God's God

[The Grand Nudger]

The very reason that we look for a "cause" for our universe is precisely -because- we expect it to have one (we didn't stare back through time expecting to see nothing). That we acknowledge that we don't know if it actually does is the brute force of fact. We just don;t have any instruments that are capable of looking past the wall that the "event" presents in that all the reasons those instruments work seem to have began there. That doesn't demonstrate that there was nothing "before", just that there's nothing before that we have any reasonable expectation of detecting with our current instruments. We try to wrap our heads around that with a multitude of competing hypothesis, but all run into their own problems.

[archangle]

true,
look at the inflation theory. That is as real as a god. well, not the breaded guy in the sky type that some claim.

[Esquilax]

Why is it irrelevant if I'm not infallible. I go do a math test, an answer seems true to me, I shouldn't write it after much studying, because I'm not infallible? Of course I can be wrong, it doesn't mean I ought to not have the answer to what seems true to me.

Because the answer you feel seems true and the answer that is true are different concepts. You live on a planet that, from your individual perspective, seems like a flat plain. It's not, it's spherical, just beyond the resolution of your perception. Things that intuitively seem true can be false.

The problem I'm having is that you're making claims based on ideas that trained physicists and scientists much smarter than you or I are still grappling with. If you've got some scientific training that I'm not aware of then I apologize, but if not, then there's a huge gap between the things that seem to you to be true, and the things that evidence would lead us to believe.

Also, you are assuming this all from the lenses of naturalism. If naturalism is true, I agree we really can't know existence requires a constant cause.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just keeping in mind that the evidence is still coming in, and thus making a statement now would only be working with partial information.

However if is the case the existence does require a constant cause, and the Creator requires to constantly cause himself and everything else in existence, then, I don't see, how given that we have logic, and knowledge of other intuitive things like praise, morals, etc, or "from nothing, nothing follows", that we can't be given knowledge of this?

But aside from that, aside from the issue of knowledge, even if we weren't given knowledge, it does seem to be the case that existence too requires a constant cause instead of simply things like motion.

Out intuition often leads us astray. Science is the most reliable method we have for discerning what the truth is beyond what seems to be the truth; it was once common knowledge that thunder and lightning were an expression of the gods' anger. Science showed us otherwise.

True enough. However, most Atheists tend to think a cosmic creator his highly unlikely as opposed to highly likely.

Yup. Sorry that we don't all lean the way you'd like us to, but at least you can be happy with the idea that you can persuade us with evidence.

I don't need to know everything to know somethings. That's just silly.

Sure, that's true. And if you want to show me your degree in physics or quantum mechanics, I'll happily take the things you "know" a little more seriously. If not, I'll be applying my grain of salt, because you'd be claiming to know things in a subject you don't really have a great handle on.

Science can't really answer for you regarding this. It's ontological...not empirical.

I can be patient.

What I meant is why give up being certain. Often, when I do a math problem, I redo it a few times to become certain of it.

Perhaps constant reflection over this issue, can make us certain. I don't know. It may, it may not.

You can be certain of something and still be wrong, is my contention.

We have evidence that time is not infinite (it doesn't go back forever and ever). You can make conclusions based on that.

But those conclusions can only safely extend to "time must have had a beginning." Anything beyond that point would be conjecture.

That was the conclusion that followed from a premise though, mainly that everything requires a cause including existence.

Which is the premise you can't quite prove.

It's still special pleading. It's saying we do know everything else requires a cause but we don't know existence does.

Seems like special pleading still. Unless you can explain why existence should be treated differently.

I'm saying that both should be treated with equal uncertainty. That's why it's not special pleading.

[Mystic]

Because the answer you feel seems true and the answer that is true are different concepts.

True. I am agnostic after all.

The problem I'm having is that you're making claims based on ideas that trained physicists and scientists much smarter than you or I are still grappling with.

But this has nothing to do with physics, it's an ontological premise. Also, if science can one day prove the premise, it would not mean that we couldn't have already known it.

If you've got some scientific training that I'm not aware of then I apologize, but if not, then there's a huge gap between the things that seem to you to be true, and the things that evidence would lead us to believe.

And what evidence is there to suggest existence doesn't need a cause? I would suggest evidence shows most things at least require a cause. So I would say special pleading existence has not likely to need a cause, is what is going against the evidence.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just keeping in mind that the evidence is still coming in, and thus making a statement now would only be working with partial information.

