If there is a creator, so what?

[Edwardo Piet]

You are agreeing with me while you request that I deny what you have agreed to. There are unknown truths, the existence of oxygen was just such a truth, for all but a few hundred years of human existence.  Put two and two together from there, that knowledge of the existence of oxygen (and existence is not knowledge, nor is it truth, do stick to your dogged insistence of identity and the existence of unknown truths, please) was irrelevant to the things proposed.  

People were fully and wholly human.  Leading happy lives, long before it's discovery.  People continue, since it's discovery, to be fully and wholly human, to lead happy lives, without ever thinking of oxygen.  The truth or falsehood of propositions regarding oxygen and it's existence have no bearing on the other thing, and the non-existence of oxygen is not the same thing as the non-existence of knowledge of oxygen.  Just because one would be bad, doesn;t mean the other is bad, because they aren't the same godamned thing....and really, think this through, if there were no oxygen there would -be- no people and no -bad for people- in the first place because they just don't exist, another "so what" appeal to irrelevant consequence.

All of this holds as demonstrably and inarguably in the case of gods existence, and the seperate issue....knowledge of gods existence, with regards to the same. Human fullness, wholeness, and happiness.  

Get, your shit, together.

This particular bit of inanity can be attacked from nearly every angle of rational thought, and can also be -demonstrated-, emprically to be complete and utter garbage.  It's DOA.  It's undeserving of either consideration or of divinity.

My bold and underline and red text.

Regarding the bold:

Lol you've changed your assertion.  Now you're agreeing with me. Now you're saying that it was an unknown truth until a few hundred years ago but before you were saying it wasn't a truth at all until a few hundred years ago, lol.

Regarding my underline:

Lol you've contradicted yourself again already. How can it be a dogged acceptance on my part to accept the existence of unknown truths when the bolded section of what I quoted here is agreeing with that? LOL

Regarding the red text:

Yes. That's what I said. It's you who is conflating them. You conflated truth and knowledge by saying something wasn't a truth until it was known, and then when I pointed that out you conflated truth and existence by saying that it wasn't always a truth but it was always existent.

And that you list "identity" as one of my dogged acceptances is utterly hilarious. Denying identity is denying reality.

You're one walking strawman lol.

You backtrack and change your assertion when I point out you're wrong lol.

You also tell me that you've been agreeing with me the whole time even though you were saying things I disagreed with lol.