Question about you know who

[tonymctones]

You are deviating from the main point, which was 'the problem' of 'good' and 'evil'...I have to get to work...I'll be back. 

actually my friend it was you who was deviating, since the original thread was meant to be about God being all good, all knowing and all powerful and how that relates to evil/bad things. Not why in your opinion there are no good or evil things.
In my mind there is no problem with good or evil, the only problem is that my justification of them isnt good enough for you, which is your problem not mine. Just food for thought but what if God was allowing these "evil" things to happen to "innocent" and "good" people and things to save them from a fate much more horrible, would that not be a compassionate act? a "good" act?

The reason that i addressed the other question is BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO EITHER BE IGNORING MY OTHER REQUESTS IN THIS AND OTHER THREADS FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION OR YOU HAVE NO ANSWER AND DONT WANT TO ADMIT IT.

Again how is my religion a poison?
And please provide an explanation for the first move?
and why the anger and arrogance?

[Deicide]

actually my friend it was you who was deviating, since the original thread was meant to be about God being all good, all knowing and all powerful and how that relates to evil/bad things. Not why in your opinion there are no good or evil things.
In my mind there is no problem with good or evil, the only problem is that my justification of them isnt good enough for you, which is your problem not mine. Just food for thought but what if God was allowing these "evil" things to happen to "innocent" and "good" people and things to save them from a fate much more horrible, would that not be a compassionate act? a "good" act?

The reason that i addressed the other question is BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO EITHER BE IGNORING MY OTHER REQUESTS IN THIS AND OTHER THREADS FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION OR YOU HAVE NO ANSWER AND DONT WANT TO ADMIT IT.

Again how is my religion a poison?
And please provide an explanation for the first move?
and why the anger and arrogance?

The entire problem of the theodicy is that acknowledging it as a problem necessarily presupposes the existence of the Judeo-Christian fertilty deity, for which there is zero evidence. Presuppositions about the existence of such an entity are always problematic. I have no problem with your 'justification'; it is merely another of the hundred ways one says: god works in mysterious ways. The fact is that the simpler, more concise explanation is the better one.
You may as well say Poseidon works in mysterious ways when it comes to hurricanes and maritime disasters.

If you have a specific question; ask it and I will try to answer it. I have not seen any thus far.

[loco]

tonymctones, good thread! 

And good posts by MB_722! 

I've enjoyed reading.   

[tonymctones]

The entire problem of the theodicy is that acknowledging it as a problem necessarily presupposes the existence of the Judeo-Christian fertilty deity, for which there is zero evidence. Presuppositions about the existence of such an entity are always problematic. I have no problem with your 'justification'; it is merely another of the hundred ways one says: god works in mysterious ways. The fact is that the simpler, more concise explanation is the better one.
You may as well say Poseidon works in mysterious ways when it comes to hurricanes and maritime disasters.

If you have a specific question; ask it and I will try to answer it. I have not seen any thus far.

LOL this is exactly why I linked you to my other thread which you still havent answered, by the way. It does somewhat address the deity issue and perhaps gives jusitfication for it. (again if its justification enough for you is your own thing)
I can see your point about the jusitfication as I believe it to be mine. but the fact is that not always is the simplest answer the right one.

I dont see how I can be anymore specific Deicde.
So Ill ask again
Something caused the first movement in a motionless space, what was it?
How exactly is my religion a poison?
and why the anger and arrogance?

[tonymctones]

tonymctones, good thread! 

And good posts by MB_722! 

I've enjoyed reading.   

thanks loco

[MB_722]

Just food for thought but what if God was allowing these "evil" things to happen to "innocent" and "good" people and things to save them from a fate much more horrible, would that not be a compassionate act? a "good" act?

maybe. If there is a plan for us all, ultimately it would be to get to heaven and all the rest. That isn't the purpose of life, you aren't here to be comfortable, free of pain. If you truly are comfortable you are dead. Feeling pain gives you the feeling of life. You need the experience of life to understand death. The problems you face in your life today are there for your benefit.

This is why I said too much time is spent on thinking about the after life. We have the idea we are judged on what we do in life not in what we do in the afterlife. What you do in life determines where you go, in the physical or the spirtual world. We are here to enjoy it, look at all the things you can have pleasure in. 

