does cosmic imperfection prove god doesnt exist?

[G.T.]

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

I am biased against any proposition that's been made that I reject - which for any Religious deity, is all of them...same as I reject any argument for Unicorns. Never been compelled to believe in either one, and so I consider them on the same playing field in my belief system and there's nothing you can do about that, so you lash out. It's fine, I'm used to it. Folks are triggered when others don't believe as they do, and you're inmate #1 in that regard.

You are talking about religion, not a creator. You reject other people’s perception of God.

I’m not lashing out. I am telling you that you are making a ridiculous argument. To argue there is the same level of evidence for unicorns and a creator is illogical.

You'll have to point out how it's fallacious in order to call it illogical - but it's internally consistent. I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of their preferred deity, and I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of a Unicorn, and so I consider the propositions, in terms of their truth value, the same.

You can lash out and throw tantrums and call it illogical all you'd like, but you're not going to JUSTIFY those conclusions because you'd be attempting to appeal to what ANOTHER agent considers adequate proof to believe a proposition, which is absurd unless you're omniscient.

 

[G.T.]

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

At this rate, he'll have no one left to post to.

I’m sure there will always be someone who will oblige his desire for a fight.

Umm, you started this chain of argument with ME.

You folks are delusional, it's not a wonder why you're so easy to convince of ridiculous things.

 

[Mindful]

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

At this rate, he'll have no one left to post to.

You seriously need a new hobby than snitting at me each day - get a freakin life you creeper

Are you sure you're alright?

This is upstairs, you know.

 

[G.T.]

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

At this rate, he'll have no one left to post to.

You seriously need a new hobby than snitting at me each day - get a freakin life you creeper

Are you sure you're alright?

This is upstairs, you know.

You snitted to someone about me, like you seem to do each day - you seem to have psychological issues because it's a clear obsession. Why don't you put a shock collar on and electrocute yourself each time you're compelled to talk to or about me, and see if that works to calm your addiction.

 

[Mindful]

At this rate, he'll have no one left to post to.

What about the gods and baby jebus?

Actually, sometimes I could get into the notion of Gods. A whole committee of them, looking down at us, arguing, debating amongst themselves. Deciding our destinies.

 

[Mindful]

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

At this rate, he'll have no one left to post to.

You seriously need a new hobby than snitting at me each day - get a freakin life you creeper

Are you sure you're alright?

This is upstairs, you know.

You snitted to someone about me, like you seem to do each day - you have psychological issues because it's a clear obsession. Why don't you put a shock collar on and electrocute yourself each time you're compelled to talk to or about me, and see if that works to calm your addiction.

You recommend that course of action, do you?

Have you eaten your cornflakes yet, like a good boy?

 

[ding]

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[ding]

The evidence is all around you and in you.

And yet you couldn't produce a single shred of it, if your life depended on it. Hint: just because some charlatan claims there is evidence of a magical proposition does not mean there is.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[G.T.]

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I don't care about your inept argument, Ding - you've posted it, spammed it actually, all over the place and it's not interesting to me. This is where we part ways, when you do your copy-paste diatribe that's been addressed by many posters a million times over.

Bye, Ding.

Bye, Mindful -

it's that easy. You two are obsessed.

 

[ding]

The evidence is all around you and in you.

And yet you couldn't produce a single shred of it, if your life depended on it. Hint: just because some charlatan claims there is evidence of a magical proposition does not mean there is.

So the evidence is all around you; physical laws, biological laws and moral laws. You can even use your own experiences as a creator as a proxy to better understand the evidence around you.

What evidence are you looking for anyway? Are you waiting for God to reveal himself to you in a vision or something? Are you waiting for God to perform a miracle for you?

 

[ding]

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I don't care about your inept argument, Ding - you've posted it, spammed it actually, all over the place and it's not interesting to me. This is where we part ways, when you do your copy-paste diatribe that's been addressed by many posters a million times over.

Bye, Ding.

Bye, Mindful -

it's that easy. You two are obsessed.

That spam is called my compelling argument, GT.

This isn't my first rodeo.

