SmartyPants:

Let me start by saying that you clearly have not understood one significant part of my argument. My introduction of the concept of infinity was merely as analogy, an illustration if you prefer. The point, presented in more simple terms simply was: If you trace everything backwards, we reach a point human understanding cannot go beyond. This is the question of where God or any other alleged source of life came from. Science and logic offer no explanation but religion does. The only question we have is whether or not we accept the terms offered by religion. Are we together at this point? I would hope yes.

1) Now you acknowledge that "science and logic offer no explanation". In your first post, you tried to pass the lack of explanation off as some kind of logical operand, so this is a welcome improvement.

2) You speak as though the boundary of human ignorance is stagnant, and your argument seems to be that ignorance should therefore be termed "god". To claim there's a point beyond which human understanding cannot go is hasty and presumptuous. Even if such a point exists, how do you know that the source of life is this point? What makes you believe science cannot decipher the source of life?

3) Like religion, there are several other hypotheses that attempt to proffer an explanation for the things that lie beyond scientific epistemology. There is also simple admission of ignorance. Richard Feynman is reputed to have said: “Some people say, How can you live without knowing? ...I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know.” So what I want to know is how, of all these possibilities, you get to give religion this much preponderance. So no, the question isn't yet whether or not we accept the terms of religion, it is why rule out the other competing hypotheses as well as the easiest and most honest position; admission of ignorance?

Now to who is God? For the purpose of this discussion, God to me is the Supreme Creator of all that exists. How did i arrive at this? First i believe all that exists must have an origin. By an examination of the intricacies of the things that have been created, i inferred that the creation is profoundly complicated and highly intelligent, and therefore must come from an intelligent source.

You seem to be making the argument that intelligence begets intelligence. If this is the case, your use of "supreme" as a qualifying superlative is merely a thought terminating device, not a logical deduction. In this kind of construct, a supreme creator can never exist because their intelligence will have to be explained by the existence of another intelligence ad infinitum. Conversely, if a supreme creator can exist by inference, without needing to have been created by another intelligence, so too can intelligent life. Your arbitrary rule aside, you have not even explained why there must only be one supreme creator. Why can't many interdependent creators exist? A wristwatch is equally an intricate device, yet we don't have supreme creators for wristwatches. There was the creator that conceived the design, the creator that made batteries, the creator that made the teeth gears, the creator that made the straps, the screen, etc. Either ways, even if intelligence necessitates deliberate creation as you've claimed, your appeal to a "supreme" creator is still a presumptuous contrivance.

Can an inanimate object produce life that is dynamic, intelligent and capable of creating things itself? It sounds highly unlikely. So i assume that the source of all creation must be intelligent, and must have life.

As far as we know, life is composed of inanimate objects, so it is you who has to explain why inanimate objects cannot produce life!

My search for more answers about God, is the subject of my original essay, the conclusion of which leads me to my belief of the other attributes of God such as His supremacy.

Your belief in the supremacy of a deliberate, single god has many layers of presumptions which I have unraveled! Also, that your conclusion leads you to believe in god's supremacy is also now circular, since you have already defined god as the supreme creator.

AgentOfAllah:


1) Now you acknowledge that "science and logic offer no explanation". In your first post, you tried to pass the lack of explanation off as some kind of logical operand, so this is a welcome improvement.

2) You speak as though the boundary of human ignorance is stagnant, and your argument seems to be that ignorance should therefore be termed "god". To claim there's a point beyond which human understanding cannot go is hasty and presumptuous. Even if such a point exists, how do you know that the source of life is this point? What makes you believe science cannot decipher the source of life?

3) Like religion, there are several other hypotheses that attempt to proffer an explanation for the things that lie beyond scientific epistemology. There is also simple admission of ignorance. Richard Feynman is reputed to have said: “Some people say, How can you live without knowing? ...I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know.” So what I want to know is how, of all these possibilities, you get to give religion this much preponderance. So no, the question isn't yet whether or not we accept the terms of religion, it is why rule out the other competing hypotheses as well as the easiest and most honest position; admission of ignorance?


You seem to be making the argument that intelligence begets intelligence. If this is the case, your use of "supreme" as a qualifying superlative is merely a thought terminating device, not a logical deduction. In this kind of construct, a supreme creator can never exist because their intelligence will have to be explained by the existence of another intelligence ad infinitum. Conversely, if a supreme creator can exist by inference, without needing to have been created by another intelligence, so too can intelligent life. Your arbitrary rule aside, you have not even explained why there must only be one supreme creator. Why can't many interdependent creators exist? A wristwatch is equally an intricate device, yet we don't have supreme creators for wristwatches. There was the creator that conceived the design, the creator that made batteries, the creator that made the teeth gears, the creator that made the straps, the screen, etc. Either ways, even if intelligence necessitates deliberate creation as you've claimed, your appeal to a "supreme" creator is still a presumptuous contrivance.


As far as we know, life is composed of inanimate objects, so it is you who has to explain why inanimate objects cannot produce life!


Your belief in the supremacy of a deliberate, single god has many layers of presumptions which I have unraveled! Also, that your conclusion leads you to believe in god's supremacy is also now circular, since you have already defined god as the supreme creator.

Re 1 & 2, I may not have stated all the premises of my various arguments clearly, but one of them is my belief that logic never fails. But it would fail when it comes to the question of where the source of life came from unless there is something we are not considering in the proper logical light - Logic would lead us to believe that (a) Life must have started from something and (b) There could not possibly have been an infinite stream of sources of life So given these two conditions, there is a third logical conclusion: there is one original source, from whom or from which everything began, whose source is in Himself. I say, this is God. Why God?

A second premise for my arguments would be the fact that whatever is created must retain some clues as to the nature of the creator. An auxillary premise to this would be the belief then that inferences about the creator would be best sourced from the highest form of intelligence He created. Therefore if we want to learn about God using logic, we would want to observe the most intelligent being He created, and make inferences about Him. I therefore infer that God must be intelligent since He could create intelligent beings. I also infer that He must be supreme since He alone has no known source.

But what if inanimate things could do that too?

Our study of science indicates that things can only bring forth of their own kind. Birds do not reproduce plants, nor vice versa. Different forms of life cannot create another. It is therefore illogical to suggest that intelligent life could have come from inanimate sources.

But then if an intelligent creator could exist of Himself, then perhaps the intelligent beings on earth are the creator?

If that were so, we would be to explain where we came from and how we came to be. Since we have no idea of this at all, this idea does not hold true. It also leaves unaccounted for, explanations about the origin of the birds, trees, seas and other planets. Supposing the intelligent life one earth exists of itself, what about the unintelligent life? A single intelligent source makes more sense as an explanation for all creation. What about the completely inanimate life? However, we all admit that we do not have much knowledge about the true source of life, and therefore we have to assume that all things are possible with this source of life.

How about just admitting you do not know?

That's not good enough. Once you can accept the strong possibility of their being God, then you must ask what are the potential consequences of not following His dictates?

What about other religions?

That's where my four pronged argument comes in:

1. Does the religion show God's relationship with man from the beginning of time?
2. Was the main proponent of the religion completely faultless, and a time-relevant example?
3. Does the religion offer a connection with God that goes beyond rules of good conduct?
4. How strong is the testimony of its earliest witnesses?

By process of elimination, you will find that only Christianity genuinely ticks all four boxes.

Deicide:

Exaggerated facts you mean?

Yes, i have do you have a problem with that or you think Atheist don't read Bible?

So you mean all those guys in the bible died in the wilderness and their body turned to dust? Weren't they buried in a place? who asked about if their body were preserved all we just want is a tomb stone

Jobless atheist.....You read them and never understood any thing...you read for criticism only and never benefited from it and will never impact a soul with it......is a shame

The same Bible reading is buying private jet for people, establishing schools every where and feeding billions and you are here concerned with people that died thousands of years ago.....grave hunting is your job, all you want is a tomb .

please come to Kogi state and i will show many

Deicide:

Olodo

lo...i'm an Urhobo and don't understand your language.

Another name for a dumbass is Deicide

SmartyPants:


1. Every religion has a story. But in that story there has to be a point where God hands the religion to man. For Islam that point starts with Mohammed, even though they have a narration of creation. Which by the way is obviously taken from the Bible.

2. Whether you trust it or not, its a differentiator. Remember, this part of my argument is directed to those who believe.

3. No Islam claims we are all sons of God only in the sense of us being His creation. Christianity offers sonship in the sense of being actually of the nature of God. I also said in the original essay that religious beliefs that are unique must also be logical in the sense of why those beliefs serve a purple. Hinduism fails this test since it believes cows are to be worshipped. Why?

4. You call it propaganda but you cannot prove that.

1. Islams narration is taken from Judaism, Christianity's own is taken from Judaism. Doesnt that prove that Judaism is the one true religion. Christianity started 2000 years ago. It can be traced, thats when your so called religion was handed down to you guys. What are you even saying?

2. Belief means nothing in the presence of superior facts. For those who believe in the buddha am sure their facts are always true for them so please never argue with them.

3. Buddhism offers being one with God and achieving the state of God. What could beat that? sorry mister but your offer isnt the best. Hinduism
believes spirits inhabit cows and worship those spirits. Christianity believes in a talking donkey and snake.

LiberaDeus:


1. Islams narration is taken from Judaism, Christianity's own is taken from Judaism. Doesnt that prove that Judaism is the one true religion. Christianity started 2000 years ago. It can be traced, thats when your so called religion was handed down to you guys. What are you even saying?

2. Belief means nothing in the presence of superior facts. For those who believe in the buddha am sure their facts are always true for them so please never argue with them.

3. Buddhism offers being one with God and achieving the state of God. What could beat that? sorry mister but your offer isnt the best. Hinduism
believes spirits inhabit cows and worship those spirits. Christianity believes in a talking donkey and snake.

These are basic things you have to know if you want to enter the debate on religion. Having to explain this wastes my time and takes us further away from the central argument.

