Quote:
Quote:
He's our definition, which is suspicious on itself
Ah, but that's where the holy man will disapprove. It's you (the bloody atheist) who claims that god's only a definition of us. The holy man instead will claim that WE are defined by GOD ... because he created us.
See - there's always two sides of the story. ;-)
Actually there are no two sides here, just one side. See, we've got to go with what we know or can see when it comes to proof/truth and so on, it's not about what we think to know because of some scripture that in itself with all due respect is no evidence at all, quite the contrary actually.
It's not a matter of your word against mine either, it's the lack of evidence vs. the claims of mostly the bible and churches about what God is able to do.
There are a lot of simple questions that do not have real answers when it comes to the definition of God. For example the striking resemblance with 'Gods' of other religions, older religions, religions with multiple Gods and so on. Those are 'Gods' by more or less the exact same definitions, however those definitions changed over time, just like God's meaning changed within Christianity actually. At first he was a men, then he was a spirit, now he's some sort of invisible 'perhaps-always on vacation' abstract something. This all has only changed because of OUR views, not because of what he really is. He really is a creation of us in this respect.
It's a 100% single sided problem and I don't believe that everything someone believes must be true simply because it can't be falsified. That's why the whole 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'-theory thing and so on exist,
(as for "bloody atheist", you do know that the inquisition and all those crusades and stuff was Christianity going crazy, right? I don't think atheists have ever started a war or anything else bloody...)
Cheers
| 
