"god exists" <Why is this a relevant argument?

[fr0d0]

I don't embrace your naturalistic purpose of course ...sentient human development strives in the opposite direction to naturalism so it's your stance that is contradictory.

More assumptions with no attempt to show why it's valid reasoning It's no surprise from you.`[/quote]

Get stuffed VOID you're the master of Bare Ass's - human development has been shown to be reversing natural selection... which is a result of moralistic development.

You are ignorant of Christianity if you believe what you spout.

No examples?

Too many to cite mate - look at virtually every post you make.

Based on my current understanding it seems less desirable to have purpose and meaning passed from the top down than to have t build it yourself from the bottom, it's just my opinion and i don't expect you, or any theist for that matter to agree.

Is God not a dictator?

Give me a reason why your belief in God is a valid logical undertaking and i won't have reason to make a mockery of it.

I see. So when it suits you you assume religion is top down, then when it doesn't you assume it's all man made. Convenient huh.

I am assuming that God is real for that statement, not religion. God being the designer is commonly described as a top-down process.

Anything else?

You're pleading ignorance again. Ignoring what goes in through your eyes. Nice trick if you can pull it off. I'm sure there are other equally blind people who could back you up too. Shame though it isn't reality.

If you are just going to assert that as fact and not even attempt to show your reasoning then don't bother, im not interested in what you can assert, only what you can prove. Now if you have proof that Morals are contradictory to the concept of naturalistic development, specifically in the structures of social animals where they are relevant then please do so for once.

See above.

Belief in God is a valid logical undertaking because it perfectly reflects the desire of human nature. It's what you seek yet deny.

1) What humans desire of nature, or anything else, does not at all necessitate that it is true.

2) Anthropomorphising is more commonly regarded as a literary technique, not a logical argument for the existence of God

Human nature, not 'nature'.

FFS can you read?

I think it was a fair to assume you meant to link the two. If you didn't, as you say, then I apologise.