God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

Morality is a standard of conduct. Standards exist for logical reasons.

But it is no the reality of conduct. So it's the actual conduct that is the standard not the ideal

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

The standard is a man made concept therefore not absolute.

Logic is objective and absolute. Man is subjective and relative. Man is free to establish any standard he wishes but he is not free to avoid the consequences of establishing an inferior standard. See the cause, normalization of deviance and predictable surprise of the Challenger disaster for proof.

Most accidents involving machinery of any kind boiled down to human error and that has nothing to do with the rules of logic.

There can be no absolute standard unless one concedes that there is an absolute authority. I have seen no reason to believe there is an absolute authority.

And all accidents happen for a reason which is discovered using logic. Engineers use logic to evaluate plant, people and processes for possible risks. Through this evaluation they discover logical mitigations such as engineering out the risk (plant), identifying competency levels required of operators (people) and procedures to prevent accidents (processes). Often times these evaluations occur because of accidents. That's because there was something which occurred which was not thought of before and was discovered and then corrected. This is exactly how standards get developed. Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard or fail to recognize the standard, the reason the standard exists or should have existed is discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

 

[ding]

There can be no absolute standard unless one concedes that there is an absolute authority. I have seen no reason to believe there is an absolute authority.

The absolute authority is logic and truth. If you have failed to recognize that logic and truth are absolute standards, then that's on you.

 

[Blues Man]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

Morality is a standard of conduct. Standards exist for logical reasons.

But it is no the reality of conduct. So it's the actual conduct that is the standard not the ideal

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

The standard is a man made concept therefore not absolute.

Logic is objective and absolute. Man is subjective and relative. Man is free to establish any standard he wishes but he is not free to avoid the consequences of establishing an inferior standard. See the cause, normalization of deviance and predictable surprise of the Challenger disaster for proof.

Most accidents involving machinery of any kind boiled down to human error and that has nothing to do with the rules of logic.

There can be no absolute standard unless one concedes that there is an absolute authority. I have seen no reason to believe there is an absolute authority.

And all accidents happen for a reason which is discovered using logic. Engineers use logic to evaluate plant, people and processes for possible risks. Through this evaluation they discover logical mitigations such as engineering out the risk (plant), identifying competency levels required of operators (people) and procedures to prevent accidents (processes). Often times these evaluations occur because of accidents. That's because there was something which occurred which was not thought of before and was discovered and then corrected. This is exactly how standards get developed. Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard or fail to recognize the standard, the reason the standard exists or should have existed is discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

It's not logic

Determining the cause of an accident requires nothing but the ability to trace the events leading up to it. Sometimes that cause is proximal to the time of the accident sometimes it is further removed.

It is our ability to imagine different outcomes that makes this possible. We then will label those possible outcomes as good or bad and we will then teach that to future generations.

Consider this.

A young woman is making her first holiday dinner for the family and her mother tells her to cut one end off of the ham before putting it in the oven. The daughter asks why

The mother answers well it's how your grandmother always did it and she is a great cook.

The daughter does as she's told and when her grandmother arrives she asked why cutting the end off of the ham makes her recipe so delicious.

The grandmother laughed and said I cut the end off of the ham because the ham was too big for my baking pan.

 

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

Morality is a standard of conduct. Standards exist for logical reasons.

But it is no the reality of conduct. So it's the actual conduct that is the standard not the ideal

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

The standard is a man made concept therefore not absolute.

Logic is objective and absolute. Man is subjective and relative. Man is free to establish any standard he wishes but he is not free to avoid the consequences of establishing an inferior standard. See the cause, normalization of deviance and predictable surprise of the Challenger disaster for proof.

Most accidents involving machinery of any kind boiled down to human error and that has nothing to do with the rules of logic.

There can be no absolute standard unless one concedes that there is an absolute authority. I have seen no reason to believe there is an absolute authority.