So rely on science alone. Do you the same with belief in free-will, morality, praise, identity, without science proving these are not delusions created by millions of years of magical thinking throughout evolution with no basis, you will not believe in them?

Out intuition often leads us astray. Science is the most reliable method we have for discerning what the truth is beyond what seems to be the truth; it was once common knowledge that thunder and lightning were an expression of the gods' anger. Science showed us otherwise.

But lighting being expression of the gods would obviously be a matter of doctrine, which is matter of following religious authorities. But that doesn't disprove that intuition does often lead us astray. My only contention, is that it often leads us to knowledge and is also the basis of the most fundamental aspects of humanity.

Yup. Sorry that we don't all lean the way you'd like us to, but at least you can be happy with the idea that you can persuade us with evidence.

Well what I stated first is that I wasn't trying to persuade Atheists by this argument. I said it would only be persuasive to people who the premise "everything needs a cause" seems true.

Sure, that's true. And if you want to show me your degree in physics or quantum mechanics, I'll happily take the things you "know" a little more seriously. If not, I'll be applying my grain of salt, because you'd be claiming to know things in a subject you don't really have a great handle on.

Again, quantum mechanics won't lead to anything regarding this. It's totally unrelated. As well, even if did lead us to knowledge, it would not mean we couldn't have not known otherwise.

But those conclusions can only safely extend to "time must have had a beginning." Anything beyond that point would be conjecture.

Well, I use to think so. But then I thought about what can strengthen the cosmological argument: http://atheistforums.org/thread-18200.html

Your feedback would be highly appreciated in that thread.

Which is the premise you can't quite prove.

True enough.

I'm saying that both should be treated with equal uncertainty. That's why it's not special pleading.

It's special pleading still. Why is that we can know everything else requires a cause, but not existence? Why should we treat it 50% uncertainty.

Well at least the case is at 50% for you. That's not bad. 51% and your on my side of the fence.

[archangle]

Why is it irrelevant if I'm not infallible. I go do a math test, an answer seems true to me, I shouldn't write it after much studying, because I'm not infallible? Of course I can be wrong, it doesn't mean I ought to not have the answer to what seems true to me.

Because the answer you feel seems true and the answer that is true are different concepts. You live on a planet that, from your individual perspective, seems like a flat plain. It's not, it's spherical, just beyond the resolution of your perception. Things that intuitively seem true can be false.

The problem I'm having is that you're making claims based on ideas that trained physicists and scientists much smarter than you or I are still grappling with. If you've got some scientific training that I'm not aware of then I apologize, but if not, then there's a huge gap between the things that seem to you to be true, and the things that evidence would lead us to believe.

Also, you are assuming this all from the lenses of naturalism. If naturalism is true, I agree we really can't know existence requires a constant cause.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just keeping in mind that the evidence is still coming in, and thus making a statement now would only be working with partial information.

However if is the case the existence does require a constant cause, and the Creator requires to constantly cause himself and everything else in existence, then, I don't see, how given that we have logic, and knowledge of other intuitive things like praise, morals, etc, or "from nothing, nothing follows", that we can't be given knowledge of this?

But aside from that, aside from the issue of knowledge, even if we weren't given knowledge, it does seem to be the case that existence too requires a constant cause instead of simply things like motion.

Out intuition often leads us astray. Science is the most reliable method we have for discerning what the truth is beyond what seems to be the truth; it was once common knowledge that thunder and lightning were an expression of the gods' anger. Science showed us otherwise.

True enough. However, most Atheists tend to think a cosmic creator his highly unlikely as opposed to highly likely.

Yup. Sorry that we don't all lean the way you'd like us to, but at least you can be happy with the idea that you can persuade us with evidence.

I don't need to know everything to know somethings. That's just silly.

Sure, that's true. And if you want to show me your degree in physics or quantum mechanics, I'll happily take the things you "know" a little more seriously. If not, I'll be applying my grain of salt, because you'd be claiming to know things in a subject you don't really have a great handle on.

Science can't really answer for you regarding this. It's ontological...not empirical.

I can be patient.

What I meant is why give up being certain. Often, when I do a math problem, I redo it a few times to become certain of it.

Perhaps constant reflection over this issue, can make us certain. I don't know. It may, it may not.

You can be certain of something and still be wrong, is my contention.

