a world without religion

[Saint Frankenstein]

John Lennon is dead, there's no evidence of an afterlife and the dead can't change opinions.

Wow, you have absolutely no sense of sarcasm and humor, do you? What a pity.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually I won't, I'll be dead, just like you. But at least I didn't spent my life being delusional.

If you cease to exist after death, then it wouldn't matter how we spend our lives at all. Nothing matters and there's no point. So your arrogance has no purpose.

 

[Willamena]

how would you picture a world without religions? without the idea of some god created everything and so on.. would it be for the better or worse?

I think it would be better, because we don't need to stick a word on the world to make it real.

 

[Cephus]

Right, but unless you know for a fact that something doesn't exist, how can you state for a fact that it doesn't exist? Years ago, we didn't know about subatomic particles either. But they existed. Even if we couldn't perceive the evidence of their existence. I'm perfectly comfortable with your saying "I don't believe," or even "I've seen no evidence to show..." But to simply flatly state, "There is no afterlife" is, according to you, irrational.

Falsifiability. All you have to do to disprove non-existence is to present a single demonstrable instance where it does. It is not possible to falsify a universal belief without evidence because you cannot reasonably examine everywhere at the same time to verify that that thing isn't there. It's one of the hallmarks of the scientific method.

As for subatomic particles, you're right. We didn't know about them, just like there are many things we don't know about today. We are constantly learning. However, the time to believe that subatomic particles exist is when we have evidence for them and not a moment before. Rational people don't believe in things because they might exist, but because we have shown that they do exist. Otherwise, why not just believe in unicorns and leprechauns? They might be real, we just haven't found the evidence for them yet, right?

So yes, based on the evidence that we have, there's no reason to think that there is an afterlife. You're welcome to prove otherwise and I'll change my mind. I have the falsifiable position. You do not. Logic, it works.

 

[Cephus]

If you cease to exist after death, then it wouldn't matter how we spend our lives at all. Nothing matters and there's no point. So your arrogance has no purpose.

Except that I'll have spent my life learning, you'll have spent your life believing in nonsense. I'd much rather spend the only life we know that we have doing something useful, rather than engaging in childish fantasy. You, of course, can do whatever you'd like, it's your life to waste.

 

[Cephus]

Does it? Ideas have wrought an awful lot of world change...

Just what is God? I dunno. Do you? You see, you're taking one specific understanding of God, providing a logical argument against it, and then concluding that God doesn't exist. Maybe God doesn't exist in that particular understanding, but does that mean that God can't exist in all other conceptions, either?

Clearly "God" has a particular meaning, it's a proper name referring to a specific deity when capitalized. However, it isn't my job to provide a logical argument against it, it is the job of the believer to provide a logical argument for it and to provide objective evidence why we ought to accept it as factually true. Because the religious side has entirely failed to do so, I have no obligation to take their claims seriously. I disbelieve the claims based on lack of evidence and the failure to produce a logical backing. This is why the religious are so desperate to shift the burden of proof, they know they have nothing, but worse, they're utterly unaware, or at least refuse to acknowledge, that their complete lack of evidence ought to cause some serious doubt in their irrational beliefs, it just doesn't.

 

[Cephus]

Of course. All we know is being conscious. It would be rational to believe what it known and truth. . Which is being conscious. Since all we know is being conscious, there is no evidence suggesting we'll ever be anything but conscious. Of course I believe in something I know. I know being conscious.

When we sleep, we're not conscious. Or didn't you think of that?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Except that I'll have spent my life learning, you'll have spent your life believing in nonsense. I'd much rather spend the only life we know that we have doing something useful, rather than engaging in childish fantasy. You, of course, can do whatever you'd like, it's your life to waste.

But we both end up not existing and so does everyone and everything else. So we're all fooling ourselves and wasting time. Might as well just kill ourselves since it's all a joke. So you can go take your useless arrogance and personal insults and shove it. Because what does it matter?

 

[Cephus]

Don't guess. Assumptions are never tangible proof.

