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

[Justin Davis]

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

Well I don't have any beef with QW, or anyone else for that matter. It's just people expressing their opinions on a forum where opinions are expressed. Some people like to present their opinions as facts and tear down the opinions of others by inferring they are irrelevant. That is a debate tactic around here.

QW and I have not always agreed on things, but that can be said for just about everyone here. It seems to me, he at least makes some attempt to engage in an intellectual conversation, unlike the usual troll brigade. People who just come here to antagonize and insult, offering nothing intellectual to the conversation, are totally not worth my time.

Q.W. is lying. Everything about him is just his subjective opinion. It only looks like he does things differently because he gets things right lots of times more than others but its just by accident just like M.D.R. says. I can see that now. At first I thought the same thing you're saying about him until I started to see his closed mindedness and lies.

Classical logic is the one thing I know very well. I have done in depth studies of it. I have never had any problem understanding M.D.R. about the universality of the principle of identity and Jesus is the ultimate principle of identity. And I could see that Q.W was lying about the things M.D.R. was saying about that too. Some of the other stuff was harder to get but I'm getting it. I had to read and think and research constructive logic to fully get what M.D.R. was saying about other things. Q.W. does not understand constructive logic. He pretends to understand it when he doesn't. The things he is saying or implying cannot be true. They are stupid and irrational. I'm sorry but I have had enough of his crap getting in the way of important things. You should carefully read M's, which is what I'm going to start typing instead because it's easier, on constructive logic because it make so much of the things we are talking about crystal clear, things that we all can see objectively.

The reason I have a problem with Q is because he keeps lying about things. It can't be any other way by this time. I'm sick of it. Anyone with any commonsense at all can see that not only does M accept and understand the conventions of constructive logic he uses them in his explantion of things along with classical logic. Q doesn't really understand the nature of either one these forms of logic and keeps saying that M doesn't accept the conventions of constructive logic. He's a liar. I'm a plumber in my twenties with a G.E.D. and I can see that. But I'm also a person who reads and thinks. I just don't have the formal. education others have because I had to take of things for my dad. I'm not dumb and Q was talking to me condenscendingly. He's the one whose dogmatic and ignorant. Heck, this self-educated plumber knows more than Q about constructive logic. He's a fool and M is way past Q's understanding of things. Rather than nitpicking and arguing about everything with M he needs to shut up, stop lying and learn. The idea of Q teaching M how to think outside the box is a joke. Yeah. I saw that comment from him to M and laughed my ass off. Q is a phony and I got a beef with him because he lies consciously.

 

[Taz]

Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.

The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.

The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.

Not even momentarily surprised.

Ya sure, the church believes everything scientists say, starting with the Big Bang. And Creationists don't exist in your world. Lucky for you.

 

[Henrik]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person. Therefore, it's important to love the creation. America does so, Hitler hated it and Sovjet was something between.

 

[Boss]

Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.

The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.

The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.

Not even momentarily surprised.

Ya sure, the church believes everything scientists say, starting with the Big Bang. And Creationists don't exist in your world. Lucky for you.

Well I am a "creationist" if you mean a person who thinks our universe was created by an intelligent designer. I also believe there could have been a "big bang" to start everything up. Or some other cosmic event could have happened to start things up, I am not sold on "The Big Bang Theory" entirely, I leave the possibility open on that one. Still, most religious people I know of, rationalize a God who is fully capable of causing a big bang or cosmic event to occur. So such a theory doesn't cancel out God.... Same with "evolution" theories.

Now the people who have blind faith in scientific theories, who think it's 100% absolute a big bang happened or are 100% certain life originated through evolution and there is no God or other metaphysical explanation... those people are a concern. They are the kind who are a real danger to science.

 

[Taz]

Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.

The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.

The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.

Not even momentarily surprised.

Ya sure, the church believes everything scientists say, starting with the Big Bang. And Creationists don't exist in your world. Lucky for you.

Well I am a "creationist" if you mean a person who thinks our universe was created by an intelligent designer. I also believe there could have been a "big bang" to start everything up. Or some other cosmic event could have happened to start things up, I am not sold on "The Big Bang Theory" entirely, I leave the possibility open on that one. Still, most religious people I know of, rationalize a God who is fully capable of causing a big bang or cosmic event to occur. So such a theory doesn't cancel out God.... Same with "evolution" theories.

Now the people who have blind faith in scientific theories, who think it's 100% absolute a big bang happened or are 100% certain life originated through evolution and there is no God or other metaphysical explanation... those people are a concern. They are the kind who are a real danger to science.

