God cannot exist...sue me!

[TheJackel]

First of all, GOD is a concept and title of opinion. It's relevance is completely subject to opinion regardless of it's questionable existence..

Example:

Cows are worshiped and sacred by some people, but I eat cows because I view them conceptually only as animals, and as potential food source. In either case, the concepts are matter of opinion! It's a 100% =/= 100%

Thus I could say the following and have it be 100% correct:

Yes, your GOD exist..However, it is not a GOD!.

So it is inherently an irrelevant and moot argument since such a concept is undefined, and it's qualifiers can be infinitely subject to pure opinion. Welcome to freedom of choice to which is freedom of opinion! So even if your entity existed, it's not proof of a "GOD", or even being a "GOD" to someone that sees the concept as being inapplicable since anything can be considered a "GOD" and worshiped as such. That includes the dust bunnies on my desk!

----

On Free will.. This really depends if you think your so called GOD is Omnipotent. Under Omnipotence there can be no such thing as "Free Will" or even "Freedom of Choice". And this is of course neglecting the fact that Omnipotence is a self-collapsing contradiction to which makes it literally impossible. Same goes for all the other "Omni's".

[Achronos]

Evil is pretty much in the simplest terms possible going backwards, or being backwards, or going in a different direction other than forwards.  In growth, we go in one direction, but sometimes in growth we're pushed somewhere, or we see something and we talk towards it, away from the path of growth.  To do good is simply to follow the path of growth.

Now we can be programmed to grow, forced to stay within a narrow path unable to get out of it, or we have an open road with an arrow point that way.  If we are programmed to grow, God is a puppetmaster.  If we are forced to stay within a narrow path, God is an obsessive and psychopathic lover of mankind, truly malevolent.  If we are given open space with the arrow point that way, God becomes loving, unforceful but available for help, not rude but not ignoring us, not malevolent but not intrusive.  We can push Him away, and we can ask Him to come back, and readily He does no matter how many times we pushed Him away, whenever, wherever.

When it comes to suffering in this world, God became man and lived among us.  He walked the path down for us, to show us how one can suffer, but can never be pushed away from this path.  One can be tempted, but can never look anywhere but forward.  One can even undergo some natural disaster or disease, but His spirit is as healthy as ever.  One can die, but live on with much force in the world, as if He rose from the dead and lives on in each and every suffering Christian right afterwards.

[TheJackel]

Evil is pretty much in the simplest terms possible going backwards, or being backwards, or going in a different direction other than forwards.  In growth, we go in one direction, but sometimes in growth we're pushed somewhere, or we see something and we talk towards it, away from the path of growth.  To do good is simply to follow the path of growth.

Nonsense. Evil is only another concept of opinion because morality itself is purely subject to positive, negative, and neutral selection and adaptation within society, and psychology.  

Example:

A woman who loves cats so dearly may see those who eat cats as "EVIL" or immoral.

You are at best playing to equate morality as an argument for a "GODS" existence when it is no such argument. Even a GOD (still a concept of opinion) can not create the basic laws of existence to which it's own existence depends on. The laws of "positive, negative, and neutral", and as said prior, it's because itself is slave to require them for it's own existence. These are the very same laws that govern existence itself, evolution, natural selection, emergence, emotion, feeling, morality, action, reaction, choice, decision, intent, cognitive dynamics, consciousness, self-awareness, or anything you can possibly think of.

Now we can be programmed to grow, forced to stay within a narrow path unable to get out of it, or we have an open road with an arrow point that way.  If we are programmed to grow, God is a puppetmaster.  If we are forced to stay within a narrow path, God is an obsessive and psychopathic lover of mankind, truly malevolent.  If we are given open space with the arrow point that way, God becomes loving, unforceful but available for help, not rude but not ignoring us, not malevolent but not intrusive.  We can push Him away, and we can ask Him to come back, and readily He does no matter how many times we pushed Him away, whenever, wherever.

Again, consciousness itself requires information to exist. It takes far more cause to support consciousness than it does to support unconsciousness. programs begin with information and not a "programmer" who requires it in order to function or even know itself exists. You can not create that which yourself needs to exist. Thus the concept of "Creationism" in itself is a logical fallacy. Worse yet, all minds require a place to exist in, and to be made of something to which they could neither create or exist without. GODS can not solve infinite regress or represent a Universal Set of all Sets.