 

[Mindful]

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I don't care about your inept argument, Ding - you've posted it, spammed it actually, all over the place and it's not interesting to me. This is where we part ways, when you do your copy-paste diatribe that's been addressed by many posters a million times over.

Bye, Ding.

Bye, Mindful -

it's that easy. You two are obsessed.

I'm terribly sorry to have upset you, GT.

Pax Vobiscum.

 

[G.T.]

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I don't care about your inept argument, Ding - you've posted it, spammed it actually, all over the place and it's not interesting to me. This is where we part ways, when you do your copy-paste diatribe that's been addressed by many posters a million times over.

Bye, Ding.

Bye, Mindful -

it's that easy. You two are obsessed.

That spam is called my compelling argument, GT.

This isn't my first rodeo.

Compelling to you - and good for you! Are you such a big boy! dass a big boyyy!!

 

[ding]

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I don't care about your inept argument, Ding - you've posted it, spammed it actually, all over the place and it's not interesting to me. This is where we part ways, when you do your copy-paste diatribe that's been addressed by many posters a million times over.

Bye, Ding.

Bye, Mindful -

it's that easy. You two are obsessed.

I like how you accuse others of what you do.

 

[G.T.]

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I don't care about your inept argument, Ding - you've posted it, spammed it actually, all over the place and it's not interesting to me. This is where we part ways, when you do your copy-paste diatribe that's been addressed by many posters a million times over.

Bye, Ding.

Bye, Mindful -

it's that easy. You two are obsessed.

I like how you accuse others of what you do.

Here we go with the nun sanctimony! You're a robot.

 

[ding]

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I don't care about your inept argument, Ding - you've posted it, spammed it actually, all over the place and it's not interesting to me. This is where we part ways, when you do your copy-paste diatribe that's been addressed by many posters a million times over.

Bye, Ding.

Bye, Mindful -

it's that easy. You two are obsessed.

That spam is called my compelling argument, GT.

This isn't my first rodeo.

Compelling to you - and good for you! Are you such a big boy! dass a big boyyy!!

 

[ding]

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I don't care about your inept argument, Ding - you've posted it, spammed it actually, all over the place and it's not interesting to me. This is where we part ways, when you do your copy-paste diatribe that's been addressed by many posters a million times over.

Bye, Ding.

Bye, Mindful -

it's that easy. You two are obsessed.

I like how you accuse others of what you do.

Here we go with the nun sanctimony! You're a robot.

If we start with the premise that spirit created the material world and created laws of nature which not only predestined beings that know and create to arise but also to mold or evolve their level of consciousness, then it is not a giant leap to believe that besides the constant feedback we receive from the universe that either correct or reinforce our behaviors that we would also receive revelations from the spirit which connects but is not a part of the material world.

The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being. It is for good reason that David Foster Wallace said that we all worship something and the only choice in the matter is what we choose to worship. We are literally hardwired for it. Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. When we look at the data today we see that more and more people are rejecting organized religion but have not abandoned their belief that they are more than just matter or that there is a force which connects or binds us all. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.

 

[G.T.]

 

[ding]

Still waiting for that compelling argument for unicorns. Anyone?

 

[ding]

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

I am biased against any proposition that's been made that I reject - which for any Religious deity, is all of them...same as I reject any argument for Unicorns. Never been compelled to believe in either one, and so I consider them on the same playing field in my belief system and there's nothing you can do about that, so you lash out. It's fine, I'm used to it. Folks are triggered when others don't believe as they do, and you're inmate #1 in that regard.

You are talking about religion, not a creator. You reject other people’s perception of God.

I’m not lashing out. I am telling you that you are making a ridiculous argument. To argue there is the same level of evidence for unicorns and a creator is illogical.

You'll have to point out how it's fallacious in order to call it illogical - but it's internally consistent. I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of their preferred deity, and I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of a Unicorn, and so I consider the propositions, in terms of their truth value, the same.

You can lash out and throw tantrums and call it illogical all you'd like, but you're not going to JUSTIFY those conclusions because you'd be attempting to appeal to what ANOTHER agent considers adequate proof to believe a proposition, which is absurd unless you're omniscient.

I have already shown how illogical it is to believe there is the same level of evidence for unicorns as there is for a creator of existence, GT.