I'm just repeating what you said, if you have anyone to be upset with, look in the mirror.

 

[Cephus]

Oh, and what objective and demonstrable proof do you have that there is no heaven or hell or purgatory?

I cannot account for such willful blindness as you appear to me... that, I admit.

I don't have to have proof against it, I just have to recognize the lack of evidence for it. You have the burden of proof because you claim it's true. The fact is, you have failed. Not me, you. You have failed to support your claims with any logic, reason or evidence. Therefore, based on your complete and utter failure, I reject your claims, pending evidence. Saying I bear any responsibility here is like saying it's your job to prove leprechauns don't exist. You simply look at the arguments, find them entirely lacking, and reject them, just like I do with your claims about the afterlife.

If you want to be at all credible, get to work and produce evidence.

 

[Cephus]

But we both end up not existing and so does everyone and everything else. So we're all fooling ourselves and wasting time. Might as well just kill ourselves since it's all a joke. So you can go take your useless arrogance and personal insults and shove it. Because what does it matter?

That's about as idiotic as saying there's no point in doing anything because it always ends. Why watch that football game on TV? It'll be over in a couple of hours. Why bother doing anything with another person, they're just going to die and the activity will end. This is true whether there's an afterlife or not. So am I supposed to believe that you sit around and do nothing at all every day because none of it matters? Why do you bother posting to this forum at all? Someday it will end and none of it will matter.

 

[Cephus]

Wow, you have absolutely no sense of sarcasm and humor, do you? What a pity.

This is a debate forum, not a humor forum. Learn the difference.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's about as idiotic as saying there's no point in doing anything because it always ends. Why watch that football game on TV? It'll be over in a couple of hours. Why bother doing anything with another person, they're just going to die and the activity will end. This is true whether there's an afterlife or not. So am I supposed to believe that you sit around and do nothing at all every day because none of it matters? Why do you bother posting to this forum at all? Someday it will end and none of it will matter.

No, it's not true if there's an afterlife. Because then everything we learn and experience isn't worthless and a complete waste of time. If it all just ends and nothing is beyond this, what is the point of all this, exactly? And it's not the ending that is the problem, it's the nothing. The oblivion. The non-existence. The problem isn't that something ends, the problem is that the accumulation of all experiences comes to nothing so it's all pointless.

(Of course, I don't agree with you.)

This is a debate forum, not a humor forum. Learn the difference.

Are you an android? Talking to you is like talking to a computer with an attitude problem.

 

[sojourner]

Clearly "God" has a particular meaning, it's a proper name referring to a specific deity when capitalized.

No. There is no particular definition. "God" is not a proper name. It's capitalized out of respect.

However, it isn't my job to provide a logical argument against it

Yet, that's what you're trying to do here.

it is the job of the believer to provide a logical argument for it and to provide objective evidence why we ought to accept it as factually true.

Many theologians have provided logical arguments. No one has to provide objective evidence, because, as far as I'm aware, God isn't a tangible thing, therefore, the truth of it doesn't have to be factual. Prove that I love my wife. Can't do it, there's no objective evidence for it, because it's not a tangible thing. The truth of it doesn't have to be factual.

The fact is, you have failed.

I've only failed according to the false conditions you place on the matter. You have decided that, if God is real, God must be some measurable, tangible, objectively-provable object. I'm not arguing for God being that sort of thing.

Because the religious side has entirely failed to do so, I have no obligation to take their claims seriously. I disbelieve the claims based on lack of evidence and the failure to produce a logical backing.

Has failed to do what? Prove God based on your definition? I could claim that a steam engine is a fluffy kitten and then call you a failure for failing to prove me right.

This is why the religious are so desperate to shift the burden of proof, they know they have nothing, but worse, they're utterly unaware, or at least refuse to acknowledge, that their complete lack of evidence ought to cause some serious doubt in their irrational beliefs, it just doesn't.

No, the religious are aware that God is not a thing to be proved.

If you want to be at all credible, get to work and produce evidence.