And nobody is pushing anything away vs actually thinking and putting things into reason, and logical context.

When it comes to suffering in this world, God became man and lived among us.  He walked the path down for us, to show us how one can suffer, but can never be pushed away from this path.  One can be tempted, but can never look anywhere but forward.  One can even undergo some natural disaster or disease, but His spirit is as healthy as ever.  One can die, but live on with much force in the world, as if He rose from the dead and lives on in each and every suffering Christian right afterwards.

Again, this is nothing more than philosophical nonsense looking to pull the strings of emotion to manipulate people into conforming to your ideological construct. Try convincing people without using such dishonest arguments that are borderline use of fear mongering as a tool of conversion.


To put this simply:

YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT IN A WORLD OF OPINION!

Why do you think there are 1,000's of supposed GODS? Can you even Define the concept? NOPE!

[hackenslash]

Evil is pretty much in the simplest terms possible going backwards, or being backwards, or going in a different direction other than forwards.  In growth, we go in one direction, but sometimes in growth we're pushed somewhere, or we see something and we talk towards it, away from the path of growth.  To do good is simply to follow the path of growth.

Now we can be programmed to grow, forced to stay within a narrow path unable to get out of it, or we have an open road with an arrow point that way.  If we are programmed to grow, God is a puppetmaster.  If we are forced to stay within a narrow path, God is an obsessive and psychopathic lover of mankind, truly malevolent.  If we are given open space with the arrow point that way, God becomes loving, unforceful but available for help, not rude but not ignoring us, not malevolent but not intrusive.  We can push Him away, and we can ask Him to come back, and readily He does no matter how many times we pushed Him away, whenever, wherever.

When it comes to suffering in this world, God became man and lived among us.  He walked the path down for us, to show us how one can suffer, but can never be pushed away from this path.  One can be tempted, but can never look anywhere but forward.  One can even undergo some natural disaster or disease, but His spirit is as healthy as ever.  One can die, but live on with much force in the world, as if He rose from the dead and lives on in each and every suffering Christian right afterwards.

This is pretty much preaching.

Oh, and did you miss the bit about your god not existing? I can prove this in formal logic if you like. it may be that a deity exists, but it isn't the one you've chosen, because he's been given logically absurd and contradictory attributes by your book of wibble. Thought you might like to know that.

[TheJackel]

He isn't going to actually address our arguments because he really can't do that. Preaching for emotional and psychological attachment is all he has left to use. Logically, it's impossible for him to even counter my own argument much less the argument posted by: hackenslash.  

So let's see how honest he is.. Can he actually address an argument without emotional pleading, or preaching?

[Achronos]

Evil is pretty much in the simplest terms possible going backwards, or being backwards, or going in a different direction other than forwards.  In growth, we go in one direction, but sometimes in growth we're pushed somewhere, or we see something and we talk towards it, away from the path of growth.  To do good is simply to follow the path of growth.

Nonsense. Evil is only another concept of opinion because morality itself is purely subject to positive, negative, and neutral selection and adaptation within society, and psychology.  

Example:

A woman who loves cats so dearly may see those who eat cats as "EVIL" or immoral.

You are at best playing to equate morality as an argument for a "GODS" existence when it is no such argument. Even a GOD (still a concept of opinion) can not create the basic laws of existence to which it's own existence depends on. The laws of "positive, negative, and neutral", and as said prior, it's because itself is slave to require them for it's own existence. These are the very same laws that govern existence itself, evolution, natural selection, emergence, emotion, feeling, morality, action, reaction, choice, decision, intent, cognitive dynamics, consciousness, self-awareness, or anything you can possibly think of.

Now we can be programmed to grow, forced to stay within a narrow path unable to get out of it, or we have an open road with an arrow point that way.  If we are programmed to grow, God is a puppetmaster.  If we are forced to stay within a narrow path, God is an obsessive and psychopathic lover of mankind, truly malevolent.  If we are given open space with the arrow point that way, God becomes loving, unforceful but available for help, not rude but not ignoring us, not malevolent but not intrusive.  We can push Him away, and we can ask Him to come back, and readily He does no matter how many times we pushed Him away, whenever, wherever.

Again, consciousness itself requires information to exist. It takes far more cause to support consciousness than it does to support unconsciousness. programs begin with information and not a "programmer" who requires it in order to function or even know itself exists. You can not create that which yourself needs to exist. Thus the concept of "Creationism" in itself is a logical fallacy. Worse yet, all minds require a place to exist in, and to be made of something to which they could neither create or exist without. GODS can not solve infinite regress or represent a Universal Set of all Sets.

