# Is there any sound argument for God's existence?



## GrosMinet

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on? 

In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments... 

Your thoughts, please.


----------



## Doubletap

There has never been a non-contradictory definition of precisely what "god" is.


----------



## GrosMinet

Doubletap said:


> There has never been a non-contradictory definition of precisely what "god" is.



Hi, 

Could you provide an example of a contradiction in the concept of God?


----------



## Avatar4321

He speaks for Himself. Just be still and you can know that He is God.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



I write extensively about this. I think it's one of those questions can have 'sound arguements' both for and against at the same time. Namely because G-d refuses to confirm its' existence. Some of my replies to this question follow:

With all the posts regarding logic and religion it's important to point out that there's a world of difference between logic and being right. Much of the time people will scream bloody murder over what's logical (like Zulu warriors killing infant males in their tribal wars reasoning very logically that they'll eventually grow to become men seeking revenge.)It's 'logical' to do many things we don't as a society. And using logic to disprove G-d overlooks free will. As per my post 'Can we be certain...'

Of course you can prove or disprove just about anything by simply altering the frame of reference. Example: human beings are the pinacle of evolution. That's true. But only within the narrow frame of reference of here on Earth. Thousands of other planets discovered since just 1991, only a matter of time before we find 'ET.' By simply expanding the frame of reference a formerly true statement beyond quesiton suddenly becomes very presumtuous indeed.

"G-d does not exist." What? No where in the rather large multiverse is there a being we'd point to and say "That's G-d." Logically, without going everywhere and categorizing every living being in the cosmos can you say with any certainty at all there's no G-d. I've always maintained that when atheists and others try to use science to disprove G-d existing they're limiting their frame of reference to what classical notions about G-d describe it as being.

We exist. I think we can all safely agree on that one. So why if we intelligent, rational sentient beings exist here, a higher evolved being can't exist somewhere else? With how we know the universe works as in quantum physics, is a superior minded being or race of beings really so far fetched? And quantum entanglement is perfectly sensible but G-d isn't? Mmkay. Famous quote comes to mind, "Anyone who's studied the sciences and isn't then deeply disturbed didn't understand a damned thing."

I think most anti-G-d arguements come from people who wanna be able to do anything they want with a clear conscience. Can't imagine why else someone would stand up to billions of other people and say they're all wrong. "65,000 repetitions makes one truth." - "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley. So what does several billion repetitions make?
____________

How can we be certain G-d exists? There's certainly no empirical evidence supporting it or we wouldn't even be asking the question. So if there's nothing concrete to set our backs against why do so many belive? Why are some willing to die for beliefs that can't be supported scientifically?

G-d gave us free will. Part of that freedom is to believe in Him, trust Him, love Him, and obey Him; Part of it is to reject Him for reasons including there's no evidence. Would it still be us exercising a choice if there was evidence and His existence was as self-evident as this planet? 

If we KNOW G-d exists there's nothing to believe in, or put faith in, or trust in. We're simply submitted to an all-powerful being out of fear being far below Him on the food chain.

If there's room to doubt, or even logic supporting disbelief, but believe anyway, then it can be said we love G-d. 

This Av 9th I learned how the Exodus Jews sent a dozen scouts into the Promised Land to recon. All but two reported back the land was unconquerable angering G-d. G-d expected the Jews to trust Him, most did not even after everything He had done for them. They KNEW G-d existed, but they didn't BELIEVE in Him.
_________________________________________

Some new hypotheses suggest the entirety of the universe may be G-d. That every star is like a single cell in a living animal. And the way galaxies are formed and flowing around the universe is very much like veins. So there's some interesting thoughts behind this stuff. 

If G-d is real, it has to be made of something. Though atoms only make up 4% of the universe, dark matter, and dark energy is comprised of particles as well. And they make up the rest. If G-d exists as something it'll be composed of something. But what's more likely, is G-d as religions think of it doesn't exist, but something we'd point at and recognize as 'a god' does. To a bug, we're gods. To us, an alien might be. So to understand whether G-d or gods exist, we first have to define what we mean by gods. And accept the possibility it's not as religions describe it.


----------



## Chuckt

GrosMinet said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has never been a non-contradictory definition of precisely what "god" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Could you provide an example of a contradiction in the concept of God?
Click to expand...


I guess what he could say is:

 Reconcile: Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism and Dualism


----------



## theword

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



No argument will change an unbeliever's mind. Believers and unbelievers were chosen by our Creator to participate in a saint's gospel. Believers will believe some things that we saints preach but unbelievers won't believe and they reject us. This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.


----------



## Warrior102

I anyone is in doubt that Jesus Christ was alive - and there is a God - visit any cathedral in Europe. Start with the Cologne Cathedral and the tomb of the Three Kings, and work your way down from there.


----------



## theword

Warrior102 said:


> I anyone is in doubt that Jesus Christ was alive - and there is a God - visit any cathedral in Europe. Start with the Cologne Cathedral and the tomb of the Three Kings, and work your way down from there.



Unbelievers love to see deities in this world. It makes them believe that a god/man really did exist. But us saints know that our Creator is invisible and that He commanded us not to believe in the deities that unbelievers believe in.


----------



## Warrior102

theword said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I anyone is in doubt that Jesus Christ was alive - and there is a God - visit any cathedral in Europe. Start with the Cologne Cathedral and the tomb of the Three Kings, and work your way down from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievers love to see deities in this world. It makes them believe that a god/man really did exist. But us saints know that our Creator is invisible and that He commanded us not to believe in the deities that unbelievers believe in.
Click to expand...


Do you know what a deity is, you fucking dingbat ?


----------



## theword

Warrior102 said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I anyone is in doubt that Jesus Christ was alive - and there is a God - visit any cathedral in Europe. Start with the Cologne Cathedral and the tomb of the Three Kings, and work your way down from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievers love to see deities in this world. It makes them believe that a god/man really did exist. But us saints know that our Creator is invisible and that He commanded us not to believe in the deities that unbelievers believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what a deity is, you fucking dingbat ?
Click to expand...


Deities are what Christians believe in since they don't know our invisible Creator. Deities are things like the illusions of flesh called Jesus, virgin Mary, angels, etc.

What you see is not who we are so if a man uses an image he sees on the retina's of his eyes and says it's "godly", is a worshiper of deities.


----------



## mskafka

Homeostasis, is why I personally believe in a supreme being.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Is there any sound argument for GrosMinet's existence?*  He is a mere fragment of a computer's imagination.


----------



## BreezeWood

*Is there any sound argument for God's existence?*


one's first breath.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence?



Yes.


----------



## HenryBHough

Yes.

Sound.

Lots and lots of sound.

Beyond that?????


----------



## GrosMinet

Quantum Windbag said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Care to explain?


----------



## BreezeWood

GrosMinet said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to explain?
Click to expand...



maybe a would be better than any.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GrosMinet said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to explain?
Click to expand...


Do you care to learn?


----------



## mskafka

I was recently corrected, when I stated that quarks were the smallest particles known to exist, within man.  

So within human beings and other "things", there is something smaller that a quark;  But for now, we know that quarks+atoms+molecules+cells+organs+organ systems=a human being

If we're made of so many particles, how do we know that we are not also small organisms to something very large?   Our bodies will not survive very long, outside of a pH of 7.35-7.45.
Although, it looks like we (most of us will be long gone) had better start acclimating to a more acidic environment.

 

I


----------



## JakeStarkey

An atheist's argument is simply non-empirical and non-rationalistic.

Atheist's argue from faith, nothing else.


----------



## HenryBHough

For most libs it ain't faith; it's apathy.


----------



## mskafka

I believe that just about anyone can become a believer, if the right person talks to them.  You wouldn't want to approach a man with a PhD in Astronomy, and try to tell him that the world is flat.  Trying to convince a geologist that that world is 6,000 years young, and flat (some actually say they're not convinced that it's round) would be an exercise in futility.  And a Paleontologist is also going to tell you where stick it, when you try to preach to her that Earth is 6,000 years old, and that human beings rode dinosaurs like horses.

It's all in the delivery.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Proof that there is a god and he's a manly man;


----------



## Toro

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence?



Yes.

This.


----------



## GrosMinet

So I guess a cockroach is evidence for Satan's existence?


----------



## tinydancer

Have you ever seen a hummingbird?


----------



## Pop23

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



Being an all powerful being, if he want you to know he exists he will let you know in his way. Nothing Man can do can change that


----------



## Shangatron

I believe this is important that's why I'm reposting it public! I don't judge other religions that's gods job. The bible said there are many mansions in gods kingdom. I believe that if you are a good person and believe in god you will find yourself in one of gods mansions. If you judge people you will be judged. If you don't judge you will not be judged. You are not god and should not judge someone that believes in god a certain way. The main thing is to just love god and your neighbors with all your might. Follow this and I will see you in heaven someday. I wont tell you the path I choose, because I don't want to offend anyone. But, I've had some amazing and unbelievable things happen that were not normal.

 I believe god doesn't judge by what religion your in. Because, when you raise a child you raise them in the religion you believe in and that religion is usually with them for the rest of their life. So, in all fairness its not there choice what religion is right for them. The parent chooses. I don't believe god will turn his back on almost anything you believe in. Keep an open heart and god will find his way in. He loves us all the same and I love him!


----------



## tinydancer

Toro said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> This.
Click to expand...




Oh for crying out loud that's man made. Run with the hummingbird will ya? you have a better chance.


----------



## tinydancer

Pop23 said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being an all powerful being, if he want you to know he exists he will let you know in his way. Nothing Man can do can change that
Click to expand...


I like smiting. That's a biggie for me.


----------



## Sunshine

mskafka said:


> I believe that just about anyone can become a believer, if the right person talks to them.  You wouldn't want to approach a man with a PhD in Astronomy, and try to tell him that the world is flat.  Trying to convince a geologist that that world is 6,000 years young, and flat (some actually say they're not convinced that it's round) would be an exercise in futility.  And a Paleontologist is also going to tell you where stick it, when you try to preach to her that Earth is 6,000 years old, and that human beings rode dinosaurs like horses.
> 
> It's all in the delivery.



In order to be a believer and a scientist, one must be able to understand that science is based on evidence and belief in God is based on faith.  You can accept both on their own merits.  This whole argument makes me think of my MIL.  She would say, 'which is better, my potato salad or Aunt Hilda's?'  There was no in between for her.  But I could, and did, like them both.  She found that to be most disagreeable because she HAD to be the best. I think the world  is full of 'either or' people like her.  It is this way OR it is that way.  It can't be this way and I believe there is more to it than we know and can prove at present.  

Personally, I don't think the universe is divided into 'natural and supernatural.'  I believe they are on a continuum, and the supernatural is merely things we have not yet been able to explain empirically.  Even Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing and a statistician par excellence, did not believe in Germ Theory.  But now we can see bacteria and even viruses with magnification.  Do you ever hear anyone argue with Germ Theory?


----------



## Pop23

tinydancer said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> This.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for crying out loud that's man made. Run with the hummingbird will ya? you have a better chance.
Click to expand...


This may be a first, but I'm siding with Toro over tinydancer!

I owe Toro a rep when I get my ability back.


----------



## tinydancer

Oh and for youze guze who dont read the big book, smiting is a big big deal.


----------



## tinydancer

Pop23 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> This.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for crying out loud that's man made. Run with the hummingbird will ya? you have a better chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may be a first, but I'm siding with Toro over tinydancer!
> 
> I owe Toro a rep when I get my ability back.
Click to expand...


Ok NOW I love you more than my luggage.


----------



## BreezeWood

theword said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No argument will change an unbeliever's mind. Believers and unbelievers were chosen by our Creator to participate in a saint's gospel. Believers will believe some things that we saints preach but unbelievers won't believe and they reject us. *This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.*
Click to expand...



*This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.*


I'm slightly curious Saint Brad if you believe there is a Spirit ?

.


----------



## GrosMinet

Sunshine said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that just about anyone can become a believer, if the right person talks to them.  You wouldn't want to approach a man with a PhD in Astronomy, and try to tell him that the world is flat.  Trying to convince a geologist that that world is 6,000 years young, and flat (some actually say they're not convinced that it's round) would be an exercise in futility.  And a Paleontologist is also going to tell you where stick it, when you try to preach to her that Earth is 6,000 years old, and that human beings rode dinosaurs like horses.
> 
> It's all in the delivery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to be a believer and a scientist, one must be able to understand that science is based on evidence and belief in God is based on faith.  You can accept both on their own merits.  This whole argument makes me think of my MIL.  She would say, 'which is better, my potato salad or Aunt Hilda's?'  There was not in between for her.  But I could, and did, like them both.  She found that to be most disagreeable because she HAD to be the best. I think the world  is full of 'either or' people like her.  It is this way OR it is that way.  It can't be this way and I believe there is more to it than we know and can prove at present.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the universe is divided into 'natural and supernatural.'  I believe they are on a continuum, and the supernatural are merely things we have not yet been able to explain empirically.  Even Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing and a statistician par excellence, did not believe in Germ Theory.  But now we can see bacteria and even viruses with magnification.  Do you ever hear anyone argue with Germ Theory?
Click to expand...


The supernatural in my view is what lays permanently beyond science's ability to explain naturalistically.


----------



## Sunshine

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



I do not believe it is ever necessary, or even appropriate, to argue the existence of God.  God is most capable of proving His own existence.


----------



## theword

BreezeWood said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No argument will change an unbeliever's mind. Believers and unbelievers were chosen by our Creator to participate in a saint's gospel. Believers will believe some things that we saints preach but unbelievers won't believe and they reject us. *This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.*
> 
> 
> I'm slightly curious Saint Brad if you believe there is a Spirit ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm speaking from my created existence as God's Voice so I know that the symbolic name "spirit" means God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy. From processed energy we get a defined world ( earthly flesh and things we see in this world) to experience life in.


----------



## hobelim

GrosMinet said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that just about anyone can become a believer, if the right person talks to them.  You wouldn't want to approach a man with a PhD in Astronomy, and try to tell him that the world is flat.  Trying to convince a geologist that that world is 6,000 years young, and flat (some actually say they're not convinced that it's round) would be an exercise in futility.  And a Paleontologist is also going to tell you where stick it, when you try to preach to her that Earth is 6,000 years old, and that human beings rode dinosaurs like horses.
> 
> It's all in the delivery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to be a believer and a scientist, one must be able to understand that science is based on evidence and belief in God is based on faith.  You can accept both on their own merits.  This whole argument makes me think of my MIL.  She would say, 'which is better, my potato salad or Aunt Hilda's?'  There was not in between for her.  But I could, and did, like them both.  She found that to be most disagreeable because she HAD to be the best. I think the world  is full of 'either or' people like her.  It is this way OR it is that way.  It can't be this way and I believe there is more to it than we know and can prove at present.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the universe is divided into 'natural and supernatural.'  I believe they are on a continuum, and the supernatural are merely things we have not yet been able to explain empirically.  Even Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing and a statistician par excellence, did not believe in Germ Theory.  But now we can see bacteria and even viruses with magnification.  Do you ever hear anyone argue with Germ Theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supernatural in my view is what lays permanently beyond science's ability to explain naturalistically.
Click to expand...



as far as miracles go many seem supernatural in nature if interpreted literally such as the creation story, the creation of man into a living being, fire from the sky, raising the dead, ascending into heaven, cleansing the lepers, giving sight to the blind, feeding the multitude, etc., etc., but without adding or subtracting a single word these very same stories can also be easily interpreted and explained naturalistically in a way that conforms to and is confirmed by reality.

Science may be incapable of explaining the supernatural but anyone over the age of 8 acquainted with fairy tales with a basic understanding of figurative expression, metaphors, allegories, homonyms, hyperbole, etc. can.

for instance, feeding the multitude is not about feeding fish sandwiches to a crowd out of thin air, it is a story about how Jesus taught such a large crowd to their satisfaction before microphones and turned 7 disciples into twelve. Healing the blind is a healing of perception and not sight, etc..... all within the realm of possibility in the natural world as we know it.


----------



## Ancient lion

Like someone is asking for an evidence that light exists in a sunny day 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk] Science Proves God Existence- YouTube[/ame]


----------



## earlycuyler

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



For my part, its all faith. About the only " technical" argument I can give Is I just know. Sorry. Likely not what your looking for. I wont post scripture and stuff unless you ask, and don't think that's what your after, but God has kind of said a time or two that he won't make sence to the intelectuell, or that it may be difficult for them to take something on faith alone. Honestly, most people have a hard time takeing anything on faith alone thees days.My words not his. First and formost, as put by another poster its faith.


----------



## Sunshine

GrosMinet said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that just about anyone can become a believer, if the right person talks to them.  You wouldn't want to approach a man with a PhD in Astronomy, and try to tell him that the world is flat.  Trying to convince a geologist that that world is 6,000 years young, and flat (some actually say they're not convinced that it's round) would be an exercise in futility.  And a Paleontologist is also going to tell you where stick it, when you try to preach to her that Earth is 6,000 years old, and that human beings rode dinosaurs like horses.
> 
> It's all in the delivery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to be a believer and a scientist, one must be able to understand that science is based on evidence and belief in God is based on faith.  You can accept both on their own merits.  This whole argument makes me think of my MIL.  She would say, 'which is better, my potato salad or Aunt Hilda's?'  There was not in between for her.  But I could, and did, like them both.  She found that to be most disagreeable because she HAD to be the best. I think the world  is full of 'either or' people like her.  It is this way OR it is that way.  It can't be this way and I believe there is more to it than we know and can prove at present.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the universe is divided into 'natural and supernatural.'  I believe they are on a continuum, and the supernatural are merely things we have not yet been able to explain empirically.  Even Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing and a statistician par excellence, did not believe in Germ Theory.  But now we can see bacteria and even viruses with magnification.  Do you ever hear anyone argue with Germ Theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supernatural in my view is what lays permanently beyond science's ability to explain naturalistically.
Click to expand...


I cannot agree.  People once thought illness was caused by the supernatural.  Now we know illness is largely caused by bacteria and viruses.  We also know that some diseases hitch a ride on our own DNA.  If everyone thought like you we would have no cures at all.  No one would have even tried to find them.  I believe that everything with the right methods is perfectly explainable.  We just don't have all the right methods yet.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Belief is only about faith.

If you don't, then pass on by, I have no ill will for you.

But if you want to stop to chat, please do.


----------



## Two Thumbs

tinydancer said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> This.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for crying out loud that's man made. Run with the hummingbird will ya? you have a better chance.
Click to expand...




Hummingbird or incredibly hot chick





potato pohtahtoh



Im gunna go with 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




It's like she's praying and stuff


----------



## BDBoop

Warrior102 said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I anyone is in doubt that Jesus Christ was alive - and there is a God - visit any cathedral in Europe. Start with the Cologne Cathedral and the tomb of the Three Kings, and work your way down from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievers love to see deities in this world. It makes them believe that a god/man really did exist. But us saints know that our Creator is invisible and that He commanded us not to believe in the deities that unbelievers believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what a deity is, you fucking dingbat ?
Click to expand...


Funniest thing I've read all week.


----------



## JakeStarkey

theword on one side and the warrior on the other extreme.

who says the Board does not resemble reality.


----------



## BreezeWood

theword said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theword said:
> 
> 
> 
> No argument will change an unbeliever's mind. Believers and unbelievers were chosen by our Creator to participate in a saint's gospel. Believers will believe some things that we saints preach but unbelievers won't believe and they reject us. *This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.*
> 
> 
> I'm slightly curious Saint Brad if you believe there is a Spirit ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm speaking from my created existence as God's Voice* so *I know that the symbolic name "spirit" means God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy.* From processed energy we get a defined world ( earthly flesh and things we see in this world) to experience life in.
Click to expand...





> I'm speaking from my created existence as God's Voice ...



you are not distinct as your own Spirit ?




> I know that the symbolic name "spirit" means God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy.



as a distinct being the Deity relinquishes all control over, for its existence - other than its termination if necessary.


- just curious word as you seem to believe there is no free will granted the Deities creations.

.


----------



## theword

BreezeWood said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.*
> 
> 
> I'm slightly curious Saint Brad if you believe there is a Spirit ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm speaking from my created existence as God's Voice* so *I know that the symbolic name "spirit" means God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy.* From processed energy we get a defined world ( earthly flesh and things we see in this world) to experience life in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking from my created existence as God's Voice ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are not distinct as your own Spirit ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the symbolic name "spirit" means God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as a distinct being the Deity relinquishes all control over, for its existence - other than its termination if necessary.
> 
> 
> - just curious word as you seem to believe there is no free will granted the Deities creations.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


God planned and created the strong delusion that we saints were given understanding about. Everything you see in this world are illusions that are meant to deceive us from our true created existence as wavelengths of energy that no flesh can see.


----------



## Ancient lion

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?



Interesting video..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BdCnwy2dg0]Arguments for Gods Existence Keith Ward - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bowman

Ancient lion said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting video..
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BdCnwy2dg0]Arguments for Gods Existence Keith Ward - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...



Your links are a sham don't you think...?

ABC Islam


----------



## Boss

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



In order to prove god's existence you simply have to define the meaning of those three words and their relationship with each other. 

Proof, or to "prove" is to present irrefutable facts which can be accepted as evidence. The problem with "proof" is, what I view as an irrefutable fact and evidence may be completely different than what you would view. For instance, when Einstein viewed Newton's Law of Motion, he did not accept it as irrefutable fact. He challenged that with his own theory of relativity. Even though Einstein's theory prevailed, it didn't necessarily negate Newton's theory or render it invalid. Still, had Einstein simply accepted Newton's theory and never challenged it, he would have never formed the Theory of Relativity. 

"God" can be imagined to mean all kinds of things. In the most simple form, it is the intangible which is greater than self. It may not be a "thing" or a "something" at all, it may be an energy or more specifically, a spirit. In any respect, it denotes some form of hierarchy greater than the human self. If you have imagined "God" as a "being" or "magical invisible person" who lives on a cloud and speaks with a Charlton Heston voice, then it's easy to consider this thing doesn't actually have a physical existence because it would defy any understanding of physical logic. However, if you can do as Einstein and challenge conventional wisdom, you may be able to consider "God" as some form of cosmic energy that man can't really explain or rationalize with science. We do know there are many phenomenon in the universe that science is inadequate to explain at this time. 

This brings us to "exist" or "existence." What does that mean? Humans rationalize "existence" through verification by our five senses. We can see, taste, smell, hear or touch it. If we can't, we cannot logically deduce that it "exists." Or can we? If we had never observed black holes in our universe, would they "exist?" If humanity suddenly lost all five senses, would anything "exist?" It would in that we know that it does, but how would we ever confirm this without our senses? 

Now, we have the five senses mentioned, but we can look around us in nature and find examples of living organisms which are able to sense things we humans can't. In fact, in every one of our five senses, there are animals which have a keener ability than humans. We're not superior in vision, hearing, taste, smell or touch. Not to mention the whole array of senses we simply can't relate to which we sometimes define as "instinct" or "intuition." Therefore it is arrogant of mankind to presume that our five very limited senses are all there is and nothing else can confirm any other form of existence. 

