Re: When in history did atheism become the only choice?
[ QUOTE ]
I think the only thing fallacious is not in your reasoning, but in people who try to limit God's nature by attributing to him material or limited conceptual characteristics.
[/ QUOTE ]
--Yeah, how dare you attempt to use logic to analyze unsubstantiated claims about the existence of a non-entity. Don't you realize God will not have himself pigeon-holed this way?!
[ QUOTE ]
The understanding of God as pure essence cannot be disproven by any means, even in abstract human thought. It would be like trying to say that we don't exist.
[/ QUOTE ]
--Oh, this old canard again. First off, a statement like "the understanding of God as pure essence" is almost entirely meaningless. It's just a bunch of vague words thrown together. And the issue isn't whether or not it can be disproven (whatever that statement means), it is whether or not there is any reason to believe that it is true. If you can't offer any credible evidence, your assertion fails. It is not the disbeliever's job to demonstrate negative affirmation. Your second sentence above is entirely absurd.
|