Hello everyone I hope everyone is safe during this global pandemic,
I dont want to make a big introduction so I will cut to the chase:
I am a person that believes in reason... if someone presents to me a set of options (a,b,c, etc..) and I have to choose one, I will choose the option with the highest chance of being correct (I guess it is common sense!)
Now for the question of "how does anything exist?" I find that the idea of a creator seems the most reasonable. why? because we experienced something similar, we humans have created various digital worlds ourselves, to our best knowledge this is the only way a world that follows certain rules and bound by specific constants can be built... now granted our digital worlds are not exactly like the real world but as I said this is the closest thing we can relate to...
Think in your daily lives and you will find that you always do this sort of reasoning.... lets say you were in a hurry and you need to cook something fast, you open the cupboard and find something looking like noodles, what will you do? probably cook it like normal noodles... why? because it looks like noodles and there is a good chance it is prepared the same way... you simply can relate it to something you know about..
Now if this creator made everything existing, how did he exist in the first place? well the answer is that he might be in a special category of "things"... meaning that he is a "thing" that needs no creator, he simply always existed....There are other hypothesizes as well which all seem to provide an answer to this problem
"But this is all speculations!" Yes exactly, everything is speculative but this is the only option we know of that has Empirical Relatability to us... which for now as things stand seems to have slightly higher chance of being correct than all other options..
Share your thoughts, I would like to know your opinions.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Re: OP
.... *grooooooan*.... *hanging head*... *shaking head sadly*.... *mumbling to self*... I'm getting too old for this shit...
Excuse me?
@Kenny
"Excuse me?"
Welcome.
I'l try to translate:
I wonder if you have ANY idea of how many apologists come here to reason with we ignorant atheists?
I think we currently have three besides you.
To answer your question, I happen to be fond of reason. .I quite like Occam's razor. But that has nothing to do with god.
In my opinion god cannot be argued into or out of existence. All claims about god are so far unfalsifiable . Consequently, I demand empirical evidence.
Religion has nothing to do with reason, it is based on faith.IE belief without proof.
Martin Luther wrote : "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God"
No less a person than Jesus is reported as saying : John 20:29 : "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (KJV)
I'm on tenterhooks to see if you have anything new to add. , but won't be holding my breath.
PS There are five only arguments for the existence of god. Each has been thoroughly refuted since they were first proposed (as a group) by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century
So you demand an empirical evidence ? I fully understand this but this is not the point I am making..... Let's say someone calls you and says he is going to murder someone from your family at a specific time and place.... would you call the police or say that you demand an empirical evidence? I would say it is insanity if you ignore the call.
I am saying that currently we cannot prove this claim, lets look at our options and play it reasonably.
I also dont agree that religion has nothing to do with reason.... for example the fine-tuning of this world is a very good reason that religion uses to its advantage. Anyways I am not christian so no point in quoting Luther or Jesus to me .
kenny33: "the fine-tuning of this world is a very good reason that religion uses to its advantage."
No.
Kenny, listen, I'm a devoted Christian and I'm here to tell you it's not. Darwin demolished it more than a hundred years ago.
There is a reason liberal Christians resort to adopting Theistic Evolution.
If you give me a whole day to do nothing but come up with RATIONAL justifications for the existence of God, I can come up with about 50. But eloquent syllogism doesn't mean shit if atheists, in the same time frame, can come up with 500.
"Darwin demolished it more than a hundred years ago."
What does Darwin have to do with physics? I am talking about the precision of physical constants such as the Gravitational constant, if it was off by 10^60 part the universe would collapse.. also other constants such as the expansion rate and so on..
"There is a reason liberal Christians resort to adopting Theistic Evolution."
Well, it is not the topic I am debating ...
"If you give me a whole day to do nothing but come up with RATIONAL justifications for the existence of God, I can come up with about 50. But eloquent syllogism doesn't mean shit if atheists, in the same time frame, can come up with 500."
but we really dont need 50 or 500... all we need is one sound simple reasoning
kenny33: "What does Darwin have to do with physics? I am talking about the precision of physical constants such as the Gravitational constant, if it was off by 10^60 part the universe would collapse.. also other constants such as the expansion rate and so on.."
