An unorthodox belief in God.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

---

I have not lied, Ontology IS the attempt to prove god exist!

Ontology is the philosophical study of being, existence, and reality.

I have given pages and pages of those attempts; they have been REJECTED! You are rejecting my Ontology.

I'm pretty sure that you linked Anselm's ontology, not yours.

And have the nerve to say I am lying about this.

I don't think you're lying, I think you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Ontology is does god exist, does he have being.

Ontology is not limited to questions about God.

And then to prove that with reason; something reasonable, not religious. And The simple dime example IS REASON! SIMPLE reason! You just cannot see its reason, its ontology.

I doubt there's anyone here who is unfamiliar with Anselm's argument, and its flaws. If you had truly researched it instead of just Googling it, you would be aware of its flaws as well, and wouldn't expect us to accept a flawed argument as evidence without dealing with those flaws.

I'll give another. Life can only produce life.

This is a claim, and it's at odds with the evidence that the earth did not always harbor life.

Plain and simple reason! No scientist can produce life in a lab from scratch; using nothing.

So how would your beliefs change if scientists produce life in a lab from scratch?

Its impossible, and yet the scientific theories on how life began, is requesting that we begin with the impossible.

You seem to have difficult and impossible confused. Did you know that we can make a bacteria genome from scratch in the lab (from biologically inert chemicals), insert it into a denucleated cell (that is, a freshly-dead cell due to having had its nucleus removed), and have the cell's metabolism resume and reproduce? We will probably achieve what you consider impossible in your lifetime.

Using life as coming from a god of life, is FAR more reasonable.

It doesn't seem so plausible when our main problem with abiogenesis is that there are too many plausible explanations for how life could have arisen naturally, it's hard to determine billions of years later which one was actually the case, but at any rate, organic chemistry can explain several ways it could have happened. All it takes is one self-replicating molecule to get on the path to life.

Now better for you to continue to ignore my reason and call me a lie, than to actually debate my reason, because NONE of you have yet to carry on a single debate against any of my points, just my personage and things about me.

You have not bothered to support any of your points. If you don't support them with reason, we don't need to use reason to dismiss them. We don't need to argue to justify ignoring a point for which you won't give us a single reason to believe its validity.

A few of you have ASKED me to focus on one issue, but then they revert back to personal attacks when I respond.

Repeating yourself isn't the same thing as responding.

This ain't about me.

If only that were true, you would be able to at least attempt to explain why God is a better explanation for consciousness than evolution, instead of just claiming it is.

---

Oh I did, for two pages, just not to you're satisfaction; its impossible to satisfy atheist cynicism.

I'm an optimist. I'm incredibly easy to satisfy. The right words from the right person, and I'm right back in church, working hard to convince myself of the reality of God.

Out of those two pages, what do you think was your best point in support of consciousness being evidence of God rather than natural processes?

---

I gave the evidence, you reject it or say its too much or not magnified enough. You pick one, others here have tried that, " Focus on one " as an excuse; it does not work. But I will still do that with any of you.

Saying you gave the evidence is easy, anyone can say it. I notice that's your go to response, rather than presenting the evidence, or linking to the post in which you think you gave the evidence. It seems like you can't even recall your own post in which you said something to support one of your claims.

If it's not about you, don't get huffy when we ask you for something you think you've already done, just give it again rather than expect us to search the whole thread for something that might not even be there.

And for the record, I find it annoying when atheists play the 'but I already told you' game too, you know who you are.

---

Its both!

That's the least wrong thing I've ever seen you post.

---

I started with that, I did not write that; if you are now fault finding, you must dig deeper.

I don't see why I have to dig deeper, you claim to have done orginal research and when asked for it only show that you can Google, the fault is lying right there on the surface.

What about Krishna, and why did you capitalize that name?

'Why not Krishna?' is my question. Because English.

---

Pretty much says everything I want to.

Ontology is not simply the study of whether god exists. Mick did not post any of 'his' ontology, merely an article outlining the thesis of someone else with absolutely no quantification.

Mick, I understand that you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. So, rather then flog a dead horse, I want you to promise me that whenever you post on another forum trying to show how what you've written is coherent and worth reading, please post a link to this thread so everyone else can at least try and see how futile talking to you appears to be.

Cheers.