Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[HUGGY]

If A+B=C, then B can only equal C if A is zero. Did you pass algebra?

I never said it was the fault of the reader. Many readers accept spiritual evidence, in fact, as a percentage of the human population, considering only 5% are Nihilistic, it means 95% of the readers should be able to accept spiritual evidence. However, most people who believe in god's existence, have no need to click on a thread with this title, so we get more of the type who don't accept spiritual evidence. And I suppose there are some who claim they don't accept spiritual evidence but it's because they know spiritual evidence makes a case they don't want made.

There you go again. I did not say A + B = C. You should know damned well that I said A + B PROVES C. If you can't digest the difference then this debate is hopeless.

Let's be clear, this debate is hopeless because you don't accept spiritual evidence. I concede that may prove to be the case, in the OP. Now here, we seem to be arguing if "prove" means the same as "equals" in articulation of a formula. The conversation has turned to this because you don't want to have a discussion on the topic, you can't refute my arguments, so you try to do the next best thing, in your mind, which is to derail the conversation by creating another superfluous argument.

Let's be crystal sparkling clear. Calling yourself the "Boss" as in your assuming you make the rules of debate here on USMB does not make it so. This isn't even your thread which I might give deferance to. You certainly don't have any domain defining my posts. I was "clear" in differenciating between "proof" and "equal". So your last hope has been reduced to calling names like "derailer"? I suppose you are holding out "troll" as the grand finale'.

Sorry Sparky! I'm no closer to handing the keys of the insane asylum over to the inmates with all thier halucinations...AKA "spirituality" just because you hve noted they are in the majority in the facility.

 

[Boss]

why is there no spiritual sceince?

maybe your religion should have pursued that to win over converts instead of relying on bullying people into believing

There is no spiritual science because science is the study of physical things. Religion is a manifestation of human spirituality, not to be confused with spirituality itself. Those who have no comprehension or understanding of spirituality, often confuse the two.

I would have much more respect for organized religion if they had done that instead of using the money they take from believers to build really cool and huge buildings to endoctrinate people inside of

Again, case in point... you have confused religious beliefs with spirituality. I highly doubt anything organized religion could have done, would make you believe in, or accept spirituality.

 

[numan]

'

Mathematics, fundamentally, is not about physical things -- and science could not exist without it.
.

 

[Boss]

'

Mathematics, fundamentally, is not about physical things -- and science could not exist without it.
.

At the risk of sounding abstract, if math did not exist, there would be no need for science.

 

[Boss]

There you go again. I did not say A + B = C. You should know damned well that I said A + B PROVES C. If you can't digest the difference then this debate is hopeless.

Let's be clear, this debate is hopeless because you don't accept spiritual evidence. I concede that may prove to be the case, in the OP. Now here, we seem to be arguing if "prove" means the same as "equals" in articulation of a formula. The conversation has turned to this because you don't want to have a discussion on the topic, you can't refute my arguments, so you try to do the next best thing, in your mind, which is to derail the conversation by creating another superfluous argument.

Let's be crystal sparkling clear. Calling yourself the "Boss" as in your assuming you make the rules of debate here on USMB does not make it so. This isn't even your thread which I might give deferance to. You certainly don't have any domain defining my posts. I was "clear" in differenciating between "proof" and "equal". So your last hope has been reduced to calling names like "derailer"? I suppose you are holding out "troll" as the grand finale'.

Sorry Sparky! I'm no closer to handing the keys of the insane asylum over to the inmates with all thier halucinations...AKA "spirituality" just because you hve noted they are in the majority in the facility.

You are certainly not being very clear here. You claim that I call myself "Boss" because I assume that I make the rules at USMB, but you offer no evidence to support your claim. Then you claim this isn't my thread, but I am the poster who started the thread. Then you claim you were clear in differentiating between "proves" and "equals" and all I see, is you proclaiming if I don't know the difference, this debate is pointless. Then you accuse me of calling you names, when I only pointed out that you are derailing the topic of the thread, which is not an argument over "proves" and "equals."

Sorry Sparky, you're no closer to making a point or refuting the OP argument, than before you went on this little egotistical rant.

