What led you to God?

I disagree. This is a problem for the bible, not Jesus Christ. But nevertheless, contradiction doesn't automatically = false. There could be any number of explanations. One is that by trying to define and understand this concept, you infact guarantee a contradictive conclusion. That is perfectly true. But logically, it doesn't allow us to say Christ is made up. Why is this such a problem? It's not like we don't know that humans exaggerate. Also, there is no evidence for there being no God. The fact is, that by definition, we would be foolish to seek evidence for God, like he is a theory.Also, Joe the atheist must qualify what would evidence God. So far, every atheist has told me something different, and to make the matter worse, theists and agnosts also make different qualifiers. So think! What does this mean?.................Have you thought? It means that which would evidence God is infact not acsertainable. For all you know, the very universe itself, in reality, fully evidences God, in all it's orderly glory. As Shraff said, it's a fallacy to fill gaps with God, and therefore those who do are not in the correct position. This however, only means God is parsimonious to the subject matter, no more.Example. You don't need God to get thunder (as somewhat proven). Therefore, that's all you can conclude. It would be silly to say that God therefore doesn't exist. That would be like saying that Hitchy doesn't exist because I don't need him to wash my socks.For all you know, if God holds the universe together, then everything requires God, in order to happen. So infact, indirectly, God is not truly a parsimonious addage, if this is the case.Disbelief is infact a choice. At one stage, you can accept your water, or you can consciously turn it back to wine, like I did, in the knowledge that your belief doesn't need evidence, if it is a strong one.Deep down, we know it's tough to believe, so we look for reasons to doubt in order to find a way out. The world thins us for sure, and nobody can deny my wisdom, because they know it is irrefutable;It's infact the burden of the world we carry around. And if we don't, then why were you carrying God? You wouldn't have needed him!If it was God you were carrying, then you would have had earthly troubles, as you would need God. But anyone with a full belly and riches, doesn't seek God. He infact relies on those riches he has, and casts away any other hopes.Truly it is the world you carried. And if it wasn't, then how could you carry God? You wouldn't need him! You would have dropped extra baggage immediately! Maybe God was extra baggage in your life.Any believer strong in Christ, carries the world, and gets tired with God, but doesn't drop God. He infact hangs on to God like a tick on a boar. It is afterall, our hope, that the reward of our faith is eternal life, after going through this world.If he carries God, then he drops God, for he has no worldy trouble. And he has dropped the only true treasure he ever had. The world is an appaulingly immoral and money obsessed, lust obsessed, decadence obsessed, killer of men, that would sell you on ebay.(edited rant)>This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-19-2006 11:47 AM

I have long explanations because I was never gone and so when I do type it's one hell of a rant. I've read this whole topic for days, as a fence sitting lurker.I only replied to Hitchy because I relate to his testimony and could have became a none believer very easily.I think on the whole, Shraff has the correct position in this topic as Prophex seems to only applaude religiosity, while ignoring genuine credence and validity, which types replies to him in the form of Shraff.I basically agree with your post, but former explanations are also honest and genuine. Early on, Shraff said that it was not here desire to disbelieve, which is, for reasons of intellect, a very important point in this thread. This means that to me, she is in the correct position, because she is not obliged to give up thinking.

You didn't show this because you didn't address my points. Therefore this is an unsupported vacuous assertion which you now need to back up.At the moment I'm more confident that it challenged you, and I feel this is why you didn't address anything I said. Infact it can. And there you were thinking you were smart. If an apple is red and green, the statement "Y is B and not B", can be true, if B represents green. Because in places, the apple is green and in other places it is not.What I referred to was a false dichotomy. A contradiction which is infact not really a contradiction. I am shocked that you didn't realise that.Positing that God is contradictive, is a claim in itself, and there is easily the possibility of a false contradiction being inferred.Example of how easy this is in argumentation;The assertion; the apple is red and not red, as a statement, posits a contradiction. Similarly, one might say " God must be so and so, and not so and so".This is a false contradiction because the composition of the colour of the apple involves 3% of it's colour having green spots. Therefore, it is not truly a contradiction afterall. It is a false one.Creating a contradictive definition of God is hypothetical and vacuous because it doesn't prove a thing. Infact, God is not a theory that can be understood.Saying God is all-loving is a favourite assertion amongst none-believers, which GUARANTEES a contradiction in the definition of God, but is not a scriptural assertion by believers. So any contradiction would depend on the false premise, which would mean that any contradiction would be a false one, logically.edit forgot to test my sign.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-19-2006 05:41 PM

---

There's so many different worlds, so many different suns...and we have just the one, but we live in different worlds