 | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) What I was attempting to do was provide a conception of a being that can perform what throughout this debate has been considered a logical impossibility. I don't see how offering one criterion without excluding others is a restriction on (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) We're arguing semantics, I think, over the meaning of "impossible". I am suggesting that if there are absolute limits, they limit everything (including God). You are stating that if there are are absolute limits, God can't exist. That doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) If you're asserting that a universe in which more people are legitimately saved is less desirable than a universe in which fewer people are legimately saved, then I think we have another debate on our hands. Besides which, 'don't criticize (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure where you read that. I'm not asserting any outcome, I'm saying that the only honest answer I can give is "I don't know". Your whole beef appears to be that if it isn't verfiable by empirical science it's inferior, and then you go (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