If we can open our minds enough to accept that God is a non-physical (spiritual) entity which our five limited sense may not be able to detect, perhaps we can better rationalize the "existence" of "God?" I would argue the most incredible evidence for this is life itself. Life is a process. An organized and mechanical series of happening which performs in a predictable manner repeatedly all around us. Nothing about a random and circumstantial universe can logically explain this phenomenon. A process is not chaotic or random. 

When we objectively inspect the billions of life forms on Earth, how they interact with each other and depend on one another, each with it's own contribution to the overall process, the circle of life, the interdependent balance in nature, existing in an environment that must conform to particular criteria to even enable the process to work... it's hard to conclude this is not the product of something greater than random chance. All the billions of things which had to happen in precise order, just for life to occur. Yet this is explained away by people who have closed their minds to any possibility of something greater than man. It is indeed an absurd conclusion to draw regardless of how intellectually you approach it. 

For God to exist, does not require some physical confirmation of our senses, nor does it require that God conform to one of the many man-made constructs of religious incarnation. Religion is simply man's way of rationalizing a power it doesn't understand and cannot comprehend. In order to relate to this entity, man has  developed an image of God. Since we can't relate, we have assumed humanistic attributes for God, like a God of Compassion or a God who becomes angry at sin, etc. These man-made characteristics of God do not have to apply in order for God to exist, in fact, it would surprise me if they did. Still, many people find it easier to accept a God they can relate to and understand, so we have religion for that purpose. 

While our five limited senses are inadequate at confirming presence of God, humans do seem to have a sense that something greater exists. Even accounting for all the Atheists in the world, nearly 96% of humans do believe in something greater than self. Curiously, this statistic follows mankind back to his very origins. We've unearthed the most ancient human civilizations to find they conducted ritual spiritual ceremonies, so they did believe in something. It is the single most unique defining attribute of the human species, spirituality. 

We hear the argument that humans created spirituality to cope with fears of death and explain the unexplained. This is an irrational explanation to me. We see no evidence in nature of any other living thing, having to "cope with fears of death" the way humans have. It would seem, if this were a legitimate explanation, at least some of the upper primates would have exhibited similar attributes, but we find absolutely no evidence to support it. Nothing else has to worship a higher power to cope with it's fear of death. As for the unexplained, we also see no evidence that other living things require explanation. They survive and thrive perfectly fine without demand for explanation.  

I would argue that it is through mankind's spirituality and understanding of something greater than self, that humans developed methods of explaining the unexplained universe around us, hence: Science. Yes, the very thing that humans often revert to in order to refute God's existence, was developed out of mankind's understanding that God does exist.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to prove god's existence you simply have to define the meaning of those three words and their relationship with each other.
> 
> Proof, or to "prove" is to present irrefutable facts which can be accepted as evidence. The problem with "proof" is, what I view as an irrefutable fact and evidence may be completely different than what you would view. For instance, when Einstein viewed Newton's Law of Motion, he did not accept it as irrefutable fact. He challenged that with his own theory of relativity. Even though Einstein's theory prevailed, it didn't necessarily negate Newton's theory or render it invalid. Still, had Einstein simply accepted Newton's theory and never challenged it, he would have never formed the Theory of Relativity.
> 
> "God" can be imagined to mean all kinds of things. In the most simple form, it is the intangible which is greater than self. It may not be a "thing" or a "something" at all, it may be an energy or more specifically, a spirit. In any respect, it denotes some form of hierarchy greater than the human self. If you have imagined "God" as a "being" or "magical invisible person" who lives on a cloud and speaks with a Charlton Heston voice, then it's easy to consider this thing doesn't actually have a physical existence because it would defy any understanding of physical logic. However, if you can do as Einstein and challenge conventional wisdom, you may be able to consider "God" as some form of cosmic energy that man can't really explain or rationalize with science. We do know there are many phenomenon in the universe that science is inadequate to explain at this time.
> 
> This brings us to "exist" or "existence." What does that mean? Humans rationalize "existence" through verification by our five senses. We can see, taste, smell, hear or touch it. If we can't, we cannot logically deduce that it "exists." Or can we? If we had never observed black holes in our universe, would they "exist?" If humanity suddenly lost all five senses, would anything "exist?" It would in that we know that it does, but how would we ever confirm this without our senses?
> 
> Now, we have the five senses mentioned, but we can look around us in nature and find examples of living organisms which are able to sense things we humans can't. In fact, in every one of our five senses, there are animals which have a keener ability than humans. We're not superior in vision, hearing, taste, smell or touch. Not to mention the whole array of senses we simply can't relate to which we sometimes define as "instinct" or "intuition." Therefore it is arrogant of mankind to presume that our five very limited senses are all there is and nothing else can confirm any other form of existence.
> 
> If we can open our minds enough to accept that God is a non-physical (spiritual) entity which our five limited sense may not be able to detect, perhaps we can better rationalize the "existence" of "God?" I would argue the most incredible evidence for this is life itself. Life is a process. An organized and mechanical series of happening which performs in a predictable manner repeatedly all around us. Nothing about a random and circumstantial universe can logically explain this phenomenon. A process is not chaotic or random.
> 
> When we objectively inspect the billions of life forms on Earth, how they interact with each other and depend on one another, each with it's own contribution to the overall process, the circle of life, the interdependent balance in nature, existing in an environment that must conform to particular criteria to even enable the process to work... it's hard to conclude this is not the product of something greater than random chance. All the billions of things which had to happen in precise order, just for life to occur. Yet this is explained away by people who have closed their minds to any possibility of something greater than man. It is indeed an absurd conclusion to draw regardless of how intellectually you approach it.
> 
> For God to exist, does not require some physical confirmation of our senses, nor does it require that God conform to one of the many man-made constructs of religious incarnation. Religion is simply man's way of rationalizing a power it doesn't understand and cannot comprehend. In order to relate to this entity, man has  developed an image of God. Since we can't relate, we have assumed humanistic attributes for God, like a God of Compassion or a God who becomes angry at sin, etc. These man-made characteristics of God do not have to apply in order for God to exist, in fact, it would surprise me if they did. Still, many people find it easier to accept a God they can relate to and understand, so we have religion for that purpose.
> 
> While our five limited senses are inadequate at confirming presence of God, humans do seem to have a sense that something greater exists. Even accounting for all the Atheists in the world, nearly 96% of humans do believe in something greater than self. Curiously, this statistic follows mankind back to his very origins. We've unearthed the most ancient human civilizations to find they conducted ritual spiritual ceremonies, so they did believe in something. It is the single most unique defining attribute of the human species, spirituality.
> 
> We hear the argument that humans created spirituality to cope with fears of death and explain the unexplained. This is an irrational explanation to me. We see no evidence in nature of any other living thing, having to "cope with fears of death" the way humans have. It would seem, if this were a legitimate explanation, at least some of the upper primates would have exhibited similar attributes, but we find absolutely no evidence to support it. Nothing else has to worship a higher power to cope with it's fear of death. As for the unexplained, we also see no evidence that other living things require explanation. They survive and thrive perfectly fine without demand for explanation.
> 
> I would argue that it is through mankind's spirituality and understanding of something greater than self, that humans developed methods of explaining the unexplained universe around us, hence: Science. Yes, the very thing that humans often revert to in order to refute God's existence, was developed out of mankind's understanding that God does exist.
Click to expand...

one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?



No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?
Click to expand...

yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...


----------



## TheShinyOne

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?
Click to expand...


Ooo, snarky... right on. Could be _Sephirot_, counting paragraphs.


----------



## daws101

TheShinyOne said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooo, snarky... right on. Could be _Sephirot_, counting paragraphs.
Click to expand...

who?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...
Click to expand...


Define quantifiable evidence in such a way that it excludes all the known evidence for the existence of God.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define quantifiable evidence in such a way that it excludes all the known evidence for the existence of God.
Click to expand...

all know evidence of god is anecdotal and subjective and not quantifiable.  
The definition of quantifiable is something that is capable of being measured or counted. 



Definition of anecdotal (adj)
Bing Dictionary
an·ec·dot·al[ ànn&#601;k d&#7763;t'l ]
based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation
of anecdotes: relating to anecdotes or in the form of anecdotes


----------



## Vox

mskafka said:


> Homeostasis, is why I personally believe in a supreme being.



i think the brilliant concept of nucleotides is even more convincing.


----------



## MaryL

What kind of proof do ya need? An embroidered hankie? We are here, maybe that  doesnt mean anything. But there it is.


----------



## MaryL

Is there any sound  proof  of existence, at all ? Maybe this is all just a dream and we are figments of  gods imagination? Disprove it.  So you cant,  is that proof?  What is reality, anyway?


----------



## MaryL

Perhaps GOD would condescend  and actually answer a simple question. Are you there?  No fair with the metaphors and ambiguities. A simple YES would  do. Ever say something like that and&#8230;actually expect an honest reply from God?  Without  being jerked around by religion X Y Z? With NO response ?  Why , oh why, do people  believe for over 1000 years in something they  can&#8217;t prove?  That is  more to the question.


----------



## HenryBHough

It was all pre-conditioning so people would believe they'd be able to keep their plan; keep their doctor.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...
Click to expand...


Well I addressed "evidence" in the first paragraph of my post, didn't I? 

Having what you call "no quantifiable evidence" doesn't really mean anything in terms of what does or does not actually exist. Did black holes exist before we had observed them? If we were still unable to observe them, would they actually exist? I surmise they would indeed still exist, in spite of our ability to quantifiably confirm them. 

Now as for "quantifiable evidence" I think nature, science and life are quantifiable evidence of God. You may disagree, but that brings us back to my original point about what is "evidence?" Indeed it is clear, if there were some indisputable factor which proved God beyond any rational doubt to everyone who isn't insane, then we wouldn't likely continue having this debate, would we? But then again, that is what Einstein faced with Newton's Law of Motion, and he still challenged what we thought we already knew.


----------



## Gracie

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.




Faith. That's it. Just faith. Either ya have it...or ya don't.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Perhaps GOD would condescend  and actually answer a simple question. Are you there?  No fair with the metaphors and ambiguities. A simple YES would  do.





Wow, I didn't think you were this much of a simpleton.


----------



## hobelim

MaryL said:


> Perhaps GOD would condescend  and actually answer a simple question. Are you there?  No fair with the metaphors and ambiguities. A simple YES would  do. Ever say something like that andactually expect an honest reply from God?  Without  being jerked around by religion X Y Z? With NO response ?  Why , oh why, do people  believe for over 1000 years in something they  cant prove?  That is  more to the question.





"I will begin the subject of this chapter with a simile. A king is in his palace, and all his subjects are partly in the country, and partly abroad. Of the former, some have their backs turned towards the king's palace, and their faces in another direction; and some are desirous and zealous to go to the palace, seeking "to inquire in his temple," and to minister before him, but have not yet seen even the face of the wall of the house. Of those that desire to go to the palace, some reach it, and go round about in search of the entrance gate; others have passed through the gate, and walk about in the ante-chamber; and others have succeeded in entering into the inner part of the palace, and being in the same room with the king in the royal palace. But even the latter do not immediately on entering the palace see the king, or speak to him; for, after having entered the inner part of the palace, another effort is required before they can stand before the king--at a distance, or close by--hear his words, or speak to him......."

Guide for the Perplexed, by Moses Maimonides, chapter 51,pg. 384


----------



## TheShinyOne

daws101 said:


> who?



...said the owl. Just smile and count to ten.


----------



## PainefulTruth

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



No, there's no argument/evidence for or against God's existence either way.  The universe, and our existence, demand and explanation, but there is none.  The Big Bang is a firewall, blocking any information from "before".  For us, the only difference between atheism and deism (the only reasonable position for God), is hope.  Either way, we must live our lives in this world with reason in a rational universe as our only guidance.


----------



## hobelim

PainefulTruth said:


> GrosMinet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there's no argument/evidence for or against God's existence either way.  The universe, and our existence, demand and explanation, but there is none.  The Big Bang is a firewall, blocking any information from "before".  For us, the only difference between atheism and deism (the only reasonable position for God), is hope.  Either way, we must live our lives in this world with reason in a rational universe as our only guidance.
Click to expand...



I don't think the universe can be considered rational. Even so, in the universe, specifically here on earth, there is ample evidence of the ascendant nature of life and that all life forms evolve and adapt to changing circumstances or go extinct.

That may not be evidence of God but it does suggest that if a deity does exist a reasonable and rational assumption would be that he could only be perceived by the more highly evolved and adaptable intelligences.

However vast the universe might be it is made infinitely smaller if one thinks that nothing exists beyond what can currently be perceived by the human mind.

Obviously, given the things that come out of some peoples minds, there is much room for improvement.

Thousands of years have passed since the story of adam and eve was first put in writing and some people still haven't figured out that a talking snake indicates a fairy tale.  Some people still don't realize that a fairy tale can convey truth even if it is impossible to be literally true. The teaching of the story written by men still remains above the grasp of most believers and unbelievers alike.

Is it any wonder that God remains unseen?


----------



## editec

*Question: *

_When is a wave not a wave?_

*Answer*

_When it's a particle._​
Now that we know Newtonian Physics is more a set of suggestions than a set of laws?

Well shoot folks, we know even believing in SCIENCE is becoming a matter of faith.

Its getting really hard to be a committed atheist in light of the fact that we now THINK we know that the law of CAUSE AND EFFECT may not actually work in only one direction, too.

Everything most of us think we know is basically ...well not exactly wrong, just not right ALL THE TIME.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> all know evidence of god is anecdotal and subjective and not quantifiable.
> The definition of quantifiable is something that is capable of being measured or counted.



So what if mankind suddenly lost all ability to measure or count? Would things stop existing? 

What you and many non-believers do is demand something "quantifiable" to prove God. But all things quantifiable rely on your five limited senses. A spiritual force, which is what God is, doesn't necessarily provide something your five limited senses can quantify. This only confirms that a spiritual entity is not a physical entity. It doesn't confirm there is no spiritual existence.

Let's look at something that we both know has a physical existence-- Jupiter. Now we know that Jupiter exists because we can see it in a telescope but if we travel back in time to the Stone Age, before man had the ability to 'see' into space-- Did Jupiter exist? Of course it did, we just didn't have the physical capability of confirming it. I've never been to Jupiter, and neither have you, but we know it is there because we can verify this with one of our five senses. Having never been there, we rely on our faith in our sense of sight to confirm this information and we can rationalize we haven't simply 'imagined' Jupiter into existence. But what if we suddenly lost our ability to see? Would Jupiter cease to exist? Could we still rationalize that Jupiter is probably still there?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I addressed "evidence" in the first paragraph of my post, didn't I?
> 
> Having what you call "no quantifiable evidence" doesn't really mean anything in terms of what does or does not actually exist. Did black holes exist before we had observed them? If we were still unable to observe them, would they actually exist? I surmise they would indeed still exist, in spite of our ability to quantifiably confirm them.
> 
> Now as for "quantifiable evidence" I think nature, science and life are quantifiable evidence of God. You may disagree, but that brings us back to my original point about what is "evidence?" Indeed it is clear, if there were some indisputable factor which proved God beyond any rational doubt to everyone who isn't insane, then we wouldn't likely continue having this debate, would we? But then again, that is what Einstein faced with Newton's Law of Motion, and he still challenged what we thought we already knew.
Click to expand...



brevity is not one of your strengths.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all know evidence of god is anecdotal and subjective and not quantifiable.
> The definition of quantifiable is something that is capable of being measured or counted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what if mankind suddenly lost all ability to measure or count? Would things stop existing?
> 
> What you and many non-believers do is demand something "quantifiable" to prove God. But all things quantifiable rely on your five limited senses. A spiritual force, which is what God is, doesn't necessarily provide something your five limited senses can quantify. This only confirms that a spiritual entity is not a physical entity. It doesn't confirm there is no spiritual existence.
> 
> Let's look at something that we both know has a physical existence-- Jupiter. Now we know that Jupiter exists because we can see it in a telescope but if we travel back in time to the Stone Age, before man had the ability to 'see' into space-- Did Jupiter exist? Of course it did, we just didn't have the physical capability of confirming it. I've never been to Jupiter, and neither have you, but we know it is there because we can verify this with one of our five senses. Having never been there, we rely on our faith in our sense of sight to confirm this information and we can rationalize we haven't simply 'imagined' Jupiter into existence. But what if we suddenly lost our ability to see? Would Jupiter cease to exist? Could we still rationalize that Jupiter is probably still there?
Click to expand...

brevity is not one of your strengths.


----------



## Dante

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



Sound argument(s)? Sure. But...an argument is not proof of anything


----------



## PainefulTruth

hobelim said:


> I don't think the universe can be considered rational. Even so, in the universe, specifically here on earth, there is ample evidence of the ascendant nature of life and that all life forms evolve and adapt to changing circumstances or go extinct.



The universe is the ultimate example of rationality.  It's governed by rational, natural law.  As we acquire knowledge, it fits into the puzzle and validates what was already there, or we chuck it.



> That may not be evidence of God but it does suggest that if a deity does exist a reasonable and rational assumption would be that he could only be perceived by the more highly evolved and adaptable intelligences.



I think, if God exists, It crated the universe as a rational stage for us to exercise our free will without It's influence.  To do so, God needed to create the universe so that there would be NO evidence for or at against It's existence.



> However vast the universe might be it is made infinitely smaller if one thinks that nothing exists beyond what can currently be perceived by the human mind.



True.  I doubt we'll ever have perfect knowledge--that is knowledge of everything.  That doesn't mean that the knowledge we do possess isn't true.



> Obviously, given the things that come out of some peoples minds, there is much room for improvement.



True again.  Claiming to possess knowledge does not make that possession a fact.  The biggest obstacle to Truth is the lies we tell ourselves.



> Thousands of years have passed since the story of adam and eve was first put in writing and some people still haven't figured out that a talking snake indicates a fairy tale.  Some people still don't realize that a fairy tale can convey truth even if it is impossible to be literally true. The teaching of the story written by men still remains above the grasp of most believers and unbelievers alike.



True once again.  Adam an Eve (like Job) is an excellent allegory, and amazingly ahead of its time.  The knowledge of good and evil is born of our acquisition of self-awareness; and our full self-awareness is born of the knowledge of our ultimate mortality.  It forces us to realize the consequences our actions have on others because of our ability to put ourselves in other's shoes.  All immorality is derived from convincing ourselves that our vanity is justified in spite of how we violate the equal rights of others.



> Is it any wonder that God remains unseen?



God, if It exists, certainly designed it that way.



editec said:


> Now that we know Newtonian Physics is more a set of suggestions than a set of laws?
> 
> Well shoot folks, we know even believing in SCIENCE is becoming a matter of faith.



Faith that is validated by massive amounts of facts and experience that always adheres to those facts every day.  Blind faith is the belief in the violation of natural law without any facts or evidence (other than hearsay) to back it up.



> Its getting really hard to be a committed atheist in light of the fact that we now THINK we know that the law of CAUSE AND EFFECT may not actually work in only one direction, too.
> 
> Everything most of us think we know is basically ...well not exactly wrong, just not right ALL THE TIME.



We have facts and evidence, and we have theories which must adhere to them.  Disproving a tentative theory doesn't disprove the facts and evidence it was established to attempt to explain.  Declaring that you believe God parted the Red Sea is based on nothing but 3000+ year old hearsay, and absolutely nothing more--regardless of the historical likelihood that the Israelites migrated from Egypt to Canaan at one point.



Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all know evidence of god is anecdotal and subjective and not quantifiable.
> The definition of quantifiable is something that is capable of being measured or counted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang and birth of the universe isn't anecdotal.  It's just that we have no evidence whatsoever as to whether its creation was willful or not.  Both are equally likely/unlikely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what if mankind suddenly lost all ability to measure or count? Would things stop existing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe existed long before we came on the scene.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you and many non-believers do is demand something "quantifiable" to prove God. But all things quantifiable rely on your five limited senses. A spiritual force, which is what God is, doesn't necessarily provide something your five limited senses can quantify. This only confirms that a spiritual entity is not a physical entity. It doesn't confirm there is no spiritual existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't confirm that there is a spiritual existence either--again, by design, if It exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at something that we both know has a physical existence-- Jupiter. Now we know that Jupiter exists because we can see it in a telescope but if we travel back in time to the Stone Age, before man had the ability to 'see' into space-- Did Jupiter exist? Of course it did, we just didn't have the physical capability of confirming it. I've never been to Jupiter, and neither have you, but we know it is there because we can verify this with one of our five senses. Having never been there, we rely on our faith in our sense of sight to confirm this information and we can rationalize we haven't simply 'imagined' Jupiter into existence. But what if we suddenly lost our ability to see? Would Jupiter cease to exist? Could we still rationalize that Jupiter is probably still there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We rely on more than our sense of sight to verify its existence.  It's gravitational field affects all other bodies in the solar system (and technically, in the universe), which we deduce by math, not faith.
> 
> If we die, does the universe cease to exist?  Judging by all those who've died before us, no.  And science tells us it was here long before we were.  Where do we choose to put our faith:  science with all the facts and evidence building up in its support, or revelation, with nothing but ancient hearsay, which becomes harder and harder to believe with every passing day.
Click to expand...


----------



## Moonglow

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.





> Is there any sound argument for God's existence?



God told me to ask you the same.


----------



## Boss

> We rely on more than our sense of sight to verify its existence. It's gravitational field affects all other bodies in the solar system (and technically, in the universe), which we deduce by math, not faith.



Yeah, I figured some smarty pants would come along and argue that we could still verify Jupiter through one of our other five limited senses. I guess the point skipped comfortably over your head? Relying on math requires faith, I hate to tell you that. You have faith that math will work predictably as it alway has. With gravity, what we have discovered is perplexing, it doesn't always work as math says it should. Can you explain why gravity exists in the universe? Simple question. 



> If we die, does the universe cease to exist? Judging by all those who've died before us, no. And science tells us it was here long before we were. Where do we choose to put our faith: science with all the facts and evidence building up in its support, or revelation, with nothing but ancient hearsay, which becomes harder and harder to believe with every passing day.



I didn't say "if we die" in my argument. I asked if we lost our sense of sight, would Jupiter still exist? Science tells us all kinds of things, WE make a determination when to have faith in science. We're not always correct to put our faith in science, it has been wrong many times. The "facts and evidence" you speak of are physical attributes we can confirm with our five limited senses. We rely on faith that our senses aren't lying and we can depend on them to be accurate. 

As for human spirituality, it is hardly just "ancient hearsay" as you put it. This is the most defining attribute of the human species and has been present in mankind since the beginning. Ever since there has been human civilization, there has been human spirituality. Ancient, modern, post-modern, current. From then until now, man has believed in something greater than self. To dismiss this as "ancient hearsay" is pure ignorance. Now maybe your argument works to contradict certain religious teachings, but religion is simply a manifestation of our human spirituality. It is the proof that humans are spiritually connected. 

