1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 90:
Line 90: + +
Talk:Arguments for the existence of God (view source)
Revision as of 22:58, June 14, 2009
, 22:58, June 14, 2009→Cosmological Arguments
:: Mmkay. Still feel they're... well, to be honest, there've been a few times where an apologist used a version of one of these as "one of the many ways" God can be proven, and it always especially irks me. Actually, you can apply that to all of these, pretty much - you can get a "God" that's very unlike the God of the Bible from even the strongest of these arguments. But yeah, clarifying section. Nifty. [[User:Zastem|Zastem]] 23:45, 9 November 2008 (EST)
:: Mmkay. Still feel they're... well, to be honest, there've been a few times where an apologist used a version of one of these as "one of the many ways" God can be proven, and it always especially irks me. Actually, you can apply that to all of these, pretty much - you can get a "God" that's very unlike the God of the Bible from even the strongest of these arguments. But yeah, clarifying section. Nifty. [[User:Zastem|Zastem]] 23:45, 9 November 2008 (EST)
:: Also to be clear, because I think I'm guessing I may have been a little disjointed with my comments: It's fine, thanks for the addition/change. [[User:Zastem|Zastem]] 18:49, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:: Also to be clear, because I think I'm guessing I may have been a little disjointed with my comments: It's fine, thanks for the addition/change. [[User:Zastem|Zastem]] 18:49, 10 November 2008 (EST)
The problem with cosmological arguments seems to me that one can assume the universe is eternally, and doens't require a cause. [[User:Ckikilwai|Ckikilwai]] 18:58, 14 June 2009 (EDT)