Evolution and cosmology, although strictly not linked in a scientific context, become linked when God comes to the picture. That is because they both answer our ORIGINS.
As a philosopher, I learned the hard way that to defend the Christian faith, you must absolutely be as well-rounded and inclusive as you can.
When speaking of Intelligent Design, Evolution will steal the spotlight. It's unavoidable.
You're right though. Intelligent Design when it comes to cosmology becomes very compelling. I won't deny that.
Suggesting that this type of universe is the only possible one that could exist, so far from being unlikely its existence seems all the more likely. I have already explained it is irrational to assert causation from not having contrary evidence, but we also do know for an objective fact that natural phenomena exist, and that the material universe exists, so adding an unevidenced deity that we don't know is even possible, from an iron age superstion, using unexplained magic, doesn't seem to be a more likely explanation to me, quite the opposite and at the very least these unevidenced additions fall foul of Occam's razor.
"Suggesting that this type of universe is the only possible one that could exist, so far from being unlikely its existence seems all the more likely."
Wait what? I never suggested that this is the only universe there might be other universes.
" so adding an unevidenced deity that we don't know is even possible, from an iron age superstion, using unexplained magic, doesn't seem to be a more likely explanation to me"
Oh so this is where we differ, for some reason atheists dont have a problem believing or promoting any hypothesis like Multiverses, that has no evidence whatsoever, but if someone dares to suggest an intelligent creator (the straight forward simplest option) can be a reasonable answer you immediately start attacking. I wonder if you noticed any hypocrisy?
@Kenny33
Be a dear and link a single post of mine making any claim for multiverses?
Do stop lying pleases Kenny, its irksome.
A deity creator is not the most straightforward or simplest explanation, as I just explained, since natural explanations already have been objectively evidenced to exist, whereas deities using inexplicable magic have not.
Yes, almost everytime you post, but I was being polite. FYI this a debate forum, attacking ideas is pretty much its raison d'etre. so your histrionics are quite amusing. Try addressing the content for once though, as the ad hominem attacks are going to backfire everytime, given how woeful your posts are. It already feels like I'm kicking a defenceless puppy.
"A deity creator is not the most straightforward or simplest explanation, as I just explained, since natural explanations already have been objectively evidenced to exist, whereas deities using inexplicable magic have not."
Like? I would love to see one single "objectively evidenced " explanation. Look if you dont want to answer this question then you are free to do so, but please stop calling me dishonest and evading questions when thats what you've been doing the entire time
" Try addressing the content for once though, as the ad hominem attacks are going to backfire everytime"
Irony
" given how woeful your posts are. It already feels like I'm kicking a defenceless puppy."
A small note to anyone following this debate:
It is common tactic in debates to act like a winner, and the easiest way to do so is to belittle your opponent ... even this tactic is used in politics and wars, just look at Donald Trump claiming everyday that he is "winning"... people will start to believe that he is actually winning if he keeps repeating it...my opponent seems to be professional at that.
@Kenny
All scientific facts explain purely natural phenomena, pick anyone you like. Thus it is an objective fact that natural explanations exist, and ipso facto are possible. This is not true of unevidenced deities using inexplicable magic. So for the third time adding deities and magic to the existence of the universe is demonstrably not the more plausible simpler explanation.
Again Occam's razor applies...
I'll stop calling you dishonest if you stop making up lies, like the one about me not answering your question, when I did so, only for you to repeat the same question over and over using different tortured analogies, in the hope it would change the answer from a sound rational one to the irrational assumption you favour, in the mistaken belief it evidences a deity.
It seems we can add ad hominem to the list of things you don't understand, that was a comment on your post content see, so whilst rude, it wasn't ad hominem.
It's also a tactic in debate to avoid addressing cogent rational refutations of your claims, in my post content, in favour of glib rhetoric, as you keep doing and have done here again. However I'm happy as always for others to read our relative contributions and see which if us is dealing in rational discourse, and which is not. Though your outburst is amusing since you just claimed not to care what I thought, and claimed logic carries no weight.
You claimed to believe in reason, then abandoned reason in the same opening post with known logical fallacies. Then when this was politely explained made the astonishing claim that logic, and by extension reason, carries no weight in the real world.
