The first thing is to understand the concept. And the central concept of God is that “he” (or it, as God don’t have a gender) is Absolute.
That means that there cannot logically be more than one
The second part is finding out more about the Absolute, and what can be deducted from it.
The third part, after all of this have been understood, is then to accept or reject the Absolute, with the full knowledge of what such and acceptance or rejection entails.
But thou hast to understand that the burden of proof cannot be placed here. That is what the atheist most often results too. It would be like two people arguing over whether the stove was hot or cold, but no one wanted to get off their ass to check, because they wanted to establish who had the burden of proof first, the one that said it was hot or the one that said it was cold.
0
'@Corvintus'
' @Corvintus'
The first thing is to understand the concept. And the central concept of God is that “he” (or it, as God don’t have a gender) is Absolute.
That means that there cannot logically be more than one
The second part is finding out more about the Absolute, and what can be deducted from it.
The third part, after all of this have been understood, is then to accept or reject the Absolute, with the full knowledge of what such and acceptance or rejection entails.
But thou hast to understand that the burden of proof cannot be placed here. That is what the atheist most often results too. It would be like two people arguing over whether the stove was hot or cold, but no one wanted to get off their ass to check, because they wanted to establish who had the burden of proof first, the one that said it was hot or the one that said it was cold.