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

[M.D. Rawlings]

The brain is the seat of our senses. The mind above the brain is what wields the principle of identity, which alerted him to his error. He disregarded that.

That was funny.

Can you provide any evidence that Aristotle ever realized he was wrong, or are you just assuming you can read his mind?

Missed this. I don't remember from what, but I read it somewhere.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well, be that as it may, Agnostic as I am, questioning god's existence factually won't make anyone open their eyes. Especially the Muslims, whom seem more overwhelmed with "Surrender" or to "Submit". To What? And the fact Islam kills people that criticism it, not Jews, Christians or any other religion. And the fact God is a man made up concept to begin with, WOW...really, WOW. Muslims condemn drone strikes, but don't actually do anything to stop bad actors in their own camp committing terrorism and pretend to be victims of aggression when Muslim terrorist hide amongst their own civilians. I hate these people so much for their willing ignorance and self righteousness.

God is a man-made concept?

 

[G.T.]

I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility.

After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.

 

[G.T.]

Well, be that as it may, Agnostic as I am, questioning god's existence factually won't make anyone open their eyes. Especially the Muslims, whom seem more overwhelmed with "Surrender" or to "Submit". To What? And the fact Islam kills people that criticism it, not Jews, Christians or any other religion. And the fact God is a man made up concept to begin with, WOW...really, WOW. Muslims condemn drone strikes, but don't actually do anything to stop bad actors in their own camp committing terrorism and pretend to be victims of aggression when Muslim terrorist hide amongst their own civilians. I hate these people so much for their willing ignorance and self righteousness.

God is a man-made concept?

If he/she/it doesn't exist, then yes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Problems with Understanding - QW

The notion that the cosmological order is contingent on our apprehensions about it suggests epistemological subjectivism. The transcendental argument (insofar as it pertains to the first principle of knowledge, i.e., the imperative of identity, striking the idea of God from the major premise for the moment) utterly repudiates that indemonstrable "philosophical bullshit." On the contrary, the whole point of the transcendental argument is that the cosmological order persists on its own terms, just as you say, QW, independently of human consciousness.

The ultimate point of the transcendental argument is not that existence conforms to human consciousness, but that existence has absolute primacy over human consciousness.

In other words, the transcendental argument holds that the limits of humanity’s sensory perceptions/rational calculations, that the imperfections of our understanding of things at any given moment, does not impinge upon the realities of the cosmological order itself. The latter remain what they are regardless of what we may mistakenly believe to be true about them.

The logical principle of identity, the guts of the transcendental argument, as separated from Kant’s subsequent, philosophical-system-building bullshit, asserts absolute realism as premised on a commonsensically balanced rational-empirical epistemic, not epistemological subjectivism at all.



Existence has primacy of over human consciousness ≠ "the laws of thought do not apply to the universe itself."

We agree on the first idea and always have in spite of your misunderstanding, but the latter does not follow, does it? You keep conflating these two distinct ideas, not I.

Hence, allow me to reformulate the transcendental argument in terms of the principle of identity, which everybody knows to be demonstrably true as everybody necessarily presupposes it to be true every time they assert their existence and the logical distinctions between all other existents.


1. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension--collectively, the principle of identity--are the universally absolute and intrinsically organic realities of human cognition. They are not man made, but an inherent component of Man’s nature.
2. The principle of identity asserts that any given A might potentially be two or more things simultaneously.
3. Hence, the principle of identity imposes no limitations whatsoever on the potentialities of either a cosmological order or a transcendental order of things, except, ultimately, the absurdity that the nature of any given thing = NOT-its-nature, or the absurdity of existence = NOT-existence.
4. There is nothing in the cosmological order of things that asserts these absurdities.
5. Hence, the principle of identity asserts that existence has primacy over human consciousness.
6. Hence, there is no evidence for the belief or justifiable reason to believe that the laws of thought do not universally apply to all of existence.
7. The principle of identity universally prevails.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility.

After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.

It's been proven in spades by me with a club or two thrown in.

 

[G.T.]

I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility.

After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.

It's been proven in spades by me with a club or two thrown in.

No it hasn't.

You're just OK with inserting assertions /assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w. ( and I said low in a really bassy Wilford brimley voice).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Remember this? http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9942916/

The principle of identity holds that any given A can be two or more things simultaneously unto infinity. Your idiotic rendering of the law of the excluded middle, which would make the doctrine of the Trinity a violation, has been exhaustively debunked, and your computer analogy is incoherent gibberish. Your bald protestations to the contrary sans any direct argument is tiresome.