When I pointed out this astonishing and dishonest contradiction, you used pure ad hominem by suggesting I was "triggered".
You have since called me hypocrite, unjustifiable, and I'm happy for others to decide if my posts generally match your subjective interpretations.
Again you end with dishonest ad hominem, and again you don't seem to know what professional means. So this is another ad hominem attack to deflect from your inaccurate claim that I "debated professionally for years".
FYI the debates in this forum can't be won or lost, as no vote is taken, though there are agree and disagree buttons for individual posts, the results over time can be seen by clicking on the posters name.
Again I urge you to stop the ad hominem and the dishonest misrepresentations, like the one above when your hysterical outburst implied that I believed things without evidence, and cited multiverses. I notice my request for you to link any post of mine doing so has been roundly ignored. So a dishonest accusation, followed by dishonest evasion.
Physician heal thyself....
"given how woeful your posts are. It already feels like I'm kicking a defenceless puppy"
This part was for my note to the followers of the debate// (not ad hominem)
"A deity creator is not the most straightforward or simplest explanation, as I just explained, since natural explanations already have been objectively evidenced to exist, whereas deities using inexplicable magic have not."
This is what you said----> a creator isnt the simplest explanation since we got natural explanations
I am saying okay I agree with you for the sake of argument, what natural explanations address this question "why anything exists?"
"All scientific facts explain purely natural phenomena, pick anyone you like. Thus it is an objective fact that natural explanations exist,"
Why anything exists?
" I notice my request for you to link any post of mine doing so has been roundly ignored."
Well I didnt address you personally, I was talking about atheists in general they have this trend... even ones like Richard Dawkins..
"You claimed to believe in reason, then abandoned reason in the same opening post with known logical fallacies. Then when this was politely explained made the astonishing claim that logic, and by extension reason, carries no weight in the real world."
Two words: Straw man
"When I pointed out this astonishing and dishonest contradiction, you used pure ad hominem by suggesting I was "triggered"."
I said you were triggered because your language took a sudden turn... not because you pointed a contradiction... I calmly addressed your point later in the same post.
"You have since called me hypocrite, unjustifiable, and I'm happy for others to decide if my posts generally match your subjective interpretations."
Umm sorry I tend to accidentally switch between hypocrisy and contradiction, I didnt mean to insult you
"FYI the debates in this forum can't be won or lost, as no vote is taken, though there are agree and disagree buttons for individual posts, the results over time can be seen by clicking on the posters name."
I know, but it is still a debate you gotta look like a winner, (normal human tendencies) :)
Then why post it next to my request for you to stop using ad hominem with a one word comment from you of "irony"?
No it wasn't you've paraphrased it to seem like I was claiming we have a natural explanation for the existence of the universe. I only asserted that natural explanations exist as objective fact, and are therefore demonstrably possible. We have no objective evidence that deities using magic are possible, thus it is obvious that an explanation we now is possible is always more plausible than an explanation we do not know is possible.
In response to post of mine pointing you have no evidence for a creator, and objecting to it because of that claim. Either way it was dishonest, multiverse theories are nothing to do with atheism, they are hypothesized by physicists and cosmologists. At the very least it was an irrelevant straw man.
No it isn't a straw man at all? You claimed to believe in reason in your OP, it's there for all to see, then in later post above claimed logic carried no weight, after I pointed out you'd used known logical fallacies in that OP, claiming you knew they were fallacies. Incidentally that would be the very definition of dishonesty right there, to claim to believe in reason when you in fact think logic carries no weight.
It's still an ad hominem comment. And you haven't addressed it at all, you directly contradicted your original claim to believe in reason, by the claiming you'd deliberately used known logical fallacies in the same post, and worse still then claimed logic carries no weight.
So one of the claims has to be a lie, do you in fact believe in reason, or do you think logic carries no weight? They are mutually exclusive positions.
Fair enough, I'm not easily offended anyway.
I'm more concerned with the facts than other people's perception of them, but I certainly don't sacrifice facts for rhetoric in the hope of some imagined win. I've seen countless theists use your first cause argument before, I've answered hundreds such posts, and everytime they wave away their use of logical fallacies, even without the earlier claim to believe in reason, this makes their position irrational by definition.