There is the question, how do you look at life when things get bad. do you condemn God and humanity for your troubles, do you say God doesn't exist because in your opinion these bad things are happening to you or others? The question has to be what am I doing, why is this situation presenting itself to me. What can I learn from it, do about it. If people would only see that in suffering we are allowed to become something more. Rather than complaining we would be far better individuals and a better world. Or you can take the slippery slope of being angry and confused because something didn't go your way and quitting.

This is the way I look at it I'm not saying I am perfect still have plenty of work to do. When you get down to the bottom of things you realize the problems we face are there because we are capable of handling them. God knows this the problem is that we don't have this clarity sometimes.

[tonymctones]

maybe. If there is a plan for us all, ultimately it would be to get to heaven and all the rest. That isn't the purpose of life, you aren't here to be comfortable, free of pain. If you truly are comfortable you are dead. Feeling pain gives you the feeling of life. You need the experience of life to understand death. The problems you face in your life today are there for your benefit.

This is why I said too much time is spent on thinking about the after life. We have the idea we are judged on what we do in life not in what we do in the afterlife. What you do in life determines where you go, in the physical or the spirtual world. We are here to enjoy it, look at all the things you can have pleasure in. 

There is the question, how do you look at life when things get bad. do you condemn God and humanity for your troubles, do you say God doesn't exist because in your opinion these bad things are happening to you or others? The question has to be what am I doing, why is this situation presenting itself to me. What can I learn from it, do about it. If people would only see that in suffering we are allowed to become something more. Rather than complaining we would be far better individuals and a better world. Or you can take the slippery slope of being angry and confused because something didn't go your way and quitting.
This is the way I look at it I'm not saying I am perfect still have plenty of work to do. When you get down to the bottom of things you realize the problems we face are there because we are capable of handling them. God knows this the problem is that we don't have this clarity sometimes.

very true i did this for a good while and it made me question and even dismiss my faith and to this day its not what it was. Anger breeds anger, and thats not how I want to live my life. You gotta do your thing and live your life, somethings are out of our control and past our understanding. the only thing you can truly control is yourself

[tonymctones]

LOL this is exactly why I linked you to my other thread which you still havent answered, by the way. It does somewhat address the deity issue and perhaps gives jusitfication for it. (again if its justification enough for you is your own thing)
I can see your point about the jusitfication as I believe it to be mine. but the fact is that not always is the simplest answer the right one.

I dont see how I can be anymore specific Deicde.
So Ill ask again
Something caused the first movement in a motionless space, what was it?
How exactly is my religion a poison?
and why the anger and arrogance?

ANSWER ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL

[Deicide]

LOL this is exactly why I linked you to my other thread which you still havent answered, by the way. It does somewhat address the deity issue and perhaps gives jusitfication for it. (again if its justification enough for you is your own thing)
I can see your point about the jusitfication as I believe it to be mine. but the fact is that not always is the simplest answer the right one.

I dont see how I can be anymore specific Deicde.
So Ill ask again
Something caused the first movement in a motionless space, what was it?
How exactly is my religion a poison?
and why the anger and arrogance?

1. I am not a cosmologist; when I don't know something I acknowledge it. WE (as in human beings) don't know exactly what happened. We are (partially) ignorant of the origins of the universe but to put in the place of that ignorance your monotheised fertility deity is an exercise in extreme intellectual dishonesty. There are other posters here who know a great deal about physics and/or cosmology. I don't know is a much better answer than: I don't know so the Judeo-Christian deity must have done it. 

2. That religion is a poison is rather self-evident. Aspirin can be helpful like any drug for example but one can overdose on it and cause serious damage. Religion functions in much the same way save that the empirically verifiable basis for the truth of the core tenets of religion in general and Christianity in particular is nonexistent. So the first element of the poison is that it is simply not true but the poison is more potent than that because those suffering from it feel compelled to poison others (take the recent case with the dead (and prayed for) diabetic girl). In other words, religious people by the very nature of their religion are forced to force their delusions on other people. Each of the 'holy books' speaks of this forceful imposition on others.

3. Anger; because I see the harm religion does, from the benign to the extremely deleterious. Arrogance? See point 1. You claim to be in possession of knowledge that the best cosmologists and scientists in the world do not have; who is the arrogant one? I say, I don't know the origins of the universe, you say, you do. Nonbelievers appear to be arrogant to you because we easily see past the transparently false doctrines and articles of faith which you claim as verifiable fact. It is patently obvious to an intelligent and educated person that the Bible was NOT authored by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being or for that matter that such a being had 'inspired' humans to write such a cobbled together pile of violent and absurd rubbish.

Yes, that sums it up.

