In the beginning...

[Tex]

All this time you have been saying your god spawned physics making physics a subset of your god. The only possible consequence of that is "making something out of nothing" has no meaning in that there is only an issue with making something out of nothing is only after the arbitrary rules your god decided on for this universe. It is not rational to assume making something out of nothing is an issue external to the rules of this universe.

The universe is "like" God because it is ordered. The universe is not "part of" God any more that a child is a part of their parent (conception isn't ex nihilo either). A liver is a part of the parent, a set of lungs is a part of the parent, but the child is independent.

Why am I not impressed with your presupposition that it is designed to teach? You do not like his assumption and you respond by inventing your own assumption. That is not a rational response.

Then why did they write it down? Record keeping is a healthy part of intentional distribution of knowledge.

He has taken the side which has increased the well-being of the human race in the last couple centuries thousands of times more than all the god belief in all history. One the science side one can pick even the simplest single examples such as antibiotics and challenge the believer to name anything comparable from the realm of religion. Religion never has anything to contribute. Even the very concept of a god and religion has gotten in the way of learning how the universe works as it does not work in the manner believers claim.

Looks like you fall into that "pick a side" crap too. So many similarities. Perhaps I can have a spin-off show called "PSYCHOANALYZE A_NONY_MOUSE!" Anyway, science are competing for completely different things. Science is for advancement in technology and understanding of the physical world, while religion is for the advancement of human morality and understanding of things not of this world. Why even compare them? Apples vs. oranges everyone.

But while I'm here, science teaches you how to make atomic reactions, but morality tells if you can use a big one over the top of a city or not. Science is not everything.

Let me call bullshit on that one. Please produce an example of this "ontological thought" which is completely and totally independent of physical evidence. That does mean a thought which has no reference whatsoever to any sensory input whatsoever meaning no knowledge of this universe in any form. Rotsa Ruck! Any reference to anything in this universe is a reference to physical evidence by definition.

I exist.

Note: "I" is not my body (nor "in my body" nor is it my soul).

Premises are the basis of logic. If A and B then C. A and B are your assumptions (presupposition is such a pompous word for assumption) can only be from observations which is essentially the same as physical evidence. Physical evidence is all there is. It is only observation. A mind without any sensory input means a mind without input and as such has nothing to think about.

If A and B can be supported, I call them presuppositions. If they're not, I call them assumptions. Sorry for the confusion.

You're also using the brain/mind fallacy, but that's probably not worth discussing here.

You cannot observe the future or the past, but only the present. Obviously, science and history speak about both of these non-observable things. Are science and history futile?

Your lack of concern with denominations is no different from no concern for religion yet you keep using the term Christianity. Please explain what you are trying to convey as Christianity conveys no information other than a number of cults that have some degree of connection to the Yahweh cult of Judea that appeared after the 1st c. AD and down to the present day. This of course includes gnosticism and deism and the dozens if not hundreds of others that have mostly disappeared.

I'm trying to convey truth. Nothing more. If you're look for my theological beliefs, I hold to the the creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, and the Athanasius.

In Deism for example the bible teaches, OT and NT, nothing as it is solely the invention of men yet you have claimed more than that for it. So absent an explanation you might as well write spoonerity in place of Christianity without definition of the latter the former is the as. ALL undefined terms are equally nonsense.

I don't sit in any denomination. I am conservative Christian, and borrow from Catholics heavily, but I'm not catholic nor desire to be catholic. Call me "Christian" since I desire to be "relating to Christ".