And nobody is pushing anything away vs actually thinking and putting things into reason, and logical context.

When it comes to suffering in this world, God became man and lived among us.  He walked the path down for us, to show us how one can suffer, but can never be pushed away from this path.  One can be tempted, but can never look anywhere but forward.  One can even undergo some natural disaster or disease, but His spirit is as healthy as ever.  One can die, but live on with much force in the world, as if He rose from the dead and lives on in each and every suffering Christian right afterwards.

Again, this is nothing more than philosophical nonsense looking to pull the strings of emotion to manipulate people into conforming to your ideological construct. Try convincing people without using such dishonest arguments that are borderline use of fear mongering as a tool of conversion.


To put this simply:

YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT IN A WORLD OF OPINION!

Why do you think there are 1,000's of supposed GODS? Can you even Define the concept? NOPE!

You know what's interesting in this whole argument, you go by one basic assumption:  That the laws and material of nature are eternal, but that has yet to be proven.  You know they exist, but you don't know that they're ever-existent, not yet at least.

What fear mongering did I use in my argument?  I simply gave you how life is like.  We grow, and sometimes our growth is stunted by many things in life.  It is a fact of life, not an opinion, not fear mongering.  If a physician was to help a patient in any way physical, if a friend was to be humane to others, it is the same as God helping our spiritual lives and giving purpose for growth to be furthered even after death.  It's not that I am using fear mongering to prove my point.  Your arguments do not show a need to hammer common sense into us, but rather a fear that you may be wrong.

Why Christianity?  Because it is the best model of growth for humanity.

[TheJackel]

Hello again :pop:

You know what's interesting in this whole argument, you go by one basic assumption: That the laws and material of nature are eternal, but that has yet to be proven. You know they exist, but you don't know that they're ever-existent, not yet at least.

Actually they are proven.

For example:

Nothing can not be an existing person, object, substance, place or thing. Thus arguments like non-material, a-spatial ect are idiotic.. You can't exist as a -2 dimensional object or entity either. In fact, spatial capacity and dimension are considered infinite simply because the opposite is literally impossible to exist! You can't have a -1 dimensional space or volume of capacity. Nor can such negative concepts contain anything, have substance, or be existent. When Christians try to apply attributes associated with values of non-existence to a GOD, it almost makes me giggle because they don't even realize it.  You may as well try and argue that your deity exist in a place of non-existence.

Laws of material nature are proven, and I doubt even a theist would be dumb enough to try and argue that their GOD is made of "Nothing", and exists in a place of non-existence. Have fun with that position should you attempt to use it. Those 3 laws I gave you are the very base laws to existence itself. They are impossible to violate, or exist outside of. Worse yet, all minds must be temporally bound because it takes time to do things such as thinking, or even "Creating". There can be no progress without progression of one frame of reference to another. Especially in considering consciousness.

However, one of the worst things about the argument of a GOD is that it takes more cause to support consciousness than unconsciousness.   It doesn't work on me anymore

[Achronos]

Actually they are proven.

For example:

Nothing can not be an existing person, object, substance, place or thing. Thus arguments like non-material, a-spatial ect are idiotic.. You can't exist as a -2 dimensional object or entity either. In fact, spatial capacity and dimension are considered infinite simply because the opposite is literally impossible to exist! You can't have a -1 dimensional space or volume of capacity. Nor can such negative concepts contain anything, have substance, or be existent. When Christians try to apply attributes associated with values of non-existence to a GOD, it almost makes me giggle because they don't even realize it.  You may as well try and argue that your deity exist in a place of non-existence.

Laws of material nature are proven, and I doubt even a theist would be dumb enough to try and argue that their GOD is made of "Nothing", and exists in a place of non-existence. Have fun with that position should you attempt to use it. Those 3 laws I gave you are the very base laws to existence itself. They are impossible to violate, or exist outside of. Worse yet, all minds must be temporally bound because it takes time to do things such as thinking, or even "Creating". There can be no progress without progression of one frame of reference to another. Especially in considering consciousness.