1. Islam takes from Judaism but does not acknowledge this, and does not acknowledge it as being true. Christianity is only separated from Judaism by the Jews who do not accept Christ. Otherwise, biblically Christianity traces its roots right through what is called Judaism. Note that these terms originated with men.

If you are still having trouble conceptualizing this, then forget i said Judaism. Christianity traces the relationship with between God and man right through the days of the Law. If do not know what the Law is, then look it up on google.

The Jewish holy book, the Tora, is contained in the Bible. They accept part of what we believe, but reject the major part which is from where Christ came. That is the difference.

2. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

3. a. I hope you understand what i meant when i said we are using a process of elimination? Buddhism has been eliminated at point 2 where i noted the main proponent must have been perfect. Please keep up and stop forcing me to go back to things i have already covered, which should be easily understood.

b. This is painful. I am literally in pain over the fact that i have to reply this. You mean you don't understand the difference between believing that a donkey spoke and worshiping cows? Every religion believes in what non-believing people would call impossible or miracles. I am at a total loss as to how to your mind that is comparable to actually worshiping cows.

[s][/s]

urheme:



[s]
Jobless atheist.....You read them and never understood any thing...you read for criticism only and never benefited from it and will never impact a soul with it......is a shame

The same Bible reading is buying private jet for people, establishing schools every where and feeding billions and you are here concerned with people that died thousands of years ago.....grave hunting is your job, all you want is a tomb .

please come to Kogi state and i will show many [/s]

SmartyPants:


These are basic things you have to know if you want to enter the debate on religion. Having to explain this wastes my time and takes us further away from the central argument.

1. Islam takes from Judaism but does not acknowledge this, and does not acknowledge it as being true. Christianity is only separated from Judaism by the Jews who do not accept Christ. Otherwise, biblically Christianity traces its roots right through what is called Judaism. Note that these terms originated with men.

If you are still having trouble conceptualizing this, then forget i said Judaism. Christianity traces the relationship with between God and man right through the days of the Law. If do not know what the Law is, then look it up on google.

The Jewish holy book, the Tora, is contained in the Bible. They accept part of what we believe, but reject the major part which is from where Christ came. That is the difference.

2. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

3. a. I hope you understand what i meant when i said we are using a process of elimination? Buddhism has been eliminated at point 2 where i noted the main proponent must have been perfect. Please keep up and stop forcing me to go back to things i have already covered, which should be easily understood.

b. This is painful. I am literally in pain over the fact that i have to reply this. You mean you don't understand the difference between believing that a donkey spoke and worshiping cows? Every religion believes in what non-believing people would call impossible or miracles. I am at a total loss as to how to your mind that is comparable to actually worshiping cows.

If i knew you would be this dishonest i wont have wasted my time with you. I am showing you that your religion is not unique and you are twisting and turning and going round in circles. This is the last time i am facing this points if you like twist and turn it later, but its clear you already have what you believe and you just want to simply and dishonestly twist the facts into your funnel of belief.

1. Islam acknowledges Judaism as much as christianity does so stop saying what you dont know. Islam acknowledges all the characters of the OT, Joseph(yusuf), David(Daud), Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Esther, Moses(Musa), Jacob, Abraham. They all acknowledge all the stories of the OT so what makes it different, they also accept the judaism creation story. Islam and chrisitianity are not the only religions that trace back to creation. There are over a hundred others that start with the creation story. Buddhism has its own, Hinduism has its own. Why are you narrowing it down to look as if Judaism is the only religion that has a creation story. Even Ifa has a creation story and talks about the relationship of man and God from creation. Because christianity uses the OT you now make it look as if the OT is the only existing creation story or cosmological story.

2. Buddhism cant be eliminated. If it is eliminated then chrisitianity must be eliminated. Your book claims Jesus was perfect but he clearly contradicts that in the gospels, he shows rage, calls people fools and vipers . There is nothing perfect about that. Nothing in the buddhist literature claims that Siddartha Gautama(Buddha) was imperfect at anytime so stop twisting facts. Muslims claim their prophet was perfect too. You cant just eliminate buddhism like that bro. Thats very dishonest.

3. Please whats bad in worshipping a cow? Am sure you would say its because thats absurd. Compare the absurdity of that to the absurdity of a talking snake, talking donkey, dead men rising. There are uncountable stories in the bible that are just plain absurd. So sorry mr.christian, you and your hindu brothers are the same in my eye. They believe absurd things just like you believe.

For the last time, if you honestly believe christianity meets those 4 pathetic standards that you created then you are being very unchristlike and dishonest

LiberaDeus:


If i knew you would be this dishonest i wont have wasted my time with you. I am showing you that your religion is not unique and you are twisting and turning and going round in circles. This is the last time i am facing this points if you like twist and turn it later, but its clear you already have what you believe and you just want to simply and dishonestly twist the facts into your funnel of belief.

1. Islam acknowledges Judaism as much as christianity does so stop saying what you dont know. Islam acknowledges all the characters of the OT, Joseph(yusuf), David(Daud), Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Esther, Moses(Musa), Jacob, Abraham. They all acknowledge all the stories of the OT so what makes it different, they also accept the judaism creation story. Islam and chrisitianity are not the only religions that trace back to creation. There are over a hundred others that start with the creation story. Buddhism has its own, Hinduism has its own. Why are you narrowing it down to look as if Judaism is the only religion that has a creation story. Even Ifa has a creation story and talks about the relationship of man and God from creation. Because christianity uses the OT you now make it look as if the OT is the only existing creation story or cosmological story.

2. Buddhism cant be eliminated. If it is eliminated then chrisitianity must be eliminated. Your book claims Jesus was perfect but he clearly contradicts that in the gospels, he shows rage, calls people fools and vipers . There is nothing perfect about that. Nothing in the buddhist literature claims that Siddartha Gautama(Buddha) was imperfect at anytime so stop twisting facts. Muslims claim their prophet was perfect too. You cant just eliminate buddhism like that bro. Thats very dishonest.

3. Please whats bad in worshipping a cow? Am sure you would say its because thats absurd. Compare the absurdity of that to the absurdity of a talking snake, talking donkey, dead men rising. There are uncountable stories in the bible that are just plain absurd. So sorry mr.christian, you and your hindu brothers are the same in my eye. They believe absurd things just like you believe.

For the last time, if you honestly believe christianity meets those 4 pathetic standards that you created then you are being very unchristlike and dishonest

Thanks for your input on this thread.

1. Islam acknowledges the characters but changes the stories and the names. Most importantly, they do not attribute these stories to the Bible or to the Torah, instead claiming that Mohammed received it all from an angel. That is not acknowledging Judaism.

This is important because true religion must be shown to have existed from the first day God made man. It could not have been discovered at some point along the way.

Jesus did not come to found a new religion, He came in continuance of a relationship with God that commence from creation and continues to this day.

2. Understand this, we can have subjective definitions of perfect, but let us look at what each respective religion says about it's major proponent:

Christianity: Jesus never sinned
Buddhism: Buddha was unenlightened and went in search of enlightenment at the age of 29. Can an unenlighted person (one who walks in the dark), be perfect?
Islam: Mohammed was not sure whether he was going to heaven at the point of death.

3. Like i said, all religions believe in things that the atheist would not accept. What is wrong with worshiping cows, from a religious person's point of view, is the fact that we should logically, only worship beings superior to us. If we are more intelligent than cows despite the belief that intelligent spirits are in them, then they cannot be worthy or worship.

You allege dishonesty, and I am baffled by such an allegation. But I thank you for taking the time to respond to my essay.

SmartyPants:


Thanks for your input on this thread.

1. Islam acknowledges the characters but changes the stories and the names. Most importantly, they do not attribute these stories to the Bible or to the Torah, instead claiming that Mohammed received it all from an angel. That is not acknowledging Judaism.

This is important because true religion must be shown to have existed from the first day God made man. It could not have been discovered at some point along the way.

Jesus did not come to found a new religion, He came in continuance of a relationship with God that commence from creation and continues to this day.

2. Understand this, we can have subjective definitions of perfect, but let us look at what each respective religion says about it's major proponent:

Christianity: Jesus never sinned
Buddhism: Buddha was unenlightened and went in search of enlightenment at the age of 29. Can an unenlighted person (one who walks in the dark), be perfect?
Islam: Mohammed was not sure whether he was going to heaven at the point of death.

3. Like i said, all religions believe in things that the atheist would not accept. What is wrong with worshiping cows, from a religious person's point of view, is the fact that we should logically, only worship beings superior to us. If we are more intelligent than cows despite the belief that intelligent spirits are in them, then they cannot be worthy or worship.

You allege dishonesty, and I am baffled by such an allegation. But I thank you for taking the time to respond to my essay.

1. I can also say christianity changes the names. The names in the Quran are the arabic variant and they are much closer to the jewish /hebrew version. Islam didnt change the names and the stories, if you think so then show me proof of the fact that Islam changed the names of OT characters. While you are searching, pls tell me why you dont call Jesus Yahshua, why you dont call David Daud and Solomon Shelomo because i am positive that the King James Bible or even the NKJV uses the english names does it mean they changed the names? Why doesnt the NKJV use the original hebrew names

Also if you say true religion must have been shown to have existed from creation, who told you that the Judaism creation story is the authentic one. This is what i have been telling you, you think the world revolves around Judaism and other creation stories and religions are useless. Why dont you consider the greek creation story that talks about Zeus and the gods and the creation of man? I also asked you why you conveniently ignore Obatala's creation story and even Amadioha's creation story. Every tribe that has existed has had creation stories so please stop using that of the ancient hebrews as the yardstick for truth, why not use the chinese story or the Japanese story or the Igbo or yoruba story why that of Judaism? Its just because thats the only one you know and are exposed to. Thats the thing about religion, for it to thrive in your mind there must be a sufficient amount of cultural ignorance and exposure.