That's why I'm agnostic, there's no proof for or against a god.

 

[Boss]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person. Therefore, it's important to love the creation. America does so, Hitler hated it and Sovjet was something between.

In a way, I think you are close to right. God is a spiritual force... I use those words because they are the only words man has developed to define God. I also commonly talk about "intelligent design" because those are words we've attached to the concept itself, but I also think man is somewhat incapable of totally grasping God. Perhaps "intelligent" is too invalid a word to apply to God? If God is an energy, imagine electricity... is it "intelligent?" Well, it certainly knows how to light a lightbulb. But is that what we understand "intelligent" to be?

Same with "design" ...could be the "design" is simply the Operating System enabled in a physical universe and reality is the possibilities present within parameters of that OS? Or it could be that what I am describing as an OS is actually a peripheral for an even larger system yet undiscovered? Lots of possibilities.

But I do think you are right, man has a problem comprehending God and naturally assigns humanistic characteristics to God in order to better understand and relate.

 

[Hollie]

Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.

The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.

The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.

Not even momentarily surprised.

Ya sure, the church believes everything scientists say, starting with the Big Bang. And Creationists don't exist in your world. Lucky for you.

Well I am a "creationist" if you mean a person who thinks our universe was created by an intelligent designer. I also believe there could have been a "big bang" to start everything up. Or some other cosmic event could have happened to start things up, I am not sold on "The Big Bang Theory" entirely, I leave the possibility open on that one. Still, most religious people I know of, rationalize a God who is fully capable of causing a big bang or cosmic event to occur. So such a theory doesn't cancel out God.... Same with "evolution" theories.

Now the people who have blind faith in scientific theories, who think it's 100% absolute a big bang happened or are 100% certain life originated through evolution and there is no God or other metaphysical explanation... those people are a concern. They are the kind who are a real danger to science.

You managed to regurgitate every ignorant cliche' and shibboleth to be found on christian fundamentalist websites.

Firstly, there is no faith required for the process of the Scientific Method. You make the mistake typical of creationists/supernaturalists in that your loathing of science is used as a means to vilify science and the consensus it brings. Creation tales/supernaturalism offers nothing that can be used to come up with a plausible means to investigate magical, supernatural gods. You religious zealots can't even offer some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework to objectively investigate your alleged supernatural realms and the gods you claim live in those realms. What useful role can your incoherent rantings play in the advancement of knowledge?

Lastly, life didn't originate through evolution. Evolution is broadly defined as changes in populations over time. The beginning of life is not addressed by the theory of evolution.

Really, you should stop trolling christian fundamentalist websites for your science information. The putrid bile they inflict upon you gullible, easily persuaded types is a crying shame.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you're in fact the ONLY person in here who has a problem admitting you don't know everything.

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

No shit, Sherlock.

That doesn't change the fact that you claim that there is no evidence of god's existence, does it? Does that mean you aren't actually agnostic, or does it mean that you said something stupid and don't want to admit it?

 

[Hollie]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person. Therefore, it's important to love the creation. America does so, Hitler hated it and Sovjet was something between.

In a way, I think you are close to right. God is a spiritual force... I use those words because they are the only words man has developed to define God. I also commonly talk about "intelligent design" because those are words we've attached to the concept itself, but I also think man is somewhat incapable of totally grasping God. Perhaps "intelligent" is too invalid a word to apply to God? If God is an energy, imagine electricity... is it "intelligent?" Well, it certainly knows how to light a lightbulb. But is that what we understand "intelligent" to be?

Same with "design" ...could be the "design" is simply the Operating System enabled in a physical universe and reality is the possibilities present within parameters of that OS? Or it could be that what I am describing as an OS is actually a peripheral for an even larger system yet undiscovered? Lots of possibilities.

But I do think you are right, man has a problem comprehending God and naturally assigns humanistic characteristics to God in order to better understand and relate.

Here's a bit of enlightenment for you. Electricity doesn't "know" how to light up a lightbulb. See, this is the problem you religious extremists share. You assign attributes and characteristics to forces of nature just as you do your gods. You're really no different than some stone age knuckle-dragger looking at thunder and lightning around him and based upon his fears and superstitions, begins adding supernatural forces to fully natural processes.

Can I get you a bandaid and some salve for your bleeding knuckles?

 

[BreezeWood]

That's why I'm agnostic, there's no proof for or against a god.

does the agnostic recognize the Everlasting as an objective for their Spiritual habitation irregardless the question of whether their is a distinctive guidance for its presence or not ?