For ... what? An Invisible Sky Daddy? A Flying Spaghetti Monster? What? Proof of something that you insist people believe in irrationally? Just because God doesn't exist as you insist God must (if God is real), doesn't mean God isn't real. God's just not real according to the false conditions you present.

 

[Cephus]

No. There is no particular definition. "God" is not a proper name. It's capitalized out of respect.

Wrong, it is the name of a particular deity. It's not my fault that Christians lack creativity.

Yet, that's what you're trying to do here.

No, that's what you want me to do here. It's not what I'm actually doing.

Many theologians have provided logical arguments. No one has to provide objective evidence, because, as far as I'm aware, God isn't a tangible thing, therefore, the truth of it doesn't have to be factual. Prove that I love my wife. Can't do it, there's no objective evidence for it, because it's not a tangible thing. The truth of it doesn't have to be factual.

No, actually, they haven't. They have, at best, presented arguments that convince people who are already predisposed to be convinced. That doesn't make those arguments valid. People like William Lane Craig makes a living preaching to people who are gullible and stupid. His positions are all made on unjustified assertions and unsupportable claims. Nothing he says stands up to reason and critical evaluation, it's all blind faith. He, and every other apologist out there, do not work by arguing "if God then...", they all operate by "because God then..." It's really laughable.

I've only failed according to the false conditions you place on the matter. You have decided that, if God is real, God must be some measurable, tangible, objectively-provable object. I'm not arguing for God being that sort of thing.

I haven't decided anything of the sort. If God is not demonstrable in any way, shape or form, then why believe in God? That's a problem for people who believe that God is not demonstrable in any way. How did you come to the conclusion that God actually exists then? Faith is not a means of coming to fact. Theists will spend all their time telling us all about these gods and what they want, yet demonstrate absolutely no means of coming to that knowledge objectively. Your only tactic is screaming "You can't prove me wrong!" It isn't anyone's job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you right. Besides, apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, you reject that exact same line of reasoning when used by other religions. You can't prove them wrong, after all.

Has failed to do what? Prove God based on your definition? I could claim that a steam engine is a fluffy kitten and then call you a failure for failing to prove me right.

I have no definition of God, I'm going by the definition which is most often given. If you have a different definition, by all means present it, but I am going to hold you accountable for being able to demonstrate the characteristics you claim. The fact is, you've got nothing and you know you've got nothing, this whole "invisible, intangible God" nonsense was created by theists when they realized that they had nothing and got tired of looking like fools when it was revealed that they had nothing. Certainly the God of the Old Testament is nothing like the God that Christians pretend exists today. Now they just try to define God into existence but that doesn't work. The Bible is just a book, like it or not, it has no power to demonstrate that God actually exists. It makes a bunch of unsupported claims, the same as lots of other religious books. You just ignore the rest of them because you don't like them. Your personal preference does not determine reality.

No, the religious are aware that God is not a thing to be proved.

Then God is not a thing to be believed.

For ... what? An Invisible Sky Daddy? A Flying Spaghetti Monster? What? Proof of something that you insist people believe in irrationally? Just because God doesn't exist as you insist God must (if God is real), doesn't mean God isn't real. God's just not real according to the false conditions you present.

I'm not saying God has to exist as I insist, you can't show that God exists as you say he exists. If you replace the word "God" with the word "unicorn", you're still making the same argument. Try "leprechaun". Try "Bigfoot". It's all the same irrational argument and whether you like it or not, it's stupid and ridiculous. That's what you're embracing.

 

[Unification]

Wrong, it is the name of a particular deity. It's not my fault that Christians lack creativity.



No, that's what you want me to do here. It's not what I'm actually doing.



No, actually, they haven't. They have, at best, presented arguments that convince people who are already predisposed to be convinced. That doesn't make those arguments valid. People like William Lane Craig makes a living preaching to people who are gullible and stupid. His positions are all made on unjustified assertions and unsupportable claims. Nothing he says stands up to reason and critical evaluation, it's all blind faith. He, and every other apologist out there, do not work by arguing "if God then...", they all operate by "because God then..." It's really laughable.