2. You just mentioned Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad. Please are those the only 3 characters of religion?
What of Mithra? read about Mithra and tell me where sin existed in him
What of Lord Krishna? Read about it in the vedas and tell me where sin reigned in him. But am sure you never will because you already fear it as demonic. Your mind is only comfortable with that which is familiar to you. There are over 50 religious progenitors that claimed to be gods and also were seen as perfect. Please stop using 3 characters as your standard.

3. The same thing wrong with worshipping cows is the also wrong in believing in a human blood sacrifice. If you want to use logic pls answer these questions

- Is it logical to believe that blood of humans make people perfect
- Is it logical to believe in a talking snake or a talking donkey
- Is it logical to believe in manna falling from heaven

You are failing to see that all religions are illogical. Pls dont excuse your darling christianity. Just like other religions, christianity is built on lies, fables, mythology, fairy tales, superstition etc and is sustained by coercion, childhood indoctrination, lies, conquest, politics, obsfucation of other world views. Like all other religions, christianity is a terrible mess

LiberaDeus:



1. I can also say christianity changes the names. The names in the Quran are the arabic variant and they are much closer to the jewish /hebrew version. Islam didnt change the names and the stories, if you think so then show me proof of the fact that Islam changed the names of OT characters. While you are searching, pls tell me why you dont call Jesus Yahshua, why you dont call David Daud and Solomon Shelomo because i am positive that the King James Bible or even the NKJV uses the english names does it mean they changed the names? Why doesnt the NKJV use the original hebrew names

Also if you say true religion must have been shown to have existed from creation, who told you that the Judaism creation story is the authentic one. This is what i have been telling you, you think the world revolves around Judaism and other creation stories and religions are useless. Why dont you consider the greek creation story that talks about Zeus and the gods and the creation of man? I also asked you why you conveniently ignore Obatala's creation story and even Amadioha's creation story. Every tribe that has existed has had creation stories so please stop using that of the ancient hebrews as the yardstick for truth, why not use the chinese story or the Japanese story or the Igbo or yoruba story why that of Judaism? Its just because thats the only one you know and are exposed to. Thats the thing about religion, for it to thrive in your mind there must be a sufficient amount of cultural ignorance and exposure.

2. You just mentioned Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad. Please are those the only 3 characters of religion?
What of Mithra? read about Mithra and tell me where sin existed in him
What of Lord Krishna? Read about it in the vedas and tell me where sin reigned in him. But am sure you never will because you already fear it as demonic. Your mind is only comfortable with that which is familiar to you. There are over 50 religious progenitors that claimed to be gods and also were seen as perfect. Please stop using 3 characters as your standard.

3. The same thing wrong with worshipping cows is the also wrong in believing in a human blood sacrifice. If you want to use logic pls answer these questions

- Is it logical to believe that blood of humans make people perfect
- Is it logical to believe in a talking snake or a talking donkey
- Is it logical to believe in manna falling from heaven

You are failing to see that all religions are illogical. Pls dont excuse your darling christianity. Just like other religions, christianity is built on lies, fables, mythology, fairy tales, superstition etc and is sustained by coercion, childhood indoctrination, lies, conquest, politics, obsfucation of other world views. Like all other religions, christianity is a terrible mess

You do not understand. I never said all these points are unique to Christianity. I said only Christianity can claim to meet all four. Some religions can claim to meet 1 or 2 or 3 of the points but no one religion other than Christianity can claim to meet all four. That is and has always been the argument.

So with regards to:

1. Yes i am well aware most religions have creation story. If this creations story includes the beginning of their religion then they pass this first test.

2. I only used the ones you mentioned. I cannot possibly claim to know all religions. Those that passed test 1 will also have to meet test 2, which is laying claim to a perfect major proponent.

Test 3 of my argument is key and you really have to understand my initial argument. Religion cannot be required to be conventionally logical, since it involves belief in God and we do not fully understand God or the workings of the spirit world. Even if you do not believe in any religion, you do have to be open minded about that which we all do not fully understand. I also said that while we cannot expect religion to confirm to our scientific beliefs, we should have a logical answer for why we need one religion in particular.

You get it? All religions cannot make scientific sense because science itself is limited - it cannot explain all things. However, the stand out feature of any religion should be how it helps you connect to God. If it offers rules of good conduct alone, then it is not unique and fails this test.

3. Look at my previous answer. I said what is wrong with worshiping cows is the fact that we are superior to them in nature. What does that have to do with what you consider human sacrifice?

Within the context of religion, every occurrence is logical, since religion is not expected to be conventionally logical. What matters then, is what is the logic behind this story?

For example, if i say Jesus died and resurrected, the question should not be how did this happen, but why did this have to happen.

SmartyPants:


You do not understand. I never said all these points are unique to Christianity. I said only Christianity can claim to meet all four. Some religions can claim to meet 1 or 2 or 3 of the points but no one religion other than Christianity can claim to meet all four. That is and has always been the argument.

So with regards to:

1. Yes i am well aware most religions have creation story. If this creations story includes the beginning of their religion then they pass this first test.

2. I only used the ones you mentioned. I cannot possibly claim to know all religions. Those that passed test 1 will also have to meet test 2, which is laying claim to a perfect major proponent.

Test 3 of my argument is key and you really have to understand my initial argument. Religion cannot be required to be conventionally logical, since it involves belief in God and we do not fully understand God or the workings of the spirit world. Even if you do not believe in any religion, you do have to be open minded about that which we all do not fully understand. I also said that while we cannot expect religion to confirm to our scientific beliefs, we should have a logical answer for why we need one religion in particular.

You get it? All religions cannot make scientific sense because science itself is limited - it cannot explain all things. However, the stand out feature of any religion should be how it helps you connect to God. If it offers rules of good conduct alone, then it is not unique and fails this test.

3. Look at my previous answer. I said what is wrong with worshiping cows is the fact that we are superior to them in nature. What does that have to do with what you consider human sacrifice?

Within the context of religion, every occurrence is logical, since religion is not expected to be conventionally logical. What matters then, is what is the logic behind this story?

For example, if i say Jesus died and resurrected, the question should not be how did this happen, but why did this have to happen.

Please who says that those your 4 points are the four cardinal pillars of truth. Who made it so?
You just create a standard and assume anyone that meets it must possess the truth. All religions have their own standard and claim only them meet it. And please christianity doesnt meet all 4. I can tell you that your central character wasnt perfect by any ramification. I can also tell you that christianity started existing 2000 years ago and drew from Judaism just like Islam did.

1. I am tired of saying this over and over. Christianity didnt start with Genesis so your christianity fails. Ifa religion started with Obatala and creation. Hinduism started with Brahman creating the world. So sorry your religion is not unique

2. The buddhists will gladly tell you that they connect to god in the best way ever. The new age spiritualists dont want it any other way but theirs because they feel the experience is priceless. Please stop using your limited,subjective christian worship experience to claim that your mode of worship helps you connect to god the most. As you connect to your god, do you walk around with god literally on your shoulder? is there anything you possess that other religious people dont have? SO how do i know yours is the best connection to god. I can also tell you that Igbo language is the best language because it is the sweetest flowing language from a humans mouth(now beat that). Stop using your subjective experience to judge.

3. This is where you shoot yourself in the foot.
According to you - " Religion doesnt have to be perfectly logical"
Then later according to the same you - " We shouldnt worship cows because we are superior to them" (pure logical thinking)
You know logically that humans are smarter, better, more efficient than cows and are masters to them so therefore we cant worship them, this is simple logic which you claim religion cant possess
But you also know that a snake can talk and a donkey can talk and a human sacrifice justified your ancestors, the world was destroyed by a flood and was also created in six days.
Why do you chose to suspend logic when it comes to your darling religion that you were indoctrinated into?

If you can believe all the rubbish in christianity then how can you with a straight face say you shouldnt worship a cow

let me try and sound like a Hindu - the avatars and lesser spirits inhabit the cow thereby making it a sacred animal.

It is clear you guys are just different sides of the same coin ( An institution built on lies, deceit, fables, myths, superstition and useless dogma)
Whether you rob banks, defraud people, perform 419, yahoo yahoo, credit fraud etc you are a criminal and a criminal is a criminal. I can also say the same for religion. Whether you believe in dead men walking, arabs ascending with magical horses, spiritual cows, enlightened 2000 year old monks, chickens creating the world etc you are delusional.

I hope you get that

LiberaDeus:


Please who says that those your 4 points are the four cardinal pillars of truth. Who made it so?
You just create a standard and assume anyone that meets it must possess the truth. All religions have their own standard and claim only them meet it. And please christianity doesnt meet all 4. I can tell you that your central character wasnt perfect by any ramification. I can also tell you that christianity started existing 2000 years ago and drew from Judaism just like Islam did.

1. I am tired of saying this over and over. Christianity didnt start with Genesis so your christianity fails. Ifa religion started with Obatala and creation. Hinduism started with Brahman creating the world. So sorry your religion is not unique

2. The buddhists will gladly tell you that they connect to god in the best way ever. The new age spiritualists dont want it any other way but theirs because they feel the experience is priceless. Please stop using your limited,subjective christian worship experience to claim that your mode of worship helps you connect to god the most. As you connect to your god, do you walk around with god literally on your shoulder? is there anything you possess that other religious people dont have? SO how do i know yours is the best connection to god. I can also tell you that Igbo language is the best language because it is the sweetest flowing language from a humans mouth(now beat that). Stop using your subjective experience to judge.

3. This is where you shoot yourself in the foot.
According to you - " Religion doesnt have to be perfectly logical"
Then later according to the same you - " We shouldnt worship cows because we are superior to them" (pure logical thinking)
You know logically that humans are smarter, better, more efficient than cows and are masters to them so therefore we cant worship them, this is simple logic which you claim religion cant possess
But you also know that a snake can talk and a donkey can talk and a human sacrifice justified your ancestors, the world was destroyed by a flood and was also created in six days.
Why do you chose to suspend logic when it comes to your darling religion that you were indoctrinated into?