[tonymctones]

1. I am not a cosmologist; when I don't know something I acknowledge it. WE (as in human beings) don't know exactly what happened. We are (partially) ignorant of the origins of the universe but to put in the place of that ignorance your monotheised fertility deity is an exercise in extreme intellectual dishonesty. There are other posters here who know a great deal about physics and/or cosmology. I don't know is a much better answer than: I don't know so the Judeo-Christian deity must have done it. 

2. That religion is a poison is rather self-evident. Aspirin can be helpful like any drug for example but one can overdose on it and cause serious damage. Religion functions in much the same way save that the empirically verifiable basis for the truth of the core tenets of religion in general and Christianity in particular is nonexistent. So the first element of the poison is that it is simply not true but the poison is more potent than that because those suffering from it feel compelled to poison others (take the recent case with the dead (and prayed for) diabetic girl). In other words, religious people by the very nature of their religion are forced to force their delusions on other people. Each of the 'holy books' speaks of this forceful imposition on others.

3. Anger; because I see the harm religion does, from the benign to the extremely deleterious. Arrogance? See point 1. You claim to be in possession of knowledge that the best cosmologists and scientists in the world do not have; who is the arrogant one? I say, I don't know the origins of the universe, you say, you do. Nonbelievers appear to be arrogant to you because we easily see past the transparently false doctrines and articles of faith which you claim as verifiable fact. It is patently obvious to an intelligent and educated person that the Bible was NOT authored by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being or for that matter that such a being had 'inspired' humans to write such a cobbled together pile of violent and absurd rubbish.
Yes, that sums it up.

1. I never said it did mean that God did it or in anyway said that it proves there is a God. My point was to show you that not all things are known in this world, so how can you know with certainty that there is no God?

2. LOL do you not see the good that religion does as well? Of course with any basis of beliefs there will be people who take it to the extreme. You can look at politics and say the same thing, religion is no different. More good is done through religion than bad i would be willing to bet. And it does not say FORCE THE WORD OF GOD ON PEOPLE
It says spread the word of God. These are 2 totally different concepts and the people who force the word of their god on people would be the negative. It seems like there are more of them b/c they are the ones who get the publicity.

3. Refer to number 1 again i never said or implied that God was the first mover.(you assumed that) refering to the bold many scientist are still religious please explain this, are you insinuating that religous ppl are uneducated, unintelligent people?

The facts are that we dont know what caused life, its arrogant of you to assume that you do and to dismiss others views that cannot be proven wrong. Im not saying your wrong and im right, all im saying is that you dont know anymore than i do so to dismiss my beliefs or the beliefs of other religous people is wrong.

[Deicide]

1. I never said it did mean that God did it or in anyway said that it proves there is a God. My point was to show you that not all things are known in this world, so how can you know with certainty that there is no God?

2. LOL do you not see the good that religion does as well? Of course with any basis of beliefs there will be people who take it to the extreme. You can look at politics and say the same thing, religion is no different. More good is done through religion than bad i would be willing to bet. And it does not say FORCE THE WORD OF GOD ON PEOPLE
It says spread the word of God. These are 2 totally different concepts and the people who force the word of their god on people would be the negative. It seems like there are more of them b/c they are the ones who get the publicity.

3. Refer to number 1 again i never said or implied that God was the first mover.(you assumed that) refering to the bold many scientist are still religious please explain this, are you insinuating that religous ppl are uneducated, unintelligent people?

The facts are that we dont know what caused life, its arrogant of you to assume that you do and to dismiss others views that cannot be proven wrong. Im not saying your wrong and im right, all im saying is that you dont know anymore than i do so to dismiss my beliefs or the beliefs of other religous people is wrong.

There are NO intelligent scientists who read the cobbled together book of violence and pornography otherwise known as the Bible literally. When did I assert that I knew what caused life. I don't know. You do. You believe that your fertility deity did it; it says so in Genesis, right? That some (not many) scientists are religious proves very little; this is what we call compartmentlisation of the mind and we see it every day here at getbig; when fundamentalists who believe that ancient, plagiarised(from other near eastern sources) mythology is fact begin to talk about amino acids, supplements or any other topic in a semi-rational manner. Francis Collins is the leader of the human genome project AND also a devout Christian; how did he become a devout Christian? He saw a frozen waterfall and was so awed by it sbeauty he had to become a Christian. This is a dichotomy.  They believe for emotional reasons, not scientific ones. If I told you your wife were cheating on you and you then asked me how I knew and I said I saw it in a dream, you would laugh at me; yet you beleve in the literal truth of an ancient book written by ignorant goatherders ages ago.