 

[HUGGY]

Let's be clear, this debate is hopeless because you don't accept spiritual evidence. I concede that may prove to be the case, in the OP. Now here, we seem to be arguing if "prove" means the same as "equals" in articulation of a formula. The conversation has turned to this because you don't want to have a discussion on the topic, you can't refute my arguments, so you try to do the next best thing, in your mind, which is to derail the conversation by creating another superfluous argument.

Let's be crystal sparkling clear. Calling yourself the "Boss" as in your assuming you make the rules of debate here on USMB does not make it so. This isn't even your thread which I might give deferance to. You certainly don't have any domain defining my posts. I was "clear" in differenciating between "proof" and "equal". So your last hope has been reduced to calling names like "derailer"? I suppose you are holding out "troll" as the grand finale'.

Sorry Sparky! I'm no closer to handing the keys of the insane asylum over to the inmates with all thier halucinations...AKA "spirituality" just because you hve noted they are in the majority in the facility.

You are certainly not being very clear here. You claim that I call myself "Boss" because I assume that I make the rules at USMB, but you offer no evidence to support your claim. Then you claim this isn't my thread, but I am the poster who started the thread. Then you claim you were clear in differentiating between "proves" and "equals" and all I see, is you proclaiming if I don't know the difference, this debate is pointless. Then you accuse me of calling you names, when I only pointed out that you are derailing the topic of the thread, which is not an argument over "proves" and "equals."

Sorry Sparky, you're no closer to making a point or refuting the OP argument, than before you went on this little egotistical rant.

Responding to two threads I made an error. ONE error. Hardly liscense to assume as much as you do. Rant? Egotistical? As for the OP.. you have offered no proof that god exists. Spirituality in all it's forms does not prove anything but widespread delusion.

 

[newpolitics]

there is no sceintific proof god exists.

maybe you need to look up the word proof?

Think about your statement. "scientific" proof, means physical sciences can prove. There is no "spiritual science" we can call on. You are relying on physical science to prove a spiritual entity. This is illogical, because spiritual entities do not provide physical evidence of existence, if they did, they would be physical entities.

Furthermore, if we look up the word proof, and apply it to science, we find that it completely destroys science and the scientific method. Science NEVER proves, it ALWAYS predicts probability. As soon as you say "science proves" you have stopped practicing science, stopped using the scientific method, and you have begun practicing faith.

Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence. It just so happens that we live in a physical universe, so this is what we always find. It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. I don't accept your distinction between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. You have created this demarcation in order to smuggle in hidden premises which lead to your circular reasoning. This created category of "spiritual evidence" doesn't exist, and is therefore a red herring from a discussion about evidence, and is essentially a distraction from the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, believe personally that there is evidence, and want everyone to believe as you do. So to bridge this gap, you invent "spiritual evidence" to conflate objective and subjective realities. Now, all of a sudden, your subjective evidence, becomes objective. This is a simple category error. You are pretending the your subjective evidence is objective. If it were, you would have pointed this evidence out to us long ago. But, you haven't, because it doesn't exist objectively. It only exists subjectively to you. This is tautological: those who believe, believe. It is true for every believer of anything supernatural. The problem is, you can't show this evidence to anyone else, by virtue of the fact that it is entirely subjective. So you deal with this by engaging in circular reasoning and in inventing a category of "spiritual evidence" that no one else who doesn't believe (subjective) can see. Well, of course they can not see it. This subjective evidence arises only in the mind of the believer. Even your evidence for god, citing years of human spirituality, is entirely subjective. Humans ancient subjective view of the cosmos is not a demonstration of the objective workings of the cosmos, simply because a lot people believed it. This is an argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something to be true doesn't have any bearing on its truth value. It has to be demonstrated objectively.

No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

there is no sceintific proof god exists.

maybe you need to look up the word proof?

Think about your statement. "scientific" proof, means physical sciences can prove. There is no "spiritual science" we can call on. You are relying on physical science to prove a spiritual entity. This is illogical, because spiritual entities do not provide physical evidence of existence, if they did, they would be physical entities.