Edit: is the agnostic destined to perish with their physiology.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are liars. It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding. Even Q.W. is a liar. He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic. The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.

There you o again.

I challenge you to show me one time that I ever said anything about intuitionistic logic related to god. Just because I have not used intuitionistic logic to discuss god does not mean I don't understand it. If you look back you will see that the only thing I have done is point out to the dogmatists that classical logic is not universal. Since I have done that they have attacked me and accused me of saying things I have not said.

Get the fuck off your high horse, I have been studying this issue for longer than you and Rawlings combined, I know what I am saying, and am very careful to make sure that nothing I say is open to a challenge form anyone but an unthinking idiot.

 

[G.T.]

No, you're in fact the ONLY person in here who has a problem admitting you don't know everything.

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

No shit, Sherlock.

That doesn't change the fact that you claim that there is no evidence of god's existence, does it? Does that mean you aren't actually agnostic, or does it mean that you said something stupid and don't want to admit it?

I didn't say there's no evidence.

You stay owning yourself.

I said there's no absolute proof.

Conflate them as synonymns all you want, troll.

 

[dblack]

No, I'm not going to go into a chapel.

Absolutely not.

In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof.

I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.

Okay then, well... may God bless your child and keep her from ever becoming sick like that. I know if it were MY child, whether I hated religions or not, I'd be praying for a miracle. But some people may have different priorities.

Sure, often they do. But in this case, you're just being a douche, insinuating that atheists don't place as high a priority on their children's well being because they don't share your religious beliefs. The only response such an insult warrants is "Go get fucked", but even that seems like a waste of effort.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider? {no, I haven't}

Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.

Classify it however, it's my evidence. I don't believe, I know. If there were a way for me to prove to you that it existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Evidence does not equal proof. You value my evidence differently. There is nothing mentally wrong with me for believing in something greater than self, since that's what 95% of our species does. It's actually the 5% who don't that should be worried about.

Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.

Well, supernatural things would be things outside of nature, and spirituality is part of human nature. So I reject the assertion spirituality is belief in the supernatural. Blessing is a specific word we assigned for the things we receive through some means greater than self. So we're back to natural human spirituality.

Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.

I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God, I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.

I disagree, it certainly IS evidence, to tens of millions of people... to 95% of the species... on a regular basis.... for all of human history. Is it PROOF? Nope.

You want to argue that human spirituality is from our "unrestrained imagination" but the reason we have that is because we are "inspired" ...inspiration.... the root 'spir' is important, it means it comes from something greater than ourselves. So you are taking one of the truly wonderful blessings humans universally get from being spiritual creatures, and claiming that as the reason for our spirituality.

2. I read this and it reminded me of how you claim 95% of humans believe "something"

The guy said, "When you talk about atheists only being 5% of the population, you are just talking about self-identified Atheists, which can’t even be counted in 3rd world countries as they have never even heard that term. But when you add Agnostics and admitted non-believers, you are at around 20% of the world population. When you also consider that in half the world, if you say you don’t believe, you will be killed (yes, God’s loving people) or shunned (like in America), it’s no wonder that percentage isn’t higher. I would expect that about 40% of the world, at least, have no real religious beliefs.

I didn't say anything about Atheists. That 95% includes a good number of Atheists who still believe it's possible something greater than self exists. The 5% who believe in absolute nothingness are Nihilist. As for how many humans practice what degree of spirituality through various religious doctrines, I make no arguments.

When we start breaking down numbers, we can say that... yeah, 60% believe and 40% don't, but only half of those 60% go to church every Sunday, or only 5% become preachers or leaders in their church, or only .0002% become ordained as Saints... etc. According to Christian religion, 0% are perfect. The only real important number with regard to my argument about human spirituality is the 95% of the species who are spiritual.

I say 95% is too high.

Oh, and this weekend I heard a Christian on TCT religious tv flat out lie! He said the people who wrote the bible were all eye witnesses. First hand accounts he said! Fucking liar! See, people are believing a lie Boss.

If god really exists, someone a long time ago got really lucky when they came up with him. Its not like god ever visited.

So just consider that. You may not believe god is made up, but you have to admit everything ever written or said about him is.

 

[Justin Davis]

They are liars. It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding. Even Q.W. is a liar. He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic. The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.

There you o again.

