|
His addition:
***************
What is this God thing? Start from principles that you can show to every single person on this earth and they will see it just as you see it. Like I said, you throw a rock into the air, it falls down. You put something in the water, it gets wet. Not only that, you've already told me that NO ONE knows the nature of God, therefore you do not know the nature of God. So why are you telling me all these things about God? You're simply quoting scriptures, so our argument is about scriptures, not about God.
There's two ways of arguing:
1) You start from things that the other person already agrees on, that you can both see and understand. THEN you build on that.
2) You tell the other person "I know I'm right, just believe me".
You pick #2. I strive to use #1, and I find it more convincing personally.
Plato's brain cells created them, and billions of different brain cells still use them and understand them later. And before you say that it's "just braincells", tell me, if there was not a single person left on earth to add 2+2, would it still equal 4?
So what you're saying is, I need to prove to you that the #1 above is more convincing than the #2 above?
Are you saying you don't agree that method #1 above (starting from a common understanding based on common observations) is a more convincing approach?
This last part is just another logical fallacy. You present a false choice of "they just exist, or God created them, and since I personally think it's absurd that they just exist, then God must have created them". Saying "I think it's absurd" is a very weak argument.
I'm glad we have at least agreed that your arguments supporting religion are illogical. I think what we're arguing now is the validity of logic itself. That should be interesting.
***************
|