You speak the truth. But the Bible is not the only source of knowledge about Big G. We have intellects and can use them to try to noodle out information about God.
He wouldn’t be able to sit at the right hand of anything if he didn’t have a butt to sit with.
So what do you know about god? I mean ‘know’ and not ‘believe’ or ‘guess’ or ‘made up’. Really, how do you know god lives in the 4th dimension or is love or anything? Is it just something you really really wish or do you have any actual evidence?
We are surrounded by evidence. Different people draw differing conclusions.
People’s unfounded assertions and stories written by prescientific primitives aren’t “evidence”. At least, not the sort that deserves anything beyond being laughed off.
C’mon, he’s using the old “sunsets are beautiful, therefore god exists” argument.
As for the OP, I can just quote old Firesign
“How can you be in two places at once,
When you’re not anywhere at all?”
I am not arguing.
If God has no location or no place then I would interpet this as he is no where. If there is a 4th dimension it would be a place. So the dimension would proceed a God. The Lords Prayer say’s" Our Father that is in Heaven", is heaven the 4th dimension?
Very confusing!
Monavis
Yes, you are…
Of course if the Word “God” means existence than that would be true.
Monavis
You call this an argument?
That’s what I get for sleeping instead of posting - people steal my response. 
The whole thing came from a simple error in transcription. God has dementia. 
Almost on topic, while getting a shave yesterday, I was reading The Weekly Telegraph. It had the most amusing letter to the editor, not having it in front of me, I shall have to paraphrase,
“Atheists do not 'indoctrinate” their children. We tell them the truth. It is the religious people who brainwash their children."
Well, OK, so I am glad we cleared that up.
That’s only ironic if you grant religion and atheism equal plausibility. They don’t have it; not even close.
It is ironic you do not grant ideas held by reasonable people respect. Civility and an open mind both require it.
Not at all. Civility requires that we treat the reasonable person presenting the idea with respect. An open mind requires that we listen to the presented idea and assess it’s value objectively and without prior bias. Nothing whatsoever requires me to respect a stupid idea, once I’ve done a reasonable job of assessing it with an open mind and have determined that it’s stupid or incorrect.
You attack a widely-held idea out of hand. I would much prefer you explain why your ideas are valid and the idea held by most of humanity is invalid. Instead you simply proclaim the truth.
To whom are you replying?
If it’s me, the valid reason that we shouldn’t respect stupid beliefs is that stupid beliefs are stupid. The reason most people wish people would respect beliefs regardless of the stupidity of those beliefs is because their own beliefs are stupid but they are tired of them being attacked because of that stupidity, but that’s not a valid reason for other people to respect their stupid beliefs anyway, even if they do feel compelled to be polite in disputing them.
If it’s Der Trihs, the valid reason that we don’t think that religion has as much validity as scientifically demonstrated truths is that the science is repeatable, consistent, and useful for making predictions (in which case each accurate prediction validates the truth of the prediction method), whereas religion is not only none of these things, but any given religion is in competition with numerous others all that have the same lack of evidence and yet each of which vacuously claims their own belief is true, for no sensible reason. The reason believers think that their religions are as credible as scientific fact is because the believers have such spectacular egos that they can’t accept being wrong in their chosen stupid beleif, but this is an invalid reason to give religion equal credibility.
Note: not all religious believers believe that their religion trumps scientifically observable reality; those people are of course not referred to in my above paragraph, since they don’t meet the criteria being described.
I suppose I was replying to both of you. I rarely note who wrote what, another of my many failings.
In any case, respect is simple courtesy. I give it to you. I hope for the same in return.
“Stupid ideas are stupid” is circular reasoning if it is reasoning at all. As far as this thread is concerned, you have presented no evidence of a flaw in my reasoning. Instead you let your logic put its tail in its own mouth and run in circles. I am sure you can do better and hope you will.
I on the other hand have to go to work now, so I will be checking back in a few hours.
“Stupid ideas are stupid” is a tautology and is thus always true. It is not an argument at all; it is is a statement of fact, and it is not circular.
I give people courtesy. I don’t give ideas courtesy.
And I was responding only to your flawed statements in post #35, the one I quoted. That post makes a false assertion, and I made an argument to that effect. And in that argument, my logic is perfectly linear, and besides which is also perfectly correct; I can do no better than that.
As far as any other posts of yours in this thread to which I have not explicitly replied, I have made no arguments at all.