To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Yazata,

You see, I have a problem with that.

What would you accept as credible unambiguous evidence?

Can you, or somebody please answer that?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me ask you a question. What, exactly, is it that God does that is so wonderful that makes it worthwhile to try this hard to find evidence of his existence?

What would be missing, in your opinion, if God didn't exist?

For anyone to answer the question of what evidence would be accepted for God's existence one needs to know what the claims are for God. I've already mentioned answered prayer. What are the claims for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) that are being made for God?

All I really see is people falling in love (with a concept of God).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Baldee,

If one claims there is no evidence for God's existence, and that evidence includes the reasonable assumption, and God's claim. How did one come to that conclusion?

Then you accuse me of secretly thinking God is illogical. Fair enough.

I do mean 'necessarily'.

That God does exist is already established through experience and literature.
To default to the alternative 'God simply does not exist' adds nothing to the enquiry. Plus if it is true we will eventually come to that conclusion.

Not your call to make.
If we wish to properly conclude that there is no evidence for God, transcendence is the most important aspect of His being (fiction or non) from our perspective.

More importantly, I want to know if their claims of 'no evidence' includes the notion of transcendence.
If yes can they explain what evidence of transcendence should be (as they claim they have no evidence). I'm not claiming that they should not state that they have no evidence.
Category error. You're asking me to provide scientific evidence for something that science cannot conclude true or false.
Transcendentalism is not a thing that you can pop in and out existence as a party piece. You have to understand what it is, and how it works (fiction/non).

I spotted the missing word and put it in. Obviously you were so eager to reply, you must have lifted my post seconds after it's release.

Call them out without accusing me of being liar, or quit with the baseless accusations.

I don't think you value experience (that's how it came across).

And a logical foundation for that conclusion. Instead of having none, or shying away from explaining it.

That is simply a matter of wording. Why would I believe that God's nature is illogical? And doesn't the notion of God's nature seeming illogical fit with what I'm saying? What is the point of the reasonable assumption, if not to draw logical conclusions from?

The seemingly illogical nature of God. Get over it.

I've explained what I actually meant. Deal with it. Nothing can be gained from you clinging to this.

The reasonable assumption stands independently of belief.
My belief is not that everything is evidence of God, but that if God exists, then it is reasonable to assume that. If I believed that everything was evidence of God, without reason, there would be no need for me to evoke the reasonable assumption, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you look through any of my posts, you'll see that I've only ever used the reasonable assumption to highlight to make the assumption.

So because I accept it, it has no value on its own regardless of belief status?

Well no, others haven't explained it adequately.
You may as well say God doesn't exist. It's more honest.

No.
But I don't know no what ''what you are not aware of'' is, plus I haven't claimed that I'm not aware of ''what you (or I) are not aware of''.
You claim there is no awareness of evidence of God, you also claim that this ''non awareness of evidence'' can also explain the non existence of God.
So you could if you weren't hiding, explain what ''evidence'' would be for you to become aware of it. Now obviously you're going to cling to this non existence thing, to avoid explanation.

Being in love does not exist? You really would go through that? I don't think you or anyone would, without good reason. It's irrelevant. It would be more productive to go to a sociopath to get their view, than for someone who has experience of being in love, to try to explain being in love doesn't exist.

I can't. It has to be experienced.

Why?

Could also be a fault with your own mind.
Not to worry eh!

The thing is, the scientific method isn't your primary tool.
Can you scientifically demonstrate that you are not aware of any evidence for God, by scientifically demonstrating the reasons for concluding no evidence?
Can you scientifically demonstrate that what you regard as evidence for both existence and non existence of God, actually does correspond to both (so called) premises.

...

So, Baldee is an atheist.
How can God not exist, if God exists? That would be a good question for all you competing theory peeps to mull over.

I keep telling you that God doesn't defy logic, but He seemingly defies logic.
Deal with it.
jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seattle,

These are good questions. If it's reasonable to assume that if God exists, then everything is evidence of God, then the next question could be, who and what am I in relation to God?

If God didn't exist, and there was no need of the reasonable assumption, I think human intelligence would be unnecessary, and the planet would basically be a scene from any zombie apocalypse movie you care to mention.