I haven't decided anything of the sort. If God is not demonstrable in any way, shape or form, then why believe in God? That's a problem for people who believe that God is not demonstrable in any way. How did you come to the conclusion that God actually exists then? Faith is not a means of coming to fact. Theists will spend all their time telling us all about these gods and what they want, yet demonstrate absolutely no means of coming to that knowledge objectively. Your only tactic is screaming "You can't prove me wrong!" It isn't anyone's job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you right. Besides, apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, you reject that exact same line of reasoning when used by other religions. You can't prove them wrong, after all.



I have no definition of God, I'm going by the definition which is most often given. If you have a different definition, by all means present it, but I am going to hold you accountable for being able to demonstrate the characteristics you claim. The fact is, you've got nothing and you know you've got nothing, this whole "invisible, intangible God" nonsense was created by theists when they realized that they had nothing and got tired of looking like fools when it was revealed that they had nothing. Certainly the God of the Old Testament is nothing like the God that Christians pretend exists today. Now they just try to define God into existence but that doesn't work. The Bible is just a book, like it or not, it has no power to demonstrate that God actually exists. It makes a bunch of unsupported claims, the same as lots of other religious books. You just ignore the rest of them because you don't like them. Your personal preference does not determine reality.



Then God is not a thing to be believed.



I'm not saying God has to exist as I insist, you can't show that God exists as you say he exists. If you replace the word "God" with the word "unicorn", you're still making the same argument. Try "leprechaun". Try "Bigfoot". It's all the same irrational argument and whether you like it or not, it's stupid and ridiculous. That's what you're embracing.

You, yourself have a divine nature. It's your choice and your choice alone to find out and know.

One can spend countless hours testing theories of an all physical/material universe in which only about 5-6% of the universe has been deemed matter, based upon theories and no absolute 100 % truths yet spend zero hours testing the theory of finding your own divine nature within, which is private and your own experience.

The entire bible is objective, spiritual truth about God and the natural human discovering their own divine nature, within themselves, and the brain, for those who seek properly. Your choice is not to seek, making it your choice, yet wanting others to try and prove it for you while the ego is inflated and credibility being the agenda. If one is prejudice and has no care to understand, they never will.

By all means, be objective to the religious folks who may need it, but against something you don't know or care to know, it'd be more rational to tame the mind. One looks just as silly as the other. Cognitive dissonance works both ways, and open minds. For the theist and atheist. Rationality also works both ways.

Everything you don't know or have 100% intellect of truth of, or anything you can't control... Which is nothing, is of a higher intelligence, like it or not.

Do you want to know if a higher intelligence exists?

 

[sojourner]

Wrong, it is the name of a particular deity. It's not my fault that Christians lack creativity.

I don't care what you assert; "God" isn't a proper name -- it's a descriptor of a particular deity.

No, actually, they haven't. They have, at best, presented arguments that convince people who are already predisposed to be convinced.

I didn't say they'd convinced anyone. I said they'd presented logical arguments.

That doesn't make those arguments valid.

It does if the arguments are logical.

People like William Lane Craig makes a living preaching to people who are gullible and stupid.

Lane's not a theologian.

His positions are all made on unjustified assertions and unsupportable claims.

I could make the same argument, saying that cosmology is illogical, because the Flat Earth Society makes unjustified assertions and unsupportable claims. But we all know that Flat Earthers no more represent serious science than Lane represents serious theology.

He, and every other apologist out there, do not work by arguing "if God then...", they all operate by "because God then..." It's really laughable.

An "apologist" is different from a "theologian."

I haven't decided anything of the sort.

Sure you have, or you wouldn't insist that God be provable, or that "God" is a proper name.

If God is not demonstrable in any way, shape or form, then why believe in God?

If love is not demonstrable in any way, shape, or form, then why believe in love?

How did you come to the conclusion that God actually exists then?