Now the really curious thing is the 'sense of spirituality' that most humans have. Billions of testimonials spanning all of humanity through the ages, attesting to the power of spiritual belief. If humans gained nothing from this and it served no valid purpose, it would have been a discarded attribute along the way. Yet what our history shows is thousands of years of people being persecuted, murdered, razed and pilaged, locked away, tortured and abused... all the while, refusing to depart with their connection to something spiritual. It can't be stomped out of the hearts of man. It still persists as strongly today as ever. 

If you were a scientist studying any other creature on the planet, and it exhibited a certain behavioral attribute consistently through time, regardless of conditions or circumstances, you'd have to conclude the attribute was beneficial and important to the survival of the species. This is from Darwin himself, by the way. So the real "evidence" shows that something spiritual probably does exist, else humans would have given up on the concept long ago.


----------



## PainefulTruth

Boss said:


> We rely on more than our sense of sight to verify its existence. It's gravitational field affects all other bodies in the solar system (and technically, in the universe), which we deduce by math, not faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I figured some smarty pants would come along and argue that we could still verify Jupiter through one of our other five limited senses.
Click to expand...


Math/reason/science isn't a sense.



> I guess the point skipped comfortably over your head? Relying on math requires faith, I hate to tell you that.



Faith that the universe is rational, is an assumption that is validated every second of our existence both by what we know, and what we are accumulating at an ever accelerating pace to our knowledge.



> You have faith that math will work predictably as it alway has.



...because the universe always has.  How do we know that, because the further away we look, the further back in history we can see.



> With gravity, what we have discovered is perplexing, it doesn't always work as math says it should. Can you explain why gravity exists in the universe? Simple question.



No, but it is and has been rationally consistent, immutable and universal.  Just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean we can't know anything.



> I didn't say "if we die" in my argument. I asked if we lost our sense of sight, would Jupiter still exist?



Either way, if we die or go blind, others still live and see.  And anyway, as I said, the universe preceded us by billions of years.



> Science tells us all kinds of things, WE make a determination when to have faith in science. We're not always correct to put our faith in science, it has been wrong many times. The "facts and evidence" you speak of are physical attributes we can confirm with our five limited senses. We rely on faith that our senses aren't lying and we can depend on them to be accurate.



As I said, science is more than our five senses; the universe exists beyond our senses.  And faith in science is merely accepting that the universe is and has been a rational entity, a rationality that is displayed in every direction as we look back into time.



> As for human spirituality, it is hardly just "ancient hearsay" as you put it. This is the most defining attribute of the human species and has been present in mankind since the beginning.  Ever since there has been human civilization, there has been human spirituality. Ancient, modern, post-modern, current. From then until now, man has believed in something greater than self. To dismiss this as "ancient hearsay" is pure ignorance. Now maybe your argument works to contradict certain religious teachings, but religion is simply a manifestation of our human spirituality. It is the proof that humans are spiritually connected.



What does "spiritually connected" mean?  Nothing more than having that big unanswered question, "Why?"  I don't deny the question, only that there has ever been an answer, divine or otherwise.  What answer is anything other than ancient hearsay?   Can you give one example that isn't self-justifying.



> Now the really curious thing is the 'sense of spirituality' that most humans have. Billions of testimonials spanning all of humanity through the ages, attesting to the power of spiritual belief. If humans gained nothing from this and it served no valid purpose, it would have been a discarded attribute along the way.



Why?  It's nothing more than wondering if our spirit survives, and why good things happen to bad people and vice versa.  



> Yet what our history shows is thousands of years of people being persecuted, murdered, razed and pilaged, locked away, tortured and abused... all the while, refusing to depart with their connection to something spiritual. It can't be stomped out of the hearts of man. It still persists as strongly today as ever.



What you're describing is either the power of superstition, or hope.



> If you were a scientist studying any other creature on the planet, and it exhibited a certain behavioral attribute consistently through time, regardless of conditions or circumstances, you'd have to conclude the attribute was beneficial and important to the survival of the species. This is from Darwin himself, by the way. So the real "evidence" shows that something spiritual probably does exist, else humans would have given up on the concept long ago.



To give up would be to admit the mortality of our soul, nothing more.  Beyond that, far too many people subsist on emotion (blind faith) without recourse to reason.  There is no rationality behind any of the revealed religions, but people adhere to them blindly by the billions because it makes them feel good to do so.

And note that I say "blind" faith.  The motivation of faith (e.g. courage, integrity, loyalty, honor) is a necessary partner to reason. To paraphrase Einstein, a ship without reason at the controls runs aground, and without the engine of faith, it's dead in the water.


----------



## hobelim

PainefulTruth said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the universe can be considered rational. Even so, in the universe, specifically here on earth, there is ample evidence of the ascendant nature of life and that all life forms evolve and adapt to changing circumstances or go extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is the ultimate example of rationality.  It's governed by rational, natural law.  As we acquire knowledge, it fits into the puzzle and validates what was already there, or we chuck it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may not be evidence of God but it does suggest that if a deity does exist a reasonable and rational assumption would be that he could only be perceived by the more highly evolved and adaptable intelligences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, if God exists, It crated the universe as a rational stage for us to exercise our free will without It's influence.  To do so, God needed to create the universe so that there would be NO evidence for or at against It's existence.
Click to expand...



As you said, the biggest obstacle to perceiving truth are the lies we tell ourselves,


The way I see it everything that exists in the material universe points to the existence of God, everywhere you look God is there. If you look into furthest reaches of outer space, he is there, If you look to the bottom of the sea, he is there, if you look under a rock he is there, If you search the innermost depths of your own mind, God is there. Seek the living God within. Unless you first find evidence of him within, you will never see any evidence of him out there.

How much time have you already wasted looking for something that you thought you lost only to find it in plain sight?

If you clutter your brain trying to figure out where you left your car keys or worrying about what you are going to do without them, you will risk being paralyzed or making less than desirable choices that will cost you, but if you just open your mind to see what is right in front of your own nose where ever you look, you will find them sooner at no cost and be on your way...

If you are conducting an experiment in a lab to discover the truth about something, you first have to sterilize the environment to assure against contamination of the results. True?

clean your microscopes tubes and beakers.

Purify your mind and be refined and then you will see God.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> We rely on more than our sense of sight to verify its existence. It's gravitational field affects all other bodies in the solar system (and technically, in the universe), which we deduce by math, not faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I figured some smarty pants would come along and argue that we could still verify Jupiter through one of our other five limited senses. I guess the point skipped comfortably over your head? Relying on math requires faith, I hate to tell you that. You have faith that math will work predictably as it alway has. With gravity, what we have discovered is perplexing, it doesn't always work as math says it should. Can you explain why gravity exists in the universe? Simple question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we die, does the universe cease to exist? Judging by all those who've died before us, no. And science tells us it was here long before we were. Where do we choose to put our faith: science with all the facts and evidence building up in its support, or revelation, with nothing but ancient hearsay, which becomes harder and harder to believe with every passing day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "if we die" in my argument. I asked if we lost our sense of sight, would Jupiter still exist? Science tells us all kinds of things, WE make a determination when to have faith in science. We're not always correct to put our faith in science, it has been wrong many times. The "facts and evidence" you speak of are physical attributes we can confirm with our five limited senses. We rely on faith that our senses aren't lying and we can depend on them to be accurate.
> 
> As for human spirituality, it is hardly just "ancient hearsay" as you put it. This is the most defining attribute of the human species and has been present in mankind since the beginning. Ever since there has been human civilization, there has been human spirituality. Ancient, modern, post-modern, current. From then until now, man has believed in something greater than self. To dismiss this as "ancient hearsay" is pure ignorance. Now maybe your argument works to contradict certain religious teachings, but religion is simply a manifestation of our human spirituality. It is the proof that humans are spiritually connected.
> 
> Now the really curious thing is the 'sense of spirituality' that most humans have. Billions of testimonials spanning all of humanity through the ages, attesting to the power of spiritual belief. If humans gained nothing from this and it served no valid purpose, it would have been a discarded attribute along the way. Yet what our history shows is thousands of years of people being persecuted, murdered, razed and pilaged, locked away, tortured and abused... all the while, refusing to depart with their connection to something spiritual. It can't be stomped out of the hearts of man. It still persists as strongly today as ever.
> 
> If you were a scientist studying any other creature on the planet, and it exhibited a certain behavioral attribute consistently through time, regardless of conditions or circumstances, you'd have to conclude the attribute was beneficial and important to the survival of the species. This is from Darwin himself, by the way. So the real "evidence" shows that something spiritual probably does exist, else humans would have given up on the concept long ago.
Click to expand...

FALSE! the idea (belief) that something spiritual exists is no proof that the thing believed is fact....the idea is self perpetuating, making the need for actual evidence secondary at best ...


----------



## hobelim

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were a scientist studying any other creature on the planet, and it exhibited a certain behavioral attribute consistently through time, regardless of conditions or circumstances, you'd have to conclude the attribute was beneficial and important to the survival of the species. This is from Darwin himself, by the way. So the real "evidence" shows that something spiritual probably does exist, else humans would have given up on the concept long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE! the idea (belief) that something spiritual exists is no proof that the thing believed is fact....the idea is self perpetuating, making the need for actual evidence secondary at best ...
Click to expand...



This has been pointed out to him many times. The man must be hard of reading.

His argument is that irrational  superstitious beliefs are essential to the survival of the species because if the supernatural wasn't real that tendency would have died out,  according to Darwin. As if it wasn't dying out.

Its as silly as asserting that because people have been killing each other from the beginning it must be essential to survival to the species, or else there would be no murderers.....according to Darwin. 

the only proof of anything presented by all of this is that historically, the majority of people who ever lived have not been very rational.

What a surprise!


----------



## Boss

There is nothing irrational or superstitious about human spirituality. Murdering people is not a common human attribute. Spirituality is. Religions come and go, gain and decline in popularity, but human spirituality remains consistent at about 95% throughout the course of human civilization. 



> FALSE! the idea (belief) that something spiritual exists is no proof that the thing believed is fact....the idea is self perpetuating, making the need for actual evidence secondary at best ...



Science never proves anything as fact. The best science can do is provide information. We may interpret that information as "evidence" to support our faith in belief of something but science is not conclusive. 



> Math/reason/science isn't a sense.



I never claimed it was. However, math/reason/science depends on our five senses. Our senses are physical in nature. They relate to the physical universe. If humans all lost the five senses, would the universe still exist? More specifically, could you prove it? 



> Faith that the universe is rational, is an assumption that is validated every second of our existence both by what we know, and what we are accumulating at an ever accelerating pace to our knowledge.



And faith in God is also rational. It is proven every second of our existence both by what we know and what we are accumulating at an ever accelerating pace to our spiritual knowledge. You assume that whenever science explains how something happens that we previously believed was the work of God, that is somehow negates the need for God as an explanation. This is a naive assumption. I can explain how a computer works, it doesn't explain why the computer exists. 

You could not explain why gravity exists in the universe. You also can't explain why electricity exists, you can only explain how it works. The same applies for atoms and compounds like H2O. Why does two parts hydrogen and one part water form the basis for all carbon-based life? Not how, but WHY? You can't explain this and science can't explain it. Only God can. 



> What does "spiritually connected" mean? Nothing more than having that big unanswered question, "Why?" I don't deny the question, only that there has ever been an answer, divine or otherwise. What answer is anything other than ancient hearsay? Can you give one example that isn't self-justifying.



But there must be an answer unless you abandon scientific method and adopt faith. Science never gives up seeking answers, it continues to ask why. "Spiritually connected" simply means what it says, that humans have a profound connection to something spiritual, something outside the physical and immeasurable by physical means. Again, this spiritual connection is more than ancient hearsay, it was as present in ancient humans as it is today. Religions come and go, you can make this argument for various religious beliefs through the ages, but human spiritual connection remains consistent. 

I dont understand the statement "give an example that isn't self-justifying" ...it's like saying, "give me evidence that doesn't prove your point!" The "example" has been given, it is human spiritual connection that spans humanity and human civilization. This is our most defining attribute as a species. Any other attribute humans have that isn't found in other species is directly related to this attribute of human spirituality. 



> Why? It's nothing more than wondering if our spirit survives, and why good things happen to bad people and vice versa.



But science tells us this can't be true. No other living things wonder if their spirit survives, they don't seem to even be aware they have spirits. We wonder if our spirit survives because we are spiritually connected to something greater than self. We have an awareness that other living things don't seem to have. 



> What you're describing is either the power of superstition, or hope.



But it's not superstition. If it were, belief in God would be equivalent to believing black cats are bad luck. And what do you mean by "power of superstition, or hope?" If enough people have hope something will happen, can they will it to happen? 



> To give up would be to admit the mortality of our soul, nothing more. Beyond that, far too many people subsist on emotion (blind faith) without recourse to reason. There is no rationality behind any of the revealed religions, but people adhere to them blindly by the billions because it makes them feel good to do so.



But there is nothing about a soul that is mortal. If you believe we have souls then you believe in human spiritual connection. Yes, far too many people subsist on emotion without recourse to reason. This sometimes causes them to irrationally conclude there is no God, when every rationality for human spirituality exists. It's who we are and it defines us as a species. 

You are casually dismissing our persistent attribute of human spirituality because you claim it is merely something that makes us feel good. Do humans have sex because it makes them feel good? I guess you can say some do, but is that why humans have sex? Or is there more to it than mere pleasure?


----------



## Boss

> As if it wasn't dying out.



But nothing is dying out. In the US, 85% of us identify with some form of religious belief while 15% profess no specific religious belief. 20% of us attend weekly religious services to support our human spiritual belief. Of the 15% who profess no religious belief, only 5% are Nihilists. This is consistent throughout all of human civilization as far back as we can measure. 95% of us belief in something greater than self, and we always have.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> As if it wasn't dying out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But nothing is dying out. In the US, 85% of us identify with some form of religious belief while 15% profess no specific religious belief. 20% of us attend weekly religious services to support our human spiritual belief. Of the 15% who profess no religious belief, only 5% are Nihilists. This is consistent throughout all of human civilization as far back as we can measure. 95% of us belief in something greater than self, and we always have.
Click to expand...



A belief in something greater than self is not evidence of any spiritual reality. Anyone caught in a storm on the sea has that humbling belief. 

From my experience, when I was a child 95% of the people my age believed in the virgin birth, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or that monsters lived under their bed. Now 95% of them don't which shows that superstition is inclined to die out with emotional and intellectual maturity. Of those who still attend religious services as adults 85% of them are just pretending to believe out of fear or conformity, 10% are mentally ill, and the remaining 5% are deliberate deceivers.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> There is nothing irrational or superstitious about human spirituality. Murdering people is not a common human attribute. Spirituality is. Religions come and go, gain and decline in popularity, but human spirituality remains consistent at about 95% throughout the course of human civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE! the idea (belief) that something spiritual exists is no proof that the thing believed is fact....the idea is self perpetuating, making the need for actual evidence secondary at best ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science never proves anything as fact. The best science can do is provide information. We may interpret that information as "evidence" to support our faith in belief of something but science is not conclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Math/reason/science isn't a sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed it was. However, math/reason/science depends on our five senses. Our senses are physical in nature. They relate to the physical universe. If humans all lost the five senses, would the universe still exist? More specifically, could you prove it?
> 
> 
> 
> And faith in God is also rational. It is proven every second of our existence both by what we know and what we are accumulating at an ever accelerating pace to our spiritual knowledge. You assume that whenever science explains how something happens that we previously believed was the work of God, that is somehow negates the need for God as an explanation. This is a naive assumption. I can explain how a computer works, it doesn't explain why the computer exists.
> 
> You could not explain why gravity exists in the universe. You also can't explain why electricity exists, you can only explain how it works. The same applies for atoms and compounds like H2O. Why does two parts hydrogen and one part water form the basis for all carbon-based life? Not how, but WHY? You can't explain this and science can't explain it. Only God can.
> 
> 
> 
> But there must be an answer unless you abandon scientific method and adopt faith. Science never gives up seeking answers, it continues to ask why. "Spiritually connected" simply means what it says, that humans have a profound connection to something spiritual, something outside the physical and immeasurable by physical means. Again, this spiritual connection is more than ancient hearsay, it was as present in ancient humans as it is today. Religions come and go, you can make this argument for various religious beliefs through the ages, but human spiritual connection remains consistent.
> 
> I dont understand the statement "give an example that isn't self-justifying" ...it's like saying, "give me evidence that doesn't prove your point!" The "example" has been given, it is human spiritual connection that spans humanity and human civilization. This is our most defining attribute as a species. Any other attribute humans have that isn't found in other species is directly related to this attribute of human spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> But science tells us this can't be true. No other living things wonder if their spirit survives, they don't seem to even be aware they have spirits. We wonder if our spirit survives because we are spiritually connected to something greater than self. We have an awareness that other living things don't seem to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're describing is either the power of superstition, or hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's not superstition. If it were, belief in God would be equivalent to believing black cats are bad luck. And what do you mean by "power of superstition, or hope?" If enough people have hope something will happen, can they will it to happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To give up would be to admit the mortality of our soul, nothing more. Beyond that, far too many people subsist on emotion (blind faith) without recourse to reason. There is no rationality behind any of the revealed religions, but people adhere to them blindly by the billions because it makes them feel good to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there is nothing about a soul that is mortal. If you believe we have souls then you believe in human spiritual connection. Yes, far too many people subsist on emotion without recourse to reason. This sometimes causes them to irrationally conclude there is no God, when every rationality for human spirituality exists. It's who we are and it defines us as a species.
> 
> You are casually dismissing our persistent attribute of human spirituality because you claim it is merely something that makes us feel good. Do humans have sex because it makes them feel good? I guess you can say some do, but is that why humans have sex? Or is there more to it than mere pleasure?
Click to expand...

please remove all the specious speculation...


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As if it wasn't dying out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But nothing is dying out. In the US, 85% of us identify with some form of religious belief while 15% profess no specific religious belief. 20% of us attend weekly religious services to support our human spiritual belief. Of the 15% who profess no religious belief, only 5% are Nihilists. This is consistent throughout all of human civilization as far back as we can measure. 95% of us belief in something greater than self, and we always have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A belief in something greater than self is not evidence of any spiritual reality. Anyone caught in a storm on the sea has that humbling belief.
> 
> From my experience, when I was a child 95% of the people my age believed in the virgin birth, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or that monsters lived under their bed. Now 95% of them don't which shows that superstition is inclined to die out with emotional and intellectual maturity. Of those who still attend religious services as adults 85% of them are just pretending to believe out of fear or conformity, 10% are mentally ill, and the remaining 5% are deliberate deceivers.
Click to expand...


I need to point out several flaws you've made here. There is no physical evidence of a spiritual reality and there probably won't ever be any physical evidence of such... else it becomes a physical reality. The comment I responded to was "as if it's not dying out." Indicating the belief that human spirituality is dying out, when that is not the case. Statistics do not lie, and they show that as many people believe in something greater than self as ever before. You can have whatever opinion you want about that, you can't argue facts. 

The "evidence" for a spiritual reality is spiritual evidence and it's overwhelming. Which explains why 85% of us identify with some form of religious belief while 15% do not. It explains why more of us attend weekly services to worship than those of us who claim they don't believe in any religion. It also explains why only 5% of the human population are Nihilist and 95% of us believe in something greater than self.


----------



## Boss

> please remove all the specious speculation...



Shut up or contribute to the conversation.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But nothing is dying out. In the US, 85% of us identify with some form of religious belief while 15% profess no specific religious belief. 20% of us attend weekly religious services to support our human spiritual belief. Of the 15% who profess no religious belief, only 5% are Nihilists. This is consistent throughout all of human civilization as far back as we can measure. 95% of us belief in something greater than self, and we always have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A belief in something greater than self is not evidence of any spiritual reality. Anyone caught in a storm on the sea has that humbling belief.
> 
> From my experience, when I was a child 95% of the people my age believed in the virgin birth, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or that monsters lived under their bed. Now 95% of them don't which shows that superstition is inclined to die out with emotional and intellectual maturity. Of those who still attend religious services as adults 85% of them are just pretending to believe out of fear or conformity, 10% are mentally ill, and the remaining 5% are deliberate deceivers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need to point out several flaws you've made here. There is no physical evidence of a spiritual reality and there probably won't ever be any physical evidence of such... else it becomes a physical reality. The comment I responded to was "as if it's not dying out." Indicating the belief that human spirituality is dying out, when that is not the case. Statistics do not lie, and they show that as many people believe in something greater than self as ever before. You can have whatever opinion you want about that, you can't argue facts.
> 
> The "evidence" for a spiritual reality is spiritual evidence and it's overwhelming. Which explains why 85% of us identify with some form of religious belief while 15% do not. It explains why more of us attend weekly services to worship than those of us who claim they don't believe in any religion. It also explains why only 5% of the human population are Nihilist and 95% of us believe in something greater than self.
Click to expand...

the stats only "prove"that the belief exists not the thing believed in....too tough a concept for you.....


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> please remove all the specious speculation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up or contribute to the conversation.
Click to expand...

I do contribute immensely, I take a complex idea and explain it with accuracy and brevity, skills you don't possess...or you're in love with the sound of your keyboard keys.


----------



## MaryL

Perhaps GOD would like to step up now and answer the question for him/her/itself. Why not?  Are we mortals just  taking too much of his sweet  immortal time? Something isn&#8217;t adding up here. Maybe God is shy?


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> the stats only "prove"that the belief exists not the thing believed in....too tough a concept for you.....



The stats were presented to refute the erroneous argument that spirituality is dying out. 

I admit, there is no physical evidence to support existence that is spiritual and not physical.


----------



## Boss

MaryL said:


> Perhaps GOD would like to step up now and answer the question for him/her/itself. Why not?  Are we mortals just  taking too much of his sweet  immortal time? Something isnt adding up here. Maybe God is shy?



Or maybe God doesn't have vanity or pride like a human, and therefore, doesn't feel the need to explain or answer your questions? Maybe God doesn't conform to whatever is inside your vapid and silly little human mind as to what God is supposed to be or do? Perhaps God is content with allowing you non-believers to run your mouths and denounce His existence for the remainder of the relatively minuscule amount of time you have left to exist as a physical living organism? 

