In answer to: How do you know you are right?

Because saying something is a contradiction makes it so every time!

Presumably God could create paradoxes, and interact with them in ways we cannot comprehend. Can you comprehend four visual dimensions?

 

Okay, you claim that you are limited to the the knowledge at the time of the argument, and I agree, however this does not make you right. Out of the two people in the argument, the person who has the best hypothesis is going to be the one who can defend their argument with logic, and evidence; This does not make them right.

You can have a valid rational argument, with rational premises, that indicate you are correct, however that does not make you correct, it means you have the best current guess at the correct answer. You cannot prove yourself correct if all knowledge about a certain topic has been discovered, and on the contrary you cannot ridicule someone for being wrong if they didn't have the means to discover more about said topic. You can have an argument that is completely valid, and rational at the time of the argument that is later debunked by science, therefore you are not right based on a valid, rational argument, with rational premises.

 

Debating in the realm of reason? Well then, you leave no one that can oppose your opinions. Its like asking someone to prove you wrong when you leave out vital points, and the entire spiritual aspect. If you arent allowing something that effects your argument to effect it, then the final verdict can and is flawed.

You are absolutely correct in your belief system. Since you hold all the keys, you cannot possiably be wrong. However, you arent right if the "mystic chatter" enters at any point.

Like I said before, I cant prove you wrong in your argument. It is not possiable unless you choose to lose.

 

I reject your notion that anything you don't understand does not exist.

 

sythe ....... you CANNOT compare spiritual and physical.

 

This argument is a paradox (def. a statement that contradicts itself). A good example of this would be "I always lie." (if it's true that you always lie, then you are telling the truth.) Your argument can never have a right answer. Therefore, you can't base your argument on this, because it can never be proved true or false.

 

Alright then, how would you like to try to prove that there isn't spirituality in reality? You cannot, and I cannot prove it exists unless you choose to believe. It is free will we have the right to choose. Obviously, if you choose not to see the spirituality, I cannot make you see it. It is your decision. But, I am not wrong. And you will never be able to prove that I am. This was a pointless discussion before it began.

 

1. An omnipotent god cannot exist.

2. Does not disprove the existence of God, disproves the existence of an omnipotent entity.

3. Omnipotence is not a necessary characteristic of a God. Greek gods, for example, were far from omnipotent.

Your applying an argument against omnipotence to an argument against all gods, which is irrational as omnipotence and god are not interchangeable. If you had said that a christian god is impossible, then you would be correct in your argument, however it is not a necessity that all gods must be omnipotent.

 

I'm happy to say you are wrong. There is a rare gentic paradox that occurs in some reptiles. This paradox details that sometimes an animal can have the traits of an albino animal, such as pink eyes, but can have black splotches on other parts of its body, or have half mallanin-half albinic eyes. In the future please research a subject before posting about it.

 

I'm not arguing that at all! If you would have read my post carefully, I said that I choose to believe in God. It is my choice. I have not said that I'm right because of my choice. It is my belief that I am right, but I have not based any of my arguments on my choice to believe. You choose to not believe in God. That's fine with me. But the entire argument boils down to what you put faith in. I put faith in something I belive in, as do you. I can't prove you wrong, and you can't prove me wrong.

 

That is not a true paradox. A true paradox would be the statement "This statement is false".

It is an irrational choice. You have no empirical evidence to support it whatsoever.

 

Your definition of sane. See, I think you are crazy. You think I am crazy. It is our opinions of each other. You cannot prove faith does not exist. You could make no argument against something that you don't think is real. How could you? You don't think it existis, so why are you even arguing it? You can't win, because, to you, you already have before you even started.