Very short version of the long argument.

[WinterHold]

And among those arguments is does man really think no one sees him?

I am strongly of the opinion that humans have never seen a real god, but can see plenty of them in their imaginations.

I strongly believe, MK, that your god lives only in your mind and in the minds of believers, and has no connection whatsoever to the origins of the universe.

Nobody saw him "yet"; it can be truthful in this sense. Just like black holes, pulsars and other celestial discoveries.
The belief in such entity comes from knowing the environment well as a first, and making sense of the timeline we live in. At this point, theistic beliefs come racing to provide their versions and explanations of the "truth".

The problem is to start with the concept of God; and not with the design. In other words; it's not humanity that used oil to power it machinery, but it's earth that allowed fossil fuel to be composed out of pressure and bones.

If oil wasn't inflammable, machines would be useless.
But yes, many humans customize God to fit their perspectives.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Well, it was indeed short. 
Good on you for that.

Now, if you could just manage to demonstrate that what you and these supposed "messengers" know, is in fact, TRUE and CORRECT....then you'd actually be getting somewhere.

I can but we need listening ears that accept the truth when presented to them. A heart that doesn't want to see but falsehood will not accept the truth of God and his beautiful names.

Mystic Knight, out of curiosity, are you willing to embrace diversity of thought and accept peoples' differences?  Furthermore, rather than blindly accepting the truth of any particular worldview, is it not more sensible for people to first gain an understanding of that view via inquiry and open/safe dialog?  Is a particular world view effective if people ultimately adhere to it via force (social and cultural norms, fear, hostility/violence, etc.) and not by a genuine desire to understand and embrace it? What are your thoughts, sir?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're speaking to someone whose answer you could not reliably interpret - regardless of what it was.  Mystic speaks an individual variant of english.  

If he told you that he could -or- couldn't "embrace diversity of thought" you could not expect the words embrace, diversity, or thought to carry any common meaning.  Embrace might mean subsume.  Diversity - the varying opinions on just how awesome allah was.  Thought, halibut.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

You're speaking to someone whose answer you could not reliably interpret - regardless of what it was.  Mystic speaks an individual variant of english.  

If he told you that he could -or- couldn't "embrace diversity of thought" you could not expect the words embrace, diversity, or thought to carry any common meaning.  Embrace might mean subsume.  Diversity - the varying opinions on just how awesome allah was.  Thought, halibut.

In your opinion, would you say that a meaningful dialog is possible under such circumstances?  If so, then how would you proceed?

[The Grand Nudger]

Unfortunately, no.  You can't have a conversation with a person who's speaking in tongues.

[Whateverist]

I am strongly of the opinion that humans have never seen a real god, but can see plenty of them in their imaginations.

I strongly believe, MK, that your god lives only in your mind and in the minds of believers, and has no connection whatsoever to the origins of the universe.

Nobody saw him "yet"; it can be truthful in this sense. Just like black holes, pulsars and other celestial discoveries.
The belief in such entity comes from knowing the environment well as a first, and making sense of the timeline we live in. At this point, theistic beliefs come racing to provide their versions and explanations of the "truth".

The problem is to start with the concept of God; and not with the design. In other words; it's not humanity that used oil to power it machinery, but it's earth that allowed fossil fuel to be composed out of pressure and bones.

If oil wasn't inflammable, machines would be useless.
But yes, many humans customize God to fit their perspectives.

Are you seriously suggesting that we burn humans for fuel?????  Just tell me you're just riffing here and this isn't actually in the Koran.

---

Unfortunately, no.  You can't have a conversation with a person who's speaking in tongues.

You can however put something in his mouth for him to bite on so he doesn't swallow that tongue as you wrestle him into a straightjacket.

[WinterHold]

Nobody saw him "yet"; it can be truthful in this sense. Just like black holes, pulsars and other celestial discoveries.
The belief in such entity comes from knowing the environment well as a first, and making sense of the timeline we live in. At this point, theistic beliefs come racing to provide their versions and explanations of the "truth".

The problem is to start with the concept of God; and not with the design. In other words; it's not humanity that used oil to power it machinery, but it's earth that allowed fossil fuel to be composed out of pressure and bones.

If oil wasn't inflammable, machines would be useless.
But yes, many humans customize God to fit their perspectives.

Are you seriously suggesting that we burn humans for fuel?????  Just tell me you're just riffing here and this isn't actually in the Koran.

---

The Quran spoke about wood and its burning though:

Sura 36, The Quran:
( 80 )   [It is] He who made for you from the green tree, fire, and then from it you ignite.
( 81 )   Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the likes of them? Yes, [it is so]; and He is the Knowing Creator.
( 82 )   His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, "Be," and it is.
( 83 )   So exalted is He in whose hand is the realm of all things, and to Him you will be returned.

IDK where you got the idea of burning humans as fuel ! I don't think our bodies would make a good source for Hydrocarbons, but coal and wood might do the trick to operate something quite basic.

Consider the other sources of fuel too; all of these are always there for us to use; even the sun gives us energy. Like somebody is pushing us into building, harnessing and using these resources using the power of our minds. Animals don't know how to produce energy on the other hand.

[Cyberman]

They have no trouble producing energy for their own personal needs.

[WinterHold]

They have no trouble producing energy for their own personal needs.

For us; it all comes to consciousness: animals don't need fire or steam engines; but a conscious human needs them to eat a decent meal and travel for their next business trip.

Why are we this special? why do we actually make sense of these resources to use them as we want, even for mere fun (like fireworks). It's not a matter of need for us; rather it's a matter of "conscious" decisions, making sense of the resource. That's why "luxury" exist

[Cyberman]

We don't need fire or steam engines. That's not what I was saying. All living organisms, including humans, metabolise their own energy from the food they ingest and the insolation of the Sun's radiation. No consciousness required.