The more I talk with non-believers the more I am astonished with their complete lack of imagination or ability to think dynamically. It's as if you have composed this idea in your heads as to what God is to all these people who claim they believe in God, and you've decided that is ridiculous to believe in. It never seems to cross your mind that your own concept or image of God may be incorrect or invalid, and that maybe this is why you have trouble imagining God as a reality. You assume that your rather narrow-minded and simplistic view of God is the only possible way God can be and you can't comprehend anything outside of those boundaries. Genuine sub-neophytes.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But nothing is dying out. In the US, 85% of us identify with some form of religious belief while 15% profess no specific religious belief. 20% of us attend weekly religious services to support our human spiritual belief. Of the 15% who profess no religious belief, only 5% are Nihilists. This is consistent throughout all of human civilization as far back as we can measure. 95% of us belief in something greater than self, and we always have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A belief in something greater than self is not evidence of any spiritual reality. Anyone caught in a storm on the sea has that humbling belief.
> 
> From my experience, when I was a child 95% of the people my age believed in the virgin birth, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or that monsters lived under their bed. Now 95% of them don't which shows that superstition is inclined to die out with emotional and intellectual maturity. Of those who still attend religious services as adults 85% of them are just pretending to believe out of fear or conformity, 10% are mentally ill, and the remaining 5% are deliberate deceivers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need to point out several flaws you've made here. There is no physical evidence of a spiritual reality and there probably won't ever be any physical evidence of such... else it becomes a physical reality. The comment I responded to was "as if it's not dying out." Indicating the belief that human spirituality is dying out, when that is not the case. Statistics do not lie, and they show that as many people believe in something greater than self as ever before. You can have whatever opinion you want about that, you can't argue facts.
> 
> The "evidence" for a spiritual reality is spiritual evidence and it's overwhelming. Which explains why 85% of us identify with some form of religious belief while 15% do not. It explains why more of us attend weekly services to worship than those of us who claim they don't believe in any religion. It also explains why only 5% of the human population are Nihilist and 95% of us believe in something greater than self.
Click to expand...



Perhaps the problem here is the definition of spirituality. You say its a belief in something greater than self which as I have shown is not necessarily superstitious or irrational. What I see dying out is the superstitious and irrational element of those who have claimed to be religious or spiritual which I define as simply a function of the mind where transcendent thinking is used to find purpose and meaning in life. Everyone has this capacity and probably always will. but again that is not poof of any separate spiritual reality unless you consider that the infinite things that people can imagine proof of infinite realities .....which would be stupid..

The vast majority of practicing Catholics would and do scoff at the idea that God could be eaten and maintain private interpretations of what's going on at mass, thinking its a kind of memorial or symbolic ceremony even though church teaching is that the eucharist becomes the body of Christ in actuality. It is a great shame that many are too lazy to bother finding out what exactly it is that they are involved in and are supporting.

People who continue to practice Catholicism even after finding this out are either paralyzed by fear or bound and enslaved by conformity, mentally ill, or deliberate deceivers keeping the rest in line by effectively rendering the individual minds of professed believers useless and incapable of doing anything to save their souls by filling their minds with irrational superstitious mind numbing gobbledygook every Sunday and high holy day, for a nominal service charge..


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Perhaps the problem here is the definition of spirituality. You say its a belief in something greater than self which as I have shown is not necessarily superstitious or irrational. What I see dying out is the superstitious and irrational element of those who have claimed to be religious or spiritual which I define as simply a function of the mind where transcendent thinking is used to find purpose and meaning in life. Everyone has this capacity and probably always will. but again that is not poof of any separate spiritual reality unless you consider that the infinite things that people can imagine proof of infinite realities .....which would be stupid..
> 
> The vast majority of practicing Catholics would and do scoff at the idea that God could be eaten and maintain private interpretations of what's going on at mass, thinking its a kind of memorial or symbolic ceremony even though church teaching is that the eucharist becomes the body of Christ in actuality. It is a great shame that many are too lazy to bother finding out what exactly it is that they are involved in and are supporting.
> 
> People who continue to practice Catholicism even after finding this out are either paralyzed by fear or bound and enslaved by conformity, mentally ill, or deliberate deceivers keeping the rest in line by effectively rendering the individual minds of professed believers useless and incapable of doing anything to save their souls by filling their minds with irrational superstitious mind numbing gobbledygook every Sunday and high holy day, for a nominal service charge..



What you seem to be doing now is changing the argument away from spirituality to specific religious beliefs. I'm not here to defend religions, I can't. It's not possible to defend all the various and contradicting religious beliefs and claim they are all valid and true. All I have argued for is human spirituality.

It's important to note, human spirituality causes mankind to adopt religious beliefs. The religions are often how humans experience their spiritual connection. It's a way for them to understand a God that they may not otherwise be able to comprehend. Now since man cannot create perfection, man can't create the perfect religion. This is why most religions claim to be Divinely inspired and not simply man made. 

The OP question is: Is there any sound argument for God's existence? I believe there is. 
The problem is in the numerous caveats... what do you consider "sound argument" with respect to a spiritual entity? If your mind is closed to anything other than physical evidence, you can't imagine any "sound" argument for a spiritual entity. Then there is the question of what is God? Is it the Christian biblical incarnation? Nature itself? The possibilities abound. Finally, there is the question of what is "existence" and how do you comprehend it? Someone who does not believe in spiritual nature can't comprehend spiritual existence. 

If we take an objective and open minded step back, we see that human behavior has always maintained a strong spiritual connection to something greater than self. If it wasn't needed or required by the species, we would have discarded the attribute long ago. If it was an attribute we developed out of necessity or fear, there would be evidence of similar attributes in other living organisms. Since we have never found this to be the case, and since humans have consistently practiced spirituality, we can conclude that there is some real connection humans are making to something greater than self. 

The question is answered.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> What you seem to be doing now is changing the argument away from spirituality to specific religious beliefs. I'm not here to defend religions, I can't. It's not possible to defend all the various and contradicting religious beliefs and claim they are all valid and true. All I have argued for is human spirituality.
> 
> It's important to note, human spirituality causes mankind to adopt religious beliefs. The religions are often how humans experience their spiritual connection. It's a way for them to understand a God that they may not otherwise be able to comprehend. Now since man cannot create perfection, man can't create the perfect religion. This is why most religions claim to be Divinely inspired and not simply man made.
> 
> The OP question is: Is there any sound argument for God's existence? I believe there is.
> The problem is in the numerous caveats... what do you consider "sound argument" with respect to a spiritual entity? If your mind is closed to anything other than physical evidence, you can't imagine any "sound" argument for a spiritual entity. Then there is the question of what is God? Is it the Christian biblical incarnation? Nature itself? The possibilities abound. Finally, there is the question of what is "existence" and how do you comprehend it? Someone who does not believe in spiritual nature can't comprehend spiritual existence.
> 
> If we take an objective and open minded step back, we see that human behavior has always maintained a strong spiritual connection to something greater than self. If it wasn't needed or required by the species, we would have discarded the attribute long ago. If it was an attribute we developed out of necessity or fear, there would be evidence of similar attributes in other living organisms. Since we have never found this to be the case, and since humans have consistently practiced spirituality, we can conclude that there is some real connection humans are making to something greater than self.
> 
> The question is answered.




OK, so you will never be a great thinker.

What you call human spirituality is indistinguishable from mental illness or superstition. Hardly proof of any spiritual reality.

And the need to connect to something greater then themselves is not evidence of any spiritual reality if you think spiritual reality is more than a function of the mind engaged in transcendent thought. Anyone caught in a tornado believes in something greater than self. Every member of any sports team has a belief in something greater than self. Any ant that you step on on  your way to the garbage can has an awareness of something greater than self as does any schooling fish, swarming bug, pack animal or the prey of any predator..

Does someone's need to connect to something greater than self make a block of carved wood a real god? Is it evidence of any reality or evidence of any God? Of course not. It is much more likely just evidence of perversions in thought and errors in speculations.

Yes, there are sound arguments for the existence of God but your argument suggesting that beliefs are the proof of the reality of things believed in is not.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you seem to be doing now is changing the argument away from spirituality to specific religious beliefs. I'm not here to defend religions, I can't. It's not possible to defend all the various and contradicting religious beliefs and claim they are all valid and true. All I have argued for is human spirituality.
> 
> It's important to note, human spirituality causes mankind to adopt religious beliefs. The religions are often how humans experience their spiritual connection. It's a way for them to understand a God that they may not otherwise be able to comprehend. Now since man cannot create perfection, man can't create the perfect religion. This is why most religions claim to be Divinely inspired and not simply man made.
> 
> The OP question is: Is there any sound argument for God's existence? I believe there is.
> The problem is in the numerous caveats... what do you consider "sound argument" with respect to a spiritual entity? If your mind is closed to anything other than physical evidence, you can't imagine any "sound" argument for a spiritual entity. Then there is the question of what is God? Is it the Christian biblical incarnation? Nature itself? The possibilities abound. Finally, there is the question of what is "existence" and how do you comprehend it? Someone who does not believe in spiritual nature can't comprehend spiritual existence.
> 
> If we take an objective and open minded step back, we see that human behavior has always maintained a strong spiritual connection to something greater than self. If it wasn't needed or required by the species, we would have discarded the attribute long ago. If it was an attribute we developed out of necessity or fear, there would be evidence of similar attributes in other living organisms. Since we have never found this to be the case, and since humans have consistently practiced spirituality, we can conclude that there is some real connection humans are making to something greater than self.
> 
> The question is answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you will never be a great thinker.
> 
> What you call human spirituality is indistinguishable from mental illness or superstition. Hardly proof of any spiritual reality.
> 
> And the need to connect to something greater then themselves is not evidence of any spiritual reality if you think spiritual reality is more than a function of the mind engaged in transcendent thought. Anyone caught in a tornado believes in something greater than self. Every member of any sports team has a belief in something greater than self. Any ant that you step on on  your way to the garbage can has an awareness of something greater than self as does any schooling fish, swarming bug, pack animal or the prey of any predator..
> 
> Does someone's need to connect to something greater than self make a block of carved wood a real god? Is it evidence of any reality or evidence of any God? Of course not. It is much more likely just evidence of perversions in thought and errors in speculations.
> 
> Yes, there are sound arguments for the existence of God but your argument suggesting that beliefs are the proof of the reality of things believed in is not.
Click to expand...


Not indistinguishable at all. 95% of our species is not, and hasn't always been "mentally ill." We would have been eliminated from the table of life long ago by a more superior primate if that were true. Also not "superstition" because there is no evidence of any benefit from being superstitious. With spirituality you have documented testimonials from billions of people and the fact that as many humans are spiritual now as ever before. 

When I speak of "something greater than self" I am not referring to something of a physical nature. I assumed this was obvious but I forgot who I was talking to. 

I've not argued that beliefs are proof of reality of things believed in. To the contrary, I even said that I can't prove the various and assorted things people believe in. The question was:  Is there any sound argument for God's existence? I think there is and I think I made a sound argument. Did I "prove" something? No, that wasn't the question. You're trying to twist the question or contort my answer into something that is not there. This is the trademark of an intellectual coward.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> Not indistinguishable at all. 95% of our species is not, and hasn't always been "mentally ill." We would have been eliminated from the table of life long ago by a more superior primate if that were true. Also not "superstition" because there is no evidence of any benefit from being superstitious. With spirituality you have documented testimonials from billions of people and the fact that as many humans are spiritual now as ever before.
> 
> When I speak of "something greater than self" I am not referring to something of a physical nature. I assumed this was obvious but I forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> I've not argued that beliefs are proof of reality of things believed in. To the contrary, I even said that I can't prove the various and assorted things people believe in. The question was:  Is there any sound argument for God's existence? I think there is and I think I made a sound argument. Did I "prove" something? No, that wasn't the question. You're trying to twist the question or contort my answer into something that is not there. This is the trademark of an intellectual coward.




LOL... Yes, there are sound arguments for the existence of God, but no you haven't made any such argument. Your argument is that human spirituality manifested by irrational superstitious religious beliefs that have always been practiced are proof of spiritual reality whatever that is, as if spirituality itself isn't simply  just a function of the mind struggling to make sense of what is beyond its understanding..

Whenever the topic of God comes up or someone asks you to define God you say you have no such belief.

Talk about an intellectual coward!

Your thread asserting that historical superstitious religious lunacy was proof of spiritual reality was refuted a long time ago, by just about everyone.

Get over it.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not indistinguishable at all. 95% of our species is not, and hasn't always been "mentally ill." We would have been eliminated from the table of life long ago by a more superior primate if that were true. Also not "superstition" because there is no evidence of any benefit from being superstitious. With spirituality you have documented testimonials from billions of people and the fact that as many humans are spiritual now as ever before.
> 
> When I speak of "something greater than self" I am not referring to something of a physical nature. I assumed this was obvious but I forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> I've not argued that beliefs are proof of reality of things believed in. To the contrary, I even said that I can't prove the various and assorted things people believe in. The question was:  Is there any sound argument for God's existence? I think there is and I think I made a sound argument. Did I "prove" something? No, that wasn't the question. You're trying to twist the question or contort my answer into something that is not there. This is the trademark of an intellectual coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Yes, there are sound arguments for the existence of God, but no you haven't made any such argument. Your argument is that human spirituality manifested by irrational superstitious religious beliefs that have always been practiced are proof of spiritual reality whatever that is, as if spirituality itself isn't simply  just a function of the mind struggling to make sense of what is beyond its understanding..
> 
> Whenever the topic of God comes up or someone asks you to define God you say you have no such belief.
> 
> Talk about an intellectual coward!
> 
> Your thread asserting that historical superstitious religious lunacy was proof of spiritual reality was refuted a long time ago, by just about everyone.
> 
> Get over it.
Click to expand...


So now you've simply decided to lie about my argument and claim I have made the opposite argument? I never claimed human spirituality was manifested by irrational superstitious religious beliefs, I claimed the opposite. That 'irrational superstitious religious beliefs' were manifested by human spirituality.

*...are proof of spiritual reality whatever that is...* 

Again, I have corrected you once on this already.... Never did I claim there was PROOF of anything. I made a "sound argument" for something, that does not mean or indicate I proved it. Sound arguments can be made for any number of things it doesn't mean they are proven. Proof of a spiritual entity can only happen if you accept spiritual evidence, which you don't. So there is no way to "prove" anything to you. I keep on telling you this and you just keep coming back claiming I have claimed to have "proven" something to you. Get it through that thick head, I can't "prove" anything to you, your mind is made up about spiritual evidence. 

*isn't simply  just a function of the mind struggling to make sense of what is beyond its understanding..*

And I've demonstrated how that can't possibly be the case unless it defies everything theorized by Darwin's Natural Selection. If the human species was so weak that it needed to "struggle to make sense" of something, the other upper primates would have eliminated humans long ago. Survival of the fittest. The species with the least hindrance to development always wins. We see no evidence of any of the other upper primates "struggling to make sense" of something, they don't seem to be aware of anything else but physical existence. 

*Whenever the topic of God comes up or someone asks you to define God you say you have no such belief.*

I have never said I didn't believe in God. Again, you lie. Why are you lying so much about things I've said? It's not like people can't search out the truth and see that you are lying. I've said numerous times, my personal belief in God doesn't conform to any mainstream religious dogma. I believe in God because I know God exists, I don't have faith, I don't need faith. I talk to God daily, and God is with me daily. So I have no need to prove God to myself. I'm merely responding to a question asked about any "sound argument" for God's existence. I think I've made one, and you've failed to refute it. That first prompted you to tell me I wasn't ever going to be a great thinker. Now you've resorted to outright lying about things I've argued and dreaming up past thread posts that never happened. You really are a sad clown.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your thread asserting that historical superstitious religious lunacy was proof of spiritual reality was refuted a long time ago, by just about everyone.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you've simply decided to lie about my argument and claim I have made the opposite argument? I never claimed human spirituality was manifested by irrational superstitious religious beliefs, I claimed the opposite. That 'irrational superstitious religious beliefs' were manifested by human spirituality..
Click to expand...




And what is human spirituality exactly? You claim it is the need to connect to something greater than themselves which I have shown is not anything more deep or mysterious than pack animal behavior. And what do you offer as evidence of human spirituality? Irrational and superstitious beliefs and practices many of which are hardly indistinguishable from mental illness.






Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> *...are proof of spiritual reality whatever that is...* .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have corrected you once on this already.... Never did I claim there was PROOF of anything. I made a "sound argument" for something, that does not mean or indicate I proved it. Sound arguments can be made for any number of things it doesn't mean they are proven. *Proof of a spiritual entity can only happen if you accept spiritual evidence, *which you don't. So there is no way to "prove" anything to you. I keep on telling you this and you just keep coming back claiming I have claimed to have "proven" something to you. Get it through that thick head, I can't "prove" anything to you, your mind is made up about spiritual evidence. ..
Click to expand...


Stop with the bullshit already. You made a so called sound argument by which you think that you have proven something, if one accepts your 'spiritual evidence' (whatever that is).






Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> *isn't simply  just a function of the mind struggling to make sense of what is beyond its understanding..*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've demonstrated how that can't possibly be the case unless it defies everything theorized by Darwin's Natural Selection. If the human species was so weak that it needed to "struggle to make sense" of something, the other upper primates would have eliminated humans long ago. Survival of the fittest. The species with the least hindrance to development always wins. We see no evidence of any of the other upper primates "struggling to make sense" of something, they don't seem to be aware of anything else but physical existence. ..
Click to expand...


Again, stop with the bullshit already. Darwin and survival of the fittest has nothing whatever to do with anything that you have claimed about human superstitions. And what weakness do you perceive in the human quest to comprehend? What strength do you perceive in primates lack of intellectual development?

Obviously you realize how absurd what you claim is so you drag, Einstein, Darwin, newton into the argument in a pathetic appeal to authority, to try to make it seem like they agree with your silliness. Perhaps you should be so weak as to struggle to make sense.




 [





Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whenever the topic of God comes up or someone asks you to define God you say you have no such belief.*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said I didn't believe in God. Again, you lie. Why are you lying so much about things I've said? It's not like people can't search out the truth and see that you are lying. I've said numerous times, my personal belief in God doesn't conform to any mainstream religious dogma. I believe in God because I know God exists, I don't have faith, I don't need faith. I talk to God daily, and God is with me daily. So I have no need to prove God to myself. I'm merely responding to a question asked about any "sound argument" for God's existence. I think I've made one, and you've failed to refute it. That first prompted you to tell me I wasn't ever going to be a great thinker. Now you've resorted to outright lying about things I've argued and dreaming up past thread posts that never happened. You really are a sad clown.
Click to expand...



I once directly asked you to define God to which you responded that you have no belief in any traditional view of God and left it at that. So now I took another look and see that you have a belief in God as some sort of cosmic energy that you talk to on a daily basis......

I hate to break the news to you, but you haven't made a sound argument. You have made unsubstantiated claims and have attempted and failed to lend credibility to your own delusional fantasies by claiming that human spirituality defined by you as a need to connect to something greater than self, which I have shown is simply a function of the mind shared by many species, would have died out long ago if it was not indicative of any reality essential to survival.

Yeah I said you will never be a great thinker because you lack the fundamental discipline of humility  and honesty foundational to life and comprehension.

You say I am an intellectual coward, outright liar, and sad clown.


Great debating skills you have there.....


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> If we take an objective and open minded step back, we see that human behavior has always maintained a strong spiritual connection to something greater than self. If it wasn't needed or required by the species, we would have discarded the attribute long ago. If it was an attribute we developed out of necessity or fear, there would be evidence of similar attributes in other living organisms. Since we have never found this to be the case, and since humans have consistently practiced spirituality, we can conclude that there is some real connection humans are making to something greater than self.
> 
> The question is answered.




Now heres your chance to take an objective and opened minded step back.

There has always been a fear based need for people to amass in groups united by a belief in something greater than themselves, , just like in other species, for instance, schooling fish in an ocean full of predators or herding animals for very the same reason.. With so many warring tribes  competing for resources, not to mention wild animals from every species, joining with one collective or another has always been essential to survival, but that in itself does not validate or prove the existence of any greater reality of those who believe that they, as a group, united under one bizarre belief, tradition, hair style, fashion or whatever,  are number one. Historically the most violent and irrational groups of all have dominated the human landscape like some degenerate wild beast from the bowels of hell roaming the earth and devouring the gullible..

So yes, people connect to something greater than themselves but, historically, what they connect to is a self negating multiplicity that has absolutely no real existence other than in the confused minds of those who have exchanged their own real individual identity for the imaginary one provided by the collective under threat of real and imaginary violence and specious promises of salvation, safety, protection and life.


----------



## Boss

> And what is human spirituality exactly? You claim it is the need to connect to something greater than themselves which I have shown is not anything more deep or mysterious than pack animal behavior. And what do you offer as evidence of human spirituality? Irrational and superstitious beliefs and practices many of which are hardly indistinguishable from mental illness.



I've never seen a pack of animals or school of fish worshiping. The lack of evidence in any other living organism exhibiting this behavior, means the behavior is unique to humans. We've been over the "irrational and superstitious" thing before, human spirituality is neither irrational or superstitious. Again, science bears this out. 95% of our species isn't exhibiting an irrational behavior and is not mentally ill. You can keep on repeating that but it hasn't refuted my argument and it makes you sound like a fool. 



> Stop with the bullshit already. You made a so called sound argument by which you think that you have proven something, if one accepts your 'spiritual evidence' (whatever that is).



No bullshit, I never claimed to have "proven" anything. I did make a sound argument for something. Proof is a highly subjective word, what you and I consider proof may differ depending on what we accept as valid evidence. It is not possible for me to prove God to someone who refuses to accept spiritual evidence because God is spiritual in nature. 



> Again, stop with the bullshit already. Darwin and survival of the fittest has nothing whatever to do with anything that you have claimed about human superstitions. And what weakness do you perceive in the human quest to comprehend? What strength do you perceive in primates lack of intellectual development?



Well if humans were mentally ill and trying to comprehend something that was imaginary and didn't exist, then the other upper primates would have killed humans off as they would not be hindered by the distraction. We've covered "superstitions" already. A superstition is something that has no tangible benefit for belief in. If human spirituality were superstition, other upper primates would have surpassed us, as they wouldn't be restricted by obedience to worship, time devoted to rituals, and superficial nonsense conjured up by imagination. Humans would have realized no tangible benefit from their superstitious beliefs and discarded them in favor of survival. But that is not what our history shows.



> Obviously you realize how absurd what you claim is so you drag, Einstein, Darwin, newton into the argument in a pathetic appeal to authority, to try to make it seem like they agree with your silliness. Perhaps you should be so weak as to struggle to make sense.



I've not made an absurd claim, you keep saying I have but you're trying to argue that human spirituality is mental illness and superstition. I introduce Darwin, Newton and Einstein when they are relevant to the discussion. I'm not struggling to make sense, in fact, I am making too much sense, that's why you've resorted to personally attacking my intellect. 



> I once directly asked you to define God to which you responded that you have no belief in any traditional view of God and left it at that. So now I took another look and see that you have a belief in God as some sort of cosmic energy that you talk to on a daily basis......



No, I told you that God did not need to be defined in order to prove God spiritually exists. God is the spiritual entity greater than self which humans are spiritually connected to. Some have developed an incarnation of God through a religion. Some understand God as nature itself. Some are like me and realize a God which is more of an energy force, Karma or Ying-Yang. And curiously enough, some humans have adopted the belief in themselves as God. 



> I hate to break the news to you, but you haven't made a sound argument.



That's your opinion. 



> So yes, people connect to something greater than themselves...