And all accidents happen for a reason which is discovered using logic. Engineers use logic to evaluate plant, people and processes for possible risks. Through this evaluation they discover logical mitigations such as engineering out the risk (plant), identifying competency levels required of operators (people) and procedures to prevent accidents (processes). Often times these evaluations occur because of accidents. That's because there was something which occurred which was not thought of before and was discovered and then corrected. This is exactly how standards get developed. Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard or fail to recognize the standard, the reason the standard exists or should have existed is discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

It's not logic

Determining the cause of an accident requires nothing but the ability to trace the events leading up to it. Sometimes that cause is proximal to the time of the accident sometimes it is further removed.

It is our ability to imagine different outcomes that makes this possible. We then will label those possible outcomes as good or bad and we will then teach that to future generations.

Consider this.

A young woman is making her first holiday dinner for the family and her mother tells her to cut one end off of the ham before putting it in the oven. The daughter asks why

The mother answers well it's how your grandmother always did it and she is a great cook.

The daughter does as she's told and when her grandmother arrives she asked why cutting the end off of the ham makes her recipe so delicious.

The grandmother laughed and said I cut the end off of the ham because the ham was too big for my baking pan.

I've been a practicing engineer for 37 years. I've performed hundreds of root cause failure analysis on accidents. I can tell you with 100% certainty that logic is employed in everything I have ever done as an engineer and especially in root cause failure analysis. In fact, I can tell you that everyone uses logic in their daily lives and in every single instance they discovered the relevant logic. And if they made a mistake in their logic, then that would be discovered through a failure. And through that failure the root cause would be logically discovered and a new standard developed.

I know that story and tell it all the time. The moral of that story is that we should not accept what we has always done in the past without understanding the reason or logic behind it. This story is a perfect example of what I have been trying to tell you. Logic and truth are discovered.

 

[Donald H]

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

I'll state briefly my position in this discussion. It hasn't become a debate yet and it doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.

A million different ways to believe in a god are fine with me and are of no interest of me to debate.
But when christianity or the Christian bible enters the conversation is when there's something worth debated because the superstitious nonsense just can't be ignored.

My premise to begin with is that if a Christian doesn't believe the bible is the literal word of their god then they're backsliding away from being able to take the pro side of any debate.

They can't be believers and be full of 'maybes' and 'ifs' and other qualified beliefs at the same time.

A new modern religion may be required, which is consistent with science, but subject to updating and amending every 3 or 4 years as science marches on to greater knowledge.

I'm not obligated by your misunderstanding of the Bible. You have never read the Bible for meaning. You have only read it to confirm your bias.

You're not obligated? What does that mean? I've never read any of the hundreds of different bibles because I wouldn't know which one was the true word of the god? They all tell different stories.

Were you one of the Christians who have already proclaimed that your bibles can't be taken literally? Or do you maintain one of them at least is the word of the god?

 

[Votto]

Why are there different races of humans?
Why did God allow for the different religions?

Why did God create different races? So man would hate his fellow man easier. After all, we saw what happened in Europe with the Jews. They looked like everyone else, so to tell them apart so they could hate them better they had to make them wear silly dresses and symbols. Being a different color makes it oh so much easier.

Why did God allow for different religions? Well let's see, looking at the world today we have Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Well, well, looks like they all come from the same book. What are the odds? Of course, there are a few far eastern religions that are not, but they are not world wide religions, now are they?

 

[ding]

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

I'll state briefly my position in this discussion. It hasn't become a debate yet and it doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.

A million different ways to believe in a god are fine with me and are of no interest of me to debate.
But when christianity or the Christian bible enters the conversation is when there's something worth debated because the superstitious nonsense just can't be ignored.

My premise to begin with is that if a Christian doesn't believe the bible is the literal word of their god then they're backsliding away from being able to take the pro side of any debate.

They can't be believers and be full of 'maybes' and 'ifs' and other qualified beliefs at the same time.

A new modern religion may be required, which is consistent with science, but subject to updating and amending every 3 or 4 years as science marches on to greater knowledge.

I'm not obligated by your misunderstanding of the Bible. You have never read the Bible for meaning. You have only read it to confirm your bias.