If you can believe all the rubbish in christianity then how can you with a straight face say you shouldnt worship a cow

let me try and sound like a Hindu - the avatars and lesser spirits inhabit the cow thereby making it a sacred animal.

It is clear you guys are just different sides of the same coin ( An institution built on lies, deceit, fables, myths, superstition and useless dogma)
Whether you rob banks, defraud people, perform 419, yahoo yahoo, credit fraud etc you are a criminal and a criminal is a criminal. I can also say the same for religion. Whether you believe in dead men walking, arabs ascending with magical horses, spiritual cows, enlightened 2000 year old monks, chickens creating the world etc you are delusional.

I hope you get that

1. Sorry, when did you become and expert on Christianity? Christianity is a title that was developed by men. It was never used by Jesus nor was it given to us by God.

The followers of Jesus, believe everything from Genesis to Revelation. Our religion starts right in the book of Eden, when God said to Adam, "do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", and includes the the period of the Law, which men refer to as Judaism. Can you separate your past from who you are? That is what you are trying to do when you claim Judaism is separate from Christianity.

So you have no point here, and although I can see why you would desperately like to hold on to this, you have to let go.

2. "Please stop using your limited,subjective christian worship experience to claim that your mode of worship helps you connect to god the most."

Why resorting to making things up? Can you show me where, in the whole of this thread i have said that?

3. "Religion doesn't have to be perfectly logical"

Never said this either. I used the word conventional not perfect. Are you just going to take everything i said and substitute it with words and sentences that say something entirely different that you want it to say?

I said religion cannot be expected to be conventionally logical but it is logical all the same. I quote myself again:

Religion cannot be required to be conventionally logical, since it involves belief in God and we do not fully understand God or the workings of the spirit world. Even if you do not believe in any religion, you do have to be open minded about that which we all do not fully understand. I also said that while we cannot expect religion to confirm to our scientific beliefs, we should have a logical answer for why we need one religion in particular

If you don't understand what i meant by conventionally logical, then replace the phrase with scientific.

My point was and is that:

(a) if science cannot provide the answers it is logical to consider the answer provided by religion as being perfectly possible. When you have eliminated whatever it is that you consider probable, then the answer lies in the realm of the improbable. This is what i refer to as unconventional logic, since by the process of conventional logical reasoning, we arrive at an unscientific answer.

(b) Since religion never claims to be conventionally logical (scientific), then you cannot question it for making incredulous sounding, unscientific claims. However, since we understand religion as the relationship between God and man, then every religious claim must make sense in that context.

For a example, a religion that states that man will turn into a laptop when he dies. Sure, i can believe that, but why should a man turn into a laptop? How does that serve the purpose of connecting man with God? I would need an explanation for that. So note this clear: I do not question the possibility of what any religion claims! I question the rationale behind the claims.

Since we have established that religion, no matter how improbable sounding it is to you, is very possible. and since religion involves believing in the possibility of the unknown, it is illogical to think it there is no logic in the possibility of what is currently thought to be scientifically impossible.

SmartyPants:


1. Sorry, when did you become and expert on Christianity? Christianity is a title that was developed by men. It was never used by Jesus nor was it given to us by God.

The followers of Jesus, believe everything from Genesis to Revelation. Our religion starts right in the book of Eden, when God said to Adam, "do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", and includes the the period of the Law, which men refer to as Judaism. Can you separate your past from who you are? That is what you are trying to do when you claim Judaism is separate from Christianity.

So you have no point here, and although I can see why you would desperately like to hold on to this, you have to let go.

2. "Please stop using your limited,subjective christian worship experience to claim that your mode of worship helps you connect to god the most."

Why resorting to making things up? Can you show me where, in the whole of this thread i have said that?

3. "Religion doesn't have to be perfectly logical"

Never said this either. I used the word conventional not perfect. Are you just going to take everything i said and substitute it with words and sentences that say something entirely different that you want it to say?

I said religion cannot be expected to be conventionally logical but it is logical all the same. I quote myself again:

Religion cannot be required to be conventionally logical, since it involves belief in God and we do not fully understand God or the workings of the spirit world. Even if you do not believe in any religion, you do have to be open minded about that which we all do not fully understand. I also said that while we cannot expect religion to confirm to our scientific beliefs, we should have a logical answer for why we need one religion in particular

If you don't understand what i meant by conventionally logical, then replace the phrase with scientific.

My point was and is that:

(a) if science cannot provide the answers it is logical to consider the answer provided by religion as being perfectly possible. When you have eliminated whatever it is that you consider probable, then the answer lies in the realm of the improbable. This is what i refer to as unconventional logic, since by the process of conventional logical reasoning, we arrive at an unscientific answer.

(b) Since religion never claims to be conventionally logical (scientific), then you cannot question it for making incredulous sounding, unscientific claims. However, since we understand religion as the relationship between God and man, then every religious claim must make sense in that context.

For a example, a religion that states that man will turn into a laptop when he dies. Sure, i can believe that, but why should a man turn into a laptop? How does that serve the purpose of connecting man with God? I would need an explanation for that. So note this clear: I do not question the possibility of what any religion claims! I question the rationale behind the claims.

Since we have established that religion, no matter how improbable sounding it is to you, is very possible. and since religion involves believing in the possibility of the unknown, it is illogical to think it there is no logic in the possibility of what is currently thought to be scientifically impossible.

1. Let me ask you a simple question. When did you start existing? Is it when your father was born and the sperm that carried you was created in his testicles or when your mother reached puberty and had the ova that had half of your genetic information? Which is it cos i need to know

Christianity is a belief in god through his alleged son Jesus christ's death. Please when did that happen? was it during the farcical creation story or in the last 2 millenia.
With your logic i can say Nigeria is 10,000 years old since all the ethnic groups that formed it have been existing for even longer than that.
How do you murder logic just to justify your religion.
The progenitors and followers of your genesis and torah story are still following Judaism today, in fact nothing less than 80% of jews are practising judaism, so claiming attachment to a very old religion(judaism) even though it isnt the oldest, doesnt make your religion very old.

And for your info, i am at least 500 years old, my genetic info has always existed for at least 500 years

2. You clearly stated that a religion will be true if it helps you connect to god better than the rest.
So let me ask you. How can i know that you connect to god better than Ibrahim or Jiao or Kumar or Ogundele the babalawo?
Is there any proof of it? Do you after connecting to god, move with a glow on your head or carry something that no other religious group carries? Please explain it to me

3. You ask what a man will gain if he turns to a laptop when he dies. Then let me ask you
What will man gain if he comes to the world, lives for 70 years and never hears of Jesus or christianity(mind you, at least 90% of the worlds population that has ever existed falls into this category) then dies, gets judged for not having a belief he never heard and then is burnt in hell forever and ever and ever. Does it connect man to god? Answer is no
Does it help a so called omnibenevolent god to have humans come into the world and still not present itself to them but eventually judge them and burn them forever?
Why create a garden of eden and let a devil in it? Why create you when there is more than a 50% chance that you might not meet the pseudo standards of christianity and still burn in hell and to top it all off, the so called yahweh is omnipresent so it clearly knows before hand what will happen to you before it does.
So please tell me the purpose of all this?
Why let you come into the world so you can go through a test that will deem you fit/unfit for being with it? why not just create you in heaven?

I guess you will give me the standard answer of " God works in mysterious ways and logic cant explain spiritual things because spiritual things surpass it"

If you give me that usual copout, i can also confidently tell you that if man dies and turns into a laptop then dont argue about the purpose of it because you cant understand the workings of such a wonderful god because science cant explain everything with logic so there is a possibility that it makes sense but you just have to wait to confirm.

As far as i am concerned, your religion is as purposeless as the religion that claims a man will turn into a laptop when he dies

SmartyPants:

Re 1 & 2, I may not have stated all the premises of my various arguments clearly, but one of them is my belief that logic never fails. But it would fail when it comes to the question of where the source of life came from unless there is something we are not considering in the proper logical light - Logic would lead us to believe that (a) Life must have started from something and (b) There could not possibly have been an infinite stream of sources of life So given these two conditions, there is a third logical conclusion: there is one original source, from whom or from which everything began, whose source is in Himself. I say, this is God. Why God?

1) I don't understand your premise (b). What do you mean by "infinite stream of sources of life"?
2) Your conclusion does not make any sense. Is "god" just a placeholder for the original source of life? And why do you think this source could not have emerged from inanimate objects?

A second premise for my arguments would be the fact that whatever is created must retain some clues as to the nature of the creator. An auxillary premise to this would be the belief then that inferences about the creator would be best sourced from the highest form of intelligence He created. Therefore if we want to learn about God using logic, we would want to observe the most intelligent being He created, and make inferences about Him. I therefore infer that God must be intelligent since He could create intelligent beings. I also infer that He must be supreme since He alone has no known source.

Your second premise is spineless! So far, you have defined "god" as the original source of life. You have merely stated, but not demonstrated that this original source is the perpetual source of life. You also believe you know what the most intelligent creation is (which I think is presumptuous), and that this most intelligent creation must have been created by the original source. Making many sloppy assumptions isn't the hallmark of a good logician.

But what if inanimate things could do that too?

Our study of science indicates that things can only bring forth of their own kind. Birds do not reproduce plants, nor vice versa. Different forms of life cannot create another. It is therefore illogical to suggest that intelligent life could have come from inanimate sources.

"Our"? I don't think we've had the same level of exposure to science. What forms of life do you imagine created mules and ligers? Secondly, since your study of science indicates that things can only bring forth their own kind, I wonder why your logic hasn't led you to believe we are all gods!? It's poor sportsmanship to shift the goal post at your whim! I asked you to show that inanimate objects cannot produce life, not tell me what I already know about self-replication. Reproduction isn't the subject of discourse, origin of life is.
That life is self-replicating is a granted, this does not mean the first form of life did not emerge from inanimate objects. We know life is composed mainly of H, C and O. The absence of any of these, and life cannot exist as we know it. I believe these are inanimate objects. So again, show that inanimate objects cannot produce life, before you make stupid claims like that.

