You believe an UBER -BEING made everything and asks us to live by a bunch of random out-dated ideals ...I do not..THE END..
I think if you explore this you will find there is more logic to there being a creator than not In fact the fathers of logic (plato aristotle etc) would say to suggest otherwise is illogical
You have done what no other mortal being has ever been able to do ,and prove that God exists...... Maybe you are a prophet?
no Muhammad was the last prophet according to my beliefs Just saying is all, if you want to apply logic you will see that those saying otherwise are being illogical
wow thats freaky so do I believe in angels that is again its logical to do so following the process I follow
Take a day off from what ever it is you do on here Fan, start a nob thread or a fart thread, Sam loves those..
I see its half time Just so we are clear what am I proving here? the its a fact argument was based on the fathers of logic saying its logical and of that there is no doubt, its evident in both plato and aristotles works
They also believed the world is flat, that your brain was in your heart and Atlantis was a real place
You mean Atlantis isn't real? **** - I just bought two return tickets to go there off a bloke in the pub
hey tobster you do realise that plato taught his students that the earth was a sphere? Aristotle was platos student and believed the earth was a sphere
I was wrong, they did theorise that the Earth was a sphere, but you didn't disprove the other 2 statements, so what's your answer to that?
I like the fact you have 'fessed up' not sure about what to say about the other 2, i know thta Plato wrote stuff on atlantis and there have been subsequent theories and searches (even today I am lead to believe) regarding that also I understand that the whole heart and brain thing wasnt literal as is implied (i think) in your post I think it was more along th elinbes of 'follow your heart' not 'think' with it However if you notice My argument isnt that these fellows were right or even wrong Its others who cite them to prove certain points so your questions should be aimed at them with the addition of why they dont accept ALL their stuff and only bits that suit a particular argument at a particular time Its like the whole wikki thing, I dont say dont use it or even its not credible/reliable etc, as pointed out there are those that mock the use of wikki then referr to it on a nother thread as being the be all and end all Or another example may be the use of UN data to defend Israel, but mock UN data on british soldiers being done for child abuse. By the same person
So you believe that faith in god is logical based up the works of two people from nearly two and a half millennia ago? Don't you think that we've added a little more knowledge to work from since then? Based upon location and era, they'd have believe in gods too, wouldn't they, not just a god? Feel free to post their argument though, as I think you'll find that their ideas on this matter are a little outdated.