Thanks... you've just confirmed your belief in God.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> And what is human spirituality exactly? You claim it is the need to connect to something greater than themselves which I have shown is not anything more deep or mysterious than pack animal behavior. And what do you offer as evidence of human spirituality? Irrational and superstitious beliefs and practices many of which are hardly indistinguishable from mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a pack of animals or school of fish worshiping. The lack of evidence in any other living organism exhibiting this behavior, means the behavior is unique to humans. We've been over the "irrational and superstitious" thing before, human spirituality is neither irrational or superstitious. Again, science bears this out. 95% of our species isn't exhibiting an irrational behavior and is not mentally ill. You can keep on repeating that but it hasn't refuted my argument and it makes you sound like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop with the bullshit already. You made a so called sound argument by which you think that you have proven something, if one accepts your 'spiritual evidence' (whatever that is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No bullshit, I never claimed to have "proven" anything. I did make a sound argument for something. Proof is a highly subjective word, what you and I consider proof may differ depending on what we accept as valid evidence. It is not possible for me to prove God to someone who refuses to accept spiritual evidence because God is spiritual in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if humans were mentally ill and trying to comprehend something that was imaginary and didn't exist, then the other upper primates would have killed humans off as they would not be hindered by the distraction. We've covered "superstitions" already. A superstition is something that has no tangible benefit for belief in. If human spirituality were superstition, other upper primates would have surpassed us, as they wouldn't be restricted by obedience to worship, time devoted to rituals, and superficial nonsense conjured up by imagination. Humans would have realized no tangible benefit from their superstitious beliefs and discarded them in favor of survival. But that is not what our history shows.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not made an absurd claim, you keep saying I have but you're trying to argue that human spirituality is mental illness and superstition. I introduce Darwin, Newton and Einstein when they are relevant to the discussion. I'm not struggling to make sense, in fact, I am making too much sense, that's why you've resorted to personally attacking my intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I told you that God did not need to be defined in order to prove God spiritually exists. God is the spiritual entity greater than self which humans are spiritually connected to. Some have developed an incarnation of God through a religion. Some understand God as nature itself. Some are like me and realize a God which is more of an energy force, Karma or Ying-Yang. And curiously enough, some humans have adopted the belief in themselves as God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break the news to you, but you haven't made a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, people connect to something greater than themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks... you've just confirmed your belief in God.
Click to expand...

false! your assuming that some thing greater then yourselves is a god..not just that you further assume there is only one god...
nice job of intentional misinterpretation.


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please remove all the specious speculation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up or contribute to the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do contribute immensely, I take a complex idea and explain it with accuracy and brevity, skills you don't possess...or you're in love with the sound of your keyboard keys.
Click to expand...


Actually - you don't contribute at all - lol

You take a complex idea and turn into a convoluted shit sandwich.  You cannabis-cultivating freak of nature, don't let your mind wanderit's far too little to be let out on its own.


----------



## GreenBean

Boss said:


> And what is human spirituality exactly? You claim it is the need to connect to something greater than themselves which I have shown is not anything more deep or mysterious than pack animal behavior. And what do you offer as evidence of human spirituality? Irrational and superstitious beliefs and practices many of which are hardly indistinguishable from mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a pack of animals or school of fish worshiping. The lack of evidence in any other living organism exhibiting this behavior, means the behavior is unique to humans. We've been over the "irrational and superstitious" thing before, human spirituality is neither irrational or superstitious. Again, science bears this out. 95% of our species isn't exhibiting an irrational behavior and is not mentally ill. You can keep on repeating that but it hasn't refuted my argument and it makes you sound like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop with the bullshit already. You made a so called sound argument by which you think that you have proven something, if one accepts your 'spiritual evidence' (whatever that is).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No bullshit, I never claimed to have "proven" anything. I did make a sound argument for something. Proof is a highly subjective word, what you and I consider proof may differ depending on what we accept as valid evidence. It is not possible for me to prove God to someone who refuses to accept spiritual evidence because God is spiritual in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if humans were mentally ill and trying to comprehend something that was imaginary and didn't exist, then the other upper primates would have killed humans off as they would not be hindered by the distraction. We've covered "superstitions" already. A superstition is something that has no tangible benefit for belief in. If human spirituality were superstition, other upper primates would have surpassed us, as they wouldn't be restricted by obedience to worship, time devoted to rituals, and superficial nonsense conjured up by imagination. Humans would have realized no tangible benefit from their superstitious beliefs and discarded them in favor of survival. But that is not what our history shows.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not made an absurd claim, you keep saying I have but you're trying to argue that human spirituality is mental illness and superstition. I introduce Darwin, Newton and Einstein when they are relevant to the discussion. I'm not struggling to make sense, in fact, I am making too much sense, that's why you've resorted to personally attacking my intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I told you that God did not need to be defined in order to prove God spiritually exists. God is the spiritual entity greater than self which humans are spiritually connected to. Some have developed an incarnation of God through a religion. Some understand God as nature itself. Some are like me and realize a God which is more of an energy force, Karma or Ying-Yang. And curiously enough, some humans have adopted the belief in themselves as God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break the news to you, but you haven't made a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, people connect to something greater than themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks... you've just confirmed your belief in God.
Click to expand...


God is relative to Time.  I am an immature avatar of God as are all of us- to be infinitely intelligent , God must have infinite experiences - infinity can only be achieved outside of the realm of Time .



> I've never seen a pack of animals or school of fish worshiping.



Never seen them using fire or the wheel either ....


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up or contribute to the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I do contribute immensely, I take a complex idea and explain it with accuracy and brevity, skills you don't possess...or you're in love with the sound of your keyboard keys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually - you don't contribute at all - lol
> 
> You take a complex idea and turn into a convoluted shit sandwich.  You cannabis-cultivating freak of nature, don't let your mind wanderit's far too little to be let out on its own.
Click to expand...

is making false and erroneous statements genetic with you or do you have to practice..?


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is human spirituality exactly? You claim it is the need to connect to something greater than themselves which I have shown is not anything more deep or mysterious than pack animal behavior. And what do you offer as evidence of human spirituality? Irrational and superstitious beliefs and practices many of which are hardly indistinguishable from mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a pack of animals or school of fish worshiping. The lack of evidence in any other living organism exhibiting this behavior, means the behavior is unique to humans. We've been over the "irrational and superstitious" thing before, human spirituality is neither irrational or superstitious. Again, science bears this out. 95% of our species isn't exhibiting an irrational behavior and is not mentally ill. You can keep on repeating that but it hasn't refuted my argument and it makes you sound like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> No bullshit, I never claimed to have "proven" anything. I did make a sound argument for something. Proof is a highly subjective word, what you and I consider proof may differ depending on what we accept as valid evidence. It is not possible for me to prove God to someone who refuses to accept spiritual evidence because God is spiritual in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if humans were mentally ill and trying to comprehend something that was imaginary and didn't exist, then the other upper primates would have killed humans off as they would not be hindered by the distraction. We've covered "superstitions" already. A superstition is something that has no tangible benefit for belief in. If human spirituality were superstition, other upper primates would have surpassed us, as they wouldn't be restricted by obedience to worship, time devoted to rituals, and superficial nonsense conjured up by imagination. Humans would have realized no tangible benefit from their superstitious beliefs and discarded them in favor of survival. But that is not what our history shows.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not made an absurd claim, you keep saying I have but you're trying to argue that human spirituality is mental illness and superstition. I introduce Darwin, Newton and Einstein when they are relevant to the discussion. I'm not struggling to make sense, in fact, I am making too much sense, that's why you've resorted to personally attacking my intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I told you that God did not need to be defined in order to prove God spiritually exists. God is the spiritual entity greater than self which humans are spiritually connected to. Some have developed an incarnation of God through a religion. Some understand God as nature itself. Some are like me and realize a God which is more of an energy force, Karma or Ying-Yang. And curiously enough, some humans have adopted the belief in themselves as God.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, people connect to something greater than themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks... you've just confirmed your belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is relative to Time.  I am an immature avatar of God as are all of us- to be infinitely intelligent , God must have infinite experiences - infinity can only be achieved outside of the realm of Time .
Click to expand...


----------



## Papawx3

IMO there is not, or at least should not be, any argument or even debate as to the existence of God.  Either you believe or you don't.  If you don't, that's fine.  I don't care what you do or don't believe and I won't tell you that you're wrong or even criticize you for expressing your opinion.  
Otoh, I don't think you have the right to criticize me for believing that God does exist.  
What's between my God and me is between us.  Whatever is between you and your "whatever" is on you. 
That's what I call "tolerance".


----------



## daws101

Papawx3 said:


> IMO there is not, or at least should not be, any argument or even debate as to the existence of God.  Either you believe or you don't.  If you don't, that's fine.  I don't care what you do or don't believe and I won't tell you that you're wrong or even criticize you for expressing your opinion.
> Otoh, I don't think you have the right to criticize me for believing that God does exist.
> What's between my God and me is between us.  Whatever is between you and your "whatever" is on you.
> That's what I call "tolerance".


then you might want to clue other "Christians" in....


----------



## Boss

> false! your assuming that some thing greater then yourselves is a god..not just that you further assume there is only one god...
> nice job of intentional misinterpretation.



No, I clearly defined "God" as being that thing which is greater than self that 95% of humans have always connected with spiritually. If you have defined God some other way, that's not my problem. I've also certainly not dismissed the possibility of more than one "God" and would love to see what statement I've made that would lead you believe this. 

I also disagree, it was a terrible job you did of intentional misinterpretation.


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do contribute immensely, I take a complex idea and explain it with accuracy and brevity, skills you don't possess...or you're in love with the sound of your keyboard keys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually - you don't contribute at all - lol
> 
> You take a complex idea and turn into a convoluted shit sandwich.  You cannabis-cultivating freak of nature, don't let your mind wander&#8212;it's far too little to be let out on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is making false and erroneous statements genetic with you or do you have to practice..?
Click to expand...


Daws - As a latte-drinking granolacrat, you are a clear and present danger to my sanity. Listen, you gun-hating idiot, I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job.


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> then you might want to clue other "Christians" in....



You Antichrist-embracing parasite - why don't you *for once* post something that requires an IQ above 50 ??   As a America-destroying kumbayanik, it's nice to see you don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.


----------



## hobelim

daws101 said:


> false! your assuming that some thing greater then yourselves is a god..not just that you further assume there is only one god...
> nice job of intentional misinterpretation.




thanks Daws for pointing out the obvious. 

He claims that connecting to something greater than self is 'spirituality' and then equates spirituality with a god, any god, and then seems to think it is irrelevant if those beliefs are false, irrational or insane.

Seeing the way he and his alter ego respond to you seems to contradict his claim of having an ability to connect with something greater than himself.


----------



## hobelim

GreenBean said:


> I've never seen a pack of animals or school of fish worshiping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never seen them using fire or the wheel either ....
Click to expand...



your ability to see is in question.

have you never seen dogs bark at the moon? Cocks crow at sunrise? Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear?  

What about a human stampede? people crawling on their bellies? teeming humans that go down on all fours? Those of lesser developement that do not ruminate? 


The original comparison was to show that all species, like human beings, connect to or have an awareness of something greater than themselves, as in their connection to the pack, or herd, or flock or swarm; evolved  fear based behavior essential to survival that is not evidence of any God or spiritual reality.

Yes, people have always practiced one religion or another, but why?

In the past religious worship was compulsory under penalty of  torture and death. Even to this day people of certain faiths maintain such primitive and violent behavior and the religions who don't  kill those who resist assimilation practice anathema, social and economic oppression. People got on their knees to worship statues of the king, or a bird, or a mythical being because if they didn't they were summarily executed in one way or another.

makes "spirituality" a little less mysterious, doesn't it?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> false! your assuming that some thing greater then yourselves is a god..not just that you further assume there is only one god...
> nice job of intentional misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I clearly defined "God" as being that thing which is greater than self that 95% of humans have always connected with spiritually. If you have defined God some other way, that's not my problem. I've also certainly not dismissed the possibility of more than one "God" and would love to see what statement I've made that would lead you believe this.
> 
> I also disagree, it was a terrible job you did of intentional misinterpretation.
Click to expand...

false. by using the word god,you've muddied the waters.


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually - you don't contribute at all - lol
> 
> You take a complex idea and turn into a convoluted shit sandwich.  You cannabis-cultivating freak of nature, don't let your mind wanderit's far too little to be let out on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is making false and erroneous statements genetic with you or do you have to practice..?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws - As a latte-drinking granolacrat, you are a clear and present danger to my sanity. Listen, you gun-hating idiot, I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Click to expand...

is making false and erroneous statements genetic with you or do you have to practice..?


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then you might want to clue other "Christians" in....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Antichrist-embracing parasite - why don't you *for once* post something that requires an IQ above 50 ??   As a America-destroying kumbayanik, it's nice to see you don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.
Click to expand...

is making false and erroneous statements genetic with you or do you have to practice..?


----------



## daws101

hobelim said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! your assuming that some thing greater then yourselves is a god..not just that you further assume there is only one god...
> nice job of intentional misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks Daws for pointing out the obvious.
> 
> He claims that connecting to something greater than self is 'spirituality' and then equates spirituality with a god, any god, and then seems to think it is irrelevant if those beliefs are false, irrational or insane.
> 
> Seeing the way he and his alter ego respond to you seems to contradict his claim of having an ability to connect with something greater than himself.
Click to expand...

true! boss appears to be the kind of person that has to have the last word and truly believes what he is saying.
for whatever reason he has to see himself as the smartest kid in class.


----------



## GreenBean

hobelim said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a pack of animals or school of fish worshiping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never seen them using fire or the wheel either ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your ability to see is in question.
> 
> have you never seen dogs bark at the moon? Cocks crow at sunrise? Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear?
Click to expand...


1.Dogs and or wolves howl at the moon to signal position when hunting. Dogs also howl when left alone for long times and they are attempting to hint to their family members. Dog howls are also very contagious, since one dog's howl may set off a series of howls in ears range.

2. _Cocks crow at sunrise?_ - My cock generally crows at night.  Roosters however , according to science have an internal biological clock which is stimulated by external stimuli, something like my cock also.

3. _Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear? _ - No I Never have - But I've seen them ditching into the woods when five-0 shows up .


----------



## Politico

No there isn't. You either believe or you don't.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! your assuming that some thing greater then yourselves is a god..not just that you further assume there is only one god...
> nice job of intentional misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks Daws for pointing out the obvious.
> 
> He claims that connecting to something greater than self is 'spirituality' and then equates spirituality with a god, any god, and then seems to think it is irrelevant if those beliefs are false, irrational or insane.
> 
> Seeing the way he and his alter ego respond to you seems to contradict his claim of having an ability to connect with something greater than himself.
Click to expand...


I did not "equate" spirituality with a god. If we are spiritually connecting to something, that thing is God. We use words to describe what we are talking about in communication. If you'd rather use another word for the spiritual entity in which mankind connects, be my guest... Yahweh? Allah? Mother Nature? We can call it whatever, it still means what it means. I've made no argument supporting the sanity or rationality of any manmade incarnation of God. My only argument is for human spirituality, which has been present in mankind for all of human existence. 

I don't have any special ability that you don't have as a human being. I connect with my God daily, and my God is present at all times. I'm sorry if you have not realized this ability and have become skeptical, that's your problem. 



daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> false! your assuming that some thing greater then yourselves is a god..not just that you further assume there is only one god...
> nice job of intentional misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I clearly defined "God" as being that thing which is greater than self that 95% of humans have always connected with spiritually. If you have defined God some other way, that's not my problem. I've also certainly not dismissed the possibility of more than one "God" and would love to see what statement I've made that would lead you believe this.
> 
> I also disagree, it was a terrible job you did of intentional misinterpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false. by using the word god,you've muddied the waters.
Click to expand...


Again, I used the word we use commonly to define the entity in which humans spiritually connect. I'm sorry if you think another word is more appropriate, I don't agree. You and hobelim have somehow conjured up a stubborn rigid image of what "God" means, and no one can argue with you two. But you two do not get to define parameters of language and how other humans communicate. Sorry. 



> true! boss appears to be the kind of person that has to have the last word and truly believes what he is saying.
> for whatever reason he has to see himself as the smartest kid in class.



Well, I am definitely the smartest kid in THIS class because you both failed at contradicting any point that I made. You tossed out your opinions which I've destroyed, and then you've launched into personal attacks on my intellect and whatnot. The "debate" ended about a page back, since then you two are tag-team trolling with the same repeated rhetoric. I realize your little circle jerk makes you both feel better, but you're not winning any arguments here. If you can't address my valid points with any kind of suitable intelligent counter-argument, you have failed. Now this is a familiar position for you losers, you are accustomed to failing, I am sure. Still, I don't like to walk away and let the 'last word' be had by idiots who think they've won something. So I'll just keep on pointing out that you've not refuted my arguments and you're both engaging in ad homs because you've failed like the losers you both are.


----------



## hobelim

GreenBean said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never seen them using fire or the wheel either ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your ability to see is in question.
> 
> have you never seen dogs bark at the moon? Cocks crow at sunrise? Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.Dogs and or wolves howl at the moon to signal position when hunting. Dogs also howl when left alone for long times and they are attempting to hint to their family members. Dog howls are also very contagious, since one dog's howl may set off a series of howls in ears range.
> 
> 2. _Cocks crow at sunrise?_ - My cock generally crows at night.  Roosters however , according to science have an internal biological clock which is stimulated by external stimuli, something like my cock also.
> 
> 3. _Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear? _ - No I Never have - But I've seen them ditching into the woods when five-0 shows up .
Click to expand...




It is very inspiring to see the many wonderful things spirituality has done for you.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! your assuming that some thing greater then yourselves is a god..not just that you further assume there is only one god...
> nice job of intentional misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks Daws for pointing out the obvious.
> 
> He claims that connecting to something greater than self is 'spirituality' and then equates spirituality with a god, any god, and then seems to think it is irrelevant if those beliefs are false, irrational or insane.
> 
> Seeing the way he and his alter ego respond to you seems to contradict his claim of having an ability to connect with something greater than himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not "equate" spirituality with a god. If we are spiritually connecting to something, that thing is God. .
Click to expand...


LOL....


It is truly inspiring to see the many wonderful things that spiritually connecting to a figment of your imagination daily has done for you.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

hobelim said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> your ability to see is in question.
> 
> have you never seen dogs bark at the moon? Cocks crow at sunrise? Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Dogs and or wolves howl at the moon to signal position when hunting. Dogs also howl when left alone for long times and they are attempting to hint to their family members. Dog howls are also very contagious, since one dog's howl may set off a series of howls in ears range.
> 
> 2. _Cocks crow at sunrise?_ - My cock generally crows at night.  Roosters however , according to science have an internal biological clock which is stimulated by external stimuli, something like my cock also.
> 
> 3. _Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear? _ - No I Never have - But I've seen them ditching into the woods when five-0 shows up .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very inspiring to see the many wonderful things spirituality has done for you.
Click to expand...



I'm speechless.


----------



## GreenBean

hobelim said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> your ability to see is in question.
> 
> have you never seen dogs bark at the moon? Cocks crow at sunrise? Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Dogs and or wolves howl at the moon to signal position when hunting. Dogs also howl when left alone for long times and they are attempting to hint to their family members. Dog howls are also very contagious, since one dog's howl may set off a series of howls in ears range.
> 
> 2. _Cocks crow at sunrise?_ - My cock generally crows at night.  Roosters however , according to science have an internal biological clock which is stimulated by external stimuli, something like my cock also.
> 
> 3. _Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear? _ - No I Never have - But I've seen them ditching into the woods when five-0 shows up .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very inspiring to see the many wonderful things spirituality has done for you.
Click to expand...


Try reading Achayra Sanning / also known as DM Murdock and perhaps you'll get a better understanding of my "spirituality"


----------



## hobelim

GreenBean said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Dogs and or wolves howl at the moon to signal position when hunting. Dogs also howl when left alone for long times and they are attempting to hint to their family members. Dog howls are also very contagious, since one dog's howl may set off a series of howls in ears range.
> 
> 2. _Cocks crow at sunrise?_ - My cock generally crows at night.  Roosters however , according to science have an internal biological clock which is stimulated by external stimuli, something like my cock also.
> 
> 3. _Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear? _ - No I Never have - But I've seen them ditching into the woods when five-0 shows up .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very inspiring to see the many wonderful things spirituality has done for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading Achayra Sanning / also known as DM Murdock and perhaps you'll get a better understanding of my "spirituality"
Click to expand...



What could give anyone a better understanding of what you are about other than your previous post?


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> If you'd rather use another word for the spiritual entity in which mankind connects, be my guest... Yahweh? Allah? Mother Nature? We can call it whatever, it still means what it means. I've made no argument supporting the sanity or rationality of any manmade incarnation of God. My only argument is for human spirituality, which has been present in mankind for all of human existence.



If your only argument is for human spirituality then what is the insistence that what people connect to must be God about and why did you claim to have made a rational argument for the existence of God?

And as far as 'spirituality' having always been present, perhaps you left some before mentioned historical facts out of your speculations and conversations with whatever it is that you connect to in your imagination?

*Yes, people have always practiced one religion or another, but why?

In the past religious worship was compulsory under penalty of torture and death. Even to this day people of certain faiths maintain such primitive and violent behavior and the religions who don't kill those who resist assimilation practice anathema, social and economic oppression. People got on their knees to worship statues of the king, or a bird, or a mythical being because if they didn't they were summarily executed in one way or another.

makes "spirituality" a little less mysterious, doesn't it? *


----------



## GreenBean

hobelim said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very inspiring to see the many wonderful things spirituality has done for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Achayra Sanning / also known as DM Murdock and perhaps you'll get a better understanding of my "spirituality"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What could give anyone a better understanding of what you are about other than your previous post?
Click to expand...


Your poor attempt to link the existence or non existence of God to Cocks crowing and the posturing of Monkeys was a tad ludicrous which prompted my response.

Carl Jung's theory of Synchronicity, attempts to explain coincidences in personal lives as an extension and/or communication from ones psyche , *God, or guardian angel *in a rational guise , one could also argue that Historical Coincidence or societal synchronicity are of the same genre.

.... all Human endeavors and actions are all part of a bizarre video game in which Humans are mere characters, the underlying sequences of events remains unchanged, the outcome changes slightly dependent upon the actions and interactions of the players. 

Nature contains an infinite number of cycles which follow perfectly natural laws which science is able to explain. That which can't be explained in rational terms, is either disregarded as Coincidence , superstition, pseudo-science and nonsense.

I personally believe that coincidence and sychronicity are the best proofs of a Spiritual Realm or the existence of a God  one can produce outside of non thinking "Blind Faith"

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous" -A. Einstein


----------



## hobelim

GreenBean said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Achayra Sanning / also known as DM Murdock and perhaps you'll get a better understanding of my "spirituality"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What could give anyone a better understanding of what you are about other than your previous post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your poor attempt to link the existence or non existence of God to Cocks crowing and the posturing of Monkeys was a tad ludicrous which prompted my response.
Click to expand...



no where did I attempt to link the existence/nonexistence of God to any bird or monkey. The comparison was to human beings connecting to something greater than themselves like any flocking bird or teeming vermin or monkey trying to appear bigger than they are out of fear.

You really need to read more carefully or else whatever else lurks within the dark secret recesses of your mind will inevitably come leaking out all over these pages for everyone to see who has eyes that see.