Whether they care or not is another matter, but irrational arguments are a poor reason to believe anything. Which is why I always ask what objective evidence they can demonstrate for any deity?
The fact I remain an atheist is testament that none has been demonstrated. Their accusations of bias like yours earlier are silly, since the whole point of asking for the evidence to be objective would negate bias on either side.
Look at this point it is useless for me (and for you I guess) to go and answer everything you say so I will answer things that touch my original post only,
"You claimed to believe in reason in your OP, it's there for all to see, then in later post above claimed logic carried no weight,"
refer to this comment :https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/relatability-good-rea...
"As a philosopher, I learned the hard way that to defend the Christian faith, you must absolutely be as well-rounded and inclusive as you can."
Again I am not christian, my problem with Christianity is that the Bible has many versions and it is still changing. I find islam to be more consistent in this aspect.
@kenny
"So you demand an empirical evidence ? I fully understand this but this is not the point I am making..... Let's say someone calls you and says he is going to murder someone from your fa---"
You very obviously do not understand. I just finished saying I do not accept that God can be argued into or out of existence--so you continue to try exactly that, by an irrelevant analogy.
In quoting Luther and Jesus I was trying to explain the basis of religious belief, ALL religious belief, which is faith, not reason. So far, no religion has ever managed to prove the existence of ANY god. Religious faith is belief without evidence.
Yes, types of flawed reasoning are used to defend religions. The broad area is called apologetics. Disciplines used in apologetics include theology, hermeneutics, and exegesis . If you don't understand some of the words look them up in an on line dictionary.
Not Christian you say? Muslim? If so, Jesus is revered as a prophet in Islam ,so his teachings are considered at least. If you are neither Christian nor Muslim, may I know which religion you follow?
I mentioned that Thomas Aquinas made a list of 5 arguments for the existence of god . They are philosophical arguments , not 'christian arguments '
In Case you simply could not be bothered, I Iist them below. The link gives a detailed explanation. As I have already mentioned, each of these arguments have been refuted, many times, over centuries.
* The First Way: God, the Prime Mover
* The Second Way: God, the First Cause
* The Third Way: God, the Necessary Being
* The Fourth Way: God, the Absolute Being
* The Fifth Way: God, the Grand Designer
I urge you to read the explanations or have some one explain them to you.
http://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html,.
"You very obviously do not understand. I just finished saying I do not accept that God can be argued into or out of existence--so you continue to try exactly that, by an irrelevant analogy."
You are the one who doesnt understand, you stated your "opinion" that god cannot be argued into or out of existence...then you demanded empirical evidence.
I am saying that an empirical evidence is not possible because whatever evidence I put forward you will simply question it then brush it aside ... I also make the point that "empiricism " is no evidence of anything...
Regarding Thomas Aquinas, I have a good overview of the arguments he presented.
"Not Christian you say? Muslim? If so, Jesus is revered as a prophet in Islam ,so his teachings are considered at least. If you are neither Christian nor Muslim, may I know which religion you follow?"
I follow islam, Jesus is a prophet and his teachings are valuable I agree, I just think that the bible is altered and played with so it doesnt have the true teachings of Jesus... So quoting bible to be precise is of no value....
@Kenny33: Let's say someone calls you and says he is going to murder someone from your family at a specific time and place.... would you call the police or say that you demand an empirical evidence? I would say it is insanity if you ignore the call.
That phone call would be empirical evidence. The police would be able to verify that you received a call, and possibly where the call from from.
Have you received a phone call from god?
"That phone call would be empirical evidence. The police would be able to verify that you received a call, and possibly where the call from from."
Nice "gotcha"... let me rephrase: Let's say someone calls you and says someone is going to murder someone from your family at a specific time and place.... would you call the police or say that you demand an empirical evidence? I would say it is insanity if you ignore the call.
Sure the police now can identify the call but if it was from a public phone, they wont be able to track the caller... so all they have is a claim by someone that this happened...
.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Kenny33:
Again. If I receive a phone call, I have empirical evidence of the call and the content thereof. While I wouldn't ignore the call, I would take whatever steps are possible to determine whether the call is genuine. I wonder why believers in gods don't do that.
@Kenny
Just so you know, your "analogies" are becoming more and more fucking ridiculous the more you try to explain them. You might want to consider a different route. Just trying to be helpful... *halo over head*...