We have evidence that time is not infinite (it doesn't go back forever and ever). You can make conclusions based on that.

But those conclusions can only safely extend to "time must have had a beginning." Anything beyond that point would be conjecture.

That was the conclusion that followed from a premise though, mainly that everything requires a cause including existence.

Which is the premise you can't quite prove.

It's still special pleading. It's saying we do know everything else requires a cause but we don't know existence does.

Seems like special pleading still. Unless you can explain why existence should be treated differently.

I'm saying that both should be treated with equal uncertainty. That's why it's not special pleading.

no, the two claims are not on equal terms. one is based on observations the other is not.

"existence, at least from what we can tell, is based on some type of particle interaction. To claim that we don't know that for sure is ok, but the fact remains, that everything we see is based on particle interaction. The claim that existence is probably based on particle interactions is a valid stance.

So there is no way to put them on equal terms of uncertainty.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...you're making claims based on ideas that trained physicists and scientists much smarter than you or I are still grappling with...Science is the most reliable method we have for discerning what the truth is beyond what seems to be the truth.

Science is not the end all be all of human knowledge. Science itself rests on underlying metaphysical assumptions like the validity of logic, the utility of mathematics, categories of being, etc. Why does science work? How do you determine what qualifies as truth, much less a scientific truth? You seem like a smart guy, but your responses lack rigor.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why does science work?

Perhaps science fairies are all pulling strings in between painting the dew on tulips in the morning. Regardless, it still works....and in the absence of those science fairies I don't mind going with the well evidenced and well scrutinized explanations it demands of itself.

If step one in your defense of fairies is to malign scientific explanations and endeavour, it's very difficult to give a shit what step 2 might be Chad.
(that you seem to be compelled to at least flirt with the idea demonstrates very plainly to me that you understand that you're on the wrong side of a line, btw)

[Neo-Scholastic]

If step one in your defense of fairies is to malign scientific explanations and endeavor, it's very difficult to give a shit what step 2 might be Chad.

When have I ever maligned the scientific method or theories based on scientific inquiry? You know me better than that. Every method of obtaining knowledge, whether it be reading tea leaves or a double-blind tests, rests on some epistemology. And every inquiry into the nature of reality, presupposes an ontology defining what can be considered part of that reality. You have an ontology whether you care to admit it or not. And it's a very limited, inadequate, and logically inconsistent ontology. You seem to think random chance devoid of any initial conditions somehow imposes an inherent order on the physical universe. That sounds like magic and wishful thinking to me.

[median]

Why does it need from separate from itself? If I believe I can't be causing myself to exist, nothing can be causing itself to exist?

If it was eternal, immensely powerful, it seems to me the case that it can cause itself.

However it seems to me quarks, and atoms cannot.

Wow. You really can't read (or write) English correctly can you? "From separate from itself"?? What? This is not a valid English sentence. It makes no sense. Anyways, if you can say God causes itself, I can say the global universe causes itself. But you have not demonstrated anything "causing itself to exist". You just keep SAYING SO. But saying it is so doesn't make it so. And "it seems to me" is beside the point. We know what "seems" to you. We are asking for a justification. WHY. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

Second, "eternal" and "immensely powerful" does not equal "create/cause itself" (neither does it get you to a deity/God). Your assertion is a logical contradiction - a violation of the law of non-contradiction. In order for something to "cause itself" it must exist first (meaning it did not cause itself). Are you arguing that your deity both existed and NOT existed at the same time? If not, how do you know this thing always existed? [B/c the Koran told me!]

Third, you act like you KNOW about quarks, atoms, and quantum physics - when you don't. It's so funny that you can't even be honest with yourself. This is the problem with your "seems me to me" argument from ignorance. "I can't understand it any other way. Therefore it must be Allah." NOPE!

Which word are you confused about. Constant as in perpetual. Cause as in what results in a effect.

The Creator's existence is a constant effect, and he is the constant cause of that existence.

I see it possible for 1) what is eternal 2) what is immensely powerful and supernatural, but don't see it possible for things like quarks.

Therefore the conclusion will follow. I don't claim certainty. I don't go around trying to prove to Atheists a Creator exists by this proof because I understand they might and probably will disagree on that everything needs a cause, and nothing is not an effect.

Dude, you really need to work on your English writing. It's very hard to understand you sometimes.

