. i had doubts before reading books. why dodge the topic bro. simple questions, simple answers.

I haven't ducked the topic - remember, I'm following your lead and would rather keep to that! In any case, that people have read books which solidified their stance about atheism could again be argued that others have read books that helped to open their prejudices and lead them to consider theism. A no-thoroughfare there.

However, my question was in reference to what you had categorically assumed earlier; which is why I asked: "What about the reference you made to "books" as the mast to post your flag of belief in God?"

bawomolo:

circular reasoning won't get u anywhere.

I apologise - but that is not even a tool I would consider for my defence as I read in yours!

bawomolo:

this coming from a guy that posted five philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God. oh the irony

Which confirms my pun to your circular reasoning - it is n't taking us anywhere; and I'm glad that I'm not the only one who noticed!

Roger me?

bawomol:
actually i'm not asking for proof of God's existence in this thread. all i'm asking is what caused the transformation of God from God of war to God of peace in the Bible. simple questions deserve simple answers

God does not take permission from you or anybody for that matter. So, stop telling Him how to live His Life or run His universe.

God does not take permission from you or anybody for that matter. So, stop telling Him how to live His Life or run His universe.

this is a cop out. you seem uninterested or unable to explain the inconsistencies of the bible.

bawomolo:

this is a cop out. you seem uninterested or unable to explain the inconsistencies of the bible.

I really would not have bothered to comment; but for the fact that you're sounding so familiar in your inconsistencies.

hi bawol

you trying to understand God? well i still am asking "wat is the origin of matter"?

bawomolo:

this is a cop out. you seem uninterested or unable to explain the inconsistencies of the bible.

Why don't we first address the inconsistencies in YOUR marvelous conclusion:

An abstract entity (originating from human imagination, that can neither be proved nor disproved) is suffering from MPD!!!

We have not forgotten this your conclusion. After dealing with this exhaustively, we can go on to address the imaginary problems you have with the bible.