Hello.....I have a little problem

[IATIA]

I am sure you are aware that there are far more proposed “proofs” of God’s existence right?

If that is what you wish to call them.

I would need to seek psychiatric help for sure.

I smell circularity!
A. I don’t believe in God because there is no proof of His existence.

There is no god to believe in or disbelieve. It has nothing to do with proof or lack thereof. There just really is no such thing as a god.

B. But what if he appeared to you and gave you proof of His existence?
C. I’d seek psychiatric help.
D. Why?
E. Because I’d be seeing something I know does not exist.

Contrary to my statement in jest, I believe anything I see, but even if there were a god, it could not possibly appear before me anymore than it could make a rock so big that it could not move it.

F. How do you know He does not exist?

The same way I know fairies do not exist and the same way you know Mars, Jupiter, Apollo and Zeus do not exist.

G. RETURN TO STEP A

No need to, as it is not circular.

Besides, if the god-of-the-bible showed up, I would seek Satan out to save me from enslavement. I have no desire to board the Borg ship or spend eternity tending god's garden. (Revelations 21:9-17/Genesis 2:15)

Well tending God’s garden was Adam’s original role, not believers today.

It was his only role!

I see no mention of the Borg ship in Revelation; I do see Satan losing though, so why would you seek out and join the losing team? That seems pretty….well…dumb.

Then obviously you did not read it or you do not know who the Borg are. As to a losing team, I will always fight on the side of freedom, regardless.

My assumption was your Dahmer quote was to suggest the evils of atheist morality.

Nope, it was to point out that he took the exact same view on morality that Shell did (that nobody owns you and you can make up your own rules) even though I am sure she thinks what he did was wrong which proves that she actually believes in an absolute form of morality even though she claims to believe in a relative form of it. If morality was actually self determined then what Dahmer did was not wrong because it’s just different strokes for different folks and if it’s your thing to have sex with the dead and eat their flesh then whatever floats your boat.

Is not that what I just said??

The Inquisition was not one, but a whole congress of people dedicated to enforcing the 'moral code' of the bible.

How is something a bunch of Catholics did nearly a thousand years ago at all relevant to a Reformed Christian?

1220 to 1834. It only ended less that 200 years ago. And the relevance is the fact that the source of morals does not in any way determine the quality of the morals.

(And BTW. Have you actually read that book from cover to cover? Man, that is one scary psychopath.)

*Sigh* Yes I have read it. Where do you get your moral authority to say that anything God did was wrong or that he was a psychopath? (Someone with a mental disorder).

Meooww! Phssst! Phssst!
As you missed the Borg episode and do not see the psychopathy, then you did not read it well or you did not read it all. Explain again the reason to "dash babies heads on the rocks" or the flood thing. This god was not smart enough to come up with a better solution than killing all the living things on the face of the earth? I think babble-god did it for fun. Psychopath. Look it up. If you are going to defend a god, my recommendation would be to pick a different one. JMHO.

---

We live in a deterministic universe

Wouldn't that necessitate that the universe be a closed system? We're not entirely sure that is the case.

No.

and our 'free will' is nothing more than our consciousness/awareness 'explaining to our mind' what we have already done.

Free will is about more than what you have done. It is about what we will do and what we want to do. I definitely disagree with the above statement, but am open to elaboration.

I would be more than happy to open a new thread on that subject. My views are backed with mainstream science.

And probably, all of reality is nothing more than a construct of our awareness. (I am still on the bench with that.)

Hm. This depends on what you define as a "construct." Does this mean our awarenesses have made up reality for us? Or . . . is this more abstract? I guess it is only the word "construct" I disagree with here. I would use the word interpretation and call it a day.

Like I said, I am still on the bench with that particular idea. If true, it is a 'construct'. It is the only explanation that allows true 'free will' without a god. Otherwise, free will is just an illusion.