This life is meant to be lived how we choose. In any scripture you care to mention, The words of God, or when God speaks you'll notice , aren't for the ears of everyone, they are for those who are at that stage in their spiritual evolution, who can hear what is being said. Some people don't want to accept God, they just want to live as though God doesn't exist, or they want to make themselves, or someone else, God.

There's nothing wrong with that. At least you're asking intelligent questions. Ultimately only you can decide if you want to accept the notion of God. But if you do, and you do it sincerely, you will receive proper explanation of all the questions you have, and it is up to you what you do from there.

jan.

 

Your "reasonable assumption" is reasonable IF God exists.
A further reasonable assumption exists: IF God does not exist, everything is evidence that God does not need to exist.
Without knowing whether God exists or not, one can not say whether everything is evidence for God or for God not needing to exist.
Hence it is not considered evidence in support of God.

Not secretly.
You have openly stated as much when you said that God has an illogical nature.

Then, as thought, you do not understand what "necessarily" means when used in questions of logic.
Nor do I think you have a particularly good grasp of what is logical or not.

No.
It is not.
It is a claim that many have but it is simply not established.

Your continual inconsistency is laughable:
First you claim that God does exist, and now you leave open the option that it is not in your future conditional proposition.

Once again you show you do not understand logic.
Definition does not make something necessary.
If a scenario can logically exist where that definition is not even required (e.g. the scenario where God has never existed) then it is not necessary that God is transcendental.
It might be necessary that if God exists then he is transcendental.
But this is logically different to the necessity of God being transcendental, which begs the question of God's existence.

If their view is similar to mine then they don't need to explain it, they just merely need to be unaware of it.

I asked you for evidence, not scientific evidence.
It is thus not a category error unless you want to claim that against your own strawman.

They have called you out, but I don't see anyone accusing you of being a liar.
Dishonest, maybe.
But not liar.
You undoubtedly believe what you say, no matter how illogical others might find your arguments.

Experience is a practical matter that can inform.
So yes, it has immense value.
But I consider it to be the intellect that educates beyond mere reflex.

Which is as valid as any other valid argument from the same premises, or that reaches the same conclusion.
So how do you decide to believe in the valid argument that concludes God exists and the valid argument that concludes God does not.

To the first: saying "yes" and meaning "no" is "simply a matter of wording".
To the second: I don't know - but I go by what you write, as that is how we are communicating.
To the third: No.
I have explained how the "seeming illogical" should be dealt with.
Unless it can be shown to be logical...

Then please be more accurate in what you type.
Your posts are riddled with such inconsistencies that it is simply easier to point them out to you and force you to correct yourself, (which you don't do but rather apply a smudge) rather than try to second guess what you might actually mean.
If anything it is not God's seemingly illogical nature we have to contend with but your actual illogical nature.

What you've used it for is actually irrelevant to the point that was made.
You do believe in God.
Therefore you believe it reasonable to believe that everything is evidence of God.
And presuming you are reasonable, you thus believe it.
The point being made by Sarkus, if I understood correctly, was that you are inconsistent when you turn round and say that you didn't say what can be logically inferred from what you have typed.
It is this lack of grasp of following through what your own words logically imply that makes you inconsistent.
That makes your posts an incoherent mess.

On its own it is conditional.
It only has value if that condition is sound, or as part of an investigation into that conditional scenario.
If the condition is not sound, it has no value.

It would be dishonest as it does not fit what I claim or believe.

It is a logical truth that we are not aware of what we are not aware of.
Noone needs to claim it for it to be true.

I claim that I have no awareness, not that there is no awareness.
Others certainly claim to have awareness but I am not aware of the soundness of their claims.
I also don't think this lack of awareness on my part can also explain the non existence of God, nor am I sure how you inferred that, but given your continued display of ignorance regarding logic I am no longer surprised at what you infer from what people say.

No.
I could not explain what "evidence" would be for me.
You have agreed that there is no scientific evidence.
You have not as yet provided anything else for consideration.

Define love.

Where have I said that love doesn't exist?
Again, where have you dragged this apparent inferrence from?

Many can define love, starting with the fact that it is an emotion, and going on to define the effects of the emotion.
It doesn't have to be experienced.

It could be.
Now how would you go about showing that?
You could start by showing how the plethora of claims are incorrect?

