An unorthodox belief in God.

[mickiel]

---

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


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


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


Ontology is not limited to questions about God.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


Repeating yourself isn't the same thing as responding.


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.

---

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?


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.

---

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

---

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.


'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.

I will do that, I always try and show two sites how the same debate is waging elsewhere. All kinds of things and methods can be used in this " Proof or not proof debate"; even computers;

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/compute...d=20678984