----------



## daws101

greenbean said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> 
> never seen them using fire or the wheel either ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your ability to see is in question.
> 
> Have you never seen dogs bark at the moon? Cocks crow at sunrise? Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.dogs and or wolves howl at the moon to signal position when hunting. Dogs also howl when left alone for long times and they are attempting to hint to their family members. Dog howls are also very contagious, since one dog's howl may set off a series of howls in ears range.
> 
> 2. _cocks crow at sunrise?_ - my cock generally crows at night.  Roosters however , according to science have an internal biological clock which is stimulated by external stimuli, something like my cock also.
> 
> 3. _have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear? _ - no i never have - but i've seen them ditching into the woods when five-0 shows up .
Click to expand...

you mean that extra small childs penis?


----------



## daws101

boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! Your assuming that some thing greater then yourselves is a god..not just that you further assume there is only one god...
> Nice job of intentional misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks daws for pointing out the obvious.
> 
> He claims that connecting to something greater than self is 'spirituality' and then equates spirituality with a god, any god, and then seems to think it is irrelevant if those beliefs are false, irrational or insane.
> 
> Seeing the way he and his alter ego respond to you seems to contradict his claim of having an ability to connect with something greater than himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did not "equate" spirituality with a god. If we are spiritually connecting to something, that thing is god. We use words to describe what we are talking about in communication. If you'd rather use another word for the spiritual entity in which mankind connects, be my guest... Yahweh? Allah? Mother nature? We can call it whatever, it still means what it means. I've made no argument supporting the sanity or rationality of any manmade incarnation of god. My only argument is for human spirituality, which has been present in mankind for all of human existence.
> 
> I don't have any special ability that you don't have as a human being. I connect with my god daily, and my god is present at all times. I'm sorry if you have not realized this ability and have become skeptical, that's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false. By using the word god,you've muddied the waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, i used the word we use commonly to define the entity in which humans spiritually connect. I'm sorry if you think another word is more appropriate, i don't agree. You and hobelim have somehow conjured up a stubborn rigid image of what "god" means, and no one can argue with you two. But you two do not get to define parameters of language and how other humans communicate. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true! Boss appears to be the kind of person that has to have the last word and truly believes what he is saying.
> For whatever reason he has to see himself as the smartest kid in class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, i am definitely the smartest kid in this class because you both failed at contradicting any point that i made. You tossed out your opinions which i've destroyed, and then you've launched into personal attacks on my intellect and whatnot. The "debate" ended about a page back, since then you two are tag-team trolling with the same repeated rhetoric. I realize your little circle jerk makes you both feel better, but you're not winning any arguments here. If you can't address my valid points with any kind of suitable intelligent counter-argument, you have failed. Now this is a familiar position for you losers, you are accustomed to failing, i am sure. Still, i don't like to walk away and let the 'last word' be had by idiots who think they've won something. So i'll just keep on pointing out that you've not refuted my arguments and you're both engaging in ad homs because you've failed like the losers you both are.
Click to expand...

thanks for proving my point.....
You've destroyed nothing .....
You're rationalizing far too much to have won .....besides, this is not a contest....


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Dogs and or wolves howl at the moon to signal position when hunting. Dogs also howl when left alone for long times and they are attempting to hint to their family members. Dog howls are also very contagious, since one dog's howl may set off a series of howls in ears range.
> 
> 2. _Cocks crow at sunrise?_ - My cock generally crows at night.  Roosters however , according to science have an internal biological clock which is stimulated by external stimuli, something like my cock also.
> 
> 3. _Have you never seen chimps posturing out of fear? _ - No I Never have - But I've seen them ditching into the woods when five-0 shows up .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very inspiring to see the many wonderful things spirituality has done for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading Achayra Sanning / also known as DM Murdock and perhaps you'll get a better understanding of my "spirituality"
Click to expand...

NEW AGE BULLSHIT....GEE WHY AM i NOT SURPRISED


----------



## GreenBean

hobelim said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> What could give anyone a better understanding of what you are about other than your previous post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your poor attempt to link the existence or non existence of God to Cocks crowing and the posturing of Monkeys was a tad ludicrous which prompted my response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no where did I attempt to link the existence/nonexistence of God to any bird or monkey. The comparison was to human beings connecting to something greater than themselves like any flocking bird or teeming vermin or monkey trying to appear bigger than they are out of fear.
> 
> You really need to read more carefully or else whatever else lurks within the dark secret recesses of your mind will inevitably come leaking out all over these pages for everyone to see who has eyes that see.
Click to expand...


You really need to write clearly if that was your intent. The sub-thread I believe began on animals praying - I responded by saying that they were never seen using fire or the wheel either, and then you vomited that post about Roosters and Monkeys and so forth .  --


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very inspiring to see the many wonderful things spirituality has done for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Achayra Sanning / also known as DM Murdock and perhaps you'll get a better understanding of my "spirituality"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NEW AGE BULLSHIT....GEE WHY AM i NOT SURPRISED
Click to expand...


Daws *Obviously you are unfamiliar with her writings* - she is NOT "New Age" . you religion-despising bottom-feeder, if ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy liberal.  As a God smacked crackhead, you'd need twice as much sense to be a halfwit.


----------



## daws101

greenbean said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> 
> your poor attempt to link the existence or non existence of god to cocks crowing and the posturing of monkeys was a tad ludicrous which prompted my response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no where did i attempt to link the existence/nonexistence of god to any bird or monkey. The comparison was to human beings connecting to something greater than themselves like any flocking bird or teeming vermin or monkey trying to appear bigger than they are out of fear.
> 
> You really need to read more carefully or else whatever else lurks within the dark secret recesses of your mind will inevitably come leaking out all over these pages for everyone to see who has eyes that see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really need to write clearly if that was your intent. The sub-thread i believe began on animals praying - i responded by saying that they were never seen using fire or the wheel either, and then you vomited that post about roosters and monkeys and so forth .  --
Click to expand...

fire and the wheel are false comparisons most all other animals besides humans are so well adapted to their environment so as not to need them
on the other hand some animals use tools....


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Achayra Sanning / also known as DM Murdock and perhaps you'll get a better understanding of my "spirituality"
> 
> 
> 
> NEW AGE BULLSHIT....GEE WHY AM i NOT SURPRISED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws *Obviously you are unfamiliar with her writings* - she is NOT "New Age" . you religion-despising bottom-feeder, if ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy liberal.  As a God smacked crackhead, you'd need twice as much sense to be a halfwit.
Click to expand...

Here is a summation of problems with and signals from Acharya S' The Christ Conspiracy:

It is published by "Adventures Unlimited," which also puts out material on time travel and Atlantis.

I would recommend to the reader Glenn Miller's work in progress on copycat myths as well as our series on pagan comparisons.

Despite claims to do so, the author doesn't bother with much showing a cause-and-effect or logical relationship between religion and disaster. One may ask, what about the fact that atheistic communism has caused more deaths than all religious crusades of any sort combined? Her answer: "..(F)ew realize or acknowledge that the originators of Communism were Jewish (Marx, Lenin, Hess, Trotsky) and that the most overtly violent leaders were Roman Catholic (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco) or Eastern Orthodox Christian (Stalin), despotic and intolerant ideologies that breed fascistic dictators. In other words, these movements were not 'atheistic,' as religionists maintain." (2)

That none of the named heroes of Communism/Catholicism practiced their Judaism/Catholicism is not mentioned and/or proved (much less is it shown that Judaism provided the support for their ideologies and actions); that Stalin was merely a seminary student, hardly a professing believer in Orthodox religion, is not mentioned.

Acharya S, Christ Conspiracy, critical review


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEW AGE BULLSHIT....GEE WHY AM i NOT SURPRISED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws *Obviously you are unfamiliar with her writings* - she is NOT "New Age" . you religion-despising bottom-feeder, if ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy liberal.  As a God smacked crackhead, you'd need twice as much sense to be a halfwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a summation of problems with and signals from Acharya S' The Christ Conspiracy:
> 
> It is published by "Adventures Unlimited," which also puts out material on time travel and Atlantis.
> 
> I would recommend to the reader Glenn Miller's work in progress on copycat myths as well as our series on pagan comparisons.
> 
> Despite claims to do so, the author doesn't bother with much showing a cause-and-effect or logical relationship between religion and disaster. One may ask, what about the fact that atheistic communism has caused more deaths than all religious crusades of any sort combined? Her answer: "..(F)ew realize or acknowledge that the originators of Communism were Jewish (Marx, Lenin, Hess, Trotsky) and that the most overtly violent leaders were Roman Catholic (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco) or Eastern Orthodox Christian (Stalin), despotic and intolerant ideologies that breed fascistic dictators. In other words, these movements were not 'atheistic,' as religionists maintain." (2)
> 
> That none of the named heroes of Communism/Catholicism practiced their Judaism/Catholicism is not mentioned and/or proved (much less is it shown that Judaism provided the support for their ideologies and actions); that Stalin was merely a seminary student, hardly a professing believer in Orthodox religion, is not mentioned.
> 
> Acharya S, Christ Conspiracy, critical review
Click to expand...


DAWS good to see you've learned how to cherry pick reviews that suit your present view.

D.M. Murdock, also known by her pen name, "Acharya S," is the author of several books on comparative religion and mythology, including "The Christ Conspiracy," "Suns of God," "Who Was Jesus?" and "Christ in Egypt." She is also the author of "The Gospel According to Acharya S," which seeks to answer some long-held questions concerning the nature of God, religion and humankind's place in the world.

Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion. She grabs the reader from the first page and doesn't let go. --Earl Doherty

The Christ Conspiracy--very, very scholarly and wholly researched--is a book for today... --Rev. B. Strauss, ex-Catholic priest, Chicago, IL

Acharya S has done a service to forensic anthropology similar to what Euclid did for geometry. She has pulled together all available materials to reveal the inner workings of perhaps the biggest folly of Western man. I enjoyed it immensely. --EBTX

Acharya S pulls no punches, beating her adversary to a bloody pulp... This war of words, it seems, is a battle the author takes most seriously in her righteous quest to undo 2000 years of mental slavery inflicted upon humankind. --Adam Gorightly

Acharya brings in secular [and] church history, archaeology, theology, mythology, linguistics...to provide plenty of backing for her theses. An essential book for anyone who wants to know the reality behind the world's dominant religion. --Russ Kick

Drawing together an amazing amount of research, Acharya S...demolishes the facade of Christianity, showing that it is 100% mythology. -- You Are Being Lied Too, April 1, 2001

*DAWS* - I reiterate - You are a God Smacked Crackhead - I can't fathom that out of a million sperm, you were the fastest freak out nature that your Dad could shoot out - he must have been a Crack head too  ?  WOW !


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws *Obviously you are unfamiliar with her writings* - she is NOT "New Age" . you religion-despising bottom-feeder, if ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy liberal.  As a God smacked crackhead, you'd need twice as much sense to be a halfwit.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a summation of problems with and signals from Acharya S' The Christ Conspiracy:
> 
> It is published by "Adventures Unlimited," which also puts out material on time travel and Atlantis.
> 
> I would recommend to the reader Glenn Miller's work in progress on copycat myths as well as our series on pagan comparisons.
> 
> Despite claims to do so, the author doesn't bother with much showing a cause-and-effect or logical relationship between religion and disaster. One may ask, what about the fact that atheistic communism has caused more deaths than all religious crusades of any sort combined? Her answer: "..(F)ew realize or acknowledge that the originators of Communism were Jewish (Marx, Lenin, Hess, Trotsky) and that the most overtly violent leaders were Roman Catholic (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco) or Eastern Orthodox Christian (Stalin), despotic and intolerant ideologies that breed fascistic dictators. In other words, these movements were not 'atheistic,' as religionists maintain." (2)
> 
> That none of the named heroes of Communism/Catholicism practiced their Judaism/Catholicism is not mentioned and/or proved (much less is it shown that Judaism provided the support for their ideologies and actions); that Stalin was merely a seminary student, hardly a professing believer in Orthodox religion, is not mentioned.
> 
> Acharya S, Christ Conspiracy, critical review
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DAWS good to see you've learned how to cherry pick reviews that suit your present view.
> 
> D.M. Murdock, also known by her pen name, "Acharya S," is the author of several books on comparative religion and mythology, including "The Christ Conspiracy," "Suns of God," "Who Was Jesus?" and "Christ in Egypt." She is also the author of "The Gospel According to Acharya S," which seeks to answer some long-held questions concerning the nature of God, religion and humankind's place in the world.
> 
> Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion. She grabs the reader from the first page and doesn't let go. --Earl Doherty
> 
> The Christ Conspiracy--very, very scholarly and wholly researched--is a book for today... --Rev. B. Strauss, ex-Catholic priest, Chicago, IL
> 
> Acharya S has done a service to forensic anthropology similar to what Euclid did for geometry. She has pulled together all available materials to reveal the inner workings of perhaps the biggest folly of Western man. I enjoyed it immensely. --EBTX
> 
> Acharya S pulls no punches, beating her adversary to a bloody pulp... This war of words, it seems, is a battle the author takes most seriously in her righteous quest to undo 2000 years of mental slavery inflicted upon humankind. --Adam Gorightly
> 
> Acharya brings in secular [and] church history, archaeology, theology, mythology, linguistics...to provide plenty of backing for her theses. An essential book for anyone who wants to know the reality behind the world's dominant religion. --Russ Kick
> 
> Drawing together an amazing amount of research, Acharya S...demolishes the facade of Christianity, showing that it is 100% mythology. -- You Are Being Lied Too, April 1, 2001
Click to expand...

it would seem you do too...
so you have no point....


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a summation of problems with and signals from Acharya S' The Christ Conspiracy:
> 
> It is published by "Adventures Unlimited," which also puts out material on time travel and Atlantis.
> 
> I would recommend to the reader Glenn Miller's work in progress on copycat myths as well as our series on pagan comparisons.
> 
> Despite claims to do so, the author doesn't bother with much showing a cause-and-effect or logical relationship between religion and disaster. One may ask, what about the fact that atheistic communism has caused more deaths than all religious crusades of any sort combined? Her answer: "..(F)ew realize or acknowledge that the originators of Communism were Jewish (Marx, Lenin, Hess, Trotsky) and that the most overtly violent leaders were Roman Catholic (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco) or Eastern Orthodox Christian (Stalin), despotic and intolerant ideologies that breed fascistic dictators. In other words, these movements were not 'atheistic,' as religionists maintain." (2)
> 
> That none of the named heroes of Communism/Catholicism practiced their Judaism/Catholicism is not mentioned and/or proved (much less is it shown that Judaism provided the support for their ideologies and actions); that Stalin was merely a seminary student, hardly a professing believer in Orthodox religion, is not mentioned.
> 
> Acharya S, Christ Conspiracy, critical review
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAWS good to see you've learned how to cherry pick reviews that suit your present view.
> 
> D.M. Murdock, also known by her pen name, "Acharya S," is the author of several books on comparative religion and mythology, including "The Christ Conspiracy," "Suns of God," "Who Was Jesus?" and "Christ in Egypt." She is also the author of "The Gospel According to Acharya S," which seeks to answer some long-held questions concerning the nature of God, religion and humankind's place in the world.
> 
> Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion. She grabs the reader from the first page and doesn't let go. --Earl Doherty
> 
> The Christ Conspiracy--very, very scholarly and wholly researched--is a book for today... --Rev. B. Strauss, ex-Catholic priest, Chicago, IL
> 
> Acharya S has done a service to forensic anthropology similar to what Euclid did for geometry. She has pulled together all available materials to reveal the inner workings of perhaps the biggest folly of Western man. I enjoyed it immensely. --EBTX
> 
> Acharya S pulls no punches, beating her adversary to a bloody pulp... This war of words, it seems, is a battle the author takes most seriously in her righteous quest to undo 2000 years of mental slavery inflicted upon humankind. --Adam Gorightly
> 
> Acharya brings in secular [and] church history, archaeology, theology, mythology, linguistics...to provide plenty of backing for her theses. An essential book for anyone who wants to know the reality behind the world's dominant religion. --Russ Kick
> 
> Drawing together an amazing amount of research, Acharya S...demolishes the facade of Christianity, showing that it is 100% mythology. -- You Are Being Lied Too, April 1, 2001
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it would seem you do too...
> so you have no point....
Click to expand...




> so you have no point...



More correctly put - *I see no point in debating with a buffoon such as you.*  ... well .....  actually it's kinda entertaining watching you flounder around while I smack you with the Fish Bat LMAO


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> DAWS good to see you've learned how to cherry pick reviews that suit your present view.
> 
> D.M. Murdock, also known by her pen name, "Acharya S," is the author of several books on comparative religion and mythology, including "The Christ Conspiracy," "Suns of God," "Who Was Jesus?" and "Christ in Egypt." She is also the author of "The Gospel According to Acharya S," which seeks to answer some long-held questions concerning the nature of God, religion and humankind's place in the world.
> 
> Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion. She grabs the reader from the first page and doesn't let go. --Earl Doherty
> 
> The Christ Conspiracy--very, very scholarly and wholly researched--is a book for today... --Rev. B. Strauss, ex-Catholic priest, Chicago, IL
> 
> Acharya S has done a service to forensic anthropology similar to what Euclid did for geometry. She has pulled together all available materials to reveal the inner workings of perhaps the biggest folly of Western man. I enjoyed it immensely. --EBTX
> 
> Acharya S pulls no punches, beating her adversary to a bloody pulp... This war of words, it seems, is a battle the author takes most seriously in her righteous quest to undo 2000 years of mental slavery inflicted upon humankind. --Adam Gorightly
> 
> Acharya brings in secular [and] church history, archaeology, theology, mythology, linguistics...to provide plenty of backing for her theses. An essential book for anyone who wants to know the reality behind the world's dominant religion. --Russ Kick
> 
> Drawing together an amazing amount of research, Acharya S...demolishes the facade of Christianity, showing that it is 100% mythology. -- You Are Being Lied Too, April 1, 2001
> 
> 
> 
> it would seem you do too...
> so you have no point....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you have no point...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More correctly put - *I see no point in debating with a buffoon such as you.*  ... well .....  actually it's kinda entertaining watching you flounder around while I smack you with the Fish Bat LMAO
Click to expand...

you have a rich fantasy life...


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it would seem you do too...
> so you have no point....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you have no point...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More correctly put - *I see no point in debating with a buffoon such as you.*  ... well .....  actually it's kinda entertaining watching you flounder around while I smack you with the Fish Bat LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have a rich fantasy life...
Click to expand...


When you stop being a hysterical, granny-euthanizing whiner, that'll be change we can believe in. I hate to tell you this, you sociofascist bottom-feeder, but your inferiority complex is fully justified.


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> More correctly put - *I see no point in debating with a buffoon such as you.*  ... well .....  actually it's kinda entertaining watching you flounder around while I smack you with the Fish Bat LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> you have a rich fantasy life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stop being a hysterical, granny-euthanizing whiner, that'll be change we can believe in. I hate to tell you this, you sociofascist bottom-feeder, but your inferiority complex is fully justified.
Click to expand...

you have a rich fantasy life..


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd rather use another word for the spiritual entity in which mankind connects, be my guest... Yahweh? Allah? Mother Nature? We can call it whatever, it still means what it means. I've made no argument supporting the sanity or rationality of any manmade incarnation of God. My only argument is for human spirituality, which has been present in mankind for all of human existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your only argument is for human spirituality then what is the insistence that what people connect to must be God about and why did you claim to have made a rational argument for the existence of God?
Click to expand...


Because in communicating with each other, we define the spiritual entity greater than man which man worships as "God." Some call "God" a different word, and that's fine, I call it God. You are attempting to apply a specific religious incarnation to "God" and insist that the only way any "God" could exist is if it conforms to that particular incarnation. Whether this is caused by your shallow mind which cannot comprehend "God" any other way, or whether it is your attempt to refute a religious connotation you don't agree with, or whatever your reasoning, it simply doesn't apply here. 

Humans connect to a spiritual power greater than man, and that power is known by most as God. 



> And as far as 'spirituality' having always been present, perhaps you left some before mentioned historical facts out of your speculations and conversations with whatever it is that you connect to in your imagination?



But it's not my imagination. Nor is it the imagination of 95% of all humans who've ever existed. We've covered this already, and I have eviscerated your arguments. It simply defies Darwinism that humans rise to the top of all intelligent life through the practice of needlessly worshiping something imaginary out of delusion. Humans even developed a word to describe specific benefits realized from their spiritual worship... "blessings." Humans also developed a word for the strength and courage gained from spirituality to achieve impossible feats and advance the species... it's called "inspiration." There is absolutely nothing superficial or imaginary about this. 



> Yes, people have always practiced one religion or another, but why?  ...In the past religious worship was compulsory under penalty of torture and death...



No, people have not always practiced religions. Religious teachings became popular over time because of mankind's intrinsic spiritual connections. During periods of history, man has sought to control spirituality by controlling religion. But human spirituality is too strong to control. 

What you keep doing is confusing "religion" with human spirituality, and I get where you are coming from, really I do. I'm not all that hot on organized religions because they can be dangerous if you don't comprehend the magnitude of a spiritual God. But regardless of my personal feelings about organized religion, there is still evidence that humans do worship something greater than self, and that "thing" is God.


----------



## Jose1

daws101 said:


> Here is a summation of problems with and signals from Acharya S' The Christ Conspiracy:
> 
> It is published by "Adventures Unlimited," which also puts out material on time travel and Atlantis.
> 
> I would recommend to the reader Glenn Miller's work in progress on copycat myths as well as our series on pagan comparisons.
> 
> One may ask, what about the fact that atheistic communism has caused more deaths than all religious crusades of any sort combined?...



Actually, all of those claims were addressed long ago:

What about Acharya's publisher - Adventurers Unlimited Press?

On JP Holding, Licona & Glenn Miller:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4823#p4823

Pagan Parallels: Achilles Heel of Christianity

"what about the fact that atheistic communism has caused more deaths than all religious crusades of any sort combined?"

Baaaahahaha, completely false:

Christianity has murdered around 250 million & Islam 270 million, half a *Billion* deaths in just two religions. 

How many has God killed?

Were Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot atheists?


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your only argument is for human spirituality then what is the insistence that what people connect to must be God about and why did you claim to have made a rational argument for the existence of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in communicating with each other, we define the spiritual entity greater than man which man worships as "God." Some call "God" a different word, and that's fine, I call it God. You are attempting to apply a specific religious incarnation to "God" and insist that the only way any "God" could exist is if it conforms to that particular incarnation. Whether this is caused by your shallow mind which cannot comprehend "God" any other way, or whether it is your attempt to refute a religious connotation you don't agree with, or whatever your reasoning, it simply doesn't apply here.
> Humans connect to a spiritual power greater than man, and that power is known by most as God.
Click to expand...


Two things here. I am not attempting to apply any specific religious incarnation to God, I have shown how other species also connect to something greater than themselves out of fear and an instinct for survival and that in itself is not proof of any God although it may be the beginnings of transcendent and abstract thought . What I have also pointed out is that if what people believe about whatever God it may be that they think that they are connecting to is false then they are not connecting to anything. As I have said what you define as spirituality is nothing more than a function of the mind, sometimes rational, sometimes not so much.