To the first: No, that is why I say "I don't know".
To the second: logic does that.
If God exists, everything is evidence of God's existence.
If God does not exist, everything can not be evidence of God's existence.
Everything that exists can therefore not lead to a conclusion of God's existence any more than it can lead to a conclusion of God's non-existence.

Agnostic, with a large side of practical atheism.

That is just God's illogic nature at work, by not existing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then explain how what seems to be illogical is actually logical.
And stop with the comments that logically lead to you claiming God defies logic.
You might say one thing now but you have a tendency to say the complete opposite only moments later.

 

To StrangerInAStrangeLa:

You say [see Annex 2]:

1. Either everything has a cause or not everything has a cause.
   
2. IF the universe requires a cause, gods require a cause.
   

On No.1: That is not what I say, what I say is that everything with a beginning has a cause [see Annex 1]; are you of the conviction that you can present an example of something with a beginning but without a cause? Please then produce an example of something with a beginning but without a cause.

On No.2: If the universe requires a cause, it does not follow logically that gods require a cause.


To Seattle (see Annex 3 for Seattle’s post):

You are not answering my question to you, namely (see Annex 1):

In sum, you [Seattle] deny that there is causation or causality; suppose you tell readers here who brought you to this world?​

Always before anything else in an exchange, answer the question of your partner in the exchange, don’t try to digress from the instant issue.



Sarkus has not yet reacted to my post.



Annex 1 [from Pachomius]

Dear everyone, thanks for your participation in this thread.


I can’t react to all of you, so I choose to react to those who take up my posts; and also when I find someone with a most intriguing idea like that of Spidergoat with his statement of an example of a thing with a beginning but no cause, namely, virtual particles popping in and out from nothing without cause, then I love to exchange ideas with him, for I am of the opposite view, namely, there is nothing with a beginning that is without a cause.

But Spidergoat has not taken up his idea again on virtual particles, at least he has not attended to that idea anymore; and my post to him last time is an invitation for him and me to resume the matter of virtual particles popping in and out from nothing without cause.

Then there is Motor Daddy who wants to talk about distance which to him is distinct from space, and also infinity; but when I asked him to produce his concepts of distance and of infinity, he chose to keep mum in his recent post to me on that matter; instead he complained that I do not observe the 'right' way to reproduce a quote -- end result with him is that he said he would not interact with me anymore. So be it.

Today I see three posters who take to react to my ideas.

From StrangerInAStrangeLa, Yesterday at 6:26 PM Post #372

Pachomius said:

I have this idea that man can start with a statement like the following:

There has always existed something.

And think on facts and logic to come to the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

What facts? Facts like the nose in our face, it has a beginning.

And what logic? Logic like this thought, everything with a beginning has a cause.

And that is why I want to ask how Spidergoat explains his example of something with a beginning but no cause, namely, virtual particles which pop in and out from nothing without cause. […]
​

If something always existed, there is no need for gods to explain it.​

In the status of things in which there is only one thing or entity in it, then the something always existing is God.

Now in the status of things in which status the universe exists, studied by scientists and concluded on by scientists to have a beginning in space and in time; then the status of things houses two parts: the part that always exists, God in concept the creator and operator of the universe, and the universe the creation of God.

Seattle, Yesterday at 7:02 PM Post #373

Pachomius, the problem is that you are trying to prove that there is a God and that this God is as you define God and you insist on basing it on whether our concept of cause and effect applies.

Who knows? Maybe everything needs a cause (but it doesn't need to be a god) and maybe it doesn't. We don't know and neither do you.

[...]
​

In sum, you deny that there is causation or causality; suppose you tell readers here who brought you to this world?

Sarkus, Yesterday at 8:02 PM Post #374

Pachomius said:

And what logic? Logic like this thought, everything with a beginning has a cause.
​

That is not logic; that is (as currently worded) merely a claim. It may act as premise for a logical argument, however. But in isolation it is not an example of logic.​

Okay, you give me an example of logic, if everything with a beginning has need of a cause is not an example of logic.

I hope to read your posts reacting to my present posts to you three.

Pachomius, Yesterday at 8:51 AM #381


Annex 2 [from Stranger]

Quote from StrangeInAStrangeLa:

Scientists have not concluded the universe has a beginning. The currently accepted theory is the current condition & form of our universe had a beginning.
Either way, you are trying to insert gods where they do not fit.
Either everything has a cause or not everything has a cause. IF the universe requires a cause, gods require a cause.
Gods do not explain anything. At best, they simply bring up more unanswered questions without answering anything.