I didn't. I don't think "God exists."

Faith is not a means of coming to fact.

I never claimed it was.

Theists will spend all their time telling us all about these gods and what they want, yet demonstrate absolutely no means of coming to that knowledge objectively.

Faith is a subjective endeavor.

Your only tactic is screaming "You can't prove me wrong!"

AFAIK, I've never screamed that in my life.

It isn't anyone's job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you right.

I have no need to be proven right. Why do you have such a need for me to be proven right?

Besides, apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, you reject that exact same line of reasoning when used by other religions.

No. I don't. All religions have their avenues to truth.

You can't prove them wrong, after all.

I don't waste time trying to do that.

I have no definition of God, I'm going by the definition which is most often given.

All you're going to accomplish, then, is proving that particular "definition" invalid. But that activity has nothing to do with whether God is real.

If you have a different definition, by all means present it, but I am going to hold you accountable for being able to demonstrate the characteristics you claim.

I don't attempt to define what is indefinable.

The fact is, you've got nothing and you know you've got nothing, this whole "invisible, intangible God" nonsense was created by theists when they realized that they had nothing and got tired of looking like fools when it was revealed that they had nothing.

I know nothing of the sort; I've nothing to prove and nothing to lose. But by this diatribe, it certainly looks as though you feel you have something to prove/lose. I wonder what that might be?

Certainly the God of the Old Testament is nothing like the God that Christians pretend exists today.

The ancient, Hebraic concept of God is, admittedly, somewhat different from how I conceptualize God.

Now they just try to define God into existence but that doesn't work.

Defining God, AFAIC, is futile.

The Bible is just a book, like it or not, it has no power to demonstrate that God actually exists.

I've never, ever claimed that it has such power. Of course it's a book -- written by human beings, fallible in its facts, and subjective as any other work of religious art. So what?

It makes a bunch of unsupported claims, the same as lots of other religious books.

Yup. It does. Makes no difference.

You just ignore the rest of them because you don't like them.

Actually, I don't ignore them.

Your personal preference does not determine reality.

Of course not. I never claimed otherwise.

Then God is not a thing to be believed.

I don't believe God is a "thing."

I'm not saying God has to exist as I insist, you can't show that God exists as you say he exists.

I didn't say "God exists." I'm not trying to show that "God exists."

If you replace the word "God" with the word "unicorn", you're still making the same argument.

No, because "unicorn" is a thing that can either exist, or not.

Try "leprechaun". Try "Bigfoot". It's all the same irrational argument and whether you like it or not, it's stupid and ridiculous.

Of course it is -- that's why I don't define or prove that God is an existent thing.

That's what you're embracing.

No, that's what you say I'm embracing. Your whole argument here is a straw man, because that's patently not what I'm embracing.

But feel free to keep blowing nonsense -- it is entertaining. And once you've gotten the frustration out of your system, you might feel better...

 

[Cephus]

You, yourself have a divine nature. It's your choice and your choice alone to find out and know.

And when are you going to demonstrate that? You just made the claim, it rests entirely on your shoulders to back it up. We both know you won't even try because you can't, you'll just continue to make irrational and ridiculous claims without evidence. It's what you do.

One can spend countless hours testing theories of an all physical/material universe in which only about 5-6% of the universe has been deemed matter, based upon theories and no absolute 100 % truths yet spend zero hours testing the theory of finding your own divine nature within, which is private and your own experience.

Which is entirely fine. If we only know about 5-6% of the universe, that's all we know about. That doesn't give us a license to just make up nonsense about the rest. We understand what we understand, when we understand it and not a moment before.

The entire bible is objective, spiritual truth about God and the natural human discovering their own divine nature, within themselves, and the brain, for those who seek properly. Your choice is not to seek, making it your choice, yet wanting others to try and prove it for you while the ego is inflated and credibility being the agenda. If one is prejudice and has no care to understand, they never will.