PROVE IT. You keep talking about "the creator" - ASSUMING it exists (saying so), but you haven't demonstrated that. What you say about "creator" we can say about global universe. That is useless. You can't assume your position you need to demonstrate it. Second, you JUST DID come to ME (this atheist) and tried to use this argument. So STOP USING IT!

I wasn't make an argument based on a universal regarding that. The universe being formed of lifeless parts or biological parts, it doesn't seem possible to me, that it is constantly causing itself. That means everything in the universe would be combining somehow to cause everything in the universe or somethings in the universe would be causing everything else in the universe. It doesn't seem rational.

However a supernatural creator constantly maintaining his own existence, and that of the universe, seems plausible.

And since it seems to me everything needs a cause, it seems to me such a being exists.

So you have one BIG Argument from Ignorance (fallacy). "It doesn't seem to me possible any other way. Therefore Allah did it." NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! This is the same irrational argument used by the ancient superstitious people of the past. "I can't see how lightening came any other way. Therefore ZEUS did it!" FAIL.

If you don't want to have a rational discussion, and just want to keep using logical fallacies all day long, just say so. We can end this right now b/c it's useless to talk with someone who allows so much irrational thinking in order to attempt to justify their view.

I do care about what is true, but I don't dismiss evidence that points to something, simply because I am uncertain of it. Arguments from ignorance like argument from authority are not sound, but make a strong case regardless often. Often they don't, often they do.

WOW. Holy shit. You just admitted that you are willing to use illogical/invalid arguments. Could it get anymore clear how much of a liar you are? You clearly DO NOT care whether you beliefs are actually true - as you just demonstrated by your willingness to continue (willingly) in your irrationality. Stop fooling yourself. Your alleged "evidence" (nature/the universe) does not "point" to anything. Nature proves nature. It doesn't tell you how it got here until you investigate. Now you are just making shit up. WOW.

Yes, arguments from ignorance and authority are irrational. SO STOP USING THEM!

Well now you want it all defined by empiricism. Again, this what seems plausible to me. I don't say it has to mean plausible to you. I don't know how you think.

I can only act what seems more plausible as an explanation to me.

I KNOW you don't think how I think, that's b/c you are irrational - willing to use irrational and invalid arguments in an attempt to support the assumption you made when you were younger about Allah and the Koran.

Weren't saying before if there was a supernatural cause, it would not mean it's a deity. Weren't you saying if such a being exists, it would not mean it's "Allah"?

So you're arguing for a "supernatural cause" that is not a God? LOL. WOW. This just keeps getting more hilarious by the second - twisting and turning every which way but loose.

It does follow, because these are based on faith. Morals, praise, frree-will, human rights, are all things humans have faith in. There is no empirical evidence they are true. Neither does humanity base them on a inference from a logical argument if there was one that proves them to be true.

So how are you defining faith? If you define faith as something that must be believed in for no good reason or no basis or is not justified, you are being quite circular in dismissing faith.

BULLSHIT! Nowhere is my rejection of faith "quite circular". That is YOUR bs claim. If you had actual evidence you wouldn't need faith. Faith, and having a reasonable expectation based on evidence, are NOT THE SAME THING. That is your fallacy. Actually, the circularity is all yours. First you say those things in the list (morals, freewill, etc) are based on faith and then you try to justify it by attempting to redefine those things as "things humans have faith in". NO, THEY DON'T. That is not faith. You suffer from the same fallacy that the Christians do - thinking faith and tentative trust based on evidence is the same thing. NO. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Faith is not like that at all. Faith is not tentative. It is FIXED, rigid, and unwavering. Anyone can put "faith" in anything (as you are), and keep defending it no matter what (uncritically). That is nowhere near reasonable or tentative trust. And it is certainly nowhere near the credulity you are practicing.

If you really cared whether or not your beliefs were true you wouldn't be accepting invalid arguments and holding on to "faith" uncritically. If you had sound evidence, you wouldn't need faith.

I don't think you understand Plantinga's ontological argument. Or what "possibly neccessarily" mean. To be possibly necessarily, it must be that case, that it's possibly the case, that x is so, in all possible worlds.

I can't be a necessary being because I could always be different. Just give me a different hair cut right now, shows I can't be ontologically necessary.