StrangerInAStrangeLa, Yesterday at 10:57 AM #382

​

Annex 3 [from Seattle]

Pachomius, what brought me into this world has no baring on the origin of our universe. I've explained the QM version of how something can come from "nothing". There is also the possibility that the universe has always existed or that whatever lead to the Big Bang always existed.

As was already pointed out by others, inserting God into the chain of events does nothing. Saying "I don't know" or saying "God did it" is the same thing essentially because "God" can be defined to mean anything (or nothing).


Seattle, Yesterday at 11:54 AM #385


​

 

What I notice all the time with atheists is that they always dodge the issue or try to muddle it up.


Tell me atheists, you are of the conviction that there are things with a beginning but with no cause. give me an example of something with a beginning without a cause?

Tell me atheists, you are of the conviction that there is no causation or causality, tell me who brought you to existence?

 

Here is one big fault with atheists, if it is an innocent fault, they transit from the realm of concepts and ideas and thoughts in their mind, to the realm of objective reality independent of man's mind: so that unless readers are on the alert, readers are startled how they can seemingly prove the existence of say virtual particles popping in and out from nothing without cause, from the 'empirical' science of quantum mechanics.

 

The empirical science of quantum mechanics doesn't follow common sense rules, like causes preceding effects. You should really read up on it before calling the kettle black. Theism is nothing but concepts that cannot be supported by empiricism.

 

Everything.

 

My parents with the help of a doctor brought me into this world but as I said earlier this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I didn't say that there are no observed cases of cause and effect (obviously).

None of this has anything to do with what we are talking about however.

Your definition of God doesn't require a beginning and thus no cause and effect. It is equally easy to envision a universe not requiring a beginning. It is also just as possible for a universe to just pop into existence using QM or to have a cause that we just don't understand.

It doesn't have to make (common) sense to us as we don't have any experience in the quantum world and our "common sense" only comes from our common experiences at the scale of reality that we do live in.

Saying "God did it" is meaningly since you are creating God in the first place and then creating "his" attributes.

 

I didn't say that's what you said. You want to insert beginning into it in order to subtract gods from it but it doesn't work.
It certainly does logicly follow that if you insist the universe must have a cause, I must insist gods have a cause.
You are the 1 dodging the truth & trying to muddle things. You started this thread with an arrogant lie & you continue lying about atheists.

Why don't you use the Reply function?

 

Yes. Aliens much more advanced than humans and/or of a different nature might be able to do anything theists claim gods do. Aliens are much more plausible than gods.

 

I'm curious as to how a theist would differentiate a cult from a religion. All of the methods of finding "evidence" for a cult would be the same as for their God.

 

Baldee,

Please explain how the conclusion follows on from the premise.

I’m not saying everything is evidence of God, I am assuming that if God exist it is reasonable to assume the everything is evidence of God.

Okay it’s an established claim.

Show me where I claimed God exists.

Show me where I said, or implied this.
It's little wonder you think my writing is convoluted. You don't fully grasp the subtleties of what I'm saying.

If God wasn’t transcendental He couldn’t be God, by all established definitions.

God does not exist, is not a reasonable assumption, and you keep saying it is makes no difference.

Oh well! It will improve.

“Merely need to be unaware of it”?
I don't understand.

Your so called valid argument for the non existence of God yielded no conclusion. God is not needed, does not explain anything.

I’m not sure that one can sincerely believe something by decision. I think one comes to the point of believing the more one can recognizes patterns that correlate with their own experience. For me it evolves, and sometimes devolves. It's not one simple thing.

Fair enough.

I am trying.

I don’t have an illogical nature, I have a laptop with a dodgy finger pad thingy. I realise after I send my posts that letters and words, go for walkies without my consent.

So, I’m not denying that I believe God.

So what?

I can’t remember the point to well. I doubt it’s really important.

If it is, you can traipse through the posts to find whatever point you wish to make.

According to neuroscience it is quite possible that one can be aware of ‘’much more than is being contemplated in a focused extended consciousness.’’ Wiki.
It may not be as set in stone as you think.. Either way it doesn’t matter, life goes on. Unless your attracted to that.