No it isn't, it's written by men who make claims for which you have no evidence are actually true. You, like most theists, haven't the slightest idea what objectivity is. By definition, it is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." Everything you're doing is completely influenced by your personal feelings and opinions. You have no rational reason to think the way that you do, it just makes you feel good, therefore you insist it's so. If anyone around here has a ridiculously inflated ego, it's the theists.

By all means, be objective to the religious folks who may need it, but against something you don't know or care to know, it'd be more rational to tame the mind. One looks just as silly as the other. Cognitive dissonance works both ways, and open minds. For the theist and atheist. Rationality also works both ways.

I'm objective to everyone, even people like you who don't know what the term means.

Everything you don't know or have 100% intellect of truth of, or anything you can't control... Which is nothing, is of a higher intelligence, like it or not.

Because you say so.

Do you want to know if a higher intelligence exists?

If you can prove it, yes. If you want me to just accept it on blind faith and wishful thinking like you do, no.

 

[Cephus]

I don't care what you assert; "God" isn't a proper name -- it's a descriptor of a particular deity.

Which is what a name is. The definition of name: "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to."

I didn't say they'd convinced anyone. I said they'd presented logical arguments.

The point of which is to convince people. That's what logical arguments are.

It does if the arguments are logical.

There is a difference between an argument following a logical form and an argument being logically valid. If these arguments were logically valid, they wouldn't have been so soundly trounced.

Lane's not a theologian.

Never said he was. I specifically said he was an apologist. Do you insist on putting words into everyone's mouth?

I could make the same argument, saying that cosmology is illogical, because the Flat Earth Society makes unjustified assertions and unsupportable claims. But we all know that Flat Earthers no more represent serious science than Lane represents serious theology.

But you'd have to point to arguments that are not unjustified and unsupportable. The evidence that we can point to leads to the truth behind cosmology and not to claims made by the Flat Earth Society, which, if you didn't know, is pretty much dead, run by a couple of guys out of their basement with virtually no members anymore. It really doesn't matter if you want to talk about Lane or any other theologian, they still lack any substantive evidence for their claims.

An "apologist" is different from a "theologian."

And you're the only one pretending otherwise.

Sure you have, or you wouldn't insist that God be provable, or that "God" is a proper name.

It is the most common proper name for the Christian God. Most Christians would identify it as such.

If love is not demonstrable in any way, shape, or form, then why believe in love?

Because it is. It is demonstrable via MRI. This is an age old canard used by theists but it's been proven by science, we can demonstrate who loves what by scanning the brain. If you were rational and at all concerned with truth, you'd stop using it. We both know you won't.

I didn't. I don't think "God exists."

Or whatever you want to call it.

I never claimed it was.

And I never claimed Lane was a theologian, didn't stop you from pretending I did.

Faith is a subjective endeavor.

Then it's useless. Belief, no backed up by evidence, is unjustified belief.

AFAIK, I've never screamed that in my life.

Sure you are, at least metaphorically. You keep insisting that people need to prove you wrong instead of acknowledging the requirement that you prove yourself right. Shifting the burden of proof is an Olympic sport for you people.

I have no need to be proven right. Why do you have such a need for me to be proven right?

Because you keep insisting that you are right. Knock it off and people won't ask you to prove it.

No. I don't. All religions have their avenues to truth.

No, they have their avenues to faith. Truth is something entirely different.

I don't attempt to define what is indefinable.

Funny, that doesn't stop Christians from thinking they know what God wants and what God expects, does it?

I know nothing of the sort; I've nothing to prove and nothing to lose. But by this diatribe, it certainly looks as though you feel you have something to prove/lose. I wonder what that might be?

Then you won't be taken seriously. That was easy.

This is just getting ridiculous. If you want to be laughable, go ahead. Rational people will just keep pointing out how laughable your beliefs are. Actions have consequences.

 

[sojourner]

Which is what a name is. The definition of name: "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to."

I'm known, addressed, and referred to by many titles and appellations. But I've got a name, too. And it's not Mister, or teacher, or father, or husband, or club member. Or even Sojourner. You're covering your mistake. "God" isn't a name.