Furthermore, if we look up the word proof, and apply it to science, we find that it completely destroys science and the scientific method. Science NEVER proves, it ALWAYS predicts probability. As soon as you say "science proves" you have stopped practicing science, stopped using the scientific method, and you have begun practicing faith.

Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence. It just so happens that we live in a physical universe, so this is what we always find. It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. I don't accept your distinction between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. You have created this demarcation in order to smuggle in hidden premises which lead to your circular reasoning. This created category of "spiritual evidence" doesn't exist, and is therefore a red herring from a discussion about evidence, and is essentially a distraction from the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, believe personally that there is evidence, and want everyone to believe as you do. So to bridge this gap, you invent "spiritual evidence" to conflate objective and subjective realities. Now, all of a sudden, your subjective evidence, becomes objective. This is a simple category error. You are pretending the your subjective evidence is objective. If it were, you would have pointed this evidence out to us long ago. But, you haven't, because it doesn't exist objectively. It only exists subjectively to you. This is tautological: those who believe, believe. It is true for every believer of anything supernatural. The problem is, you can't show this evidence to anyone else, by virtue of the fact that it is entirely subjective. So you deal with this by engaging in circular reasoning and in inventing a category of "spiritual evidence" that no one else who doesn't believe (subjective) can see. Well, of course they can not see it. This subjective evidence arises only in the mind of the believer. Even your evidence for god, citing years of human spirituality, is entirely subjective. Humans ancient subjective view of the cosmos is not a demonstration of the objective workings of the cosmos, simply because a lot people believed it. This is an argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something to be true doesn't have any bearing on its truth value. It has to be demonstrated objectively.

No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.

The scientific evidence that carries the most weight is Physical evidence. I asked earlier what kind of evidence would it be that people speak in tongues a language they never had any training in but through recordings these languages were confirmed ? They said they open there mouth and it was like someone else was in control of what was being said.

 

[newpolitics]

Think about your statement. "scientific" proof, means physical sciences can prove. There is no "spiritual science" we can call on. You are relying on physical science to prove a spiritual entity. This is illogical, because spiritual entities do not provide physical evidence of existence, if they did, they would be physical entities.

Furthermore, if we look up the word proof, and apply it to science, we find that it completely destroys science and the scientific method. Science NEVER proves, it ALWAYS predicts probability. As soon as you say "science proves" you have stopped practicing science, stopped using the scientific method, and you have begun practicing faith.

Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence. It just so happens that we live in a physical universe, so this is what we always find. It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. I don't accept your distinction between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. You have created this demarcation in order to smuggle in hidden premises which lead to your circular reasoning. This created category of "spiritual evidence" doesn't exist, and is therefore a red herring from a discussion about evidence, and is essentially a distraction from the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, believe personally that there is evidence, and want everyone to believe as you do. So to bridge this gap, you invent "spiritual evidence" to conflate objective and subjective realities. Now, all of a sudden, your subjective evidence, becomes objective. This is a simple category error. You are pretending the your subjective evidence is objective. If it were, you would have pointed this evidence out to us long ago. But, you haven't, because it doesn't exist objectively. It only exists subjectively to you. This is tautological: those who believe, believe. It is true for every believer of anything supernatural. The problem is, you can't show this evidence to anyone else, by virtue of the fact that it is entirely subjective. So you deal with this by engaging in circular reasoning and in inventing a category of "spiritual evidence" that no one else who doesn't believe (subjective) can see. Well, of course they can not see it. This subjective evidence arises only in the mind of the believer. Even your evidence for god, citing years of human spirituality, is entirely subjective. Humans ancient subjective view of the cosmos is not a demonstration of the objective workings of the cosmos, simply because a lot people believed it. This is an argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something to be true doesn't have any bearing on its truth value. It has to be demonstrated objectively.

No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.

The scientific evidence that carries the most weight is Physical evidence. I asked earlier what kind of evidence would it be that people speak in tongues a language they never had any training in but through recordings these languages were confirmed ? They said they open there mouth and it was like someone else was in control of what was being said.