Selective awareness eh!

Acceptance of the reasonable assumption is a starting place, instead of coming up with anything just so you can remain ignore-ant.

I’m sure you asked me this before and I said I can’t.
There are as many definitions, as there are people who experience it.

I never inferred that you said love does not exist, I presumed you were using being in love in love as an analogy to explain evidence of God. Or something like that. My bad.
It cannot be experienced through definition, not to the point of knowing what it is. This is why I think experience is king when it comes to directly accessing knowledge. I find that one revelation of real knowledge, through the process of experience, serves other explanations. Of course with education one can learn a great deal, and with experience and education together, then greatness can easily be achieved.

God is one person, who resides within everything, and everything resides within Him, also. But He is aloof from everything.
Everything is evidence of Him, and everything is not evidence of Him.

Therefore God exists

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That’s due to the seemingly illogical nature of God.
This subject matter is extremely subtle.

Jan.

 

What do you accept as evidence & why are you so arrogantly adamant that everyone else should?
Can you answer that?

 

Please note that there are 3 "e"s in the name, not 2 as you keep repeating.
The Reply button automatically posts the correct name so it should be fairly easy for you to use my correct name.
To cut an "e" off once is excusable, twice is sloppy, but it seems to be every time.

It is called deductive reasoning.
If God does not exist, i.e. has never existed, is the merely a figment of Man's imagination, then He could not possibly have caused what we see existing.
If He could not possibly have cause what we see existing, it is a truism that He would not be necessary for our existence.
Therefore, since everything does exist, it can be taken as evidence that God does not need to exist.
This follows the same logic as your "reasonable assumption".

I believe Sarkus has adequately covered this.
My merely repeating what he has explained is clearly not going to enlighten you any further.
In this regard you have a blindfold on as to what you are logically claiming from your "reasonable assumption" coupled with your known belief in God.

Just so I am sure you understand, please can you clarify what you mean when you say that "something is an established claim" rather than "somethng is established"?

Are you now denying that you believe that God exists?
Furthermore you previously stated: "That God does exist is already established through experience and literature."
Am I to take this as you not claiming that God exists?
Yes, you have now changed this to mean "it is an established claim that God exists..." but you have only just now supplied this clarification and I remain unconvinced you actually understand the logical difference.

Your quote: "Plus if it [God does not exist] is true we will eventually come to that conclusion."
This is a future conditional.
The conditional is left open as a possibility through your claim that "if... then we will..."
It is not me who doesn't grasp the subtleties of what you're saying, Jan.
It is you who simply struggles with the logical implications of what you yourself write.
And you blame others for having the wherewithall to call you out on what you clearly can not see and refuse to acknowledge.

But He is not necessary.

Why do you not think it a reasonable assumption, given the explanations already provided.
You have claimed it isn't, so please explain why.
And please do so without the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Your reluctance to even acknowledge your faults thus far does not give me confidence in that regard.

Because my argument has at its premise my unawareness, anyone who wishes to use that same argument would need to also have that as a premise.

It did yield a conclusion: that God's non-existence is a logically valid conclusion from the premises.
In itself the conclusion does not need to explain anything else.
It is just a valid logical conclusion.
Are you proposing appealing to consequence as a reason to accept or reject a valid conclusion?

Yet when one is only shown how the patterns fit one story that they have been told, and not how it fits all the other possible stories...?

The odd letter is understandable.
The odd word can be confusing but acceptable, once corrected.
But your contradictions seem to go far beyond that.

Ah.
The tactic of obfuscating until the point is lost and forgotten.
Noted.

Indeed.
I see awareness as a conscious act.
I don't deny that subconscoiusly we can react to what we weren't consciously aware of.
Our subconscious can also bring things to our awareness, make them conscious etc.

No.
A statement of fact.

The reasonable assumption is only reasonable if the condition is sound.
Otherwise, to accept one conditional assumption above any other, when the observations fit both, I consider to be irrational for the reasons stated.

Because it doesn't actually exist, in the same way that there is no animal called "fish".
It is a group of emotions.
And is as tangible and as scientific as any other emotion.
We could define it more accurately, given sufficient time and examination, but given that it is an emotion I agree that it does need to be experienced in order to better understand it.
There is no desire to study it in any great detail as there is little benefit from a scientific understanding.

