Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[Arkilogue]

The only subjective aspect I need of God to make this all work is that God is self aware. God didn't chose to create anything. Because God didn't have to.

[downbeatplumb]

Good luck demonstrating that there is only one true morality.

Give me an example of where there are two opposing truths about something.

I think it is immoral to kill your daughter for not marrying who you tell her to.

In some areas of the world it is considered moral.

I think it is immoral to impose your own views of what is acceptable for consenting adults to participate in sexually, others disagree.

I could go on like this for quite some time.

Morality is  a movable feast and changes over time, which is why modern morality is superior to the past when religious immovable morality was imposed on all.

In backwards areas of the world we see what religious morality leads to, I am thinking of areas controlled by ISIS and Saudi arabia which resemble the oppression of past Christian theocracies.

[Lek]

Give me an example of where there are two opposing truths about something.

I think it is immoral to kill your daughter for not marrying who you tell her to.

In some areas of the world it is considered moral.

I think it is immoral to impose your own views of what is acceptable for consenting adults to participate in sexually, others disagree.

I could go on like this for quite some time.

Morality is  a movable feast and changes over time, which is why modern morality is superior to the past when religious immovable morality was imposed on all.

In backwards areas of the world we see what religious morality leads to, I am thinking of areas controlled by ISIS and Saudi arabia which resemble the oppression of past Christian theocracies.

These are not examples of two opposing truths about something, but are two opposing views of the what is true. If it is immoral to kill your daughter, then it is, whether you agree or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pointless gamesmanship.  OFC there could be different rules in a different universe.  If things were different....things would be different.

However, they wouldn't be -logical- rules, because that term refers to these rules, here.  Come up with your own name to refer to whatever rules you've imagined the god you've imagined plays by in whatever alternate universe you've imagined.  There's simply no point in trying to steal the credibility of the term logical for the contents of your fantasies.

Why change the label? I mean to say what the term "logical" means. Its reference is the meaning I'm conveying when describing other universes. You can't push me back from wanting to grab that meaning and use it in order to construct an argument. Call it goblygoop if it makes the point get across, doesn't matter.

It obviously matters to you, lol.   What amuses me to no end is that you're desperately seeking logical illogic in an alternate, imagined universe......as though it might help you in this one.  May as well cut the bs and just say "I think god's really powerful, and can do whatever it wants" hur-dur.  All this back and forth like you have an argument or demonstration for some super rational this or that,  pointless.

Those other gods that people believe in, that can only do what;s logically possible, pussies.  Your god is bigger, better. 

[Doubting Thomas]

Which all ends up with the same question - does God exist or not?  I guess we all just have to make that decision for ourselves.

Which until someone shows definitive, incontrovertible proof, there's no reason to believe any gods exist.

[Arkilogue]

Which all ends up with the same question - does God exist or not?  I guess we all just have to make that decision for ourselves.

Which until someone shows definitive, incontrovertible proof, there's no reason to believe any gods exist.

Do you believe the universe exists beyond the visible portion?

[Lek]

Which until someone shows definitive, incontrovertible proof, there's no reason to believe any gods exist.

Do you believe the universe exists beyond the visible portion?

Yes, if the universe means everything that exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Careful, there's a subtle but important distinction between the things that are visible to us and what the "observable universe" is, in the meaningful context of the question.

If the "more" is fundamentally unobservable, and that's where we place a god, then said god is fundamentally irrelevant to us.  Undetectable, directly or indirectly, non-interacting. Unvidenced, never heard or seen from - such a belief falsifies all god belief as delusional fantasy. None of the stories could refer to it, no logic could point to it. Divine miracles are out the window, as are all experiences of the divine.

If, otoh, we propose that there is "unobservable x" but that god does -not- belong to that category (say you believe that god has been or can be observed directly or indirectly)...then all of a sudden there's a whole world out there even more hidden than the divine, and importantly..hidden -from- the divine just as it is hidden from us.

Or, I guess, you could go with the droll and unrigorous interpretation of such acceptance of the marginally "invisible". That you totally believe in shit we have no evidence for.

No win scenario.

[Arkilogue]

Do you believe the universe exists beyond the visible portion?

Yes, if the universe means everything that exists.

Not necessarily but at the very least, similar sponge-like spray of super-clusters, voids, filaments and sheets walls of trillions of galaxies in space.

[Lek]

Yes, if the universe means everything that exists.

Not necessarily but at the very least, similar sponge-like spray of super-clusters, voids, filaments and sheets walls of trillions of galaxies in space.

Sure.