Caveat emptor: you must specify your religious beliefs; for the time being I am assuming you are a Bible thumping fundy as you have offered no evidence to the contrary.

[tonymctones]

There are NO intelligent scientists who read the cobbled together book of violence and pornography otherwise known as the Bible literally. When did I assert that I knew what caused life. I don't know. You do. You believe that your fertility deity did it; it says so in Genesis, right? That some (not many) scientists are religious proves very little; this is what we call compartmentlisation of the mind and we see it every day here at getbig; when fundamentalists who believe that ancient, plagiarised(from other near eastern sources) mythology is fact begin to talk about amino acids, supplements or any other topic in a semi-rational manner. Francis Collins is the leader of the human genome project AND also a devout Christian; how did he become a devout Christian? He saw a frozen waterfall and was so awed by it sbeauty he had to become a Christian. This is a dichotomy.  They believe for emotional reasons, not scientific ones. If I told you your wife were cheating on you and you then asked me how I knew and I said I saw it in a dream, you would laugh at me; yet you beleve in the literal truth of an ancient book written by ignorant goatherders ages ago.

Caveat emptor: you must specify your religious beliefs; for the time being I am assuming you are a Bible thumping fundy as you have offered no evidence to the contrary.

LOL my friend, my friend you know nothing of what I believe. I in fact do not necisarily take a literal view of the bible as it is written by man and thus subject to exageration and skewed. I dont know for certain what caused life and neither do you which is why I DONT DISMISS YOUR BELIEFS AND WHY YOU CANNOT DISMISS MINE. I believe that God created life but as a certainty I could not say.(This is what is called faith) But by you dismissing my beliefs you state that I am wrong and that you know I am wrong, so prove it!!! You can not prove your point anymore than I can prove mine which is why you cannot dismiss my views and I cannot dismiss your views.
SO STOP TRYING

[Deicide]

LOL my friend, my friend you know nothing of what I believe. I in fact do not necisarily take a literal view of the bible as it is written by man and thus subject to exageration and skewed. I dont know for certain what caused life and neither do you which is why I DONT DISMISS YOUR BELIEFS AND WHY YOU CANNOT DISMISS MINE. I believe that God created life but as a certainty I could not say.(This is what is called faith) But by you dismissing my beliefs you state that I am wrong and that you know I am wrong, so prove it!!! You can not prove your point anymore than I can prove mine which is why you cannot dismiss my views and I cannot dismiss your views.
SO STOP TRYING

Wrong. You are engaging in a logical fallacy that the faithful love; trying to switch the burden of proof, which always lies on those who are making a positive assertion concerning the the existence of some entity; you are familiar with Russell's Tea Pot, I assume? With making unfalsifiable claims?

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?",[1] commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I make no positive assertions; you do. If I were to claim that Poseidon were responsible for Hurricane Katrina, you would be rightly in the position to demand evidence for this positive assertion just as I am for your claims concerning the divinity of the Bible and the origins of the universe.

[tonymctones]

Wrong. You are engaging in a logical fallacy that the faithful love; trying to switch the burden of proof, which always lies on those who are making a positive assertion concerning the the existence of some entity; you are familiar with Russell's Tea Pot, I assume? With making unfalsifiable claims?

I make no positive assertions; you do. If I were to claim that Poseidon were responsible for Hurricane Katrina, you would be rightly in the position to demand evidence for this positive assertion just as I am for your claims concerning the divinity of the Bible and the origins of the universe.

LOL well this somewhat problematic because I as a religious person must feel that I need to justify my beliefs or you as an atheist believe that you deserve justification for my beliefs. I dont feel I need to justify my beliefs to you and I assume it is you who desires justification. You do in fact make assertions by you saying that God is not responsible, you should hold yourself to the same standards. Again we could go round and round but the fact is you cant prove your point anymore than I can. Beliefs are beliefs and all require faith even atheism

[Deicide]

LOL well this somewhat problematic because I as a religious person must feel that I need to justify my beliefs or you as an atheist believe that you deserve justification for my beliefs. I dont feel I need to justify my beliefs to you and I assume it is you who desires justification. You do in fact make assertions by you saying that God is not responsible, you should hold yourself to the same standards. Again we could go round and round but the fact is you cant prove your point anymore than I can. Beliefs are beliefs and all require faith even atheism

This is irritating. You have obviously NOT grasped something here. Your entire argument rests on the presuppositional claim of the Judeo-Christian deity's existence. You say he/it exists; this claim is not falsifiable and is thus tantamount to the claim of the celestial tea pot or the invisible oink unicorn. I am not making a positive assertion about the existence of an entity; you are and then you go one step further by insisting this yet to be demonstrated entity is responsible for regulating morality in the universe. My assertions are not positive, rather they are neutral since I do not factor into the equation your deity. If I were to say that Zeus, King of the Gods were responsible then you would be rightly justified in demanding evidence for this claim.