Agreed to an extent.
Experience can educate you in the sensory essence of the subject matter.
Such things can be duplicated, and are merely chemical changes that provoke feelings, emotions etc.
(Although there is the ongoing debate of whether mind or body has primacy).
The experience can not tell you the truth of the cause.
A valid explanation can also not tell you, and nor can the combination.
You are left trying to show how the notions put forward are sound.
And ultimately one has nothing but their belief to fall back on.
I try not to believe and will thus conclude "I don't know", as do many others.

Such is your belief.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet your inaccuracies/woolliness in thought and word seem to hinder any real understanding from you.


I will now withdraw.
The point I intended to make (re: logic, inaccuracy, contradictions etc) has been exhaustively made, and further rehash will add nothing.

 

The subject line in this thread reads: "To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible uncorns."

In post #7, I wrote:

Maybe some atheists do that. (Not all atheists are the brightest bulbs.)

But what atheists are typically doing with the 'invisible unicorns' analogy is responding to a bad theistic argument that says in effect:

Inability to prove that God doesn't exist means that it's reasonable to think that he does. (Certainly as reasonable as the atheist belief that he doesn't.)

The 'invisible unicorn' example, along with 'Russell's teapot' and other variants, are part of the counter-argument that there are no end of things, some of them quite ridiculous, whose existence we can't actually disprove. It certainly isn't reasonable to believe in the existence of all of those things.

Which in turn suggests that stronger epistemic justification is necessary. We need credible and positive reasons to believe in the existence of things. Noting that the existence of something can't be disproven is insufficient reason to believe in its reality.

Aren't you dodging the issue that you yourself initially raised?

Instead of addressing it, you demanded that the rest of us define the word 'God'. When you made yet another abrupt turn and suddenly started talking about the first-cause argument, things appeared to be thoroughly muddled.

 

Baldeee,

Yes Sir.

Not really. You still have the problem of our existence. How does God not exist, explain the material manifestation, and living beings?

Sarkus hasn't covered this at all, let alone adequately. Sarkus, is a mad as hell, and wants to destroy me, and is therefore irrational (I hope you have a sense of humour).

Okay let's approach this another way.
Seeing as my theism does not in any way affect the reasonable assumption, can you, for the purpose of this discussion go purely with the reasonable assumption? If you think my theism affects what I saying in anyway, can you explain how it affects?
Hopefully, thanks in advance.

An established claim, is a claim that is established.

Are you incapable of answering a question without the tedium of me having to deal with constant presuppositions?

Okay.

You should take it for what it say's.

Then either ignore it, or point out what you mean. There is no need for all this posturing.

It's not future conditional, and nothing is left open. I said that if it is realized as true, then I will have to accept it.
Try and comprehend what I'm saying, instead of presupposing what you think I mean, then using that presupposition as a response. It means that I have to keep going back through the posts.

I said: God is necessarily transcendental.
Can you comprehend what that means!?

It doesn't explain anything. It simply means we are just here, with no purpose, reason, or rhyme. If that's what you think, then fine. But I don't.

You don't need a premise to arrive at that conclusion. If you assert that ''God doesn't exist'', with no reason, or logical basis, it is no less logically valid, than your so called reasonable assumption.

That's what humans do when searching for truth. If the object of your search is nothing but scientific clarification then fair enough.
The so called competing theory, is illogical.

Lol! There is no desire to study it because there is no need to. Scientific analysis would be as useful in explaining love, as your so called reasonable assumption explains the non existence of God.
There is simply no contest in the face of experience.

Experience directly puts you in the picture, imo.

Experience tells you exactly what you need to know about the truth of that particular experience. It naturally defaults to the truth. The negative aspect to education is that is can cause you to doubt your experience, or help to intepret it in such a way that you forget who you are (figuratively speaking).

I accept it, based on the reasonable assumption, and God's quote.

Bye Bye!

jan.

 

Jan, you've said that people don't come to religion due to the logic and "facts" we've been discussing and I agree.

How did you come to your religion. Is it the same one that your family and culture profess?

If so, your "reasonable assumption" is just something to justify your beliefs when you are having doubts it seems. Is that correct?