@Kenny
What you are doing is special pleading. Your belief in a (Christian?) creator is just an hypothesis.
@kenny33
Welcome to AR. I hope you don't mind some advice, but it's something of an own goal to boast about your reasoning skills, then litter the same post with logical fallacies.
For example, when creating an argument for something, you can't make assumptions about it in that argument, this is called a begging the question fallacy.
When creating an argument for something, you can't create a straw man argument, and assert or imply it is the only alternative, this is called a false dichotomy or false equivalence fallacy.
It's also pretty hilarious to boast about your reasoning skills, then argue everything needs intelligence behind it, and then contract that claim in the argument to conjure a creator as an exception.
You're also using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, since not having an explanation for something can't be used as a rational reason to believe or assert anything.
Your argument of course is a first cause argument, and gets you no closer to Jesus or Allah than it does to Zeus or Apollo, or the Aztec deity of gluttony. It also isn't an empirical argument at all, since you demonstrate no empirical evidence, and it has no explanatory powers whatsoever. One could posit a leprechaun in place of a deity in the same argument, and make the same assumptions about it, and I see no reason the argument would be any less valid.
Don't feel disheartened though, we've seen literally hundreds of these arguments exactly like this one.
Now I will ask my standard questions in response.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Would you list any beliefs you hold without any objective evidence, that form no part of your religious beliefs?
Thank you for your answer.. I will try to answer your points as much as I can,
"When creating an argument for something, you can't create a straw man argument, and assert or imply it is the only alternative, this is called a false dichotomy or false equivalence fallacy."
I am putting forward the options I can think of, if you happen to have a better option for "why anything exsits" then please provide it.
"You're also using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, since not having an explanation for something can't be used as a rational reason to believe or assert anything."
So lets assume you are in a school exam and you have options to choose from:
option A / B / C / D and you dont know the answer, but you feel that option A sounds like the correct answer, wouldnt you just circle the one option you have a slight hint it might be the correct one?
"Your argument of course is a first cause argument, and gets you no closer to Jesus or Allah than it does to Zeus or Apollo, or the Aztec deity of gluttony."
True, that was not my intention, my intention is to basically say that a creator (whatever name you want to call him) looks like the best option we have for the question "why anything exists" if we have to choose.
"Don't feel disheartened though, we've seen literally hundreds of these arguments exactly like this one."
I am not, I already expected that, I am looking for friendly exchange of opinions thats all :)
"What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?"
It feels like a trick question, so can you please define "objective"?
"Would you list any beliefs you hold without any objective evidence, that form no part of your religious beliefs?"
Yeah sure, things like conspiracy and "Elites" controlling countries like the US... it seems that the president is a mere puppet.
I have no solid evidence for that but it seems all plausible if we look into world politics and how things are moving.
All you've done is repeat both fallacies? As I explained, you can't simply assume we're limited to two options, this is a false dichotomy fallacy, and I don't have to offer any option, as implying the lack of a different explanation validates your claim is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
You can't claim to rely on reason, then simply ignore your use of known logical fallacies, which render your arguments irrational by definition. I am prepared to accept you were ignorant of this initially, but I have now explained it twice, so if you simply wave it away again then that is deliberately dishonest. Look up common logical fallacies, find the ones I explained you had used and see for yourself. Then understand that far from using reason, you are creating irrational arguments for a deity.
Oh dear, again you're simply repeating the fallacy, to assert any of the answers is valid when you admit you don't know is by definition irrational. So again its absurd to open by trumpeting your reasoning skills, if you are entirely ignorant of the most basic rules of informal logic.
It isn't a trick question, that's absurd, and you can Google the definition of objective for goodness sake. Though again the fact you don't already know what it means entirely refutes your claim to sound reasoning skills.
So firstly you claim to have no objective evidence, yet imply a contradiction at the end, as if examining the political realities does evidence your assertion.
Secondly if you hold beliefs without any objective evidence, then this refutes your initial claim to sound reasoning, as unevidenced conspiracy theories are not sound reasoning, anymore that unevidenced religious beliefs are. Sound reasoning would adhere to the strict principles of validation contained within informal logic, if it doesn't then it is by definition irrational. Does an irrational claim or argument strike you as sound reasoning?