Mind citing references or scientific linguistics studies that these spoken languages are actually languages? I have heard of ex-Christians who can speak in tongues at will, simply because they used to. What does this mean?

 

[edthecynic]

'

Mathematics, fundamentally, is not about physical things -- and science could not exist without it.
.

At the risk of sounding abstract, if math did not exist, there would be no need for science.

The Straw Man strikes again.
Who said, other than you, that math does not exist?

A number is not a physical entity, yet the concept exists and is quite functional.

Your problem is the only evidence of the nonphysical requires the existence of the physical, so all you can do is divert using your Straw Men.

 

[Boss]

Let's be crystal sparkling clear. Calling yourself the "Boss" as in your assuming you make the rules of debate here on USMB does not make it so. This isn't even your thread which I might give deferance to. You certainly don't have any domain defining my posts. I was "clear" in differenciating between "proof" and "equal". So your last hope has been reduced to calling names like "derailer"? I suppose you are holding out "troll" as the grand finale'.

Sorry Sparky! I'm no closer to handing the keys of the insane asylum over to the inmates with all thier halucinations...AKA "spirituality" just because you hve noted they are in the majority in the facility.

You are certainly not being very clear here. You claim that I call myself "Boss" because I assume that I make the rules at USMB, but you offer no evidence to support your claim. Then you claim this isn't my thread, but I am the poster who started the thread. Then you claim you were clear in differentiating between "proves" and "equals" and all I see, is you proclaiming if I don't know the difference, this debate is pointless. Then you accuse me of calling you names, when I only pointed out that you are derailing the topic of the thread, which is not an argument over "proves" and "equals."

Sorry Sparky, you're no closer to making a point or refuting the OP argument, than before you went on this little egotistical rant.

Responding to two threads I made an error. ONE error. Hardly liscense to assume as much as you do. Rant? Egotistical? As for the OP.. you have offered no proof that god exists. Spirituality in all it's forms does not prove anything but widespread delusion.

No, you made several errors, as I pointed out. Yes, I did offer definitive proof, and even began by stating, unless you accept spiritual evidence, the question can't be answered, it's not logical to you. Repeating that I have not proven anything, only reinforces my point, that you do not accept spiritual evidence. You think human spirituality, which has existed in humans for all of their existence as a species, is "delusional" and "superstition," and nothing is ever going to change your mind. I fully understand this, which is why I began my argument with the caveat that god's existence is only definitively provable if we accept spiritual evidence.

 

[edthecynic]

Here is how logic works:

Can "spirituality" be explained as anything other than communication with a deity?

answer: yes, yes it can.

Has anyone ever proven spiritual communication with a deity? (belief is not proof).

Answer: no, they haven't.

So is spirituality "definitive proof" of the existence of a deity?

Absolutely not, in any logical terms whatsoever.

Well there are some who speak in tongues. Interesting stuff,they claimed they opened there mouth and just started speaking a language that they did not understand. In recordings they discovered that the two most used languages in these cases were the Ancient language of Hebrew and the other was Coptic and these people had no training in either of these languages what kind of evidence would you consider this to be ?

Evidence of a scam.
I hope you were not stupid enough to give these scammers any of your money! Wait a minute, of course you did.

 

[edthecynic]

You are certainly not being very clear here. You claim that I call myself "Boss" because I assume that I make the rules at USMB, but you offer no evidence to support your claim. Then you claim this isn't my thread, but I am the poster who started the thread. Then you claim you were clear in differentiating between "proves" and "equals" and all I see, is you proclaiming if I don't know the difference, this debate is pointless. Then you accuse me of calling you names, when I only pointed out that you are derailing the topic of the thread, which is not an argument over "proves" and "equals."

Sorry Sparky, you're no closer to making a point or refuting the OP argument, than before you went on this little egotistical rant.

Responding to two threads I made an error. ONE error. Hardly liscense to assume as much as you do. Rant? Egotistical? As for the OP.. you have offered no proof that god exists. Spirituality in all it's forms does not prove anything but widespread delusion.

