Page 37 of 109
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:48 am
by Earwicker_Archive
matthew wrote:
Look..........God just IS- He's "Pure Act" and therefore any imaginations you might have about this very subtley anthropomorphic Deity which you have, again, imagined which lead to the conclusion "God's existence is unprovable" are erroneous. Any limitation we might try to paste upon God is merely a projection of our own sensory and intellectual limitations.....and sometimes pride. After all, God is "to be" and we merely "are".
God does indeed exist.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:08 am
by Linus Van Pelt_Archive
matthew wrote:galanter wrote:In other words by definition God is beyond us in everyway imaginable, and an infinity of ways we can't imagine...but God can't be limited, and so he has to have any ability imaginable, including making it so that we can know him.
God is pure "to be" or "esse" or "einai", galanter. I hate to remind you of that which I'm pretty sure (judging by what you have written thusfar in these forums) you already know. In this statement of yours that I have quoted, you are essentially saying that God IS in fact limited in that He has not actualized an "ability" He qua God has, namely "making it so that we can know [H]im.". I say this much: God is pure "to be" or "that which is"...therefore He cannot have ANY abilities. If He had "abilities", or to use the old Aristotelian/Thomistic terminology "potentialities", then He would not be God.
Look..........God just
IS- He's "Pure Act" and therefore any imaginations you might have about this very subtley anthropomorphic Deity which you have, again, imagined which lead to the conclusion "God's existence is unprovable" are erroneous. Any limitation we might try to paste upon God is merely a projection of our own sensory and intellectual limitations.....and sometimes pride. After all, God is "to be" and we merely "are".
God does indeed exist.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:54 am
by simmo_Archive
matthew wrote:God is pure "to be" or "esse" or "einai", galanter. I hate to remind you of that which I'm pretty sure (judging by what you have written thusfar in these forums) you already know. In this statement of yours that I have quoted, you are essentially saying that God IS in fact limited in that He has not actualized an "ability" He qua God has, namely "making it so that we can know [H]im.". I say this much: God is pure "to be" or "that which is"...therefore He cannot have ANY abilities. If He had "abilities", or to use the old Aristotelian/Thomistic terminology "potentialities", then He would not be God.
Look..........God just IS- He's "Pure Act" and therefore any imaginations you might have about this very subtley anthropomorphic Deity which you have, again, imagined which lead to the conclusion "God's existence is unprovable" are erroneous. Any limitation we might try to paste upon God is merely a projection of our own sensory and intellectual limitations.....and sometimes pride. After all, God is "to be" and we merely "are".
God does indeed exist.
Matthew. Like many others here (I imagine), I have studied philosophy and theology. Though I consider myself in no way an expert on these vastly complex matters, I feel that I know enough to be able to fight my way through your grandiloquent jargon to recognize that what you are saying is pretty much incoherent. Don't be fooled by this man's usage of obscure terminology, people. It is nowt but intellectual sophistry.
Matthew, quit with the showings-off and concentrate on making your writing vaguely comprehensible. Take your cue from this Galanter fellow for example. He wrties intelligently and insightfully, without wanking over his dictionary of philosophical terms. He's running rings around you, old boy.
matthew wrote:I say this much: God is pure "to be" or "that which is"...therefore He cannot have ANY abilities. If He had "abilities", or to use the old Aristotelian/Thomistic terminology "potentialities", then He would not be God.
This is goddamned clown shoes philosophy, son. What does it even mean?
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:21 pm
by Gramsci_Archive
Simmo.
The problem with Matty is simple, he's living in a dream world.
Catholicism has this neat philosophical trick where they start with the premise that God does exist and then they proceed to perform vast tombs of philosophical gymnastics to prove their pre-decided conclusion.
Cutting through all of this bullshit is very simple, all you have to know is that the philosophy only gets okayed if the Vatican say so.
So you have a ludicrous situation where Catholic philosophers start with the answer, proceed to prove it with philosophical and semantic backflipping and then it is only given the ok if the church agrees with it.
Sweet Jesus!
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:51 pm
by ANDRE THE FUCKING GIANT_Archive
Gramsci wrote:preform vast tombs
WHAT?
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:54 pm
by Gramsci_Archive
ANDRE THE FUCKING GIANT wrote:Gramsci wrote:preform vast tombs
WHAT?
Are you a homosexual?
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:57 pm
by ANDRE THE FUCKING GIANT_Archive
Gramsci wrote:ANDRE THE FUCKING GIANT wrote:Gramsci wrote:preform vast tombs
WHAT?
Are you a homosexual?
I WILL NOT FUCK YOU, SOZ 
I HAVE MET YOUR TYPE BEFORE AND WHILE I THINK YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT IN YOURE OWN HOUSE, I ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO THINK IT IS FUCKEN DISGUSTING
YUCK!
PS. YOUR POST IS A LOT OF SHIT LOL
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:02 pm
by Gramsci_Archive
Stop it, you're making me hot.
You're not a very good troll, you're not even annoying or fun.
You gae.
I bet you've got a big giant woo hoo.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:04 pm
by ANDRE THE FUCKING GIANT_Archive
Gramsci wrote:Stop it, you're making me hot.
You're not a very good troll, you're not even annoying or fun.
You gae.
I bet you've got a big giant woo hoo.
I AM NOT A TROLL I AM HERE TO LERN TO BE A RAPPER.
YOU ARE A PENIS THO EVERYONE SAYS SO
'WOULD YOU LIKE A PEANUT?'
LOLOLOLOL
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:10 pm
by Gramsci_Archive
Man, you're sub-standard Walter. Christ, Walter come back!!!
Russ, check his IP address and tell us who it is.
Andre, you are aware that Russ can look at your IP address and check against other accounts on EA and out you in a second.
Please keep posting, I'm keen to see who you are.