But then if an intelligent creator could exist of Himself, then perhaps the intelligent beings on earth are the creator?

If that were so, we would be to explain where we came from and how we came to be. Since we have no idea of this at all, this idea does not hold true. It also leaves unaccounted for, explanations about the origin of the birds, trees, seas and other planets. Supposing the intelligent life one earth exists of itself, what about the unintelligent life? A single intelligent source makes more sense as an explanation for all creation. What about the completely inanimate life? However, we all admit that we do not have much knowledge about the true source of life, and therefore we have to assume that all things are possible with this source of life.

Wow!!! It is astounding how you can manage to mix your smartest and stupidest remarks in one sentence. Yes! We all admit we do not have much knowledge of the true source of life. As such, "we have to assume that all things are possible with this source"? I do not know much about how you made your breakfast this morning, so I have to assume you're capable of making every kind of food in the world! Genius!!

How about just admitting you do not know?

That's not good enough. Once you can accept the strong possibility of their being God, then you must ask what are the potential consequences of not following His dictates?

No, first you must ask yourself why this god is capable of making any demands of you, or if it cares to make any such demands. A question which you have evaded as many times as I've asked it.

What about other religions?

That's where my four pronged argument comes in:

1. Does the religion show God's relationship with man from the beginning of time?
2. Was the main proponent of the religion completely faultless, and a time-relevant example?
3. Does the religion offer a connection with God that goes beyond rules of good conduct?
4. How strong is the testimony of its earliest witnesses?

By process of elimination, you will find that only Christianity genuinely ticks all four boxes.

Your four pronged nonsense are just arbitrarily made up criteria to justify your preferred fairy tale. Everyone has their own criteria for their preferred fairy tales too!

LiberaDeus:


1. Let me ask you a simple question. When did you start existing? Is it when your father was born and the sperm that carried you was created in his testicles or when your mother reached puberty and had the ova that had half of your genetic information? Which is it cos i need to know

Christianity is a belief in god through his alleged son Jesus christ's death. Please when did that happen? was it during the farcical creation story or in the last 2 millenia.
With your logic i can say Nigeria is 10,000 years old since all the ethnic groups that formed it have been existing for even longer than that.
How do you murder logic just to justify your religion.
The progenitors and followers of your genesis and torah story are still following Judaism today, in fact nothing less than 80% of jews are practising judaism, so claiming attachment to a very old religion(judaism) even though it isnt the oldest, doesnt make your religion very old.

And for your info, i am at least 500 years old, my genetic info has always existed for at least 500 years

2. You clearly stated that a religion will be true if it helps you connect to god better than the rest.
So let me ask you. How can i know that you connect to god better than Ibrahim or Jiao or Kumar or Ogundele the babalawo?
Is there any proof of it? Do you after connecting to god, move with a glow on your head or carry something that no other religious group carries? Please explain it to me

3. You ask what a man will gain if he turns to a laptop when he dies. Then let me ask you
What will man gain if he comes to the world, lives for 70 years and never hears of Jesus or christianity(mind you, at least 90% of the worlds population that has ever existed falls into this category) then dies, gets judged for not having a belief he never heard and then is burnt in hell forever and ever and ever. Does it connect man to god? Answer is no
Does it help a so called omnibenevolent god to have humans come into the world and still not present itself to them but eventually judge them and burn them forever?
Why create a garden of eden and let a devil in it? Why create you when there is more than a 50% chance that you might not meet the pseudo standards of christianity and still burn in hell and to top it all off, the so called yahweh is omnipresent so it clearly knows before hand what will happen to you before it does.
So please tell me the purpose of all this?
Why let you come into the world so you can go through a test that will deem you fit/unfit for being with it? why not just create you in heaven?

I guess you will give me the standard answer of " God works in mysterious ways and logic cant explain spiritual things because spiritual things surpass it"

If you give me that usual copout, i can also confidently tell you that if man dies and turns into a laptop then dont argue about the purpose of it because you cant understand the workings of such a wonderful god because science cant explain everything with logic so there is a possibility that it makes sense but you just have to wait to confirm.

As far as i am concerned, your religion is as purposeless as the religion that claims a man will turn into a laptop when he dies

Seen. Will respond soon.

AgentOfAllah:

1) I don't understand your premise (b). What do you mean by "infinite stream of sources of life"?
2) Your conclusion does not make any sense. Is "god" just a placeholder for the original source of life? And why do you think this source could not have emerged from inanimate objects?


Your second premise is spineless! So far, you have defined "god" as the original source of life. You have merely stated, but not demonstrated that this original source is the perpetual source of life. You also believe you know what the most intelligent creation is (which I think is presumptuous), and that this most intelligent creation must have been created by the original source. Making many sloppy assumptions isn't the hallmark of a good logician.


"Our"? I don't think we've had the same level of exposure to science. What forms of life do you imagine created mules and ligers? Secondly, since your study of science indicates that things can only bring forth their own kind, I wonder why your logic hasn't led you to believe we are all gods!? It's poor sportsmanship to shift the goal post at your whim! I asked you to show that inanimate objects cannot produce life, not tell me what I already know about self-replication. Reproduction isn't the subject of discourse, origin of life is.
That life is self-replicating is a granted, this does not mean the first form of life did not emerge from inanimate objects. We know life is composed mainly of H, C and O. The absence of any of these, and life cannot exist as we know it. I believe these are inanimate objects. So again, show that inanimate objects cannot produce life, before you make stupid claims like that.


Wow!!! It is astounding how you can manage to mix your smartest and stupidest remarks in one sentence. Yes! We all admit we do not have much knowledge of the true source of life. As such, "we have to assume that all things are possible with this source"? I do not know much about how you made your breakfast this morning, so I have to assume you're capable of making every kind of food in the world! Genius!!

No, first you must ask yourself why this god is capable of making any demands of you, or if it cares to make any such demands. A question which you have evaded as many times as I've asked it.


Your four pronged nonsense are just arbitrarily made up criteria to justify your preferred fairy tale. Everyone has their own criteria for their preferred fairy tales too!

Seen. Will respond soon.

LiberaDeus:


1. Let me ask you a simple question. When did you start existing? Is it when your father was born and the sperm that carried you was created in his testicles or when your mother reached puberty and had the ova that had half of your genetic information? Which is it cos i need to know

Christianity is a belief in god through his alleged son Jesus christ's death. Please when did that happen? was it during the farcical creation story or in the last 2 millenia.
With your logic i can say Nigeria is 10,000 years old since all the ethnic groups that formed it have been existing for even longer than that.
How do you murder logic just to justify your religion.
The progenitors and followers of your genesis and torah story are still following Judaism today, in fact nothing less than 80% of jews are practising judaism, so claiming attachment to a very old religion(judaism) even though it isnt the oldest, doesnt make your religion very old.

And for your info, i am at least 500 years old, my genetic info has always existed for at least 500 years

2. You clearly stated that a religion will be true if it helps you connect to god better than the rest.
So let me ask you. How can i know that you connect to god better than Ibrahim or Jiao or Kumar or Ogundele the babalawo?
Is there any proof of it? Do you after connecting to god, move with a glow on your head or carry something that no other religious group carries? Please explain it to me

3. You ask what a man will gain if he turns to a laptop when he dies. Then let me ask you
What will man gain if he comes to the world, lives for 70 years and never hears of Jesus or christianity(mind you, at least 90% of the worlds population that has ever existed falls into this category) then dies, gets judged for not having a belief he never heard and then is burnt in hell forever and ever and ever. Does it connect man to god? Answer is no
Does it help a so called omnibenevolent god to have humans come into the world and still not present itself to them but eventually judge them and burn them forever?
Why create a garden of eden and let a devil in it? Why create you when there is more than a 50% chance that you might not meet the pseudo standards of christianity and still burn in hell and to top it all off, the so called yahweh is omnipresent so it clearly knows before hand what will happen to you before it does.
So please tell me the purpose of all this?
Why let you come into the world so you can go through a test that will deem you fit/unfit for being with it? why not just create you in heaven?

I guess you will give me the standard answer of " God works in mysterious ways and logic cant explain spiritual things because spiritual things surpass it"

If you give me that usual copout, i can also confidently tell you that if man dies and turns into a laptop then dont argue about the purpose of it because you cant understand the workings of such a wonderful god because science cant explain everything with logic so there is a possibility that it makes sense but you just have to wait to confirm.

As far as i am concerned, your religion is as purposeless as the religion that claims a man will turn into a laptop when he dies

Re:

1. Christianity is a belief in god through his alleged son Jesus christ's death

Hehehe. You are now defining Christianity in the way that suits you. Marvelous.

Christianity is not belief in God through His son Jesus Christ;s death. Christianity is belief in God and His son Jesus Christ's death.

The proper analogy is the question, the version of you that was in primary school and the version of you that is/was in university, are they not the same person at different periods of his life?

2 & 3. according to you, "You clearly stated that a religion will be true if it helps you connect to god better than the rest."

Where did i say this? This is becoming a trend in your posts. What i did say right from the beginning, was:

"Thirdly, the true religion must make sense but only in a way that surpasses what, for the purposes of this article, we have come to understand as arithmetic logic. [/b]Anyone can come up with a set of rules for human living, and certainly this is a component of almost all religions. But if rules for human living were all that religion could provide then we wouldn’t need religion, since we already have laws that regulate human conduct. [b]The true religion would have to offer an access route to God that is unique and yet beyond human understanding. This is simply because we have already established that God cannot be explained by arithmetic or linear logic, and we must think in terms of geometric logic or faith. Any religion that is based around understandable principles of human life therefore would appear to be a man-made effort to explain life and existence, instead of a God given answer. I insist that since God cannot be understood humanly, the route to God must include a solution which can be accepted as logical but humanly unexplainable."