No, you made several errors, as I pointed out. Yes, I did offer definitive proof, and even began by stating, unless you accept spiritual evidence, the question can't be answered, it's not logical to you. Repeating that I have not proven anything, only reinforces my point, that you do not accept spiritual evidence. You think human spirituality, which has existed in humans for all of their existence as a species, is "delusional" and "superstition," and nothing is ever going to change your mind. I fully understand this, which is why I began my argument with the caveat that god's existence is only definitively provable if we accept spiritual evidence.

All you have proven is spirituality cannot and does not exist without humans. Humans come first and create their spirituality.
Existence begets essence.

 

[Boss]

Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence.

No, it means "scientific" evidence, and science is man's study of the physical universe. Science does not even apply to anything outside the physical realm. Reason being, science is largely dependent upon observation, verification, falsification, predictability regarding physical elements. It does not deal with the supernatural, and can't, it's wholly unequipped to evaluate anything outside the parameters of the physical universe.

It just so happens that we live in a physical universe, so this is what we always find.

No, we live in both a physical AND spiritual universe. Science was invented by man to study principles of the physical universe, and religion was invented to study the principles of the spiritual universe. What we find, is profound evidence of both, a physical AND spiritual universe. You have simply closed your mind to the spiritual universe, in much the same way as a religious nut who rejects science.

It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. I don't accept your distinction between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. You have created this demarcation in order to smuggle in hidden premises which lead to your circular reasoning. This created category of "spiritual evidence" doesn't exist, and is therefore a red herring from a discussion about evidence, and is essentially a distraction from the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, believe personally that there is evidence, and want everyone to believe as you do. So to bridge this gap, you invent "spiritual evidence" to conflate objective and subjective realities. Now, all of a sudden, your subjective evidence, becomes objective. This is a simple category error. You are pretending the your subjective evidence is objective. If it were, you would have pointed this evidence out to us long ago. But, you haven't, because it doesn't exist objectively. It only exists subjectively to you. This is tautological: those who believe, believe. It is true for every believer of anything supernatural. The problem is, you can't show this evidence to anyone else, by virtue of the fact that it is entirely subjective. So you deal with this by engaging in circular reasoning and in inventing a category of "spiritual evidence" that no one else who doesn't believe (subjective) can see. Well, of course they can not see it. This subjective evidence arises only in the mind of the believer. Even your evidence for god, citing years of human spirituality, is entirely subjective. Humans ancient subjective view of the cosmos is not a demonstration of the objective workings of the cosmos, simply because a lot people believed it. This is an argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something to be true doesn't have any bearing on its truth value. It has to be demonstrated objectively.

Another rather long-winded rant to tell me that you do not accept spiritual evidence. I already said, there is no question whatsoever, if you can not accept spiritual evidence, you can not prove the existence of a spiritual entity, it would defy logic and reason to do so. But here you are again, explaining that exact same point again to me.

No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.

Oh, spiritual evidence can't be supported by objectivity based solely on physical science and physical observation or demonstration. If it could, it wouldn't really be "spiritual" but rather, "physical" and we wouldn't need to have this discussion. You're demanding some illogical proof for something, and simply denying it exists because you can't get the illogical proof you need to believe it. The proof is definitive, but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence to support the spiritual entity of god, and without that, god can never be proven to exist.

Now, I am not "running to" anything, and/or "running away" from anything. My OP argument clearly states that you must first accept spiritual evidence in the evaluation of whether a spiritual entity exists. You fail to meet this criteria, so as I said in the OP, you will never be able to recognize the definitive proof. You continue to reaffirm that point for me, and I thank you for that.

 

[Boss]

All you have proven is spirituality cannot and does not exist without humans. Humans come first and create their spirituality.
Existence begets essence.

I've proven no such thing. You've proven no such thing. Sorry!

 

[newpolitics]

Scientific evidence doesn't mean physical evidence. It simply means evidence.

No, it means "scientific" evidence, and science is man's study of the physical universe. Science does not even apply to anything outside the physical realm. Reason being, science is largely dependent upon observation, verification, falsification, predictability regarding physical elements. It does not deal with the supernatural, and can't, it's wholly unequipped to evaluate anything outside the parameters of the physical universe.