The point of which is to convince people.

Or to impart information. Or give food for thought. Or any number of other things.

There is a difference between an argument following a logical form and an argument being logically valid. If these arguments were logically valid, they wouldn't have been so soundly trounced.

I'm not aware that they've been "soundly trounced."

Never said he was. I specifically said he was an apologist. Do you insist on putting words into everyone's mouth?

I said in Post #54:

Many theologians have provided logical arguments.

All of a sudden, you want to change that to "apologists?" Do you insist on putting words into everyone's mouth?

It really doesn't matter if you want to talk about Lane or any other theologian, they still lack any substantive evidence for their claims.

Again: Lane's not a theologian. <Rubs temples> Do try to keep up. Theologians, again, do provide evidence for the claims they make.

And you're the only one pretending otherwise.

Uh, no. See just above.

It is the most common proper name for the Christian God. Most Christians would identify it as such.

God's name is YHWH. Everyone knows that, apparently, but you.

Because it is. It is demonstrable via MRI. This is an age old canard used by theists but it's been proven by science, we can demonstrate who loves what by scanning the brain. If you were rational and at all concerned with truth, you'd stop using it. We both know you won't.

No, that only shows measurable electro-chemical, physical responses. It has nothing to do with how one feels.

Or whatever you want to call it.

I still don't think God exists.

And I never claimed Lane was a theologian, didn't stop you from pretending I did.

You alluded to it. I mentioned that theologians have made logical arguments. You countered with Lane, implying that (since I specifically mentioned theologians) he was one. Plus you mentioned it specifically above: "Lane or any other theologian," you said.

Then it's useless.

No its. not. All kinds of subjective things (like love, anger, etc) are eminently useful.

Belief, no backed up by evidence, is unjustified belief.

Belief, backed up by evidence, is fact. belief, not backed up by evidence, is unproven belief -- but it's still justifiable.

Sure you are, at least metaphorically. You keep insisting that people need to prove you wrong instead of acknowledging the requirement that you prove yourself right. Shifting the burden of proof is an Olympic sport for you people.

I don't care what people (unjustifiably) think they can prove about me being "wrong" or "right." I don't think this falls into the realm of "wrong/right." I've never insisted that I have to prove anything as regards God to you, or anyone else. I don't know who you think "You People" are, but that certainly doesn't include me.

Because you keep insisting that you are right. Knock it off and people won't ask you to prove it.

I'm merely stating my view of what is. Not insisting that you believe it. I only insist that your argument is valid. In this case, it's not, because right now, it's predicated on proving something that's not begging to be proved, or is, indeed, provable.

No, they have their avenues to faith. Truth is something entirely different.

Faith is trust that truth is what we perceive it to be. Faith, therefore, is the avenue, itself. Truth is the goal.

Funny, that doesn't stop Christians from thinking they know what God wants and what God expects, does it?

Stupid is as stupid does. I don't think anyone can honestly say they "know" what God wants or what God expects. They can say that they have faith that what the bible or other Tradition says is truth.

Then you won't be taken seriously. That was easy.

"Being taken seriously" isn't on my list of Things To Do Today. But this isn't about me; it's about God.

This is just getting ridiculous.

Huh. It got ridiculous with your first post in this thread.

Rational people will just keep pointing out how laughable your beliefs are.

I don't think "rational people" have the slightest idea about my beliefs. You certainly don't... Perhaps, if you did, you wouldn't be shooting blanks in the dark where no target exists.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain stem that your argument is limited to black/white: "Either God exists, or God does not." I'm telling you that there's a whoooooolle lot of grey area here. Faith isn't like mathematics -- either right or wrong. Faith is like art: intuitive, expressive, reflective of the ineffable in human experience. "Black/white" simply doesn't argue within the realm of faith. It's like looking at an apple and arguing whether the apple has sufficient memory storage. I'm arguing for the grey area, because that's where faith finds its authority, its reason, and its strength.