Based upon your extremely low yet extremely hypocritical standards of evidence anyone can make up anything they want for this BS argument. "Oh, we are all necessary beings. In our past lives we were unicorns. That's most reasonable to me. My evidence is humanity. People are similar so they must be necessary." or "Atoms, quarks and neutrinos are necessary beings. We just can't see it, but the evidence is there. They are all-powerful. Trust me! I know. I don't think like you. I have faith."

You are missing the point entirely.

Not really. Re-assert. By explanation, I take it to mean outside itself. Well, I am here because of my parents. Their parents are here, because of their parents. Humans are here I believe because of evolution with divine intervention. Whatever the case is, we know we need an explanation outside ourselves, while the same is not known of the Creator.

HA! LOL. And this is exactly why I brought up the Russell/Copleston debate. You need to go do your homework and come back when you know what's going on. You haven't demonstrated a creator, only an argument from ignorance. You have committed the fallacy of composition (on multiple occasions - go look it up). And (to pull your trick on you) you haven't shown that we can't be necessary ourselves. Again, if you can just make shit up about "a creator" we can just make shit up about anything we want as a response. YAY. Dead.

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='429176' dateline='1365472129']
What's your proof of that. The way I see it, all the most fundemental beleifs of humanity will have no path way except via faith.

For example our beliefs in human rights. Our beliefs in a perpetual identity. Our belief in a identity. Our belief in praiseworthiness.

HAHAHAH! "We"??? No, YOU! Wow, you really don't get it, do you? The massive assumptions you JUST made are exactly like the assumption you are making about some incoherent deity you can't describe or point to in primary characteristics. There are no inherent human rights (aside from human allowance). There is no "praiseworthiness" outside of human judgment. And there is significant debate about personal identity (for centuries). These are all ASSUMPTIONS that YOU made - just like your assumption about "Allah the Magnificent" Santa Claus.

You just repeat your argument over and over again. Calm down. You don't know what I believe in.

I know quite a bit more than you think actually. You've made it quite clear that you believe in a "supernatural creator" deity that "constantly" creates itself and you've accepted the name "Allah" for this deity. You've said that your "God" is "Ultimate existence" and "necessary existence" and you give "it" the characteristic "he". You've admitted that "intuitively we know everything needs an explanation" (GOTCHA Mr. Special Pleading).

Of course, your God then can't be distinguished whatever from the totality of natural existence itself. So it's useless to call it that ideologically charged word. Just call it nature and be done.

Here's an answer I like that someone else once gave you, "It's best not to ask questions at the boundaries of science, and then attempt to answer them if you don't know shit about the science of it."

Whoops, your credulity is showing.

Just because I took away the praise you wanted to get for posting this video, doesn't mean you should take me as an enemy.

LOL. Don't flatter yourself.

Get to know me better. We can possibly become friends.

No thx.

I know assuming a Creator will not make it true.

Then stop doing it.

I see much of what I'm saying is going over your head.

WRONG. It's going right into my head and being rejected immediately as invalid and irrational - just as you admitted earlier Mr. Assumer.

Suppose morality was a total delusion. And for some reason a person was hell bent on proving that.

I don't see how you can say "your faith in morality cannot give you knowledge of it being true" and expect everyone to bow down and accept your assertion.

From their perspective, their belief in morals is strong, and it does give them a justifiable knowledge of it being true.

You can say "You are special pleading with your belief in morality, you require proof for this and that, but you don't require proof for morality".

From their perspective, they have knowledge.

Now if someone has knowledge of ultimate existence existing, they could also explain why that existence if it were to exist, doesn't need outside cause, doesn't need a maintainer outside itself.

Also, if it explains everything that requires an explanation, including itself, then I don't see what's the problem you have?

LOL. This is more of your wishful imaginary thinking. Knowledge (put simply) is justified true belief. In your little scenario, no one has justified their "faith" in anything. They have (as you do) just CLAIMED it. Justification requires sound reasoning - which you clearly have no problem dismissing.

Second, "explaining everything that requires an explanation" doesn't make your explanation true. You really need to start paying closer attention. For the hundredth time, anyone can makeup anything they want as "an explanation". SO WHAT. An explanation that sounds good (tickles your little ears and makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside) is not necessarily both valid and sound. You need more that just "it explains everything" and it's surprising you can't see that. Well, then again, maybe not so surprising.

---

---

I do not need to prove my experiences with God to myself, I know there real. It is you who has to disprove I have experienced the God of the Bible, It's impossible for me to deny what I know. So get to it.