It just so happens that we live in a physical universe, so this is what we always find.

No, we live in both a physical AND spiritual universe. Science was invented by man to study principles of the physical universe, and religion was invented to study the principles of the spiritual universe. What we find, is profound evidence of both, a physical AND spiritual universe. You have simply closed your mind to the spiritual universe, in much the same way as a religious nut who rejects science.

It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. I don't accept your distinction between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. You have created this demarcation in order to smuggle in hidden premises which lead to your circular reasoning. This created category of "spiritual evidence" doesn't exist, and is therefore a red herring from a discussion about evidence, and is essentially a distraction from the fact that you have no evidence of any kind, believe personally that there is evidence, and want everyone to believe as you do. So to bridge this gap, you invent "spiritual evidence" to conflate objective and subjective realities. Now, all of a sudden, your subjective evidence, becomes objective. This is a simple category error. You are pretending the your subjective evidence is objective. If it were, you would have pointed this evidence out to us long ago. But, you haven't, because it doesn't exist objectively. It only exists subjectively to you. This is tautological: those who believe, believe. It is true for every believer of anything supernatural. The problem is, you can't show this evidence to anyone else, by virtue of the fact that it is entirely subjective. So you deal with this by engaging in circular reasoning and in inventing a category of "spiritual evidence" that no one else who doesn't believe (subjective) can see. Well, of course they can not see it. This subjective evidence arises only in the mind of the believer. Even your evidence for god, citing years of human spirituality, is entirely subjective. Humans ancient subjective view of the cosmos is not a demonstration of the objective workings of the cosmos, simply because a lot people believed it. This is an argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something to be true doesn't have any bearing on its truth value. It has to be demonstrated objectively.

Another rather long-winded rant to tell me that you do not accept spiritual evidence. I already said, there is no question whatsoever, if you can not accept spiritual evidence, you can not prove the existence of a spiritual entity, it would defy logic and reason to do so. But here you are again, explaining that exact same point again to me.

No doubt your response will be to run to your "spiritual evidence." This is a non-response, since spiritual evidence can not be demonstrated objectively, only subjectively, which makes it, at best, anecdotal evidence, which is categorically unreliable when it comes to demonstrating truth.

Oh, spiritual evidence can't be supported by objectivity based solely on physical science and physical observation or demonstration. If it could, it wouldn't really be "spiritual" but rather, "physical" and we wouldn't need to have this discussion. You're demanding some illogical proof for something, and simply denying it exists because you can't get the illogical proof you need to believe it. The proof is definitive, but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence to support the spiritual entity of god, and without that, god can never be proven to exist.

Now, I am not "running to" anything, and/or "running away" from anything. My OP argument clearly states that you must first accept spiritual evidence in the evaluation of whether a spiritual entity exists. You fail to meet this criteria, so as I said in the OP, you will never be able to recognize the definitive proof. You continue to reaffirm that point for me, and I thank you for that.

All you've said is: in order to believe in the spiritual realm, you must believe in the spiritual realm. You continue to reaffirm your use of circular logic, without offering any way in. This thread is truly pointless.

 

[MaryL]

God haters? Are you bloody kidding? I think that even the hardest atheist or nihilist want proof god exists. Religion, ANY religion, isn’t proving a thing. It’s all man made drivel.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why is it SO important to Christians to "prove" to the rest of us that their magic Sky Fairy is real?

Really.

Why do they care what the rest of us think or believe?

I don't care what they think or believe and I have never ever tried to get even one of them to come over to my side of this non-existent question.

You say you believe in a god?

Cool. And you're welcome to it.

Now, move it along please.

 

[HUGGY]

God haters? Are you bloody kidding? I think that even the hardest atheist or nihilist want proof god exists. Religion, ANY religion, isn’t proving a thing. It’s all man made drivel.

I think if we get to choose what myth is real I'll go with Santa Claus.

 

[MaryL]

Santa Clause is a beautiful myth. On so many levels. Jesus and Mohammed, so were they, mythical figures. Don’t live your life on legends or myths. Look at the facts. Religion doesn’t like that.