Your either dumb as a box of rocks or you're lying. Which is it?

Here we go again.

The Law of Identity, which is the proper term to use, says no such thing. What it says is that everything that is the same is the same, while everything that is different is different.

No. I explained. All you ever do is insinuate. Constructive logic doesn't lay a finger on the construct of the universality of the principle of identity either: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9943371/

I never insinuate, I always insult people openly.

This is what you wrote:

You keep saying this to me as it's something I don't understand. If I've never asserted any such stupidity then why to you keep repeating this rather unremarkable observation as if it were something profound?

Because you keep repeating that the laws of thought are axioms, and categorically reject all forms of logic that don't agree with you opinion.

Want to ask another stupid question?

And you've lost touch with reality. (1) The organic laws of the principle of identity are universally hard-wired; (2) they’re universally apparent and hold true for all humans of sound and developmentally mature minds; (3) the rules of artificial, alternate-world models of logic do not negate the fact that these axioms universally hold as premised on the organic paradigm and (4) as artificial, alternate-world models of logic are microcosmic constructs within the macrocosmic construct of real-world logic, they are contingent on the latter.

Excuse me, they are not fucking hardwired because they exist only as concepts that we believe. The simplest proof of that is dark matter and dark energy, two things that must exist, yet cannot be defined by science, logic, or philosophy.

We never actually lose our awareness of the law of the excluded middle/double negation elimination because the presupposition of them as axioms is suspended to amplify the principle of identity in order to get at an alternate means of perceiving the cosmological order, from the negative to the positive. Any given extrapolations ultimately must be reoriented to the real world and conform with the comprehensive expression of the principle of identity in order to be of any practical use. Those that cannot be brought back under the sway of the law of the excluded middle/double negation elimination in the real world are not real!

What is wrong with you?

Nothing is wrong with me, other than the fact that I refuse to accept anything as a universal truth just because you say it is, especially when I know enough about logic to know that they are not universal to all forms of logic.

In astrophysics, for example, this tool can be used to enhance our intuitive powers that we might extrapolate new principles that serve to unify the various sets of physical laws at the points of breakdown. The principle of identity still holds and delineates the various constituents of the problem.

Your points would actually be better argued if you didn't argue using the wrong terms.

Then again, every time you do you help me make my point that you don't know what you are talking about.

The fundamental distinction between classical logic and constructive logic is not the suspension of certain axioms, but the rules of justification regarding the inhabited proofs of direct evidence, the restraints on the assignment of truth values which, counter-intuitively, allows for a wider variety of the kinds of propositions that can be conceptualized.

And actually proves that you argument that the laws of thought are universal axioms is not true, yet you keep insisting they are because you cannot think outside the limits of classical logic.

If you want to insist that you have universal axioms prove it using constructive logic.

Well, it’s not clear what this means, but if your still going on about your idiotic rendering of the law of the excluded middle, one again, you’ve got it all wrong in your head.

Take two aspirin, stop conflating A: A and ~A with A: A or ~A, and go to bed.

I am not the one doing that, you are.

 

[MaryL]

Nope. Why are we wasting our time with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what made up superstition is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.

 

[Boss]

Nope. Why are we wasting our time with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what made up superstition is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.

Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so.

What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well, I believe all this is true. It makes good sense. I'm mean we'll be living and learning of Him forever. This Book never ends. What I don't understand is why you think M.D.R. doesn't know that. When you say things that are obviously true are not true, like things about set logic or intuitionistic logic or things I know to be in the Bible are not in the Bible about the kind of things that even unbelievers can see if they don't look away, that doesn't give me confidence. Now my confidence isn't in you but you ask me to believe things you say from your experience. I have a responsibility to verify what you say in God's word. I see many of the same things he sees though I don't understand everything as well. But I have been carefully checking the things he says. I see them in the Bible. The truth is I'm amazed. What I see him saying is keep it simple so that you can be open to everything God wants to show you. Yet you say he's doing the opposite. I know from experience and from what God has told me things get very complex if we start imagining free will from our point of view first. I agree with him to look at it from God's point of view first. I think that youre seeing limitation in precision. I see calm and trust in that, not chaos and demands.

Nothing I said about logic is untrue. There is more than one way to look at the universe, and there is more than one form of logic that you can use. The biggest problem with all of them is is that logic is inherently limited by humans ability to conceptualize, and the universe is not bound by our thinking.