A lot of theists who come here seem to use words like reason and rational as a soundbite to lend gravitas to their claims and arguments, but then seem unaware of their actual meaning.
I was actually in my mid thirties before I took the time to understand this myself, and found out the hard way, as you are doing, by using an argument based on a known logical fallacy, called argumentum ad populum. It was a turning point for my reasoning skills at least. As this might be for yours, but only if you have any interest in properly validating what you accept to be true, do you, or are your religious beliefs far more important to you than subjecting all claims to rigorous critical reasoning?
Answering to your first paragraph and most of what you wrote later
" As I explained, you can't simply assume we're limited to two options"
I am not assuming anything, I am looking at the reality... A big difference
Let me explain with an example:
During war time the army generals have to decide how to carry on specific missions, they may have all the data necessary or they may not, they are usually presented with a list of options and act according to the most reasonable plan.... Now they never assume that the option they chose was the best option... it might be the wrong one, in fact all the options might be wrong and there is no right one.. yet they accept that this is reality and proceed with the one they think its the best..
" I am prepared to accept you were ignorant of this initially, but I have now explained it twice, so if you simply wave it away again then that is deliberately dishonest. Look up common logical fallacies, find the ones I explained you had used and see for yourself. Then understand that far from using reason, you are crestingvirrational arguments for a deity."
No I was not ignorant of any of the fallacies you mentioned... I just dont think they hold much weight in the real world. Realistically speaking it can be argued that we as a human race advanced because we ignored lots of these fallacies.... if every decision we make has to have a 100% Fallacy free reasoning behind it, we wouldnt move an inch.
"It isn't a trick question, that's absurd, and you can Google the definition of objective for goodness sake. Though again the fact you don't already know what it means entirely refutes your claim to sound reasoning skills."
I just want to be sure thats all, what do you exactly mean by objective? do you mean empirical for example?
"So firstly you claim to have no objective evidence, yet imply a contradiction at the end, as if examining the political realities does evidence your assertion."
Wow you are a pro in shifting the debate to make it about my political views.
Anyways, you didnt answer any of my previous questions so I dont feel the need to explain my views as this is not my point in this post.
Well fuck me...
Reason
Noun
the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically
You may want to stop now as I am embarrassed for you. And do please spare us all your tortured analogies, everyone here knows exactly what you're saying, everyone except you it seems.
If you're happy to make contradictory statements in a desperate attempt to claim your beliefs are valid then crack on, but I see no point in attempting any discourse with anyone that dishonest.
You're kidding right? Which bit of its definition is in the dictionary is too complicated for you?
This is either a very clever wind up, or an embarrassing indictment of the education system you were subjected to.
And as for ignoring logic advancing human civilisation, I'm still laughing. You claimed to believe in reason in your opening post ffs, did you not know what that word meant either?
Words fail me....dear oh fucking dear...
You do know what a dictionary is, don't you? You know you can Google a word definition in seconds?
Priceless....why do theists always use words like reason and rational to try and falsely lend gravitas to their arguments, when they don't even know what words mean?
"Well fuck me..."
Umm why are you so triggered?
"You may want to stop now as I am embarrassed for you. And do please spare us all your tortured analogies, everyone here knows exactly what you're saying, everyone except you it seems."
Well I didnt expect anyone to agree with me in Atheist republic, I know you have been around for years and debating professionally, I think that your pride is blinding you.. funny you act just like "Sheldon" in Bigbangtheory
"If you're happy to make contradictory statements in a desperate attempt to claim your beliefs are valid then crack on, but I see no point in attempting any discourse with anyone that dishonest."
Dishonest? Desperate? not at all, I can care less if anyone agrees with me, I am only here to enjoy a good conversation.
"You do know what a dictionary is, don't you? You know you can Google a word definition in seconds?"
Well I guess you made it a point that you don't want to answer any question I put forward, again I dont have to answer yours either... And btw I knew from the start how you would answer any evidence I put forward, you will question it and claim it is not objective so I wanted to be clear from the beginning in your definition so you wouldnt trap me later.
At this point if God contacts you himself you will probably say that you are hallucinating.. So no real point in answering this question :)
Pages