Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Hollie]

True (since I've never heard of a "gawd"). However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm. We know of His existence because:

Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

Jeremiah 51:15, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."

And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts".

We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.

True. There are many, many copycat religions but one thing all of them have in common is their belief that there is a power greater than mankind and the universe. There is a truth to be known. One Truth. There is only one way by which mankind came to exist and you, Hollie, don't know that Way (though you're high on your personal speculation).

You should learn some history regarding the invention of christianity.

It's interesting that you would use the term copycat religions when that precisely describes christianity.

I think where you falter is in the futile attempt to un-link your gods from all the earlier human inventions of gods.

But second, you seem to be unable to conceptually wrap your head around the evolutionary origin of the Abrahamic faiths. For some odd reason, you are unable to draw the necessary conceptual conclusion that what is Islam evolved from Christianity, in the same way that Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Judaism evolved from earlier Canaanite polytheism.

You seem to have further conveniently forgotten the Canaanite pagan polytheism from which Judaism (and hence all the following Abrahamic faiths) originally evolved.

If you insist on trying to un-stick the religions from which yours evolved, you cannot fail to embrace its pagan roots without justifying charges of special pleading. Your superstitions regarding gods have done nothing but to replace superstitions. Are you suggesting that when the Greek gods replaced the more ancient Lares of Rome, that too was not an evolution of religion?

I'm not going to worry about these brainwashed fools. Think about the younger generation today who for the first time are questioning all this. At least they have the internet. I remember when I was young all I had was my friends, family and society telling me god is real, god is real, god is real. I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways. So growing up all I was told was either believe or go to hell and I didn't have something like this to look at before deciding. Why there is no god I wish I did. It would have saved me years of debating it in my head. So glad I let that shit go.

Oh yea, another benefit we have today is cable tv. Back when I was growing up, they didn't have the Science Channel or other cable channels that might present the atheists side. For example the Cosmos.

The number of Christ's true followers has ALWAYS been small in number. Broad is the path that leads to destruction while narrow is the path that leads to righteousness and God's Kingdom. A healthy tree needs the dead wood pruned out. Quality over quantity. One shouldn't become a Christian because it's the popular thing to do but because he/she was called by the Holy Spirit. Persecution of Christians is a biblical prophecy and promise so it comes as no surprise that "easy-believism" is falling out of vogue and the "summertime" believers are leaving in droves. Let them go!

That's a common theme among various sects and subdivisions of religions, Christianity among the worst offenders. As the religions splinter into cult-like sects, each sect will adopt the mantra that they alone are the "true christans" and will define the out group as you just described.

It seems all you extremists have the arrogance and self-centered veneer of infallibility to define yourselves as somehow holding the "real" truth.

It's a common pathology among cultists.

 

[Justin Davis]

Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed. That's one of the two ultimate options of origin: materiality or transcendent immateriality. And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand. What's the grounds for that? Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it! That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!

But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away:

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
​

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​

While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache. I think I grasp what you are saying. [1] My question (for now) is on #4. Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God. Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...

Why should it give you a headache? It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms. #4 doesn't presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being. Bottom line: the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top. But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated. See how that works? Four holds and seven holds.

Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"? Also using the wording "a being" is singular. The implication is that there is only 1.

I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book. It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum. While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument. Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.

Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.

Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.

Now you've gone all wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the herd-mentality.

In answer to your question. . . .

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I wrote gods you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you? Yes, of course, you'd have to. If not, why not? While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.

You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.

As I wrote elsewhere:

Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument: from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It is necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its objectively highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that (1) the objectively highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that (2) he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.​

That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.

I understood exactly what you were saying. I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God (depending on your definition of God). I think it is illogical and irresponsible to rule out the existence of something/someone who predates the universe. I require no admiration, agreement or sympathy for my beliefs.

Maybe you are unaware of how your thoughts read to a casual observer. "Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:" This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning. It can also be stated that to participate in a discussion forum with rhetoric fit for a science forum will also lend itself to average people misunderstanding your intentions.