However, one of the worst things about the argument of a GOD is that it takes more cause to support consciousness than unconsciousness.   It doesn't work on me anymore

No one is advertising anything to you.  Let me give you some things straight out.  If you are a Christian, your heavenly realm is growth and unity with God.  If you are a Christian, you are to be self-sacrificial even to those who hate you or persecute you.  If you are a Christian, any poor person that needs your help, you are commanded to help, irregardless of who this person is.  If you a Christian, you should treat all as equals and not be deceptive, but straightforward and respectful with others.  No advertising, no superficial clean image, no fear mongering.  Just simply live your life and let others live, but when you live your life, you will suffer.  I don't think that's something comforting to sell, and rather than brainwashing, it's rejected by most brains even among nominal Christians, but that's what a true Christian is.  By your example alone, you should be able to draw people to yourself, not be a Protestant pop-up ad to others.

TheJackel, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really were a Christian.

[LegendarySandwich]

If you fear that you are right, why are you so callous?  The problem with de-emotionalizing reality is simply in my opinion a destruction of reality, and a destruction of who we really are.

For instance, I love my girlfriend.  There are two levels of understanding this "love."  One is a biochemical understanding and another is a purposeful understanding.  If I simply throw away the purpose of emotion, and simply shrug my shoulders and call love simply an irrelevant feeling resultant of neuronal firing, I am fooling myself for the importance of love in one's life.  This is how God is to me, how prayer is important to me.  There is a physical side that can be explained, but to ascribe to it fakeness, an action towards something that doesn't exist is to me far from reality.  I don't mean to use fear mongering.  Apparently, you're not afraid of what I said, so your argument of fear mongering is irrelevant.

This sounds like an appeal to consequences fallacy to me.

But I simply believe this.  There's always a why or how to everything around us.  It's amazing how Stephen Hawking has proven everything in this world spontaneously created from nothing. I simply wonder, how did it just spontaneously create itself?

Straw man fallacy.    

How is there a cosmic balance of reactions between subparticles in the first place?  How did these branes and strings (which are considered one-dimensional, so I don't understand your one or two dimensional argument) come about?  How did they first start moving or shaking or vibrating into the material we are?  The answer to atheists like you is simply the Laws of Nature.

Straw man fallacy.

Really?  You know that's borderline deism.  You can't call yourself an atheist anymore and not consider the eternal nature of the "Laws."  In addition, "eternalness" and "infinity" are scientifically unobservable.  I cannot fathom how theoretical physicists simply assume their mathematical construct of infinity as creation.  I'd like to find out.  If infinity is indeed observable, then by all means, I don't mind God being the unobservable one that created it.

This looks like an argument from ignorance.

The point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover."  Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature.  I simply the Laws of Nature are collectively the blueprint of the Logos, a "Law-Giver".  This necessitates the idea that there are things here that did not exist before.  Case in point:  I didn't exist before, and my self-awareness allows me to be even more contemplative of this fact and of my material nature.  Therefore, I also believe in a Creator, not Someone who reassembles what's already there, but Who brings about things that didn't exist before and keeps them existing, a blueprint of His ever-existence.  Finally, the ever-evolving and complicated Life that exists suggests a moving energy, a blueprint of a Life-Giver.  I believe in the Pantocrator, the Logos, and Life-Giver.  Creation attests to this, and I worship the one Name of God it truly bears.

False dichotomy, straw man fallacies.

How do I come up with this assumption?  Well, I simply tested it.  Is it worth believing in Him or not?  If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is.  He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.  He is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing.  I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving.  I have life, and I don't want it to go away.  Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like.  I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God.  Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it.  With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.

Argument from consequences.

TheJackel, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really were a Christian.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

[TheJackel]

I'm having trouble following your argument here.  Can you clarify?

Seriously?  Hell, let's clarify..

There can simply be no Phenomenon, object, person, place, or thing without material physicality... And for the easier clarification. Nothing can not be a something! EVER!

If you fear that you are right, why are you so callous?  The problem with de-emotionalizing reality is simply in my opinion a destruction of reality, and a destruction of who we really are.

I'm being direct. It's not "de-emotionalizing reality" either. It is preventing you from using such things as an argument because it's not an argument in regards to this subject. It's called honest discourse, and trying to emotionalize it a common tool used as some sort of argument to a supposed GODS existence when it is no such argument what-so-ever. If I don't be direct with you, this would spiral into nonsensical circular arguments that aren't worth anything in value to the discussion.