You're not obligated? What does that mean? I've never read any of the hundreds of different bibles because I wouldn't know which one was the true word of the god? They all tell different stories.

Were you one of the Christians who have already proclaimed that your bibles can't be taken literally? Or do you maintain one of them at least is the word of the god?

It means that just because you read the Bible like an idiot doesn't mean I have to read the Bible like an idiot. You should probably look up the definition of militant atheist.

 

[Donald H]

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

I'll state briefly my position in this discussion. It hasn't become a debate yet and it doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.

A million different ways to believe in a god are fine with me and are of no interest of me to debate.
But when christianity or the Christian bible enters the conversation is when there's something worth debated because the superstitious nonsense just can't be ignored.

My premise to begin with is that if a Christian doesn't believe the bible is the literal word of their god then they're backsliding away from being able to take the pro side of any debate.

They can't be believers and be full of 'maybes' and 'ifs' and other qualified beliefs at the same time.

A new modern religion may be required, which is consistent with science, but subject to updating and amending every 3 or 4 years as science marches on to greater knowledge.

I'm not obligated by your misunderstanding of the Bible. You have never read the Bible for meaning. You have only read it to confirm your bias.

You're not obligated? What does that mean? I've never read any of the hundreds of different bibles because I wouldn't know which one was the true word of the god? They all tell different stories.

Were you one of the Christians who have already proclaimed that your bibles can't be taken literally? Or do you maintain one of them at least is the word of the god?

It means that just because you read the Bible like an idiot doesn't mean I have to read the Bible like an idiot. You should probably look up the definition of militant atheist.

I don't read any of the many different versions of the bible. It claims to be non-fiction but can't meet the standard for non-fiction unless any one of the different versions can claim to be the true literal word of the god.

You've dodged the question again.

Were you one of the Christians who have already proclaimed that your bibles can't be taken literally? Or do you maintain one of them at least is the word of the god?

And another question for you: Which version of the Christian bible is the true unabridged version?

 

[ding]

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

I'll state briefly my position in this discussion. It hasn't become a debate yet and it doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.

A million different ways to believe in a god are fine with me and are of no interest of me to debate.
But when christianity or the Christian bible enters the conversation is when there's something worth debated because the superstitious nonsense just can't be ignored.

My premise to begin with is that if a Christian doesn't believe the bible is the literal word of their god then they're backsliding away from being able to take the pro side of any debate.

They can't be believers and be full of 'maybes' and 'ifs' and other qualified beliefs at the same time.

A new modern religion may be required, which is consistent with science, but subject to updating and amending every 3 or 4 years as science marches on to greater knowledge.

I'm not obligated by your misunderstanding of the Bible. You have never read the Bible for meaning. You have only read it to confirm your bias.

You're not obligated? What does that mean? I've never read any of the hundreds of different bibles because I wouldn't know which one was the true word of the god? They all tell different stories.

Were you one of the Christians who have already proclaimed that your bibles can't be taken literally? Or do you maintain one of them at least is the word of the god?

It means that just because you read the Bible like an idiot doesn't mean I have to read the Bible like an idiot. You should probably look up the definition of militant atheist.

I don't read any of the many different versions of the bible. It claims to be non-fiction but can't meet the standard for non-fiction unless any one of the different versions can claim to be the true literal word of the god.

You've dodged the question again.

Were you one of the Christians who have already proclaimed that your bibles can't be taken literally? Or do you maintain one of them at least is the word of the god?

And another question for you: Which version of the Christian bible is the true unabridged version?

If your attention span is too short to remember our conversations AND you are too lazy and/or too stupid to figure out how to quickly find the answer, I'm not sure how my answering AGAIN will help.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The absolute authority is logic and truth. If you have failed to recognize that logic and truth are absolute standards, then that's on you.

Shit happens. Logic and truth remain dependent upon the "authority" of fleeting conditions.

I've been a practicing engineer for 37 years.