The other thing is now you have attributed some undefined 'power' to spirituality. You are beginning to sound like saint Brad, a very deeply disturbed and devoted follower of his own imagination.





Boss said:


> And as far as 'spirituality' having always been present, perhaps you left some before mentioned historical facts out of your speculations and conversations with whatever it is that you connect to in your imagination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not my imagination. Nor is it the imagination of 95% of all humans who've ever existed. We've covered this already, and I have eviscerated your arguments. It simply defies Darwinism that humans rise to the top of all intelligent life through the practice of needlessly worshiping something imaginary out of delusion. Humans even developed a word to describe specific benefits realized from their spiritual worship... "blessings." Humans also developed a word for the strength and courage gained from spirituality to achieve impossible feats and advance the species... it's called "inspiration." There is absolutely nothing superficial or imaginary about this.
Click to expand...



Oh please! You have eviscerated nothing. Humans have climbed to the top of all intelligent life through 'spirituality' according to Darwin? Give me a break. Maybe you haven't noticed but the dinosaurs were once at the top and it had absolutely nothing to do with spirituality or intelligence professor. And how can you fail to acknowledge the deranged and heinous actions of those who feel 'inspired' by the 'spiritual' connection to their God who tells them to murder their children because they are possessed or to chop off the heads of anyone who listens to music? Nothing imaginary? Inhuman ruthlessness has more to do with prevailing spiritual beliefs and practices than any rational intelligent thought or some rarified spirituality.





Boss said:


> Yes, people have always practiced one religion or another, but why?  ...In the past religious worship was compulsory under penalty of torture and death...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, people have not always practiced religions. Religious teachings became popular over time because of mankind's intrinsic spiritual connections. During periods of history, man has sought to control spirituality by controlling religion. But human spirituality is too strong to control.
> 
> What you keep doing is confusing "religion" with human spirituality, and I get where you are coming from, really I do. I'm not all that hot on organized religions because they can be dangerous if you don't comprehend the magnitude of a spiritual God. But regardless of my personal feelings about organized religion, there is still evidence that humans do worship something greater than self, and that "thing" is God.
Click to expand...



What you keep doing is ignoring the violent and compulsory nature of the "spirituality"  of the many peoples and nations of differing irrational and contradictory religious beliefs and practices and the generational emotional and mental trauma consequent to surviving among deranged corrupt and violent people for thousands of years.

I am not confusing religion with human spirituality. The two are inextricably entwined.

Again, if what people believe about God defines their spirituality and if those beliefs are false then that "thing" they pray to and worship is not God.


----------



## daws101

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your only argument is for human spirituality then what is the insistence that what people connect to must be God about and why did you claim to have made a rational argument for the existence of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in communicating with each other, we define the spiritual entity greater than man which man worships as "God." Some call "God" a different word, and that's fine, I call it God. You are attempting to apply a specific religious incarnation to "God" and insist that the only way any "God" could exist is if it conforms to that particular incarnation. Whether this is caused by your shallow mind which cannot comprehend "God" any other way, or whether it is your attempt to refute a religious connotation you don't agree with, or whatever your reasoning, it simply doesn't apply here.
> Humans connect to a spiritual power greater than man, and that power is known by most as God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things here. I am not attempting to apply any specific religious incarnation to God, I have shown how other species also connect to something greater than themselves out of fear and an instinct for survival and that in itself is not proof of any God although it may be the beginnings of transcendent and abstract thought . What I have also pointed out is that if what people believe about whatever God it may be that they think that they are connecting to is false then they are not connecting to anything. As I have said what you define as spirituality is nothing more than a function of the mind, sometimes rational, sometimes not so much.
> 
> The other thing is now you have attributed some undefined 'power' to spirituality. You are beginning to sound like saint Brad, a very deeply disturbed and devoted follower of his own imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please! You have eviscerated nothing. Humans have climbed to the top of all intelligent life through 'spirituality' according to Darwin? Give me a break. Maybe you haven't noticed but the dinosaurs were once at the top and it had absolutely nothing to do with spirituality or intelligence professor. And how can you fail to acknowledge the deranged and heinous actions of those who feel 'inspired' by the 'spiritual' connection to their God who tells them to murder their children because they are possessed or to chop off the heads of anyone who listens to music? Nothing imaginary? Inhuman ruthlessness has more to do with prevailing spiritual beliefs and practices than any rational intelligent thought or some rarified spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, people have always practiced one religion or another, but why?  ...In the past religious worship was compulsory under penalty of torture and death...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, people have not always practiced religions. Religious teachings became popular over time because of mankind's intrinsic spiritual connections. During periods of history, man has sought to control spirituality by controlling religion. But human spirituality is too strong to control.
> 
> What you keep doing is confusing "religion" with human spirituality, and I get where you are coming from, really I do. I'm not all that hot on organized religions because they can be dangerous if you don't comprehend the magnitude of a spiritual God. But regardless of my personal feelings about organized religion, there is still evidence that humans do worship something greater than self, and that "thing" is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you keep doing is ignoring the violent and compulsory nature of the "spirituality"  of the many peoples and nations of differing irrational and contradictory religious beliefs and practices and the generational emotional and mental trauma consequent to surviving among deranged corrupt and violent people for thousands of years.
> 
> I am not confusing religion with human spirituality. The two are inextricably entwined.
> 
> Again, if what people believe about God defines their spirituality and if those beliefs are false then that "thing" they pray to and worship is not God.
Click to expand...

expect a extremely convoluted and subjective rebuttal, to your simple, elegant and accurate post.


----------



## Politico

Christ conspiracy lol. That is some funny shit..


----------



## Vandalshandle

If God really existed, he would not tolerate the presence of televangelists on the air.


----------



## daws101

Vandalshandle said:


> If God really existed, he would not tolerate the presence of televangelists on the air.


he would for their comedic value only!


----------



## Politico

He wouldn't tolerate a lot more than that.


----------



## Vandalshandle

On the other hand,  maybe Michael Jackson's demise proves that god exits.....


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your only argument is for human spirituality then what is the insistence that what people connect to must be God about and why did you claim to have made a rational argument for the existence of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in communicating with each other, we define the spiritual entity greater than man which man worships as "God." Some call "God" a different word, and that's fine, I call it God. You are attempting to apply a specific religious incarnation to "God" and insist that the only way any "God" could exist is if it conforms to that particular incarnation. Whether this is caused by your shallow mind which cannot comprehend "God" any other way, or whether it is your attempt to refute a religious connotation you don't agree with, or whatever your reasoning, it simply doesn't apply here.
> Humans connect to a spiritual power greater than man, and that power is known by most as God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things here. I am not attempting to apply any specific religious incarnation to God, I have shown how other species also connect to something greater than themselves out of fear and an instinct for survival and that in itself is not proof of any God although it may be the beginnings of transcendent and abstract thought . What I have also pointed out is that if what people believe about whatever God it may be that they think that they are connecting to is false then they are not connecting to anything. As I have said what you define as spirituality is nothing more than a function of the mind, sometimes rational, sometimes not so much.
Click to expand...


You've not shown how any other species worships a power greater than self because nothing else does. You're drawing a false comparison to "strength in numbers" mentality, which all mammals seem to have. This includes humans who believe they can gather together on message boards and hoot down Christians to make God go away. 

I disagree with your second premise, that if what one believes turns out to be false, then what they experienced was also false. Much of what Darwin believed was true regarding evolution, has turned out to be totally inaccurate, that doesn't render Darwinism false. Many believe man is causing global warming, if they are wrong it doesn't mean the Earth isn't going through a warming cycle. Humans are capable of misinterpreting and misunderstanding their experiences. Happens all the time. 



> The other thing is now you have attributed some undefined 'power' to spirituality. You are beginning to sound like saint Brad, a very deeply disturbed and devoted follower of his own imagination.



No, I defined the power as something greater than self and not of the physical world. I've also explained how it's not imaginary and can't be considered a product of sheer imagination because it would defy Darwinism. 



> Oh please! You have eviscerated nothing. Humans have climbed to the top of all intelligent life through 'spirituality' according to Darwin? Give me a break. Maybe you haven't noticed but the dinosaurs were once at the top and it had absolutely nothing to do with spirituality or intelligence professor.



Now you are twisting what I said into a pretzel. I did not state that according to Darwin, humans climbed to the top of all intelligence through spiritualism. I rejected your notion that human spirituality is imaginary and delusional and as such, serves no valid function or purpose. This would defy Darwin, that mankind ascended to the top while hobbled and hindered by false beliefs in imaginary delusions, while other primates were not handicapped in such a way. There is a reason humans are superior in intelligence to apes and chimps, and that reason is found in our ability to spiritually connect to something greater than self. God. 

It is through our human spirituality that people are "inspired" to accomplish things they would otherwise never consider attempting. The realization of an inner strength we are not capable of on our own, without a spiritual connection leading to that inspiration. 



> And how can you fail to acknowledge the deranged and heinous actions of those who feel 'inspired' by the 'spiritual' connection to their God who tells them to murder their children because they are possessed or to chop off the heads of anyone who listens to music? Nothing imaginary? Inhuman ruthlessness has more to do with prevailing spiritual beliefs and practices than any rational intelligent thought or some rarified spirituality.



I don't think I failed to acknowledge that. I've repeatedly stated that "religions" are the manifestation of our human spirituality and some are good while others are bad. I've never said that human spiritual connection never causes imaginations to run wild, it often does. This does not mean that spiritual nature is imaginary and not real. 95% of our species is not imagining something that isn't real, else other primates would have surpassed humans along the evolution highway. When you consider that we are not superior to other species in terms of our five limited senses, the only real advantage we have as a species is our ability to spiritually connect and be inspired. 





Boss said:


> Yes, people have always practiced one religion or another, but why?  ...In the past religious worship was compulsory under penalty of torture and death...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you keep doing is ignoring the violent and compulsory nature of the "spirituality"  of the many peoples and nations of differing irrational and contradictory religious beliefs and practices and the generational emotional and mental trauma consequent to surviving among deranged corrupt and violent people for thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion is not spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not confusing religion with human spirituality. The two are inextricably entwined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are and no they're not. If that were the case, there would be one religion and one belief in God. And in your shallow mind, that's what you believe we have... one God who fits your narrow-minded criteria, and everyone who believes in this spiritual God is the same. Step back from your hatred of religion for a moment and review the data. For all of human existence, 95% of our species has believed in something greater than self, worshiped something higher in power than mortal human beings, and found amazing power and inspiration in doing so, which is self-evident. That's not a fluke. That's not wild imaginations or delusions. That's not superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if what people believe about God defines their spirituality and if those beliefs are false then that "thing" they pray to and worship is not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you can prove that thing they believe in is false, you may have an argument. As of now, even the tenets of Darwinism contradict your argument.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because in communicating with each other, we define the spiritual entity greater than man which man worships as "God." Some call "God" a different word, and that's fine, I call it God. You are attempting to apply a specific religious incarnation to "God" and insist that the only way any "God" could exist is if it conforms to that particular incarnation. Whether this is caused by your shallow mind which cannot comprehend "God" any other way, or whether it is your attempt to refute a religious connotation you don't agree with, or whatever your reasoning, it simply doesn't apply here.
> Humans connect to a spiritual power greater than man, and that power is known by most as God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things here. I am not attempting to apply any specific religious incarnation to God, I have shown how other species also connect to something greater than themselves out of fear and an instinct for survival and that in itself is not proof of any God although it may be the beginnings of transcendent and abstract thought . What I have also pointed out is that if what people believe about whatever God it may be that they think that they are connecting to is false then they are not connecting to anything. As I have said what you define as spirituality is nothing more than a function of the mind, sometimes rational, sometimes not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not shown how any other species worships a power greater than self because nothing else does. You're drawing a false comparison to "strength in numbers" mentality, which all mammals seem to have. This includes humans who believe they can gather together on message boards and hoot down Christians to make God go away.
> 
> I disagree with your second premise, that if what one believes turns out to be false, then what they experienced was also false. Much of what Darwin believed was true regarding evolution, has turned out to be totally inaccurate, that doesn't render Darwinism false. Many believe man is causing global warming, if they are wrong it doesn't mean the Earth isn't going through a warming cycle. Humans are capable of misinterpreting and misunderstanding their experiences. Happens all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I defined the power as something greater than self and not of the physical world. I've also explained how it's not imaginary and can't be considered a product of sheer imagination because it would defy Darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are twisting what I said into a pretzel. I did not state that according to Darwin, humans climbed to the top of all intelligence through spiritualism. I rejected your notion that human spirituality is imaginary and delusional and as such, serves no valid function or purpose. This would defy Darwin, that mankind ascended to the top while hobbled and hindered by false beliefs in imaginary delusions, while other primates were not handicapped in such a way. There is a reason humans are superior in intelligence to apes and chimps, and that reason is found in our ability to spiritually connect to something greater than self. God.
> 
> It is through our human spirituality that people are "inspired" to accomplish things they would otherwise never consider attempting. The realization of an inner strength we are not capable of on our own, without a spiritual connection leading to that inspiration.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I failed to acknowledge that. I've repeatedly stated that "religions" are the manifestation of our human spirituality and some are good while others are bad. I've never said that human spiritual connection never causes imaginations to run wild, it often does. This does not mean that spiritual nature is imaginary and not real. 95% of our species is not imagining something that isn't real, else other primates would have surpassed humans along the evolution highway. When you consider that we are not superior to other species in terms of our five limited senses, the only real advantage we have as a species is our ability to spiritually connect and be inspired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are and no they're not. If that were the case, there would be one religion and one belief in God. And in your shallow mind, that's what you believe we have... one God who fits your narrow-minded criteria, and everyone who believes in this spiritual God is the same. Step back from your hatred of religion for a moment and review the data. For all of human existence, 95% of our species has believed in something greater than self, worshiped something higher in power than mortal human beings, and found amazing power and inspiration in doing so, which is self-evident. That's not a fluke. That's not wild imaginations or delusions. That's not superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if what people believe about God defines their spirituality and if those beliefs are false then that "thing" they pray to and worship is not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you can prove that thing they believe in is false, you may have an argument. As of now, even the tenets of Darwinism contradict your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep! just like I said...
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

Vandalshandle said:


> If God really existed, he would not tolerate the presence of televangelists on the air.



This falsely assumes that God is a human-like entity with human attributes and emotions. Why would an omnipotent power need to feel tolerance or intolerance? Now I realize that statement may rub certain religious believers the wrong way, but as I've said, religion is the manifestation of our human spirituality. Man has bestowed these humanistic attributes on God because this is a way for men to comprehend a God they can't otherwise imagine. 

I believe in God as a positive form of spiritual energy we cannot see or measure physically, but we have the limited ability to realize and tap into. We can do things to disrupt the flow of this positive energy and cause evil in the hearts of man and bad things to happen, or we can tap into the positive flow of energy and find strength to achieve great and miraculous things. Electricity is a form of energy, it doesn't "care" whether you sin or not, and it doesn't get "angry" or have "compassion" ...it simply exists and can be handled appropriately to make amazing things happen or inappropriately to make bad things happen. 

Most people who claim they don't believe in God, have envisioned God as some human-like entity with human-like emotions and attributes, and I agree, I don't think such an entity exists. But, I still believe in God.


----------



## Boss

> yep! just like I said...



Daws, you need to fix your quote tags, it appears you are saying what I said. I wouldn't want anyone to mistake you for someone who is making sense. 

Nothing is ever like you said, you are an idiot. The only place anything is ever "just as you said" is inside your empty little head. Be careful not to soak up too much of my knowledge here or you'll sound like a maraca when you walk.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> yep! just like I said...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you need to fix your quote tags, it appears you are saying what I said. I wouldn't want anyone to mistake you for someone who is making sense.
> 
> Nothing is ever like you said, you are an idiot. The only place anything is ever "just as you said" is inside your empty little head. Be careful not to soak up too much of my knowledge here or you'll sound like a maraca when you walk.
Click to expand...

again just like I said...


----------



## GISMYS

Proof of god is everywhere around you. Consider the human brain and body=the most complex things in the known universe,only a fool would think the human body and brain could evolve by chance and any amount of time!!


----------



## daws101

GISMYS said:


> Proof of god is everywhere around you. Consider the human brain and body=the most complex things in the known universe,only a fool would think the human body and brain could evolve by chance and any amount of time!!


another creationist nut job for the fire.


----------



## Vandalshandle

GISMYS said:


> Proof of god is everywhere around you. Consider the human brain and body=the most complex things in the known universe,only a fool would think the human body and brain could evolve by chance and any amount of time!!



And yet, this magnificent mind can be convinced by a sick wacko that UFO's are arriving in the skies along with a comet, so the only appropriate thing to do is to have a Valium laced applesauce treat, lie down in a bunk bed, pull a black sheet over one's head, and wait until one is tranfered to  butterfly status so that one can return to the creater on board the starship Enterprise through Heaven's Gate. 

And i won't even get started about Jim Jones.....

My grandmother had one of god's created magnificent minds, and she spent the last three years of her life totally convinced that the FBI and the CIA were hiding in her attic recording everything she said or thought, and that her children were all agents of the government that were out to get her and her money (which did not exist), and only Oral Roberts could save her but would not, unless she sent Oral all of her nickels and dimes that she could dig up here and there. Unfortunately, Oral could not help her after her TV broke, because he could only communicate with her if she touched the screen while he was broadcasting.


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God really existed, he would not tolerate the presence of televangelists on the air.
> 
> 
> 
> he would for their comedic value only!
Click to expand...


I guess that's why he allows you to post here - Comedic Value - lol

Daws, you're so far out of your depth you need a snorkel to keep from drowning in your ignorance.


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God really existed, he would not tolerate the presence of televangelists on the air.
> 
> 
> 
> he would for their comedic value only!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that's why he allows you to post here - Comedic Value - lol
> 
> Daws, you're so far out of your depth you need a snorkel to keep from drowning in your ignorance.
Click to expand...

who is he? if you mean your imaginary sky faerie...then you are appealing to a nonexistent authority..can't get any more ignorant than ...


----------



## HenryBHough

Michael Jackson is not dead.  His bleach failed and he's hiding out in The White House. You can tell by the dance....


----------



## daws101

HenryBHough said:


> Michael Jackson is not dead.  His bleach failed and he's hiding out in The White House. You can tell by the dance....


can't be, unless he had a penis transplant ...


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> who is he? if you mean your imaginary sky faerie...then you are appealing to a nonexistent authority..can't get any more ignorant than ...



Don't know who or what he or it is -  If I *thought * I had all the answers I'd be a Liberal


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Jackson is not dead.  His bleach failed and he's hiding out in The White House. You can tell by the dance....
> 
> 
> 
> can't be, unless he had a penis transplant ...
Click to expand...


I can see why a race baiting flake like you votes Democrat. It's easier than working.
I've seen homeless people shouting at pigeons who make more sense than an organically-certified weenie like you.


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who is he? if you mean your imaginary sky faerie...then you are appealing to a nonexistent authority..can't get any more ignorant than ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know who or what he or it is -  If I *thought * I had all the answers I'd be a Liberal
Click to expand...

 really? odd  your posts indicate that you do think you have all the answers..


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Jackson is not dead.  His bleach failed and he's hiding out in The White House. You can tell by the dance....
> 
> 
> 
> can't be, unless he had a penis transplant ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why a race baiting flake like you votes Democrat. It's easier than working.
> I've seen homeless people shouting at pigeons who make more sense than an organically-certified weenie like you.
Click to expand...

wouldn't be simpler just to admit you love making  false accusations..?


----------



## gnarlylove

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



I once was all about William Lane Craig who is adept at using at least 4 ok arguments for a concept of theistic god. sounds like you know him. my favorite was kalam cosmological argument which i wrote my own version, some 40 pages, in high school.

Half way though college with a philosophy and sociology degree I turned away from my Christian faith to pursue more liberal desires. eventually i pursued hedonism to near death (iv drug use) and now i am a taoist and taoism is the ultimate way to perceive god or reality. it notes paradoxes in life and accepts them unlike most western concepts of logic and rational thought. i have never felt more aligned with myself. the thing about taoism too is you can even use Jesus Christ as your god, taoism demonstrates inclusivism 100%.


----------



## GreenBean

daws101 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who is he? if you mean your imaginary sky faerie...then you are appealing to a nonexistent authority..can't get any more ignorant than ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know who or what he or it is -  If I *thought * I had all the answers I'd be a Liberal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? odd  your posts indicate that you do think you have all the answers..
Click to expand...


You should come with a warning label because you contain more than a trace amount of nut.  If ignorance is Bliss you must be one happy Liberal.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> You've not shown how any other species worships a power greater than self because nothing else does. You're drawing a false comparison to "strength in numbers" mentality, which all mammals seem to have. This includes humans who believe they can gather together on message boards and hoot down Christians to make God go away. .




I showed how other species connect to something greater than themselves. And who is to say that a roosters crow at sunrise isn't the beginning of what was once sun worship in humans? Who can say if the roosters who crow at 4 am don't believe in the power of Cockadoodledoo?





Boss said:


> I disagree with your second premise, that if what one believes turns out to be false, then what they experienced was also false. Much of what Darwin believed was true regarding evolution, has turned out to be totally inaccurate, that doesn't render Darwinism false. Many believe man is causing global warming, if they are wrong it doesn't mean the Earth isn't going through a warming cycle. Humans are capable of misinterpreting and misunderstanding their experiences. Happens all the time.
> .




If a primitive human heard thunder and then thought it was evidence of a deity in the sky but it turns out that there isn't anything supernatural about it then entire belief system was always false even if they really felt the thunder rumble through their body.




Boss said:


> Now you are twisting what I said into a pretzel. I did not state that according to Darwin, humans climbed to the top of all intelligence through spiritualism. I rejected your notion that human spirituality is imaginary and delusional and as such, serves no valid function or purpose. This would defy Darwin, that mankind ascended to the top while hobbled and hindered by false beliefs in imaginary delusions, while other primates were not handicapped in such a way. .




It would defy how you interpret Darwinism if imaginary and delusional beliefs didn't serve any valid function or purpose but they do and very well for those people who have a vested interest in keeping the rest of the population blindly and mindlessly supporting beliefs and practices that make rational thinking impossible subsequently firmly cementing their comfy position above the carnage of the rabble degraded by those  very beliefs and practices. Then they lovingly 'minister' to the confused who turn to their captors for understanding and direction and are celebrated as men of God even though in reality are nothing more than actors and lying frauds perpetuating a very profitable scam...

its worked like a charm for millennia.


----------



## GreenBean

hobelim said:


> the power of Cockadoodledoo?



I wonder if someone could invent a Cult based on the power of Cockadoodledoo ?

WE have the Cargo Cult and We have Scientology - based on a bet.


----------



## HenryBHough

GreenBean said:


> I wonder if someone could invent a Cult based on the power of Cockadoodledoo ?




Too late!