For instance, I love my girlfriend.  There are two levels of understanding this "love."  One is a biochemical understanding and another is a purposeful understanding.  If I simply throw away the purpose of emotion, and simply shrug my shoulders and call love simply an irrelevant feeling resultant of neuronal firing, I am fooling myself for the importance of love in one's life.  This is how God is to me, how prayer is important to me.  There is a physical side that can be explained, but to ascribe to it fakeness, an action towards something that doesn't exist is to me far from reality.  I don't mean to use fear mongering.  Apparently, you're not afraid of what I said, so your argument of fear mongering is irrelevant.

As an experiment, try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it. All emotions and feelings are material physical patterns, and all that means is that they are REAL!  

The answer to atheists like you is simply the Laws of Nature.  Really?  You know that's borderline deism.  You can't call yourself an atheist anymore and not consider the eternal nature of the "Laws."  In addition, "eternalness" and "infinity" are scientifically unobservable.  I cannot fathom how theoretical physicists simply assume their mathematical construct of infinity as creation.  I'd like to find out.  If infinity is indeed observable, then by all means, I don't mind God being the unobservable one that created it.

Incorrect. I am more specifically defined as a materialist. God's are simply not applicable to that position for obvious reasons discussed above. And infinite need not be observable to you because all we need to know in regards to realizing it as a reality is that - spatial capacity is literally impossible. And when you have an impossible in an equation such as this, infinity becomes automatic as a volume. So unless you can show how you can have a -1 dimensional object exist without substance, positive dimensional complexity, capacity to exist, ect, it's safe to assume infinite volume of spatial capacity since negative capacities can't contain anything or exist.

The point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover."  Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature

Again Energy naturally exists. And -1 energy is impossible as is -1 spatial capacity considering energy is what makes up spatial capacity as an infinite volume. You can only have ground state to the base of all existence on an energy scale. Ground state represents Zero-point energy without literally being Zero since literal Zero is impossible to exist.

How do I come up with this assumption?  Well, I simply tested it.  Is it worth believing in Him or not?  If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is.  He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.

A very nonsensical pleading argument.

1) you have a literal impossible self contradiction
2) To say a GOD is infinite is equal to say the sum total of existence is GOD. That includes me, you, and everything. And that conflicts with another argument of "Existing in a different plane".. And the very fact that you claim it to be it's own individual with it's own mind and consciousness already makes it finite and not infinite.
3) You are also not grasping "Existing IN". Thus said entity is not the answer to existence or creator of. At best you are limited to material physical manipulation no different than man creating cars and big cities, or even synthetic life.

He is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing.  I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving.  I have life, and I don't want it to go away.  Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like.  I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God.  Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it.  With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.

Incorrect. the Ultimate Paradox is that Existence itself doesn't requires Consciousness to exist. It is consciousness that is slave to the rules of existence. You essentially have it backwards. The biggest difference is the Existence simply exists because Non-existence can not exist. There is no creator to existence because that is impossible, and you can argue by virtue of opinion alone that there is no such thing as "GODS". Especially when all entities must follow the rules of existence!

No one is advertising anything to you.

Never state you did. It was an example.

Let me give you some things straight out.  If you are a Christian, your heavenly realm is growth and unity with God.

Was a Christian. And the Realm of GOD or Heaven,.. Think of your questions in regards to our Universe and then translate those to Heaven or any plane and realm you think could exist. You will find that all those questions will remain unexplained in terms of "Creation" simply because all minds are contained and must have a place to exist in. It's irrelevant if there are an infinite number of realms or universes. You can't create that which yourself require to exist! Thus GODS are logical fallacies.

If you are a Christian, you are to be self-sacrificial even to those who hate you or persecute you.  If you are a Christian, any poor person that needs your help, you are commanded to help, irregardless of who this person is.  If you a Christian, you should treat all as equals and not be deceptive, but straightforward and respectful with others.  No advertising, no superficial clean image, no fear mongering.  Just simply live your life and let others live, but when you live your life, you will suffer.  I don't think that's something comforting to sell, and rather than brainwashing, it's rejected by most brains even among nominal Christians, but that's what a true Christian is.  By your example alone, you should be able to draw people to yourself, not be a Protestant pop-up ad to others.

Irrelevant to the discussion, and is also irrelevant to religion vs any other form of belief. That kind of logic is applicable regardless simply because we are conscious entities. This includes emotions, feelings, morality, choices, decisions or whatever you want to claim.