Ah, another engineer. No wonder you're so full of shit. Math alone persists once discovered. A fair coin toss always has the same odds. Platonic solids shall always combine and scale. Infinitely and incommensurably. From the infinitesimally small to the unfathomably large. The Aether is always greater and between. Allowing and disallowing. Creating and destroying. Supporting and releasing everything we'll ever detect or experience. Sorry it breaks your brain, but that's why there's never been any something from nothing to be worrying your little head about. Nothing has never been the case.

 

[Donald H]

If your attention span is too short to remember our conversations AND you are too lazy and/or too stupid to figure out how to quickly find the answer, I'm not sure how my answering AGAIN will help.

It's not my attention span that is the problem, nearly as much as it's my lack of interest in attempting to separate one Christian believer from another. And fwiw, I think you only provided a 'qualified' answer anyway? (it could have been the other one)

And so if you aren't prepared to answer my question on being a literal believer in your bible or not, I can conclude my participation in this conversation before it even becomes a debate.

Make up your mind or we're finished.

 

[ding]

The absolute authority is logic and truth. If you have failed to recognize that logic and truth are absolute standards, then that's on you.

Shit happens. Logic and truth remain dependent upon the "authority" of fleeting conditions.

Logic and truth are independent of man. What you are talking about are perception of logic and perception of truth. Reality just is. It's man's perception of reality that changes.

 

[Donald H]

The absolute authority is logic and truth. If you have failed to recognize that logic and truth are absolute standards, then that's on you.

Shit happens. Logic and truth remain dependent upon the "authority" of fleeting conditions.

I've been a practicing engineer for 37 years.

Ah, another engineer. No wonder you're so full of shit. Math alone persists once discovered. A fair coin toss always has the same odds. Platonic solids shall always combine and scale. Infinitely and incommensurably. From the infinitesimally small to the unfathomably large. The Aether is always greater and between. Allowing and disallowing. Creating and destroying. Supporting and releasing everything we'll ever detect or experience. Sorry it breaks your brain, but that's why there's never been any something from nothing to be worrying your little head about. Nothing has never been the case.

Incommensurately?
When they drive you to frustration I've found that The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillihunty provides some needed relief. He's an ex-minister/priest/whatever who is more knowldegable on the topic of Christianity than even the religious professionals who phone in to his program.

And then for further satisfaction, he went head to head with Jordan Peterson on religion and tore Peterson to shreds.

 

[ding]

Ah, another engineer. No wonder you're so full of shit. Math alone persists once discovered. A fair coin toss always has the same odds. Platonic solids shall always combine and scale. Infinitely and incommensurably. From infinitesimally small to infinitely large. The Aether is always greater and between. Allowing and disallowing. Creating and destroying. Supporting and releasing everything we'll ever detect or experience. Sorry it breaks your brain, but that's why there's never been any something from nothing to be worrying your little head about. Nothing has never been the case.

"Math alone persists once discovered" implies you agree with me that math is discovered, right? But I'm not sure about the persisting part or its linkage to discovery. It would seem to me that the knowledge of the discovery would persist until it was lost. That just because something was made manifest by a human mind wouldn't mean it remained manifest by a human mind forever. Whatever mathematical truths that exist, have existed since the beginning of time and will continue to exist in perpetuity. But there are no guarantees that it will remain manifest in human minds forever.

Sorry, but the rest of that post made no sense to me and I doubt you would be able to clarify it if I asked.

A fair coin toss always has the same odds. Platonic solids shall always combine and scale. Infinitely and incommensurably. From infinitesimally small to infinitely large. The Aether is always greater and between. Allowing and disallowing. Creating and destroying. Supporting and releasing everything we'll ever detect or experience. Sorry it breaks your brain, but that's why there's never been any something from nothing to be worrying your little head about. Nothing has never been the case.

 

[ding]

If your attention span is too short to remember our conversations AND you are too lazy and/or too stupid to figure out how to quickly find the answer, I'm not sure how my answering AGAIN will help.

It's not my attention span that is the problem, nearly as much as it's my lack of interest in attempting to separate one Christian believer from another. And fwiw, I think you only provided a 'qualified' answer anyway? (it could have been the other one)

And so if you aren't prepared to answer my question on being a literal believer in your bible or not, I can conclude my participation in this conversation before it even becomes a debate.

