Punishment contradictions

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

But what do I do with you if we have nothing to argue about?

 

 

Perhaps you don't do anything.  

 

2 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

 

Maybe we can try this:

 

 

From the Bible:

Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

(For the purposes of our discussion, I think we can agree that the word "evidence" here is rhetorical.)

 

From Google:

1.  complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2.  strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

So what's wrong with faith?

 

Did I say that there was something wrong with faith, Rank?

 

Not in this thread, as far as I can see.

 

 

[RankStranger]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

As far as I can see the size, scale or volume of space and time involved is irrelevant.

 

The gap is generated by the lack of evidence, data and knowledge.

 

Therefore, that which is supported by these things falls outside of the gap.

 

Whereas, that which isn't falls inside.

 

To me there are just two conditions involved - supported by evidence and not supported by evidence.

 

 

I'm an atheist, not an anti-theist, Rank.

 

An anti-theist believes that god is disproven by what we know of biology, cosmology, etc.

 

But I take the null position of withholding my belief in god until such time I see good evidence for him.

 

This does not mean that I actively disbelieve in him.

 

It simply means that I await evidence that will cause me to believe in him.

 

 

I never said you did.

 

I've been very careful today in what I've said and I've made it clear that I was talking generically about people who make certain claims and not you specifically.

 

I qualified my thoughts with comments in parentheses.  Like this...

 

(not you specifically)

 

I did that twice in my post of three hours ago, ok? 

 

 

No, I'm not making that claim.

 

I'm an atheist, not an anti-theist.

 

 

This is all becoming pretty complicated, and I think for no good reason.  Once we stop arguing over what we 'think' each other is claiming, vs what each of us is actually claiming (which isn't much on either side)... we just don't have much to argue about.

 

But the 'God of the Gaps' argument is a bad analogy.  If there's a 'gap', that implies a known space that could be filled.  'God of everything minus the tiny sliver we understand' just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, RankStranger said:

 

This is all becoming pretty complicated, and I think for no good reason.  Once we stop arguing over what we 'think' each other is claiming, vs what each of us is actually claiming (which isn't much on either side)... we just don't have much to argue about.

 

Agreed.

 

1 minute ago, RankStranger said:

But the 'God of the Gaps' argument is a bad analogy.  If there's a 'gap', that implies a known space that could be filled.  'God of everything minus the tiny sliver we understand' just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

Agreed.