What in the world is this? I just saw this conversation between you two. It's a contrast between brilliant prose and thinking and rank stupidity so obtuse as to be exponential. Look, buddy, the only arrogant and condescending snob here is you. And you are one obtusely stupid snob at that. I’ve been reading logic and theology for months, learning these things from some of the best. Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb. He could be published. I know what you are. You're one of those insecure, reverse snobs, an ignoramus without a lick of commonsense. Ive been reading some others like you on this thread, like QW and Foxfrye. All of you guys write well, but Rawlings writes with commonsense while you dummies write gibberish and pretend that his prose is not what it is, good prose, that's witty, penetrating, precise and to the point. What a bunch of phonies some of you people are.

You understood what he was saying? What a phony. Then why did you say that number 4 was wrong in the first place, and repeat your nonsense and condescendingly lecture him on vocabulary? Are you kidding me? Who do you think you're fooling? What an idiot you are. And who else would he be talking about but kids and persons suffering from some kind of mental disability? Commonsense should have told you that. What a dunce you are and the fact that you would think something petty like that just shows who the real snob is. You. Since the seven things are obviously true, simple commonsense, anybody with commonsense would naturally assume that everybody else would understand them. You're just a snob with no commonsense. Rawlings is too nice to you people.

"I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7."

The problem you had with it was your lack of commonsense. So you know that number 4 and 7 are true now don't you? Yeah you do?


"This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning."

I'm an adult male and a plumber, and I never thought anything stupid like that. I know Boss and some others never thought anything stupid like that. Are you an insecure reverse snob with no commonsense? Yes you are.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is of course false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5: Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence. Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.

See how that works?

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

Every conceivable argument, including yours, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

Why do we care? Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

And “No belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind” – William Clifford

Science is the worst thing that ever happened to you. It is used as an excuse for you to remain ignorant. It enables you to disbelieve what you instinctively know is true. It is your hiding place, your 'safe harbor' from broader intellectual thought. You pervert science for your own purposes and assume science speaks for your banality. You've forged science into a weapon of war against religion and the religious.

In short, you are a much lesser human being because of science. While science has brought mankind many wondrous discoveries, it has contributed to your personal devolution. Science lifted man out of the Dark Ages but has relegated you to the status of a monkey. You would have ended up a better human being had you never heard of science.

While I get what you're saying and all and you're right, the only science sillybobo knows, just like Hollie, is pseudoscience. Even this plumber knows more about science than they do.

Quite clearly, there's no indication of that. I can't help but have noticed that aside from your tedious and repetitive copying and pasting, you haven't even attempted to challenge my direct refutations to your claims to magical gawds and supernatural spirit realms.

Go crawl back into the sewer.

 

[Justin Davis]

I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways.

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

 

[DriftingSand]

I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways.

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

I've known Christians who were idiots and atheists who were pretty intelligent but I've also known some highly intelligent Christians and some idiotic atheists. Intelligence has little to do with Truth. I was raised in a nominally "Christian" household but we didn't attend church nor did we really discuss Christianity very much. In my mid-teens I turned from a belief in God and embraced booze and drugs instead. I wasn't willing to turn back to God until my back was up against the proverbial wall. My current belief in God is a mixture of personal experience with God's presence in my life mixed with pure logic. It's simply more logical for me to believe that the design of the universe, the living cell, the eyeball, etc. were "DESIGNED" vs. a belief that all things just *poofed* into existence by pure chance.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways.

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense— i.e., the a priori, organic first principles of logic and mathematics—you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences (physics), as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and social sciences.

 

[DriftingSand]

I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways.

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

 

[G.T.]

I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways.

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the a priori, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.

The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.

Very interesting.

"Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb" - justin davis


(i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)

 

[Hollie]

I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways.

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense— i.e., the a priori, organic first principles of logic and mathematics—you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences (physics), as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and social sciences.

Actually, no. When an argument such as yours presumes metaphysics, non-objectivity, predetermined conclusions and an a priori commitment to partisan religious dogma, one inevitably concedes to an abandonment mathematical precision, disregard for biological and social sciences and rejection of established earth sciences.