It serves no purpose if you continually misquote me for reasons best known to you. Every religion claims to offer a connection to God. If this connection comes solely from rules of good conduct, then we do not need that religion since we already have rules of good conduct. I am sure some religions offer some explanation of how they offer a connection to God that surpasses rules of good conduct which is why i never said this was the only criteria. I said we should use a process of elimination to go through all four points. So honing in on each of my arguments individually instead of collectively makes no sense.

3. Regarding this line of thought:

"What will man gain if he comes to the world, lives for 70 years and never hears of Jesus or christianity(mind you, at least 90% of the worlds population that has ever existed falls into this category) then dies, gets judged for not having a belief he never heard and then is burnt in hell forever and ever and ever. Does it connect man to god? Answer is no
Does it help a so called omnibenevolent god to have humans come into the world and still not present itself to them but eventually judge them and burn them forever?"

Religion generally promises that those who adhere will achieve certain benefits which usually includes connecting with God. This promise is not for non-adherents so there is no requirement to prove that religion helps non-adherents to connect with God. My argument was never that the true religion must save all men by default.

AgentOfAllah:

1) I don't understand your premise (b). What do you mean by "infinite stream of sources of life"?
2) Your conclusion does not make any sense. Is "god" just a placeholder for the original source of life? And why do you think this source could not have emerged from inanimate objects?


Your second premise is spineless! So far, you have defined "god" as the original source of life. You have merely stated, but not demonstrated that this original source is the perpetual source of life. You also believe you know what the most intelligent creation is (which I think is presumptuous), and that this most intelligent creation must have been created by the original source. Making many sloppy assumptions isn't the hallmark of a good logician.


"Our"? I don't think we've had the same level of exposure to science. What forms of life do you imagine created mules and ligers? Secondly, since your study of science indicates that things can only bring forth their own kind, I wonder why your logic hasn't led you to believe we are all gods!? It's poor sportsmanship to shift the goal post at your whim! I asked you to show that inanimate objects cannot produce life, not tell me what I already know about self-replication. Reproduction isn't the subject of discourse, origin of life is.
That life is self-replicating is a granted, this does not mean the first form of life did not emerge from inanimate objects. We know life is composed mainly of H, C and O. The absence of any of these, and life cannot exist as we know it. I believe these are inanimate objects. So again, show that inanimate objects cannot produce life, before you make stupid claims like that.


Wow!!! It is astounding how you can manage to mix your smartest and stupidest remarks in one sentence. Yes! We all admit we do not have much knowledge of the true source of life. As such, "we have to assume that all things are possible with this source"? I do not know much about how you made your breakfast this morning, so I have to assume you're capable of making every kind of food in the world! Genius!!

No, first you must ask yourself why this god is capable of making any demands of you, or if it cares to make any such demands. A question which you have evaded as many times as I've asked it.


Your four pronged nonsense are just arbitrarily made up criteria to justify your preferred fairy tale. Everyone has their own criteria for their preferred fairy tales too!

You've said so many things so i may naturally miss out on some of them in my reply. To deal with what i believe is the major issue in your post,

I have said there must be a source of life which is also the source of itself. You are now challenging me on whether or not inanimate objects can bring forth life.

A cement block is used to make a house. Does a house therefore come from a cement block? Does it come from wood? It comes from a number of building blocks but something had to put it together. Inanimate objects lack the capacity for design, organization and putting things together. So even if the building blocks of like were inanimate, what we see of life is that it requires intelligent beings to design, organize, and put things together.

And if and when we discover a higher form of intelligence, than man, we can then study that to make inferences about its creator. To refuse to study man as the highest known form of intelligence, however, on the completely unsupported argument of the possibility of there being more intelligent sources of life is illogical.

As for mules and ligers, i expect you to immediately see that the animals that are mated to bring forth these creatures are from the same family. Mules come from horses and donkeys, Ligers from Lions and Tigers; same family in each case. And it is not possible at all, to mate animals from different families.

As for my points. i pointed out the logic behind my choice of each test. Everyone can come online and say oh this or that is nonsense. I'm here for the logical minded, so if you can, point out why each test is not logical as a test of being the true religion.

I also defined God as being supreme, so i don't see why you have to ask me why or how He should make demands of us. Inherent in the quality of being supreme, is the ability to do as He pleases.

SmartyPants:


Re:

1. Christianity is a belief in god through his alleged son Jesus christ's death

Hehehe. You are now defining Christianity in the way that suits you. Marvelous.

Christianity is not belief in God through His son Jesus Christ;s death. Christianity is belief in God and His son Jesus Christ's death.

The proper analogy is the question, the version of you that was in primary school and the version of you that is/was in university, are they not the same person at different periods of his life?

2 & 3. according to you, "You clearly stated that a religion will be true if it helps you connect to god better than the rest."

Where did i say this? This is becoming a trend in your posts. What i did say right from the beginning, was:

"Thirdly, the true religion must make sense but only in a way that surpasses what, for the purposes of this article, we have come to understand as arithmetic logic. [/b]Anyone can come up with a set of rules for human living, and certainly this is a component of almost all religions. But if rules for human living were all that religion could provide then we wouldn’t need religion, since we already have laws that regulate human conduct. [b]The true religion would have to offer an access route to God that is unique and yet beyond human understanding. This is simply because we have already established that God cannot be explained by arithmetic or linear logic, and we must think in terms of geometric logic or faith. Any religion that is based around understandable principles of human life therefore would appear to be a man-made effort to explain life and existence, instead of a God given answer. I insist that since God cannot be understood humanly, the route to God must include a solution which can be accepted as logical but humanly unexplainable."

It serves no purpose if you continually misquote me for reasons best known to you. Every religion claims to offer a connection to God. If this connection comes solely from rules of good conduct, then we do not need that religion since we already have rules of good conduct. I am sure some religions offer some explanation of how they offer a connection to God that surpasses rules of good conduct which is why i never said this was the only criteria. I said we should use a process of elimination to go through all four points. So honing in on each of my arguments individually instead of collectively makes no sense.

3. Regarding this line of thought:

"What will man gain if he comes to the world, lives for 70 years and never hears of Jesus or christianity(mind you, at least 90% of the worlds population that has ever existed falls into this category) then dies, gets judged for not having a belief he never heard and then is burnt in hell forever and ever and ever. Does it connect man to god? Answer is no
Does it help a so called omnibenevolent god to have humans come into the world and still not present itself to them but eventually judge them and burn them forever?"

Religion generally promises that those who adhere will achieve certain benefits which usually includes connecting with God. This promise is not for non-adherents so there is no requirement to prove that religion helps non-adherents to connect with God. My argument was never that the true religion must save all men by default.

1. You can try and run and hide but you cant. Has there ever been a time when christians offered sacrifices of ram, goat and sheep in Jerusalem?
Has there ever been a time when christians celebrated passover with lambs blood?
Has there ever been a time when christians got circumcised?
Has there ever been a time when christians had jewish high priests?

I could go on and on but christianity is not and will never be judaism
Because you believe and use the old testament doesnt mean that the old testament jews were ever christians
So dont try and join the two of them together to suit your point.

2.I wont even argue that again

3. True religion of god that claims that god came to save the whole world must be useful and reachable to all men if not then how can you claim god is perfect. If i decide to worship stones because i believe i will go to heaven then am just like you.

LiberaDeus:


1. You can try and run and hide but you cant. Has there ever been a time when christians offered sacrifices of ram, goat and sheep in Jerusalem?
Has there ever been a time when christians celebrated passover with lambs blood?
Has there ever been a time when christians got circumcised?
Has there ever been a time when christians had jewish high priests?

I could go on and on but christianity is not and will never be judaism
Because you believe and use the old testament doesnt mean that the old testament jews were ever christians
So dont try and join the two of them together to suit your point.

2.I wont even argue that again

3. True religion of god that claims that god came to save the whole world must be useful and reachable to all men if not then how can you claim god is perfect. If i decide to worship stones because i believe i will go to heaven then am just like you.

I've told you the name christian came from men. It was not used by Jesus, and it came a while after His death. This is stated in the Bible. So to premise your argument on the title, Christian, means you do not have an argument. The mode of worship may have changed. It doesn't make it a different religion. Both Judaism as you understand it, and Christianity as it is called by men, revolve around the Christ. The Jews believe in the Christ and look forward to His coming, whereas Christians believe He has already come.

I repeat, to premise your argument on the title, Christian, means you do not have an argument

"True religion of god that claims that god came to save the whole world must be useful and reachable to all men if not then how can you claim god is perfect."

No religion is reachable to all men in the sense in which you mean, so for the purposes on this debate, this point has no relevance. This debate is on Christianity vs other religions. And clearly christianity has reached many more people than any other religion.

If you want to worship stones that is fine. just make sure your stone worshiping religion can answer all the 4 questions.

SmartyPants:


I've told you the name christian came from men. It was not used by Jesus, and it came a while after His death. This is stated in the Bible. So to premise your argument on the title, Christian, means you do not have an argument. The mode of worship may have changed. It doesn't make it a different religion. Both Judaism as you understand it, and Christianity as it is called by men, revolve around the Christ. The Jews believe in the Christ and look forward to His coming, whereas Christians believe He has already come.

I repeat, to premise your argument on the title, Christian, means you do not have an argument

"True religion of god that claims that god came to save the whole world must be useful and reachable to all men if not then how can you claim god is perfect."

No religion is reachable to all men in the sense in which you mean, so for the purposes on this debate, this point has no relevance. This debate is on Christianity vs other religions. And clearly christianity has reached many more people than any other religion.

If you want to worship stones that is fine. just make sure your stone worshiping religion can answer all the 4 questions.

You are just pathetic. If you like remove the name christian from it and claim its just a title. You are not and you have never been a jew or practiser of judaism. The last christian jew was Yahshua ben Yosef. If you like combine it as much as you want, this just reeks of mental gymnastics and pure dishonesty.