I challenge you to show me one time that I ever said anything about intuitionistic logic related to god. Just because I have not used intuitionistic logic to discuss god does not mean I don't understand it. If you look back you will see that the only thing I have done is point out to the dogmatists that classical logic is not universal. Since I have done that they have attacked me and accused me of saying things I have not said.

Get the fuck off your high horse, I have been studying this issue for longer than you and Rawlings combined, I know what I am saying, and am very careful to make sure that nothing I say is open to a challenge form anyone but an unthinking idiot.

The bold portion of your post is another lie. You're the dogmatist. Your insinuation that your lies have not been exposed is another lie. R has completely exposed your crap. His post on constructive/intuitionistic logic exposes your lies for what they are. You're the idiot who doesn't even understand something as simple as the law of excluded middle.

You're a joke, a phony. And your foul language is just another example of the games you play when you lie.

I challenge you to stop lying. I challenge you to admit that you have intentionally lied about R's ideas and arguments and that you don't really understand intuitionistic logic.

I'm telling the truth about you as a person who has learned intuitionistic logic in order to follow R's arguments, not yours, that are based on both classical and intuitionistic logic, liar. You might be fooling others like you fooled me at first. But you don't fool me anymore.

You have implied and said things about intuitionistic logic that are false, couldn't be true in a millions years. I know intuitionistic logic better than you, and the idea that your lying mouth knows more about logic than R is a joke, the biggest lie you've told to date. You are a liar and hypocrite. You're pathetic. Get off your high horse and admit the truth.

 

[Justin Davis]

Here's the thing about "logic" and what I believe QW was trying to articlute. We can't always say that logic is valid. Most of the time it is, but not always. Logic is often the basis for conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom has been proven wrong numerous times. The double-slit experiment is a good example of logic failing. Turns out, logical assumptions are sometimes false.

Now that is not to say that logic is invalid when it comes to objective reasoning. I logically assume God is real because I talk to God daily and God blesses me in my everyday life... could I be wrong? Sure! I could be mentally unstable. but I don't think I am. So my objective reasoning is that God is real and God blesses me daily. I don't need to prove that to anyone else, it doesn't matter.

No one is disputing Q on that. That is not what the problem is. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I understand that and R understands what you wrote easily.

The problem is that Q is making specific claims about forms of logic and the laws of logic that are not true and can't be true. He also lies about what R has said about logic. Q does not understand the principle of identity in general, the law of excluded middle or constructive logic. The nature of the things he's saying especially after being shown that he couldn't possibly be right shows that he said stupid things that now he will not admit are wrong. And the way he evades what is actually being said shows that he knows he's lying, consciously and deliberately. He doesn't really believe what he's saying. He just won't admit that he's wrong.

The only thing he has said that's right about logic is things like what I put in bold and that constructive logic doesn't use laws of excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms. He thinks that means they don't still apply in constructive logic but they still do, just not as axioms. Also the principle of identity, the law of identity and the law of contradiction always apply in all forms of logic and it's the things that are necessarily true universally because of the principle of identity that R is talking about and nothing else. If Q understands constructive logic why doesn't he understand these things? He's liar, that's why. He knows he doesn't really know much about constructive logic. He wouldn't be saying these other things about logic if he did. He just thought from something googled that R was wrong. Q is googler, a quote monger on these things. Q just keeps implying things with links because he can't actually show the stupid things that he's imply negate R's posts. They do not. If you take a close look at his trash, you'll that he never really says anything that matters. He's an emperor without clothes, a con man.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?

My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, ACTUALLY exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.

It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

 

[Justin Davis]

Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that... or... maybe you're right, I don't know. Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.

I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.

That's where simple minds get confused.

Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.

Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.

There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.

Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.

I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective. Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either. That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right. It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W. because he's an idiot. Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another. That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves. This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see. He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies. Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.

I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.

Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.

It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe. Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God? The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9957728/

The universe is the evidence.

 

[Justin Davis]

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere

In which case you should have no problem providing this "universally accepted evidence for God's existence".

So let's see what you have.

If you have to ask then you're not letting yourself see the obvious and your making the same mistake as believing that evidence and proof are the same thing when they're not. They are never the same thing in conventional thought because they are not the same thing. G.T. has already admitted the five things. You have to admit them too. Everyone does or they're just lying or being silly about everything being an illusion. Go back and look at what M proved and then you'll see. The idea that there is no universal evidence for God is not even scientific like some fool themselves into believing because they confuse the limits of science and don't think or say te the issue in the right way.

Read:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9957728/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9960279/

 

[Hollie]

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?

My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, ACTUALLY exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.

It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child.

Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years. People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.