TheJackel, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really were a Christian.

False argument.

[Achronos]

If you fear that you are right, why are you so callous?  The problem with de-emotionalizing reality is simply in my opinion a destruction of reality, and a destruction of who we really are.

For instance, I love my girlfriend.  There are two levels of understanding this "love."  One is a biochemical understanding and another is a purposeful understanding.  If I simply throw away the purpose of emotion, and simply shrug my shoulders and call love simply an irrelevant feeling resultant of neuronal firing, I am fooling myself for the importance of love in one's life.  This is how God is to me, how prayer is important to me.  There is a physical side that can be explained, but to ascribe to it fakeness, an action towards something that doesn't exist is to me far from reality.  I don't mean to use fear mongering.  Apparently, you're not afraid of what I said, so your argument of fear mongering is irrelevant.

This sounds like an appeal to consequences fallacy to me.

But I simply believe this.  There's always a why or how to everything around us.  It's amazing how Stephen Hawking has proven everything in this world spontaneously created from nothing. I simply wonder, how did it just spontaneously create itself?

Straw man fallacy.    

How is there a cosmic balance of reactions between subparticles in the first place?  How did these branes and strings (which are considered one-dimensional, so I don't understand your one or two dimensional argument) come about?  How did they first start moving or shaking or vibrating into the material we are?  The answer to atheists like you is simply the Laws of Nature.

Straw man fallacy.

Really?  You know that's borderline deism.  You can't call yourself an atheist anymore and not consider the eternal nature of the "Laws."  In addition, "eternalness" and "infinity" are scientifically unobservable.  I cannot fathom how theoretical physicists simply assume their mathematical construct of infinity as creation.  I'd like to find out.  If infinity is indeed observable, then by all means, I don't mind God being the unobservable one that created it.

This looks like an argument from ignorance.

The point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover."  Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature.  I simply the Laws of Nature are collectively the blueprint of the Logos, a "Law-Giver".  This necessitates the idea that there are things here that did not exist before.  Case in point:  I didn't exist before, and my self-awareness allows me to be even more contemplative of this fact and of my material nature.  Therefore, I also believe in a Creator, not Someone who reassembles what's already there, but Who brings about things that didn't exist before and keeps them existing, a blueprint of His ever-existence.  Finally, the ever-evolving and complicated Life that exists suggests a moving energy, a blueprint of a Life-Giver.  I believe in the Pantocrator, the Logos, and Life-Giver.  Creation attests to this, and I worship the one Name of God it truly bears.

False dichotomy, straw man fallacies.

How do I come up with this assumption?  Well, I simply tested it.  Is it worth believing in Him or not?  If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is.  He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.  He is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing.  I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving.  I have life, and I don't want it to go away.  Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like.  I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God.  Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it.  With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.

Argument from consequences.

TheJackel, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really were a Christian.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

I just realised what's going on here. You're enrolled in a Freshman logic course and using this forum as a testing ground for trying out all the terms you're learning. Come on now, fess up!

[TheJackel]

Just in case people want the short version:

Emergence of order and complexity come from the chaotic system of positive, negative, and neutral feedback. The very same attributes of energy itself to which give rise to emerging properties such as ourselves from what is seemingly, but not actually nothing. The emergence of property from zero-point energy or ground state.

The only thing still unexplained entirely is gravity's entire role, or how exactly in detail did the big Bang come from a Ground State. And you can't do that with 100% certainty in physics without actually creating a Big Bang. And I don't think you want to be here if we were to do so [/quote]

I'm waiting for you to apply that rationality to everything

[LegendarySandwich]

I just realised what's going on here. You're enrolled in a Freshman logic course and using this forum as a testing ground for trying out all the terms you're learning. Come on now, fess up!

I wish. All I have is Wikipedia.

Yeah, I know that that not everything I said was a fallacy was actually a fallacy, but it seemed close enough to me. I can explain my logic behind my accusations, if you wish.

[Achronos]

Seriously? LOL.. Nice avoidance of the issue sir.

I wasn't avoiding anything.  If I was, I wouldn't ask you to clarify.  Maybe I am dumb.  I'm sorry.

Give me time for my dyslexic brain to ruminate on what you wrote.

God bless.

[Kylyssa]

No one is advertising anything to you.

So you don't think evangelism is advertising?  If you are not advertising for religion, why do you waste your time on an atheist forum trying to sell your religion as Truth?