Why cant religion reach all men if it really comes from god. If Bill Gates decides to start a marketing campaign he could succeed in reaching all continents equally. Coca cola has succeeded in less than 300 years in reaching almost every human household. How come your god cant seem to reach more than 30% of humanity after 2000 years? how come all your religions must be either propelled or limited by regional, political and human factors.

Sorry man but your 4 conditions are just pathetic. I just decided to play along with it and even beat you in it.
In reality, who set the 4 conditions of religious truth? I guess its you and your deluded religious apologists. Thats why AgentofAllah didnt even bother to dismantle them because its pointless to do so.

And FYI, i wont worship stones but stone worshipping is as futile as dead men worship

LiberaDeus:


You are just pathetic. If you like remove the name christian from it and claim its just a title. You are not and you have never been a jew or practiser of judaism. The last christian jew was Yahshua ben Yosef. If you like combine it as much as you want, this just reeks of mental gymnastics and pure dishonesty.

Why cant religion reach all men if it really comes from god. If Bill Gates decides to start a marketing campaign he could succeed in reaching all continents equally. Coca cola has succeeded in less than 300 years in reaching almost every human household. How come your god cant seem to reach more than 30% of humanity after 2000 years? how come all your religions must be either propelled or limited by regional, political and human factors.

Sorry man but your 4 conditions are just pathetic. I just decided to play along with it and even beat you in it.
In reality, who set the 4 conditions of religious truth? I guess its you and your deluded religious apologists. Thats why AgentofAllah didnt even bother to dismantle them because its pointless to do so.

And FYI, i wont worship stones but stone worshipping is as futile as dead men worship

You are getting childish now.

1. Your frustration is showing through in the fact that you have to resort to name calling. I've observed that most of you atheists who claim to be logical are actually incapable of behaving in a logical, unemotional manner. Why are you angry? Because someone has a different view from yours?

2. What is this, a high school fight were both combatants start claiming "i beat you"? Logically, only a neutral can tell you whether or not you made sense.

3. Playing sycophant by praising AgentofAllah, in order to get him to back up your assertions, and create a fasle sense of victory by virtue of numbers is the height of unacademic behavior. I'm not here for your atheist vs Christian e-wars. At the end of the day, what do you have to gain from that?

Unbelievable.

Now, whether you accept my explanation or not, the truth is there for all to see.

If my 4 conditions are wrong, i expect you to logically point out why each one cannot be a condition of a true religion.

Lastly, Christianity has actually gone all around the world today, so you claiming How come your god cant seem to reach more than 30% of humanity after 2000 years?" is bizarre. What stats is this assertion based on?

SmartyPants:


You are getting childish now.

1. Your frustration is showing through in the fact that you have to resort to name calling. I've observed that most of you atheists who claim to be logical are actually incapable of behaving in a logical, unemotional manner. Why are you angry? Because someone has a different view from yours?

2. What is this, a high school fight were both combatants start claiming "i beat you"? Logically, only a neutral can tell you whether or not you made sense.

3. Playing sycophant by praising AgentofAllah, in order to get him to back up your assertions, and create a fasle sense of victory by virtue of numbers is the height of unacademic behavior. I'm not here for your atheist vs Christian e-wars. At the end of the day, what do you have to gain from that?

Unbelievable.

Now, whether you accept my explanation or not, the truth is there for all to see.

If my 4 conditions are wrong, i expect you to logically point out why each one cannot be a condition of a true religion.

Lastly, Christianity has actually gone all around the world today, so you claiming How come your god cant seem to reach more than 30% of humanity after 2000 years?" is bizarre. What stats is this assertion based on?

The only reason am getting annoyed is because you have been running around in circles. If i called you names dont be annoyed cause you clearly know what you are doing.

Your conditions are wrong . I pointed it out over and over again.
You foolishly claimed christianity started in the garden of eden which it didnt and i showed you it didnt and also showed you religions that allegedly started with their creation story but you wont just accept because you are a dishonest apologist throwing mental backflips just to avoid being busted.

You foolishly claimed Jesus was perfect and i showed you Mithra, Buddha etc and you just rigmaroled away. How do you even determine one is perfect? That the book written by the persons fans claim that. Well i can tell you that Tuface Idibia is the best musician the world has ever seen, why do i say so? because a book written by Tuface's fans claims that. What hogwash

I also showed you that christianity isnt the only religion that claims sonship, that buddhism offers something better, Hinduism claims it and many others.

And i also showed you that many other religious people have died for their faiths at the beginning of the movement.

Your darling christianity is not the only religion that meets this standard.

Christianity has 2.2 billion adherents, approximately 33% of the worlds population. I wont provide a link for you, if you cant simply type christian demographics in google then i cant argue with you.

In case you dont know, coca cola has more global appeal than your religion.

There are large swathes of the far east that have never accepted christianity and have just heard of it slightly. There are many that havent heard.

Arguing with you is pointless cause you started your argument with a useless strawman(4 useless conditions of religious truth). The strawman couldnt even hold water.

LiberaDeus:


The only reason am getting annoyed is because you have been running around in circles. If i called you names dont be annoyed cause you clearly know what you are doing.

Your conditions are wrong . I pointed it out over and over again.
You foolishly claimed christianity started in the garden of eden which it didnt and i showed you it didnt and also showed you religions that allegedly started with their creation story but you wont just accept because you are a dishonest apologist throwing mental backflips just to avoid being busted.

You foolishly claimed Jesus was perfect and i showed you Mithra, Buddha etc and you just rigmaroled away. How do you even determine one is perfect? That the book written by the persons fans claim that. Well i can tell you that Tuface Idibia is the best musician the world has ever seen, why do i say so? because a book written by Tuface's fans claims that. What hogwash

I also showed you that christianity isnt the only religion that claims sonship, that buddhism offers something better, Hinduism claims it and many others.

And i also showed you that many other religious people have died for their faiths at the beginning of the movement.

Your darling christianity is not the only religion that meets this standard.

Christianity has 2.2 billion adherents, approximately 33% of the worlds population. I wont provide a link for you, if you cant simply type christian demographics in google then i cant argue with you.

In case you dont know, coca cola has more global appeal than your religion.

There are large swathes of the far east that have never accepted christianity and have just heard of it slightly. There are many that havent heard.

Arguing with you is pointless cause you started your argument with a useless strawman(4 useless conditions of religious truth). The strawman couldnt even hold water.

Do you read selectively?

I clearly stated that other religions may fulfil some of the points so trying to argue based on each one is completely missing the point. You are the one going round in circles, going as far as changing the things i've said to things I never said.

In your last paragraph you make what i can only assume is a reference to the strawman fallacy which has no relevance to my original post, since a strawman fallacy is inherently always a response to an argument. Seems like you are thoroughly out of your depth here!

Why do i have to keep on repeating that i never said Christianity is the only religion that meets the individual standards, i said Christianity is the only one that meets them all. So any argument to prove me wrong can only take one of two directions, either to disprove my standards as standards in the first place, or to demonstrate that another religion meets them all.

You have done, neither, merely meandering from point to point bringing up different religions in each instance. You keep reiterating that my standards are not correct but you cannot offer even the simplest explanation for why they are not correct. I gave logical explanations for each of my 4 standards. I explained why i chose each one. The onus is on you, if you disagree, to show why i should not have chosen them.

Throwing insults about does not make you right or even make you sound clever. You just sound uncultured and anti-academic!

SmartyPants:


You've said so many things so i may naturally miss out on some of them in my reply. To deal with what i believe is the major issue in your post,

Or deliberately evade them and shift the goal posts.

I have said there must be a source of life which is also the source of itself. You are now challenging me on whether or not inanimate objects can bring forth life.

Aye, indeed, you have! I'm not asking you to make claims, I'm asking you to back up your claims with logic. Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated any logical reasoning in that claim; just pure conjecture.

A cement block is used to make a house. Does a house therefore come from a cement block? Does it come from wood? It comes from a number of building blocks but something had to put it together. Inanimate objects lack the capacity for design, organization and putting things together. So even if the building blocks of like were inanimate, what we see of life is that it requires intelligent beings to design, organize, and put things together.

Now, let me school you in logic because I don't think you quite appreciate the enormity of your burden. When you state that inanimate objects cannot bring forth life, this is a negative CLAIM. To prove such a claim, it is not sufficient to cite a lacklustre example of cement and blocks, you must develop a Proof of Impossibility argument that systematically and unequivocally rules out every possibility of life coming from inanimate objects. You have failed to provide such a proof, and instead, based your claim on the assumption that all inanimate objects must behave like cement blocks and houses! Yet still, there is no evidence that life requires intelligence to design it.

And if and when we discover a higher form of intelligence, than man, we can then study that to make inferences about its creator. To refuse to study man as the highest known form of intelligence, however, on the completely unsupported argument of the possibility of there being more intelligent sources of life is illogical.

No no no! It doesn't work this way! You cannot accuse me of making unsupported arguments; I haven't made any arguments in fact. That I suggest counter examples to your claims doesn't mean I think they are true! It is just to highlight your faulty logic by showing that you have failed to rule out all the other possibilities before arriving at your conclusions. It is you who has based your argument on unsupported assumptions. I am quite happy and unashamed to admit my ignorance.

As for mules and ligers, i expect you to immediately see that the animals that are mated to bring forth these creatures are from the same family. Mules come from horses and donkeys, Ligers from Lions and Tigers; same family in each case. And it is not possible at all, to mate animals from different families.

Yes, so let's talk about families, then. These creatures belong to the same family, not the same species! I brought them up as a counter example of things reproducing "other kinds". There are examples of cats in the same family, sub-family even, than cannot hybridise due to speciation. The point here, is that the lines you draw are arbitrary, and do not exist in nature. Life is more of a tree with branches, than discrete points. When you go as far down on these branches as possible, every living thing will converge at the trunk, to some primitive ancestor. That includes trees, birds, humans, bacteria and so on. We are all one big biological family. Were it possible to trace your great great progenitors to a few millions of generations away, chances are, that you would eat them in a heart beat because they would look like small tasty fish!

