"Under God" is actually secular. No religion owns God, His presence is simply inferred as per its definition.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 09:56:07 AM"Under God" is actually secular. No religion owns God, His presence is simply inferred as per its definition.Secular by definition is "not connected with religious or spiritual matters", which god is.It also discriminates the nonreligious and polytheistic religions.
I refuse to say the pledge till this nation is restored.
Quote from: Forgewolf on October 11, 2014, 11:07:13 AM I refuse to say the pledge till this nation is restored.Two more years and the damage will be done.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 09:56:07 AM"Under God" is actually secular.LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
"Under God" is actually secular.
God is simply a definition and a word. And it's built within its definition that He exists. You may not know what exactly God is, but you can't say He doesn't exist without contradicting the definition.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 10:58:20 AMGod is simply a definition and a word. And it's built within its definition that He exists. You may not know what exactly God is, but you can't say He doesn't exist without contradicting the definition.
Quote from: God on October 11, 2014, 11:30:19 AMQuote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 10:58:20 AMGod is simply a definition and a word. And it's built within its definition that He exists. You may not know what exactly God is, but you can't say He doesn't exist without contradicting the definition.If you have something to say about my argument, then say it.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 11:32:27 AMQuote from: God on October 11, 2014, 11:30:19 AMQuote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 10:58:20 AMGod is simply a definition and a word. And it's built within its definition that He exists. You may not know what exactly God is, but you can't say He doesn't exist without contradicting the definition.If you have something to say about my argument, then say it.I'd like to know what your definition of God is, since that makes no sense. According every dictionary I own;Lowercase god means a supernatural being, a synonym for deity. Uppercase God is the English title for a supreme creator and ruler. I don't see where his existence is built in to the definition. What the hell does "it's built within its definition that He exists" even mean?
The definition of God is a supreme being, among other predicates, whom exists. You can't say God doesn't exist when it's in his definition that He exists.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 11:42:45 AMThe definition of God is a supreme being, among other predicates, whom exists. You can't say God doesn't exist when it's in his definition that He exists.That's one of the most blatant displays of circular logic I've ever seen. "How do you know God exists?""Because some people who wanted to define the word 'God' define it as a being that exists""Why did they define it as a being that exists?""Because he exists""How do you know God exists?"Ad infinitum.It doesn't help that the definition you gave isn't the common one, I already gave you both of them and neither had that silly "he exists" clause. And here I was hoping you were trying to use the Ontological argument, that could have actually been interesting.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 11:42:45 AM The definition of God is a supreme being, among other predicates, whom exists. You can't say God doesn't exist when it's in his definition that He exists. Dat circular logic. jesus christ you're stupid, if that's your reasoning for a god/gods existing then you need help.
You're only assuming it's circular, however it actually isn't. Take for example the big bang. We say that there may have been many other big bangs before that due to inevitable collapse/expand cycles, culminating in the extended theory of the big crunch. "What started the big bang?""The big crunch""How do you know? What was before that?" "Another big bang"Point is, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean the argument is any less valid.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 11:28:08 AMQuote from: challengerX on October 11, 2014, 11:03:27 AMQuote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 09:56:07 AM"Under God" is actually secular.LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLHow is that appropriate on a board that's supposed to exclude immaturity? Unless I'm overestimating the level of professional-ness on this board then excuse me for this post, but after reading the rules I really don't think spamming childish acronyms are getting us anywhere.Why should I treat you maturely and seriously when you are neither serious nor mature?There's nothing secular about having to pledge allegiance to a deity. Grab a dictionary and educate yourself.
Quote from: challengerX on October 11, 2014, 11:03:27 AMQuote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 09:56:07 AM"Under God" is actually secular.LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLHow is that appropriate on a board that's supposed to exclude immaturity? Unless I'm overestimating the level of professional-ness on this board then excuse me for this post, but after reading the rules I really don't think spamming childish acronyms are getting us anywhere.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 11:42:45 AMThe definition of God is a supreme being, among other predicates, whom exists. You can't say God doesn't exist when it's in his definition that He exists.If you ever have a child, you'll probably end up seeing the fallacy in your argument here. The definition of anything includes, in one way or another, its existence. To claim the definition of God as proof of his existence is merely to fall foul of ontological sophistry. "Daddy, where do dragons live?""Oh honey, dragons aren't real.""If dragons aren't real, why do we have a word for them?"
The definition of God only represents his existence, it's not to say that it's actual working proof.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 12:40:12 PMYou're only assuming it's circular, however it actually isn't. Take for example the big bang. We say that there may have been many other big bangs before that due to inevitable collapse/expand cycles, culminating in the extended theory of the big crunch. "What started the big bang?""The big crunch""How do you know? What was before that?" "Another big bang"Point is, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean the argument is any less valid.The Big Crunch is by no means the dominant cosmological model. Not to mention, you have a serious deficit in your scientific understanding if you think that's how logic works. Nobody, with any sense of intelligence, engages in circular logic around the Big Crunch model as you are claiming they do. Regardless, I feel I should point out that sort of reasoning if much more satisfying of Ockham's Razor than yours.
The big bang/big crunch was just one example. I'm just trying to point out that it isn't circular logic as our understanding for His existence does not culminate from His definition.
Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 12:45:12 PMThe definition of God only represents his existence, it's not to say that it's actual working proof.Okay, so what I'm getting from you is that God's definition is proof of his existence while not being proof. Right, makes perfect sense.
Why Do People Get Upset About Removing the Pledge?
