An unorthodox belief in God.

[mickiel]

No, things in our reality are too deliberate , the earth was obviously well suited for humans.

It's more likely that Humans were well suited for the Earth, and so developed and evolved within its tolerances.

Its both!

[Confused Ape]

Oh no I understand why you reject it, you're supposed to. Its you're time to reject it; where I differ with Christianity, is that rejection is meaningless to god, because he has you rejecting him. He wants you there, thus that rejection is NOT condemnation for you; its karma; its position; its destiny. I do not view atheism as evil, nor as a thing from the devil. NO! I see god as its source, as he is the source of theism as well.

You replied to my last post while I was editing it in hope of making things a bit clearer - I've just added a note at the end to say that you didn't misquote me.

How are you defining karma here? You should find the title of this article somewhat familiar because we have the same saying in Western culture with the same meaning.

As you Sow so shall you Reap

He who sows paddy reaps paddy. He who sows green gram reaps green gram. He who sows oranges reaps oranges. Man sows the seed to attain what he desires to reap. Even so, man does evil deeds and reaps the fruits of pain. He who does virtuous actions reaps good fruits. One reaps the fruits according to his Karmas or actions.

Western culture saying -

As you sow so shall you reap

Meaning - Your deeds, good or bad, will repay you in kind.

Origin - From the Bible, Galatians VI (King James Version):

Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

It's one thing telling me that God chose me to be an atheist so I was destined to be one but it's very confusing when you say it's karma. What seed did I sow to reap my destiny as an atheist?

[ShaMan]

It's more likely that Humans were well suited for the Earth, and so developed and evolved within its tolerances.

Its both!

If it's as easily "both", as you say, then it is also equally neither, correct?

[Mister Agenda]

Translation: " I am not even considering your evidence as evidence, but I am going to keep " ASKING for it!"

In example; I provided a list of 30 historical references to jesus, all but one historians, the one a document. How could one claim jesus did not exist, and 29 historians wrote about him, plus the Toledot Yeshu.

If Jesus existed, it doesn't mean God exists. It does not follow, any more than the Roman emperor Julian's existence means the god Jupiter exists.

---

What!! 29 historians recording jesus existed makes no sense?

Good grief! Will denial ever cease?

It might make sense as supporting the existence of Jesus, no sense at all as supporting the existence of God. It seems to me that only a Christian would have trouble seeing that.

---

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
Sure, we can start with this: and after you step on it I can continue with more on just that; after you mangle the next, I'll give the next.

You're not claiming that's YOUR research, are you?

---

I think jesus was from god, no doubt. I do not believe jesus is god; god is god, jersus is jesus; the importance of jesus is his sacrifice, his death for humanities sins. Because of that, all of us will be with god. Why god wanted us to be born in flesh, suffer and die, THEN be born again into his spirit world, I have little idea. But jesus was a key to us being able to be put in this giant incubator, ( earth), and then maturing inside of this giant womb with all its acids, and then be delivered by god. Its now a birthright that includes ALL atheist, no one is left out.

What about Krishna?

[mickiel]

Oh no I understand why you reject it, you're supposed to. Its you're time to reject it; where I differ with Christianity, is that rejection is meaningless to god, because he has you rejecting him. He wants you there, thus that rejection is NOT condemnation for you; its karma; its position; its destiny. I do not view atheism as evil, nor as a thing from the devil. NO! I see god as its source, as he is the source of theism as well.

You replied to my last post while I was editing it in hope of making things a bit clearer - I've just added a note at the end to say that you didn't misquote me.

How are you defining karma here? You should find the title of this article somewhat familiar because we have the same saying in Western culture with the same meaning.

As you Sow so shall you Reap

He who sows paddy reaps paddy. He who sows green gram reaps green gram. He who sows oranges reaps oranges. Man sows the seed to attain what he desires to reap. Even so, man does evil deeds and reaps the fruits of pain. He who does virtuous actions reaps good fruits. One reaps the fruits according to his Karmas or actions.

Western culture saying -

As you sow so shall you reap

Meaning - Your deeds, good or bad, will repay you in kind.

Origin - From the Bible, Galatians VI (King James Version):

Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

It's one thing telling me that God chose me to be an atheist so I was destined to be one but it's very confusing when you say it's karma. What seed did I sow to reap my destiny as an atheist?

I don't believe our paths are up to us completely, we reap after we are put into our paths, whatever we do while on the predestined path , we sew the benefits or troubles from it. We did not ask to be born, and we are put on paths by influences far greater than us. You seeded nothing to be an atheist, it was predestined before you were born.

---

Its both!

If it's as easily "both", as you say, then it is also equally neither, correct?

No, I don't agree with that. Going back to nothing means nothing.

---

You're not claiming that's YOUR research, are you?

---

[quote=What about Krishna?

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

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

[ShaMan]

If it's as easily "both", as you say, then it is also equally neither, correct?

No, I don't agree with that. Going back to nothing means nothing.

I'm afraid you'll have to justify your statement that it's "both" before I can entertain your idea that it's not neither (which is the same as it being both).

[Mister Agenda]

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.

---

You claimed consciousness is evidence of God, you did not support that claim, and still haven't. Why don't you try to do that?

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?

---

When it comes to evidence, quality is far more important than quantity. One piece of well-supported evidence is infinitely more valuable than a great pile of fallacies and non sequiturs.

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.

---

It's more likely that Humans were well suited for the Earth, and so developed and evolved within its tolerances.

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.

[Confused Ape]

I don't believe our paths are up to us completely, we reap after we are put into our paths, whatever we do while on the predestined path , we sew the benefits or troubles from it. We did not ask to be born, and we are put on paths by influences far greater than us. You seeded nothing to be an atheist, it was predestined before you were born.

Well, that's an interesting idea, too.

Anyway, let's look at what's going on in this topic from the point of view of your beliefs.

1: All the atheists here were destined to be atheists.

2: We're destined not to accept what you regard as being evidence for God.

3: It's pointless your getting frustrated with us because we don't accept what you regard as being evidence for God.

[mickiel]

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 don't go to church, nor do I try and inspire others to attend.

[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.