As for free will, it is one of the hottest subjects in theology. There is a wide range of beliefs in Christianity about what, exactly, free will is. They range from the Calvinistic doctrine that we have absolutely no free will to the Catholic teaching that we are totally free to choose to do good or evil despite our innate desire to sin. Many sects see free will as the ability to do evil, and actually teach that it is impossible for man to do good without the direct influence of God.

Tatian a student of Justin Martyr, argued for the the existence of free will over fate to the Greeks in the second century.

(Just an aside, the writings of Tatian clearly disprove any claim that the story of Jesus was not written until hundreds of years after his death, he actually edited the first know Synoptic Gospel.)


ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century Hermas Tatian Athenagoras Theophilus and Clement of Alexandria Entire - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

It wasn't until over a millennia later that predestination became the dominant them in Christian theology. Perhaps you have heard of John Calvin.

Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Many of the modern beliefs of the church contradict the teachings of the people that are considered the church fathers. While it is possible that the people that actually studied under the apostles got things wrong, personally, I am more inclined to believe their teachings over those of later teachers who contradict them.

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

 

[G.T.]

Nope. Why are we wasting our time with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what made up superstition is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.

Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so.

What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.

If god doesn't exist, god is completely made up.

You can cite strength in numbers all you'd like - problem there is that there are plenty of psychological and sociological reasons aside from the possibility of it being true - that ppl believe. Its is not swaying the debate to one side or the other, its an appeal to the majority when the majority could be and has historical instances of being WRONG.

 

[Justin Davis]

There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false, nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.

For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith. Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced. But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.

Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy. We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.

While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process. And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.

Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.? Especially the demand part. That demand part throws me.

Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity". Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that. But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon. And he gives a person a lot to think about.

He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory): God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong. It is free will that makes evil possible.

That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.

On the omniscience of God, he wrote:

". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​

I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.

And that brings us to the 'demand' part. Whenever you find people who say:

1. God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
2. God would do this or would not do that. . . .
3. It is true because it is Biblical. . .
4. It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
5. You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
6. You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .

you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently. And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do. That is what I mean by demand.

Who are these people? Maybe some people don't get that God being absolutely unlimited means God is absolutely unlimited. Maybe if some people stopped confusing themselves about the logic God gave them and trusted in that instead of their confusion they wouldn't insist that God be absolutely limited by their confusion and think their confusion gives them a superior understanding of things.

 

[Boss]

Nope. Why are we wasting our time with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what made up superstition is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.

Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so.

What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.

If god doesn't exist, god is completely made up.

You can cite strength in numbers all you'd like - problem there is that there are plenty of psychological and sociological reasons aside from the possibility of it being true - that ppl believe. Its is not swaying the debate to one side or the other, its an appeal to the majority when the majority could be and has historical instances of being WRONG.

It's not a "strength in numbers" argument. Every living thing that has ever existed, that we have ever studied, has particular behaviors for a fundamental reason. Nothing exhibits persistent illogical behavior for no reason. Humans have always been spiritually-inclined, spiritually connected, spiritually aware. No civilization has ever existed for any length of time, devoid of spirituality. All humans have brains... that's not a "strength in numbers" argument, it happens to be a fact.

You're right, if God doesn't exist, it is completely made up. It makes absolutely no logical sense that God is made up, so God must exist. Now..... What IS God? Different subject entirely!

 

[G.T.]

You're again appealing to #'s where in fact majorities are wrong, all of the time, coupled with the fact that there are other plausible explanations means that what you constitute as an irrevocable argument is really soft, a low standard.

 

[Justin Davis]

Nothing I said about logic is untrue. There is more than one way to look at the universe, and there is more than one form of logic that you can use. The biggest problem with all of them is is that logic is inherently limited by humans ability to conceptualize, and the universe is not bound by our thinking.