All human beings demand evidence for beliefs, both great and small. Some examples:

1. Senator Smith rises to the floor, showing his support of the War in Iraq; during the course of his speech, he claims that Ares, the Greek god of War and Strife is on the side of American troops and actively aiding the armed forced in unseen ways. A) he would be laughed at and mocked B) he would lose his job as a senator C) people would correctly ask him to justify this belief. Now switch Ares to Yahweh and you see you are in the same boat or switch it to Odin or any other of the countless deities mankind has relegated to the dismal scrapheap otherwise known as mythology.

2. President Bush (he routinely does so) invokes the Judeo-Christian deity before committing himself to a nuclear strike against country x. He claims that Yahweh has inspired him to combat the evil there and that he feels compelled by Yahweh to strike at them. When asked about the reasons for doing this beyond the seeming divine inspiration, he says that 'god' is all the reason he needs. In such a situation he would most definitely be required to justify his beliefs beyond his 'feeling' that the Canaanite fertility deity commanded him to do so. What if he claimed that Morrigan, the obscure and little known Celtic war goddess had inspired him to launch a nuclear strike?! Would he be required to justify such a belief? Of course he would.

3. Notice that when a murderer sits in court and offers the justification that 'god' commanded him to do it, he is promptly locked up or perhaps his sentence is lessened on the grounds of insanity.

People in the real world require and demand evidence and justification on a constant basis. Are you a physicist? Do you  have scientific reasons for believing in the Judeo-Christian deity? What makes that deity more tenable than Dagda, King of the Irish gods? or Apollo? or the Sumerian god Marduk? Is it not a matter of arbitrary circumstance that you even identify with monotheism, for if you had been born 3000 years prior, you most certainly would have been a polytheist.

There is simply no testable, falsifiable evidence to support your A) claims that your fertility god exists and B) that he is responsible for the happenings in the world.

If your reasons for believing are based on emotional needs brought about by the need to feel 'purpose' or lack of void in your life, realise that such a feeling has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not that belief is true.

Again, you claim there is a undetectable celestial teapot and further claim I must disprove this arbitrary assertion.

If you are really interested in the origins of the universe, you should ask the Luke. He actually IS a physicist. I am a linguist and thus can contribute little to that debate other than my ignorance.

[tonymctones]

This is irritating. You have obviously NOT grasped something here. Your entire argument rests on the presuppositional claim of the Judeo-Christian deity's existence. You say he/it exists; this claim is not falsifiable and is thus tantamount to the claim of the celestial tea pot or the invisible oink unicorn. I am not making a positive assertion about the existence of an entity; you are and then you go one step further by insisting this yet to be demonstrated entity is responsible for regulating morality in the universe. My assertions are not positive, rather they are neutral since I do not factor into the equation your deity. If I were to say that Zeus, King of the Gods were responsible then you would be rightly justified in demanding evidence for this claim.

All human beings demand evidence for beliefs, both great and small. Some examples:

1. Senator Smith rises to the floor, showing his support of the War in Iraq; during the course of his speech, he claims that Ares, the Greek god of War and Strife is on the side of American troops and actively aiding the armed forced in unseen ways. A) he would be laughed at and mocked B) he would lose his job as a senator C) people would correctly ask him to justify this belief. Now switch Ares to Yahweh and you see you are in the same boat or switch it to Odin or any other of the countless deities mankind has relegated to the dismal scrapheap otherwise known as mythology.

2. President Bush (he routinely does so) invokes the Judeo-Christian deity before committing himself to a nuclear strike against country x. He claims that Yahweh has inspired him to combat the evil there and that he feels compelled by Yahweh to strike at them. When asked about the reasons for doing this beyond the seeming divine inspiration, he says that 'god' is all the reason he needs. In such a situation he would most definitely be required to justify his beliefs beyond his 'feeling' that the Canaanite fertility deity commanded him to do so. What if he claimed that Morrigan, the obscure and little known Celtic war goddess had inspired him to launch a nuclear strike?! Would he be required to justify such a belief? Of course he would.