Another Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam") type fallacy (attempting to shift the burden of proof). NOPE. It's not my job to prove a negative here. You are the one making a positive claim (that you "experienced God" - whatever that means). So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. Otherwise, there's no reason to take your claim seriously. "Daddy! I experienced Santa Claus!" Anyone can claim they experienced anything (aliens, other dimensions, enlightenment, zen, whatever) and people are often mistaken in their interpretation of what they experience. Your non-falsifiable, invisible, non-demonstrable, alleged "experience" isn't valid here (no more than a little boy's claim to have experienced the tooth fairy). Sorry.

I told you experiencing Him, if you want to see it demonstrated come walk with me. I think you're mad because you never experienced God and now take it out on Christians.

LOL. It's the same old, "If you don't agree with me, then you didn't REALLY experience God." FAIL. Anyone can make these claims, and indeed we hear them from Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, and tons more. Read your bible dude (John ch 14, Mark ch 16). You're the one that needs to "get to it". Demonstrate your deity or you have nothing but empty words, like every other religionist on the planet.

To want to believe an assumption and live your life by it would be crazy, this must be what you did and it made you mad. I've experienced God over and over and as far as primary characteristics, how about love, kindness, peace, patience, promises kept, caring, provision and ect... I've experienced these from God.

FAIL AGAIN. These are not primary characteristics. They are verbs. Primary characteristics are attributes of being, such as water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

Second, you ARE believing assumptions (namely that you are "experiencing God"). How do you know you're experiencing God? Is it b/c you assumed the bible is "the word of God" in advance (just like the Mormons do with the Book of Mormon) and then went out seeking any feeling that would affirm what you already so desperately wanted to believe? Yeah. No different than any other religionist.

I assume nothing about God, He has proven himself to me, I know with no doubt He exist, your just mad because you did not and could not have or you would not have rejected Him. I've never said I can prove to anyone God exists, I did not prove this to myself, God proved to me He is real. I laid out a challenge to you, don't make excuses, accept it or refuse it.

I used to say the same thing when I thought like you. But saying it is so doesn't make it so Mr Gullible. Every religionist claims they "experienced God". Big whoop. CREDULITY. Demonstrate how you know. Second, nice try at the No True Scotsman fallacy. FAIL. Anyone can try that BS.

My experience is objective, I do not try and delude myself, that would be stupid. Faith leads to belief, belief to knowledge, knowledge to revelation, at what point did you miss out on a path of experiencing God.

This is what Muslims say about the Koran and what Mormons say about the Book of Mormon. Faith is useless for separating fact from fiction. Faith is indistinguishable from being GULLIBLE, as you have demonstrated here. And you're multiplicity of logical fallacies (including the fallacy of Complex Question here) are demonstrating quite clearly that you don't really care whether your beliefs are actually true. Like every other religionist, you just want to believe, what you want to believe, because you want to believe based on what you already assumed from the outset. Sorry dude, that is called credulity.

I guess that means you're gullible every time you go to sit down, I suspect you do not test out every chair you put your rear in, people would call you crazy if you did not demonstrate faith in the chairs to hold your weight. Having faith in the chair may prove your sanity.

Having a reasonable, and easily alterable, expectation based on EVIDENCE is NOTHING like your faith (which is FIXED and rigid), which is why you are trying to defend it so vehemently here. Faith is believing when you have no good reason to, because if you had a good reason you wouldn't need faith. Your belief in your Yahweh deity (just like every other religionists belief in their deity) you hold to firmly, with conviction, "holding fast" to it. That is NOTHING like tentative alterable trust in evidence.

---

It's true! A blind squirrel does stumble on a nut every so often. I suppose you define the 'global universe' as the physical universe. But why do you assume the physical universe is the whole of reality? MysticKnight have both identified properties not properly attributed to the physical universe. More is needed to make a complete reality.

HA! In this case the blind squirrel keeps praying to his nut and gets nothing. What was that again? More is needed to make a complete reality? What, you mean like making shit up such as eternal, omniscient, dieties? Yeah.

So, obviously you didn't read carefully enough. I didn't assume anything. I said if you can make up shit about some non-demonstrable deity (giving whatever secondary characteristics you want) then so can I about whatever I want. That gets us nowhere there smart guy.

[Darkstar]

I do not believe I posed those questions to you.