Basically, your left with the untenable, low IQ mush of the "five things".

 

[Meriweather]

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart. We also have a conscience. Not every atheist chooses lawlessness. Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard. As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone. My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.

Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.

 

[sealybobo]

At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them. Why did they start lying? Maybe your arguments don't hold water? Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth. Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?

Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this. Ok maybe something did. Why does that something have to be a god? And why the lies? Why lie and say god visited your ancestors? I know! It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven. That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking. Grow up. And point number two is wrong:

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Bull! I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread! The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man. Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument. Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?

Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men? Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that? Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.

Because you are one big straw man that's why.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

 

[sealybobo]

At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them. Why did they start lying? Maybe your arguments don't hold water? Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth. Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?

Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this. Ok maybe something did. Why does that something have to be a god? And why the lies? Why lie and say god visited your ancestors? I know! It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven. That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking. Grow up. And point number two is wrong:

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that? Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.

Your pathetic arguments have so many holes in them.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” – Christopher Hitchens

 

[sealybobo]

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense— i.e., the a priori, organic first principles of logic and mathematics—you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences (physics), as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and social sciences.

Actually, no. When an argument such as yours presumes metaphysics, non-objectivity, predetermined conclusions and an a priori commitment to partisan religious dogma, one inevitably concedes to an abandonment mathematical precision, disregard for biological and social sciences and rejection of established earth sciences.

Basically, your left with the untenable, low IQ mush of the "five things".

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the a priori, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.

The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.

Very interesting.

"Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb" - justin davis


(i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)

Ergo my suspicions posts earlier--just too many identical misspellings, syntax, and style of posting plus excessive effusive approval and congratulatory posts of each other to likely be purely coincidental. And too many contradictions within it all to be purely logical and/or personal conviction. Which led me to believe we are all having our legs pulled.

And while I can appreciate a clever practical joke with the best of them, there is a limit to how much I am willing to be played for a fool.

 

[BreezeWood]

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the a priori, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.

The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.

Very interesting.

"Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb" - justin davis


(i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)

Ergo my suspicions posts earlier--just too many identical misspellings, syntax, and style of posting plus excessive effusive approval and congratulatory posts of each other to likely be purely coincidental. And too many contradictions within it all to be purely logical and/or personal conviction. Which led me to believe we are all having our legs pulled.

And while I can appreciate a clever practical joke with the best of them, there is a limit to how much I am willing to be played for a fool.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the a priori, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.

The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.

Very interesting.

"Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb" - justin davis


(i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)

Ergo my suspicions posts earlier--just too many identical misspellings, syntax, and style of posting plus excessive effusive approval and congratulatory posts of each other to likely be purely coincidental. And too many contradictions within it all to be purely logical and/or personal conviction. Which led me to believe we are all having our legs pulled.

And while I can appreciate a clever practical joke with the best of them, there is a limit to how much I am willing to be played for a fool.

that is to bad -

The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.

they are all lapdogs whether socks or not, the hardwirer's.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?

Well, I'm not trying to be brutal. LOL! But no one escapes "The Seven Things."

Which version?

Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.

Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.

Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.

A bit uncouth, the two of you.

There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.

The idea of God is hardwired! I didn't change anything! And you just affirmed that fact.

"Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True."

Yeah. That is true, isn't it?

"Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."

Changed it?

These statements are true and are one and the same thing!

The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle: comprehensively, the principle of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired. Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean tabula rasa has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.

Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being cannot logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!

Oh wait! My bad. You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter. Oh, well, moving on. . . .

Now, this axiom of human cognition, this logical proof, does not constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that God exists nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.

The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought is an axiom of the same nature as that of 2 + 2 = 4!

But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition! You keep arguing that absolute a priori intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.

Oh, wait! My bad.

Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic a priories of logic and mathematics sans the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading. Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!

And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the fact and the nature of this cognition.

Oh, wait! My bad again.

You did just acknowledge it for what it is! The idea of God is in our brains! That cognition is hardwired, just like the other a priories concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent a priories, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.

Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.

 

[G.T.]

Ok so we can establish that MD doesn't know that there's a difference between having an idea and having an idea 'biologically hardwired."


This is the level of intellect we are dealing with? Pass.

 

[G.T.]

Ok so we can establish that MD doesn't know that there's a difference between having an idea and having an idea 'biologically hardwired."


This is the level of intellect we are dealing with? Pass.

 

[Broncho4]

While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache. I think I grasp what you are saying. [1] My question (for now) is on #4. Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God. Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...

Why should it give you a headache? It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms. #4 doesn't presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being. Bottom line: the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top. But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated. See how that works? Four holds and seven holds.

Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"? Also using the wording "a being" is singular. The implication is that there is only 1.

I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book. It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum. While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument. Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.

Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.

Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.

Now you've gone all wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the herd-mentality.

In answer to your question. . . .

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I wrote gods you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you? Yes, of course, you'd have to. If not, why not? While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.

You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.

As I wrote elsewhere:

Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument: from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It is necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its objectively highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that (1) the objectively highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that (2) he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.​

That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.

I understood exactly what you were saying. I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God (depending on your definition of God). I think it is illogical and irresponsible to rule out the existence of something/someone who predates the universe. I require no admiration, agreement or sympathy for my beliefs.

Maybe you are unaware of how your thoughts read to a casual observer. "Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:" This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning. It can also be stated that to participate in a discussion forum with rhetoric fit for a science forum will also lend itself to average people misunderstanding your intentions.

What in the world is this? I just saw this conversation between you two. It's a contrast between brilliant prose and thinking and rank stupidity so obtuse as to be exponential. Look, buddy, the only arrogant and condescending snob here is you. And you are one obtusely stupid snob at that. I’ve been reading logic and theology for months, learning these things from some of the best. Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb. He could be published. I know what you are. You're one of those insecure, reverse snobs, an ignoramus without a lick of commonsense. Ive been reading some others like you on this thread, like QW and Foxfrye. All of you guys write well, but Rawlings writes with commonsense while you dummies write gibberish and pretend that his prose is not what it is, good prose, that's witty, penetrating, precise and to the point. What a bunch of phonies some of you people are.

You understood what he was saying? What a phony. Then why did you say that number 4 was wrong in the first place, and repeat your nonsense and condescendingly lecture him on vocabulary? Are you kidding me? Who do you think you're fooling? What an idiot you are. And who else would he be talking about but kids and persons suffering from some kind of mental disability? Commonsense should have told you that. What a dunce you are and the fact that you would think something petty like that just shows who the real snob is. You. Since the seven things are obviously true, simple commonsense, anybody with commonsense would naturally assume that everybody else would understand them. You're just a snob with no commonsense. Rawlings is too nice to you people.

"I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7."

The problem you had with it was your lack of commonsense. So you know that number 4 and 7 are true now don't you? Yeah you do?


"This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning."

I'm an adult male and a plumber, and I never thought anything stupid like that. I know Boss and some others never thought anything stupid like that. Are you an insecure reverse snob with no commonsense? Yes you are.

You know, another definition of the word "prose" is to: talk tediously. With that in mind, I will agree with your statements.

 

[Broncho4]

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your “feelings” of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration

Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

The only thing wrong with Christianity are the Christians. I am by no means a bible thumper. I have no desire to defend the bible or any of it's teachings. I will say that whether he was real or not, the teachings of Jesus were as true in his day as they are now. Very few works of literature can stand the test of time like that.

I find it amazing that people can get caught up in political parties, sports franchises and the country they happened to be born in. None of these have singular or consistent ideals. But a group of people who believe in, if nothing else, one of the best men in history are "stupid & misled".

I'm sure if you ask a Muslim they'll say the same thing about Mohammad.

And I have a problem with Jesus if he said this: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Only I don't believe he said that. I think someone who was coming up with a new religion said he said that 100 years after he was supposedly crucified.

And Jesus said Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days and lived to tell about it. This was not an allegory. He said it matter of fact. Does that stand the test of time? I doubt it.

Okay