I forgot about this part. What you said about things that we known to exist outside of our minds in the universe contradicting the law of excluded middle is wrong. We have lots of things in our minds that are two or more things at the same time. We always have so its nothing new to see things outside of our minds that are like that. Who has ever said that these things contradict the law of excluded middle. You are the only one I've ever heard say this. What youre saying is wrong but now I feel really bad because I think I see why you're getting this wrong and it's not intentional so I apologize. I'm not sure I can say this in a way that will help but what you're doing is making a thing + and - at the same time as if the thing is not a + and - first. That's what M.D.R. is trying to get you to see but I think you're comparing it against itself some way. I can see how someone can do that in their minds because I sort of did that the first time I read your post forgetting how it really works and it messed me up at first until M.D.R. explained it. I got his satire in his first post on this but only because I have thought a lot about the infinite in the set logic of organic logic before because I was tryng to understand what Henry was talking about in scripture about the infinity of God's being. I just forgot for a moment. You have to think about that very carefully or you will get it wrong but you should be able to see that with just two things at the same time. In the other things it looks to me that you're making logic and concepts the same thing and who but dummies think that "the universe is bound by our thinking"? I'm not saying that and M.D.R. is not saying that. That would have nothing to do with God being the reason the universe is trhe way it is and we see it the right way. I see what you mean that we can get bad ideas in our thinking but that's because we get the facts wrong and our logic gets the wrong conclusion. Our logic is good and the facts are bad. It seems to me that's all that's really happening. Different ways of logic doesn't make any difference to that as far as I can see. You still have to get the facts right. But I admit I don't fully understand other ways of logic totally.

 

[hobelim]

\
So... back on post #1331 where you said: "If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence." ...you're now admitting that was incorrect?

No. What I am saying is that what many people think is evidence of God is simply evidence of their stupidity or superstition or gullibility and does not qualify as evidence of anything at all. People point to a burnt grilled cheese sandwich that vaguely resembles Jesus and think it is evidence of the supernatural.

The reality is that it is just a burnt grilled cheese sandwich and not evidence of anything supernatural at all.
.

\I don't have to defend my evidence and you don't have to accept my evidence. The fact that you are saying my evidence is not evidence is making the only point I intended to make. Evidence is subjective. Evidence is not universal. Each person can value evidence differently, or acknowledge/refute said evidence as such, depending on perspective. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that point.

Again, you are wrong.

When you point to the historical worship of one thing or another as evidence that people having always worshiped "something greater than themselves" and make the claim that such evidence proves the existence of God or spiritual reality you have made an illogical assumption based on a false premise.

The premise that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves is false because what most people have historically worshiped we now know with 100% certainty is not God and never was God and in fact was a delusion that was never greater than themselves.

your evidence is not evidence of God or proof of spiritual reality.

If you want to prove the existence of anything, you have to provide evidence that can be looked at and verified by anyone no matter what they believe or don't believe.

How one interprets 'evidence' may be subjective, but conclusions based on interpretation can either be right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false..

The truth is not subjective.

 

[Hollie]

Nope. Why are we wasting our time with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what made up superstition is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.

Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so.

What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.

Gods are "made up". History proves it. None of the human inventions of gods have ever made themselves known in a way that is rationally demonstrated with supportable evidence. History shows us that with time, every conception of gods have been swept away and looked upon as myth and curiosities of human fears and superstitions.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, (not the Islamist group), worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as much a relic of history as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Relics, all. Nothing more than tales and fables. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

As time goes by, and maniacal gods don’t return to earth to slaughter much of humanity, as gods don’t prove salvation, humanity grows further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. The fact is, aside from your "feelings", your desperate need to believe in magic and supernaturalism, you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods as little more than paper shufflers.

 

[Boss]

You're again appealing to #'s where in fact majorities are wrong, all of the time, coupled with the fact that there are other plausible explanations means that what you constitute as an irrevocable argument is really soft, a low standard.

Again... If I said "all humans have brains" that is not an appeal to numbers. This is not a matter of a majority of people having an opinion. This is a very real and persistent attribute of human nature. Majorities can be wrong, persistent behavioral attributes of species are not wrong, they are fundamental. There is no plausible explanation, we've never once observed any living thing with a persistent behavioral attribute across 95% of the species without reason.

If you honestly and truly do not believe in any power greater than self, you represent about 5% of the species. Now, there are many plausible explanations for such an anomaly in behavior.

 

[Taz]

You're again appealing to #'s where in fact majorities are wrong, all of the time, coupled with the fact that there are other plausible explanations means that what you constitute as an irrevocable argument is really soft, a low standard.

Again... If I said "all humans have brains" that is not an appeal to numbers. This is not a matter of a majority of people having an opinion. This is a very real and persistent attribute of human nature. Majorities can be wrong, persistent behavioral attributes of species are not wrong, they are fundamental. There is no plausible explanation, we've never once observed any living thing with a persistent behavioral attribute across 95% of the species without reason.

If you honestly and truly do not believe in any power greater than self, you represent about 5% of the species. Now, there are many plausible explanations for such an anomaly in behavior.

Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.