Like The Internet, Algore _already_ invented it.


----------



## daws101

GreenBean said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know who or what he or it is -  If I *thought * I had all the answers I'd be a Liberal
> 
> 
> 
> really? odd  your posts indicate that you do think you have all the answers..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should come with a warning label because you contain more than a trace amount of nut.  If ignorance is Bliss you must be one happy Liberal.
Click to expand...

thanks for proving my point ...


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've not shown how any other species worships a power greater than self because nothing else does. You're drawing a false comparison to "strength in numbers" mentality, which all mammals seem to have. This includes humans who believe they can gather together on message boards and hoot down Christians to make God go away. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed how other species connect to something greater than themselves. And who is to say that a roosters crow at sunrise isn't the beginning of what was once sun worship in humans? Who can say if the roosters who crow at 4 am don't believe in the power of Cockadoodledoo?
Click to expand...


Well, we know that roosters have brains the size of a peanut and their crowing at sunrise is a reaction to stimulation of light. Morning glories bloom at sunrise but it doesn't mean they are worshiping the sun. You've not demonstrated how anything other than humans, knowingly connect to some spiritual force greater than self. You've twisted logic to create a false parameter of "something greater than self" and made a claim on that basis. If we can't be honest in the terminology of what we're actually talking about here, you can twist logic around all day long and make anything you please be the case. In that respect, it is virtually impossible for me to argue with an idiot. 





> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your second premise, that if what one believes turns out to be false, then what they experienced was also false. Much of what Darwin believed was true regarding evolution, has turned out to be totally inaccurate, that doesn't render Darwinism false. Many believe man is causing global warming, if they are wrong it doesn't mean the Earth isn't going through a warming cycle. Humans are capable of misinterpreting and misunderstanding their experiences. Happens all the time.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a primitive human heard thunder and then thought it was evidence of a deity in the sky but it turns out that there isn't anything supernatural about it then entire belief system was always false even if they really felt the thunder rumble through their body.
Click to expand...


All throughout history man has discovered how God makes things happen. Those discoveries do not negate God. You can explain how thunder happens but you cannot explain why. What you always eventually run into is "just because that's how it is." But why? Seems to me, thunder serves a beneficial purpose to man as it warns us of impending storms or lightning in the area, but why is it present in our universe? We know what causes it and how it happens, but we can't answer why. The same applies to gravity, electricity, fire, water, etc. We know what they do, what causes them, how they work, but *why* do they exist in our universe? 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are twisting what I said into a pretzel. I did not state that according to Darwin, humans climbed to the top of all intelligence through spiritualism. I rejected your notion that human spirituality is imaginary and delusional and as such, serves no valid function or purpose. This would defy Darwin, that mankind ascended to the top while hobbled and hindered by false beliefs in imaginary delusions, while other primates were not handicapped in such a way. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would defy how you interpret Darwinism if imaginary and delusional beliefs didn't serve any valid function or purpose but they do and very well for those people who have a vested interest in keeping the rest of the population blindly and mindlessly supporting beliefs and practices that make rational thinking impossible subsequently firmly cementing their comfy position above the carnage of the rabble degraded by those  very beliefs and practices. Then they lovingly 'minister' to the confused who turn to their captors for understanding and direction and are celebrated as men of God even though in reality are nothing more than actors and lying frauds perpetuating a very profitable scam...
> 
> its worked like a charm for millennia.
Click to expand...


Yes. human spirituality certainly does serve a valid function and purpose. That's the whole point of my argument. Without spirituality, humans would still be swinging from vines in the jungle with our cousins. Now you can mock religion all you like, I happen to agree that most man-made religion is fallible and prone to error. But that is a byproduct of our human spirituality. 

If it were impossible to think rationally and still have spirituality, we would still be swinging from the vines in the jungle. So your supposition is refuted by self-evidence. 

You hate religion, namely, Christian religion. I get that. I understand. But it has caused you to form a bias toward human spirituality which is baseless and erroneous. Until you can open your mind to possibility, you can't be enlightened, you will forever remain in the darkness. It's not possible for me to make you see something your mind is closed to.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> thanks for proving my point ...



Was your point that you are a moron incapable of any rational argument and relegated to repeating "thanks for proving my point" over and over again because you're too stupid to formulate any sort of counter-argument?


----------



## HenryBHough

The is no God.

Proof:

If there were He/She/It would immediately remove all those who think they are little Gods whose mission is to save the rest of us from ourselves.

But He/She/It doesn't.

And, after all, does it not say somewhere in the "book" something about ".....for I am a _jealous_ God....."?


----------



## Boss

HenryBHough said:


> The is no God.
> 
> Proof:
> 
> If there were He/She/It would immediately remove all those who think they are little Gods whose mission is to save the rest of us from ourselves.
> 
> But He/She/It doesn't.
> 
> And, after all, does it not say somewhere in the "book" something about ".....for I am a _jealous_ God....."?



Sorry, but you are presuming God would react in the way that you believe "he" should. You have drawn an illusion of God in your mind which conforms to human emotion. You go on to mention the "book" and quote from the Christian bible, as if to say, the ONLY way a God could exist is as the incarnation of Abrahamic religion. 

Again, at the risk of offending some Christian believers... God does not have any need for human attributes. God is not a "he" and doesn't have desire or want. God doesn't love or hate. God doesn't care or become angry or jealous. God is omnipotent and doesn't have human emotions, so God's actions are not dictated by human emotions. 

You are God's creation. God gives you the ability to spiritually connect. Through that connection you may realize inner strength, peace of mind, inspiration and blessing. God doesn't care if you utilize your spiritual connection or not because God has no need for caring. 

This is supposed to be a philosophical debate, it's on the Philosophy board. But what we seem to have are anti-religious ideologues who hate Christian religious beliefs, trying to denounce the Christian incarnations of God. Your minds are totally closed to any philosophy debate on the subject because you are blinded by your hatred of Christianity.


----------



## HenryBHough

Boss said:


> Sorry, but you are presuming God would react in the way that you believe "he" should. You have drawn an illusion of God in your mind which conforms to human emotion. You go on to mention the "book" and quote from the Christian bible, as if to say, the ONLY way a God could exist is as the incarnation of Abrahamic religion.



Believe all the BS you like!  But I am sorry to see you really don't put much faith in your instruction manual.  Which, yes, I have read.  Also watched the DVD and bought the tee-shirt.


----------



## GISMYS

The Fool Says, There is No God
1For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds. PSALM 14:1


----------



## daws101

HenryBHough said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you are presuming God would react in the way that you believe "he" should. You have drawn an illusion of God in your mind which conforms to human emotion. You go on to mention the "book" and quote from the Christian bible, as if to say, the ONLY way a God could exist is as the incarnation of Abrahamic religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe all the BS you like!  But I am sorry to see you really don't put much faith in your instruction manual.  Which, yes, I have read.  Also watched the DVD and bought the tee-shirt.
Click to expand...

did you get the coffee mugs too?


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've not shown how any other species worships a power greater than self because nothing else does. You're drawing a false comparison to "strength in numbers" mentality, which all mammals seem to have. This includes humans who believe they can gather together on message boards and hoot down Christians to make God go away. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed how other species connect to something greater than themselves. And who is to say that a roosters crow at sunrise isn't the beginning of what was once sun worship in humans? Who can say if the roosters who crow at 4 am don't believe in the power of Cockadoodledoo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we know that roosters have brains the size of a peanut and their crowing at sunrise is a reaction to stimulation of light. Morning glories bloom at sunrise but it doesn't mean they are worshiping the sun. You've not demonstrated how anything other than humans, knowingly connect to some spiritual force greater than self. You've twisted logic to create a false parameter of "something greater than self" and made a claim on that basis. If we can't be honest in the terminology of what we're actually talking about here, you can twist logic around all day long and make anything you please be the case. In that respect, it is virtually impossible for me to argue with an idiot.
Click to expand...



I did not claim that roosters worship the sun. What I said was, "who is to say that a roosters crow at sunrise isn't the beginning of what was once sun worship in humans?" And I did show that other species connect to something greater than themselves by connecting to the pack, the herd, the flock, the swarm, hive, school, family unit, whatever and that it has nothing whatever to do with a spiritual force.. You are arguing with yourself.




Boss said:


> Yes. human spirituality certainly does serve a valid function and purpose. That's the whole point of my argument. Without spirituality, humans would still be swinging from vines in the jungle with our cousins. Now you can mock religion all you like, I happen to agree that most man-made religion is fallible and prone to error. But that is a byproduct of our human spirituality.
> 
> If it were impossible to think rationally and still have spirituality, we would still be swinging from the vines in the jungle. So your supposition is refuted by self-evidence. .




So your position is that human beings left the trees because they were spiritual monkeys unlike their cousins?


Alrighty then.....




Boss said:


> You hate religion, namely, Christian religion. I get that. I understand. But it has caused you to form a bias toward human spirituality which is baseless and erroneous. Until you can open your mind to possibility, you can't be enlightened, you will forever remain in the darkness. It's not possible for me to make you see something your mind is closed to.



But you are wrong. I do not hate religion or Christianity. I have shown another more rational way to interpret the existing stories in the bible that does not require a person to set aside their rational mind and ignore valid and obvious contradictions, revealed scientific truths and reality in exchange for membership in a group. In fact I have vindicated both the Jewish and Christian faiths by revealing a common ground in which both religions are complimentary and by providing the only light in which what both religions claim to believe could ever possibly be true and reflective of wisdom from above.

And I have opened my mind to the possibility of 'spiritual realities' decades ago and found nothing there in what people call human spirituality that can't be explained as a function of the mind engaged in transcendent thought mixed with emotions in a search for truth and meaning in life, comprehension. 

Some people realize at some point in their life that they need to purify their minds because it had been defiled and contaminated from birth by false teachings, beliefs, and irrational practices; some people never do..

Those who do purify their minds and become refined enter a realm of higher intelligences whatever religion they were taught to believe by rote from birth. They are on a spiritual journey from the depths of the netherworld to the realm of the living, from insanity to sanity. 

Judging by the sounds you make it seems that you have spent too much time on Pleasure Island and those donkey ears are there to stay Pinocchio.


----------



## GISMYS

Think!! The human brain and body=the most complex thing in the known universe can not be an accident of time and chance. Think!


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed how other species connect to something greater than themselves. And who is to say that a roosters crow at sunrise isn't the beginning of what was once sun worship in humans? Who can say if the roosters who crow at 4 am don't believe in the power of Cockadoodledoo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we know that roosters have brains the size of a peanut and their crowing at sunrise is a reaction to stimulation of light. Morning glories bloom at sunrise but it doesn't mean they are worshiping the sun. You've not demonstrated how anything other than humans, knowingly connect to some spiritual force greater than self. You've twisted logic to create a false parameter of "something greater than self" and made a claim on that basis. If we can't be honest in the terminology of what we're actually talking about here, you can twist logic around all day long and make anything you please be the case. In that respect, it is virtually impossible for me to argue with an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not claim that roosters worship the sun. What I said was, "who is to say that a roosters crow at sunrise isn't the beginning of what was once sun worship in humans?" And I did show that other species connect to something greater than themselves by connecting to the pack, the herd, the flock, the swarm, hive, school, family unit, whatever and that it has nothing whatever to do with a spiritual force.. You are arguing with yourself.
Click to expand...


Who's to say? Well most of the scientific community, as a matter of fact. Roosters do not have the ability of cognitive thought so they aren't worshiping anything. Early humans did have the ability of cognitive thought and they worshiped the sun because they felt a spiritual connection to something greater than self. You did not show where other species do this, you showed where other species (same as humans) derive benefit from forming groups or packs. You are right, our human spiritual connection is something entirely different. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. human spirituality certainly does serve a valid function and purpose. That's the whole point of my argument. Without spirituality, humans would still be swinging from vines in the jungle with our cousins. Now you can mock religion all you like, I happen to agree that most man-made religion is fallible and prone to error. But that is a byproduct of our human spirituality.
> 
> If it were impossible to think rationally and still have spirituality, we would still be swinging from the vines in the jungle. So your supposition is refuted by self-evidence. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your position is that human beings left the trees because they were spiritual monkeys unlike their cousins?
> 
> 
> Alrighty then.....
Click to expand...


Something to that effect. If the theories of Darwin are correct, this would explain the astounding and amazing advancement of humans over all other creatures. Again, if the apes and chimps are physically more agile and strong, and they are not hindered by having the need to waste time on silly rituals and such, why didn't they surpass humans on the evolutionary scale? The cerebral cortex and brain of an ape or gorilla is much larger than a human. We all emerged from the same primordial soup, so why did humans achieve such a remarkable advantage? I surmise it is because of human spirituality, our ability to connect to something greater than self. This gives humans the ability to become inspired and accomplish what would be thought impossible without that spiritual force. 




> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hate religion, namely, Christian religion. I get that. I understand. But it has caused you to form a bias toward human spirituality which is baseless and erroneous. Until you can open your mind to possibility, you can't be enlightened, you will forever remain in the darkness. It's not possible for me to make you see something your mind is closed to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are wrong. I do not hate religion or Christianity. I have shown another more rational way to interpret the existing stories in the bible that does not require a person to set aside their rational mind and ignore valid and obvious contradictions, revealed scientific truths and reality in exchange for membership in a group. In fact I have vindicated both the Jewish and Christian faiths by revealing a common ground in which both religions are complimentary and by providing the only light in which what both religions claim to believe could ever possibly be true and reflective of wisdom from above.
> 
> And I have opened my mind to the possibility of 'spiritual realities' decades ago and found nothing there in what people call human spirituality that can't be explained as a function of the mind engaged in transcendent thought mixed with emotions in a search for truth and meaning in life, comprehension.
Click to expand...


Here's what you are failing to explain because you've apparently not grasped it: Humans have the need to explain the meaning of life BECAUSE we are spiritually connected beings. Case in point, you will find no other living thing that has a need to explain the meaning of life. While connections to spirituality through meditation or prayer do involve the mind and thought, and religions are certainly the result of transcendent thought mixed with emotion, they are all the result of humans being hard wired to spiritually connect to something. 

I've never had the pleasure of reading your vindication of Christianity or Judaism, all I ever hear from you is denial that humans spiritually connect to something greater than self and instance it's an imaginary delusion we suffer from and nothing more.  



> Some people realize at some point in their life that they need to purify their minds because it had been defiled and contaminated from birth by false teachings, beliefs, and irrational practices; some people never do..
> 
> Those who do purify their minds and become refined enter a realm of higher intelligences whatever religion they were taught to believe by rote from birth. They are on a spiritual journey from the depths of the netherworld to the realm of the living, from insanity to sanity.
> 
> Judging by the sounds you make it seems that you have spent too much time on Pleasure Island and those donkey ears are there to stay Pinocchio.



People come to the realization they need to "purify their minds" because we are intrinsically hard wired with spiritual connection. It's what makes humans different from every other creature on the planet. What you are now referring to is known as "spiritual enlightenment" and yes, it happens all the time. 

I honestly don't understand your comment about Pleasure Island, donkey ears or Pinocchio. I have been having a reasonable philosophical discussion about the "existence" of something we can define as "god." I've not been dishonest about anything, I am very open-minded and willing to hear any argument. I'm not hearing one to explain the intrinsic human connection to spirituality. I accept that some religions are bad, downright dangerous and reprehensible, but I am not a religious person. I believe religions are manifestations of our human spirituality, it's how we have developed a way to satisfy our human need to worship the spiritual power we are aware of as humans. I'm not here to defend any religion as "right" or condemn any religion as "wrong" but just to clarify that all religion is made by man in an attempt to understand his own spiritual connection. 

This connection does exist and is real, and the benefits of it are self-evident. From a purely philosophical standpoint, that would make a strong argument for the "existence of god" in my opinion.


----------



## Boss

HenryBHough said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you are presuming God would react in the way that you believe "he" should. You have drawn an illusion of God in your mind which conforms to human emotion. You go on to mention the "book" and quote from the Christian bible, as if to say, the ONLY way a God could exist is as the incarnation of Abrahamic religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe all the BS you like!  But I am sorry to see you really don't put much faith in your instruction manual.  Which, yes, I have read.  Also watched the DVD and bought the tee-shirt.
Click to expand...


Well Henry, I am sorry you missed the memo but I am not a Christian who professes belief in the Bible. I am a Spiritualist. I think the Bible is a well-written guideline for one to live a wholesome life and Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness are beneficial to mankind, but I also disagree with much of what the Bible has to say about God. I don't believe God cares what we do or how we behave. To me, the only real "sin" is in disrupting or impeding the flow of positive spiritual energy around us. 

As I have already explained, I don't actually have "faith" or "believe in" a God, I am aware of God and know that God exists. I communicate with this force daily and it has greatly benefited my life, so there is no "faith" involved, it's an absolute certainty to me. When someone tells me God doesn't exist, it's equivalent to me telling you that your own mother doesn't exist. I find it laughable because I know differently.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> but I also disagree with much of what the Bible has to say about God. I don't believe God cares what we do or how we behave. To me, the only real "sin" is in disrupting or impeding the flow of positive spiritual energy around us.
> 
> As I have already explained, I don't actually have "faith" or "believe in" a God, I am aware of God and know that God exists. I communicate with this force daily and it has greatly benefited my life, so there is no "faith" involved, it's an absolute certainty to me. When someone tells me God doesn't exist, it's equivalent to me telling you that your own mother doesn't exist. I find it laughable because I know differently.




You don't believe that God cares what 'we' do or how 'we' behave?

Interesting. 

But you believe that you communicate with 'this force' on a daily basis?

Does this God who doesn't care about what you do or how you behave ever say anything in return to you?

Have you ever sought proof of the truth for what you claim to believe?

If so what is it and if not what has convinced you to believe that you are speaking with God in the absence of proof??


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I also disagree with much of what the Bible has to say about God. I don't believe God cares what we do or how we behave. To me, the only real "sin" is in disrupting or impeding the flow of positive spiritual energy around us.
> 
> As I have already explained, I don't actually have "faith" or "believe in" a God, I am aware of God and know that God exists. I communicate with this force daily and it has greatly benefited my life, so there is no "faith" involved, it's an absolute certainty to me. When someone tells me God doesn't exist, it's equivalent to me telling you that your own mother doesn't exist. I find it laughable because I know differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe that God cares what 'we' do or how 'we' behave?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> But you believe that you communicate with 'this force' on a daily basis?
> 
> Does this God who doesn't care about what you do or how you behave ever say anything in return to you?
> 
> Have you ever sought proof of the truth for what you claim to believe?
> 
> If so what is it and if not what has convinced you to believe that you are speaking with God in the absence of proof??
Click to expand...


Why would an omnipotent and omnipresent God who has the power to make anything happen, have the need to "care" about something? If there was something God did not want you to do, God would not allow you to do it and there would be nothing you could do about that. So God doesn't have to "want" anything. 

God is a form of energy... does your electrical outlet "care" what you do with it? If you plug a lamp in, does it care if the lamp works? Is it sad the lamp will not work? Does it want the lamp to work? Will the outlet allow you take the electricity out and hold it in your hand and look at it? Can you pour it into a cup and drink it? It is the absurdity of man to presume that God has humanistic emotions and needs. I understand this, it is how humans comprehend God in a way they can relate to God and develop better understanding of how to use their human spirituality. Now go and stab your electric outlet with a butter knife and see if it cares what you do! 

God doesn't "say" things to me, but God will put ideas in my head to inspire me or guide me in decisions. God will also provide strength of character to endure hardship, heartache, sorrow, and other adversities I may face in my personal life. My "proof" is self evident, just as your "proof" that your mom exists is self evident. You "claim to believe" you have a mother... I don't know her, I've never seen her. I have no idea whether she exists or not. I have to "have faith" and "believe in" your mother because you "claim" she exists. But you don't need faith to believe this because you know she does exist. You do not have to "prove" your mother exists to me for your mother to actually exist.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> God is a form of energy... does your electrical outlet "care" what you do with it? If you plug a lamp in, does it care if the lamp works? Is it sad the lamp will not work? Does it want the lamp to work? Will the outlet allow you take the electricity out and hold it in your hand and look at it? Can you pour it into a cup and drink it? It is the absurdity of man to presume that God has humanistic emotions and needs. I understand this, it is how humans comprehend God in a way they can relate to God and develop better understanding of how to use their human spirituality. Now go and stab your electric outlet with a butter knife and see if it cares what you do!
> 
> God doesn't "say" things to me, but God will put ideas in my head to inspire me or guide me in decisions. God will also provide strength of character to endure hardship, heartache, sorrow, and other adversities I may face in my personal life. My "proof" is self evident, just as your "proof" that your mom exists is self evident. You "claim to believe" you have a mother... I don't know her, I've never seen her. I have no idea whether she exists or not. I have to "have faith" and "believe in" your mother because you "claim" she exists. But you don't need faith to believe this because you know she does exist. You do not have to "prove" your mother exists to me for your mother to actually exist.





not necessarily. The fact that I exist is proof of my mothers existence even if no one knows her personally including me.

but first, thank you for your response.

What I did not see is how you have been convinced that those ideas that pop into your head are not the product of your own mind but are inspiration and direction from a god that you have described as a form of energy that doesn't care what you do.

if God doesn't care what you do why would it inspire you to do anything?


Why would God give you strength of character and tell someone else to murder their children? Is it even possible that you are connecting to the same spiritual force, the same God?


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> not necessarily. The fact that I exist is proof of my mothers existence even if no one knows her personally including me.



But it's not. It's only "proof" that YOU exist. I must have FAITH that your mother exists and birthed you like other humans. Yes, we do have compelling physical evidence to support a faith that your mother does exist, but your mother is a physical entity. 



> What I did not see is how you have been convinced that those ideas that pop into your head are not the product of your own mind but are inspiration and direction from a god that you have described as a form of energy that doesn't care what you do.



Ideas are always the product of your own mind, but what causes you to have them? If you plug a lamp into a socket and turn it on, the room is illuminated. Is the room illuminated because the electricity wanted the room to be? Does the electricity care if you are in the dark? Does it mind if you plug the lamp in but never turn it on? 



> if God doesn't care what you do why would it inspire you to do anything?



If electricity doesn't care what you do why would it inspire you to illuminate the room? 



> Why would God give you strength of character and tell someone else to murder their children? Is it even possible that you are connecting to the same spiritual force, the same God?



I don't know, maybe not. This has nothing to do with the question. This is you trying to figure out God. Why would electricity benefit you by illuminating a room and electrocute someone who stuck a knife in the outlet? Is it possible there are different energy forces? Is it possible that some people misuse the energy? Could some people misunderstand the power of the electricity? Can the same energy which benefits some cause death to others?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GrosMinet said:


> Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?
> 
> In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...
> 
> Your thoughts, please.



Doesn't matter. Only multiple scientific evidences and a knowledge of communications and psychology will convince a skeptic. We can argue soundly and well for or against gods existing, but ultimately it's just manipulations of language. It isn't evidence. And you'll never convince anyone of anything unless they already partially agree with you. The very question of "is there..." is redundant as a result.


----------

