quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sparklecat
*snorts* As I'm not starting from a belief, the question is irrelevant.
You wouldn't ask an atheist the question Flew did. Its addressed to theists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by frisian
My point is that only through subjective experience is God found. In a round about way.
Thus the question begging, what would define that experience.
It would be defined by the individual subjective to their understanding of what they perceive as being entitled logically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sparklecat
So you agree then that your Christianity is not based on evidence and is merely a personal preference?
Perhaps Pascal's Wager is more applicable than first thought...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by frisian
No.
Based on personal perception of logical entitlements that arrange themselves differently according to my current understanding.
Pascal's Wager asserts you choose God not of desire, but out of fear of torment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sparklecat
So there is logical entitlement... then why did you agree with my statement that discussion was meaningless?
Not necessarily fear of torment... just that you can't know by reason and therefore might as well give your one finite life for an infinitely happy one, if it comes down to picking which side to bet on. Though the fear of torment is a part of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by frisian
The logical entitlement is subjective, thus discussion of it pertaining to all similiarly is moot, because it is not. It is subjective.
Well to those who accept truth as subjective in relation to God and his love, it is no bet at all. As far as they are concerned they are logically entitled and assured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sparklecat
But there should be! Thats the point!
It indicates their belief is dishonestly held, if you ask me... or at least that they shouldn't claim intellectual grounds for it.
It may be fultile, but I still feel a need to try...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by frisian
So either they keeping changing the disproof and defining God differently, or they answer nothing is my disproof.
Anything held subjectively is dishonest?
They shouldn't claim scientific grounds certainly.
So their intellect and logic isn't constant? At least if suggesting that their disproof changes along with their understanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can quote it.
How much do you want of it? You know I rarely put a concrete thought together within one post. 