3. Notice that when a murderer sits in court and offers the justification that 'god' commanded him to do it, he is promptly locked up or perhaps his sentence is lessened on the grounds of insanity.

People in the real world require and demand evidence and justification on a constant basis. Are you a physicist? Do you  have scientific reasons for believing in the Judeo-Christian deity? What makes that deity more tenable than Dagda, King of the Irish gods? or Apollo? or the Sumerian god Marduk? Is it not a matter of arbitrary circumstance that you even identify with monotheism, for if you had been born 3000 years prior, you most certainly would have been a polytheist.

There is simply no testable, falsifiable evidence to support your A) claims that your fertility god exists and B) that he is responsible for the happenings in the world.

If your reasons for believing are based on emotional needs brought about by the need to feel 'purpose' or lack of void in your life, realise that such a feeling has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not that belief is true.

Again, you claim there is a undetectable celestial teapot and further claim I must disprove this arbitrary assertion.

If you are really interested in the origins of the universe, you should ask the Luke. He actually IS a physicist. I am a linguist and thus can contribute little to that debate other than my ignorance.

LOL so wait what your saying is that I cant prove that God exists right, hey guess what ive been saying that. You are not neutral a neutral would assert that they do not know if God exist or doesnt exist you assert that God doesnt exist so therefore should hold yourself to the same standards. Just because something cant be proven to exist doesnt mean that it doesnt exist for that to occur it would have to be proven false. Alien life forms have never been discovered and cannot be proven to exist but to dismiss them entirely based on these facts is not acceptable.

[Deicide]

LOL so wait what your saying is that I cant prove that God exists right, hey guess what ive been saying that. You are not neutral a neutral would assert that they do not know if God exist or doesnt exist you assert that God doesnt exist so therefore should hold yourself to the same standards. Just because something cant be proven to exist doesnt mean that it doesnt exist for that to occur it would have to be proven false. Alien life forms have never been discovered and cannot be proven to exist but to dismiss them entirely based on these facts is not acceptable.

Good job at ignoring and dodging all of the points I made. 

Which god? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl? Hermes? Raiden? I will ask you again: do you believe yourself to be a monotheist because of chronological reasons? Chance and Circumstance? Why single out your fertility god?

Your 'argument' is essentially absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which is a weak argument. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it is most assuredly evidence of absence. Science has been taking ever greater strides and nowhere has your monotheised fertility deity been found.

Why do you believe? I ask you again. Why do you believe? What are your reasons? I could easily tell you mine: zero evidence; if there were solid evidence for The Pink Elephant God I would believe in that. I am perfectly willing to change my mind as soon as someone presents falsifiable evidence of his deity.

Stop evading the questions....

[tonymctones]

Good job at ignoring and dodging all of the points I made. 

Which god? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl? Hermes? Raiden? I will ask you again: do you believe yourself to be a monotheist because of chronological reasons? Chance and Circumstance? Why single out your fertility god?

Your 'argument' is essentially absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which is a weak argument. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it is most assuredly evidence of absence. Science has been taking ever greater strides and nowhere has your monotheised fertility deity been found.

Why do you believe? I ask you again. Why do you believe? What are your reasons? I could easily tell you mine: zero evidence; if there were solid evidence for The Pink Elephant God I would believe in that. I am perfectly willing to change my mind as soon as someone presents falsifiable evidence of his deity.

Stop evading the questions....

Sigh irony is amazing this is exactly why i tried to send you to my original thread on this topic. People single out a certain god or set of gods b/c that is how they are raised and the region in which they were raised this was the prevalent belief. Thats just the way it is if i was born in iraq i might have been islamic and so on and so on. As for my reasoning Ill restate it here as you seem to have a problem finding the other thread. I believe there are inherit wrongs in this world, which you wont agree with per your previous response to this thread as well as previous personal experiences that lead me to my beliefs. Its not a certainty that my Lord and savior is the true God as it cannot be proven, but that is where faith comes in.

I never said that b/c it cant be proven not to exist means it does exist, but it does mean that its a possiblity.

refering to the bold, This will never happen and proving God doesnt exist will never happen as well and I could say the same thing but in reverse. You either believe or you dont its as simple as that.

Ill say it again you cant prove your point anymore than I can prove mine so please stop trying.