In the beginning...

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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.

Define ordered. The universe we know is fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics which deals with probability wave functions. But in the macro sense a coin that gives a 50/50 chance is also ordered.

I did not say it was part of you undefined god. It would be absurd to say the universe is part of something undefined because what is undefined in unknown.

I did say, by analogy, you are claiming inventing a board game requires omnipotence because the rules of the game say board games cannot be invented. Substitute universe for board game. It is only in the arbitrary rules of this creation that further creation is not possible for members of the creation. To assume that rule applies outside this universe is a fact no in evidence and which can never be in evidence as seeing outside of this universe would violate another arbitrary created rule of this universe.

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.

Asking a question is called begging the question, a logical fallacy known for at least 2500 years. Record keeping has nothing to do with your claim it was designed to teach. I am still not impressed with your claim.

None of the OT stories appear in history before the mid 2nd c. BC without evidence of prior existence so you have to answer why they were written at that time.

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.

I hate to attribute it to the Brits but clearly they were more moral than your god and priests as they condemned slavery while you folks' god approved of it.

As to human behavior in general ALL social species including wolves, ants, bees and elephants follow generally the same rules as commandments 4 through 10 so obviously your religion has nothing to do with morality. If you substitute master for lord dogs follow the first three too.

My statement was to the benefit of human race. There is nothing new or even specifically human in the morality of any religion. Religions have not benefited the human race in any manner.

BUT you have also assumed there is something good in morality when there is no evidence to that effect. Specifically most all the "benefits" of following the morality of religions was because god will get you if you violate them. As almost all of the means of god getting you have been solved by science there is no point in giving any attention to religion beyond expanding our knowledge of anthropology.

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.

No fault of your own. It was an egg and sperm thing. You know about that don't you?

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

What pray tell might be the I when every aspect of self awareness and sense of identity has been traced back to a physical area of the physical brain?

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.

I said they are observed. What is observed is not an assumption.

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

Yes it is. Please do so.

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?

If those are intended to be your examples, the past and future are dependent upon observations, life experience and experimentation and such. You were claiming there was something which people can think about without any experience at all. Please tell me what those things are.

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.

WHY do you go along with the mutterings of poorly educated near illiterates in what are largely political statements directed against branches of Christianity which held different beliefs?

Doesn't it bother you that all this time you have been pushing morality and when in a corner present things which have nothing whatsoever to do with morality? If one of them just said "I believe in one god who will damn all slave owners to hell and his only begotten son who will spit on his grave" you might have a point. But they list things things which have absolutely no bearing on the real world whether or not they are "true" in any sense.

Do you pay attention to what you believe?

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".

Which Christ are you talking about? Again I can go through present day and defunct denominations to raise critical questions. For example, Deism the Christ was at most a social philosopher with no unique wisdom or message. In fact he said very little which is included in Christianity and much that is not.