March 11th, 2010 by
webmaster
Well, here's mine: it's hilarious.
It uses metaphors to justify the existence of God, among other things such as his love, hate, etc.
NOT PROOF; thanks.
I believe he also states that we have finite knowledge and God has infinite knowledge... so clearly we can't prove God with... metaphors...Like everything else that is theophillic it is a pack of lies. As usually the internet infidels (secular web) has reviewed his book and found it lacking.It was total drivel and I would like those 4 hours of my life back.Strobel never labeled anything as "proof", only "investigative journalism." And I, like millions of other people, think he made a solid case.I've seen people copy excerpts. What the religious think of as good logic fails to hold up to any critical analysis. It's almost as if he was on a crusade to show that religion is all lies. On the up-side, he's less dishonest than Hovind.You're reading a book called "The Case for Faith" expecting clear proofs concerning faith. You're the hilarious one. Thanks for the proving, once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.You don't have any proof either. So what should I deduce from that.
As to metaphor, you make a howling big mistake :
Aristotle, The Poetics (section on diction)
"But the greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor. This alone cannot be imparted by another; it is the mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances. "It's weak.#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
|
Posted in
enart.gcgx.com |
edit
