WintersTwilight wrote:I am in fact very ready to hear what others have to say. The concern that I was voicing was that you have not seemed to succeed in saying anything of relevance. Or so it is in my opinion, and I hope that you do not take offense of it.
Fair enough. I think facts are relevant. My opinion is that even belief has to respect facts.
Actually, my intention is not to destroy anyone's belief system. I was hoping that I could possibly help those who have their beliefs not based on anything. I am in fact a Christian, and am not trying to argue against religion at all. I was actually trying to make an apology for the existance of God, but no one seemed interested.
Well if the discussion is limited to circle around God's existance then it is obvious that there are only two worthy opinions - he exists or he doesn't. And that is quite limiting and to my experience not very good ground to continue a debate long.
However I ran into hasty conclusion I admit. I read too much about you in the brief debate you had with fishfleas and I realise that it is evident that you didn't even say such things that my conclusions were. Sorry about that.
But now I didn't get what you meant with "making an apology for the existance of God." Care to clarify that sentence?
I did not know that you thought this a boring debate. The existance of God is, in my opinion, the most interesting debate there is. If you refuse to debate this issue, then I am afraid that I can do no further good.
No, this isn't a boring debate. What I meant was that if the discussion is limited to a mere existance of God then it's very restraining debate & not very fruitful in the long term.
I see things that to fully understand them you need to circle around them. Up, down, left, right, front & rear. All over again to see how things look like. As I've understood, you wanted to just go into the heart of things without the circlying around part at all. So it's not like we disagree on the topic, but on the method of discussion.