Make up your mind or we're finished.

I already answered your question before, dummy. If you couldn't remember it the first time, why should I expect you to remember it a second time?

 

[Donald H]

This is a real peach of a debate and it's worth every minute to watch it! Dillihunty takes Jordan Peterson apart completely.



For those who don't know, Peterson is one of the right's favourite intellectuals and there's no doubt that he's right up there with a very high IQ.

But Peterson is still struggling with being able to accept Christianity in the biblical sense because of his exceedingly high intelligence. And so he continues to fail to be able to reconcile his proclaimed belief in the god, with the truth he's stuck with understanding.

Peterson spent some time in a mental health institution and it was almost certainly due to his issue of not being able to reconcile superstitious religious beliefs with the reality of science.

Few would allow their indoctrination of religious beliefs from childhood to torment then in adult life to the extent that Peterson is obviously tormented.

Pity for Jordan Peterson? Or just a matter of him making his own bed (torment) and then having to sleep in it.

Dillahunty spared him no pity!

 

[Donald H]

I already answered your question before, dummy. If you couldn't remember it the first time, why should I expect you to remember it a second time?

I've moved on to turning this thread into something worthwhile. You can follow along with your finger, contribute to it, or go find solace in you superstitious beliefs that drive you to distraction.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Incommensurately?
When they drive you to frustration I've found that The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillihunty

Yes, Matt is a blast. Incommensurable (or incommensurate if you prefer) meaning "having no common standard of measurement." Each result having nonrepeating irrational and "imaginary" components. Nature's kind of math. The spatial component + the j*counterspatial component, i.e. the magnetic + the dielectric, i.e. genuine electricity. See Nikola Tesla and Eric Dollard for details, lol.

 

[surada]

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

I'll state briefly my position in this discussion. It hasn't become a debate yet and it doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.

A million different ways to believe in a god are fine with me and are of no interest of me to debate.
But when christianity or the Christian bible enters the conversation is when there's something worth debated because the superstitious nonsense just can't be ignored.

My premise to begin with is that if a Christian doesn't believe the bible is the literal word of their god then they're backsliding away from being able to take the pro side of any debate.

They can't be believers and be full of 'maybes' and 'ifs' and other qualified beliefs at the same time.

A new modern religion may be required, which is consistent with science, but subject to updating and amending every 3 or 4 years as science marches on to greater knowledge.

I'm not obligated by your misunderstanding of the Bible. You have never read the Bible for meaning. You have only read it to confirm your bias.

You're not obligated? What does that mean? I've never read any of the hundreds of different bibles because I wouldn't know which one was the true word of the god? They all tell different stories.

Were you one of the Christians who have already proclaimed that your bibles can't be taken literally? Or do you maintain one of them at least is the word of the god?

I'm a bit confused here. You can't PROVE God so why try?

 

[Donald H]

Incommensurately?
When they drive you to frustration I've found that The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillihunty

Yes, Matt is a blast. Incommensurable (or incommensurate if you prefer) meaning "having no common standard of measurement." Each result having nonrepeating irrational and "imaginary" components. Nature's kind of math. The spatial component + the j*counterspatial component, i.e. the magnetic + the dielectric, i.e. genuine electricity. See Nikola Tesla and Eric Dollard for details, lol.

I've really only tried to have them define the parameters of their beliefs. The notion of a 'literal' bible or 'literal' Christian god are ideas that can't possibly be acceptable in a modern world.

But a generic god that isn't associated with any of established superstitious god or gods can be acceptable.
At least until they attempt to define such a belief so that it becomes nothing more than unacceptable superstitious beliefs.

An extraterrestrial presence as the mover and shaker of everything we know with our limited understanding? Maybe!

But certainly not in any way remotely connected with Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc!
Their problem is the same problem Jordan Peterson has with religious beliefs, but on a much simpler level than Jordan.

Causing them to obsess on the question is satisfaction enough I suppose.