As for my points. i pointed out the logic behind my choice of each test. Everyone can come online and say oh this or that is nonsense. I'm here for the logical minded, so if you can, point out why each test is not logical as a test of being the true religion.

I also defined God as being supreme, so i don't see why you have to ask me why or how He should make demands of us. Inherent in the quality of being supreme, is the ability to do as He pleases.

I don't need to point out why your tests are not logical, I just need to point out that the premises from which your tests are derived are illogical, and I have successfully done that! You have to fix the faults in your main premises first, then we can discuss your specific criteria: A list of your faulty premises and how to logically address them are as follows. You must address them all. Of course, you can address them differently than I have suggested. All I ask are two things: (A) That you kindly mention which one you're addressing to make this discussion more organised, and (B) that your arguments are logically sound (you must know by now that anything you call logical will be thoroughly scrutinised). Do this, and I would be convinced!

1) Show that this god is a living thing. To do this, you have to either:
(a) Provide direct observable evidence that this god exists, or, otherwise,
(b) Provide an 'Impossibility Proof' that life cannot have emerged from inanimate objects. (If you choose this route, bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)

2) Show that this god is an intelligent thing. To do this, you must either:
(a) Provide direct observable evidence that this god is intelligent, or, otherwise
(b) Provide an 'Impossibility Proof' that intelligent life cannot have evolved from other primitive forms.

3) Show that this god is a supreme creator. To do this, you must:
(a) Provide an 'Impossibility Proof' that this god was not created from other preexisting things, your proof must also show that
(i) There can't be many interdependent creators and
(ii) This god continues to create, even till this day.

5) Show that this god cares to make demands of us. To do this, you must:
(a) Provide direct evidence from this god. Bear in mind that appeal to authority is a known logical fallacy. The source of this evidence must therefore be indisputable.

6) Show that this god's demands are in the form of religion. To do this, you must, again:
(a) Provide direct evidence from this god.

Now you have your job cut out for you.

AgentOfAllah:

Or deliberately evade them and shift the goal posts.

Aye, indeed, you have! I'm not asking you to make claims, I'm asking you to back up your claims with logic. Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated any logical reasoning in that claim; just pure conjecture.


Now, let me school you in logic because I don't think you quite appreciate the enormity of your burden. When you state that inanimate objects cannot bring forth life, this is a negative CLAIM. To prove such a claim, it is not sufficient to cite a lacklustre example of cement and blocks, you must develop a Proof of Impossibility argument that systematically and unequivocally rules out every possibility of life coming from inanimate objects. You have failed to provide such a proof, and instead, based your claim on the assumption that all inanimate objects must behave like cement blocks and houses! Yet still, there is no evidence that life requires intelligence to design it.


No no no! It doesn't work this way! You cannot accuse me of making unsupported arguments; I haven't made any arguments in fact. That I suggest counter examples to your claims doesn't mean I think they are true! It is just to highlight your faulty logic by showing that you have failed to rule out all the other possibilities before arriving at your conclusions. It is you who has based your argument on unsupported assumptions. I am quite happy and unashamed to admit my ignorance.

Yes, so let's talk about families, then. These creatures belong to the same family, not the same species! I brought them up as a counter example of things reproducing "other kinds". There are examples of cats in the same family, sub-family even, than cannot hybridise due to speciation. The point here, is that the lines you draw are arbitrary, and do not exist in nature. Life is more of a tree with branches, than discrete points. When you go as far down on these branches as possible, every living thing will converge at the trunk, to some primitive ancestor. That includes trees, birds, humans, bacteria and so on. We are all one big biological family. Were it possible to trace your great great progenitors to a few millions of generations away, chances are, that you would eat them in a heart beat because they would look like small tasty fish!

I don't need to point out why your tests are not logical, I just need to point out that the premises from which your tests are derived are illogical, and I have successfully done that! You have to fix the faults in your main premises first, then we can discuss your specific criteria: A list of your faulty premises and how to logically address them are as follows. You must address them all. Of course, you can address them differently than I have suggested. All I ask are two things: (A) That you kindly mention which one you're addressing to make this discussion more organised, and (B) that your arguments are logically sound (you must know by now that anything you call logical will be thoroughly scrutinised). Do this, and I would be convinced!

1) Show that this god is a living thing. To do this, you have to either:
(a) Provide direct observable evidence that this god exists, or, otherwise,
(b) Provide an 'Impossibility Proof' that life cannot have emerged from inanimate objects. (If you choose this route, bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)

2) Show that this god is an intelligent thing. To do this, you must either:
(a) Provide direct observable evidence that this god is intelligent, or, otherwise
(b) Provide an 'Impossibility Proof' that intelligent life cannot have evolved from other primitive forms.

3) Show that this god is a supreme creator. To do this, you must:
(a) Provide an 'Impossibility Proof' that this god was not created from other preexisting things, your proof must also show that
(i) There can't be many interdependent creators and
(ii) This god continues to create, even till this day.

5) Show that this god cares to make demands of us. To do this, you must:
(a) Provide direct evidence from this god. Bear in mind that appeal to authority is a known logical fallacy. The source of this evidence must therefore be indisputable.

6) Show that this god's demands are in the form of religion. To do this, you must, again:
(a) Provide direct evidence from this god.

Now you have your job cut out for you.

I appreciate your approach but all of this is irrelevant simply because i never made any positive assertions, i made strong suggestions. Read my original post carefully, and you will see that i always said things along the line of "it is logical to think that so so so and so is true".

So you cannot ask me for definite evidence for my premises, when i never made definite claims in those premises.

One major premise of my entire argument is that we do not know certain things for scientific fact. How then can you ask me for scientific evidence?

Even where i said inanimate things cannot bring forth life, what i actually originally said was "it is very unlikely".

My argument, i freely admit, is based not on fact but on logical conjecture, which is the best we can do in the absence of full knowledge.

SmartyPants:


Do you read selectively?

I clearly stated that other religions may fulfil some of the points so trying to argue based on each one is completely missing the point. You are the one going round in circles, going as far as changing the things i've said to things I never said.

In your last paragraph you make what i can only assume is a reference to the strawman fallacy which has no relevance to my original post, since a strawman fallacy is inherently always a response to an argument. Seems like you are thoroughly out of your depth here!

Why do i have to keep on repeating that i never said Christianity is the only religion that meets the individual standards, i said Christianity is the only one that meets them all. So any argument to prove me wrong can only take one of two directions, either to disprove my standards as standards in the first place, or to demonstrate that another religion meets them all.

You have done, neither, merely meandering from point to point bringing up different religions in each instance. You keep reiterating that my standards are not correct but you cannot offer even the simplest explanation for why they are not correct. I gave logical explanations for each of my 4 standards. I explained why i chose each one. The onus is on you, if you disagree, to show why i should not have chosen them.

Throwing insults about does not make you right or even make you sound clever. You just sound uncultured and anti-academic!

Let me give you an answer, a very simple one for that matter

Mithraic religion meets all four conditions
Hinduism meets all four conditions

SmartyPants:


I appreciate your approach but all of this is irrelevant simply because i never made any positive assertions, i made strong suggestions. Read my original post carefully, and you will see that i always said things along the line of "it is logical to think that so so so and so is true".

A premise that is not supported by logic cannot be called "logical". It is a speculation, at best!

So you cannot ask me for definite evidence for my premises, when i never made definite claims in those premises.

Then don't claim they are logical. I can concede that your conclusions are logical conjectures, but they are constructed on speculative premises. You will observe that I have only attacked the premises themselves, and refrained from discussing your conclusions.

One major premise of my entire argument is that we do not know certain things for scientific fact. How then can you ask me for scientific evidence?

I asked for scientific evidence because you claimed your premises were logical. I wouldn't have engaged you if you clarified that they were speculations.

Even where i said inanimate things cannot bring forth life, what i actually originally said was "it is very unlikely".

Okay, but this is a speculative opinion.

My argument, i freely admit, is based not on fact but on logical conjecture, which is the best we can do in the absence of full knowledge.

No, your premises are based on wild speculations, not logical conjectures! The moment your premises are unraveled, then your ostensibly logical conclusions are exposed for their fallacies.
Even if your premises were logical conjectures, I hope you understand that logical conjectures are not the same as logical proofs; the sole distinguishing factor of the former being the lack of complete evidence. No one is obliged to accept claims based on incomplete evidence because they fear consequences that are of the same incomplete evidence. Doing so is the opposite of logical; it is succumbing to fearmongering.

Finally, I don't agree that this is the best we can do. The best we can do is acknowledge our ignorance until we know better.

You cannot use 'logical', religion and Christianity in the same sentence.

That in itself is irrational.

AgentOfAllah:
A premise that is not supported by logic cannot be called "logical". It is a speculation, at best!

Then don't claim they are logical. I can concede that your conclusions are logical conjectures, but they are constructed on speculative premises. You will observe that I have only attacked the premises themselves, and refrained from discussing your conclusions.

I asked for scientific evidence because you claimed your premises were logical. I wouldn't have engaged you if you clarified that they were speculations.

Okay, but this is a speculative opinion.

No, your premises are based on wild speculations, not logical conjectures! The moment your premises are unraveled, then your ostensibly logical conclusions are exposed for their fallacies.
Even if your premises were logical conjectures, I hope you understand that logical conjectures are not the same as logical proofs; the sole distinguishing factor of the former being the lack of complete evidence. No one is obliged to accept claims based on incomplete evidence because they fear consequences that are of the same incomplete evidence. Doing so is the opposite of logical; it is succumbing to fearmongering.

Finally, I don't agree that this is the best we can do. The best we can do is acknowledge our ignorance until we know better.

We must agree to disagree. You have to remember that i only made the argument about the existence of God as a prelude to my actual argument on the true religion.

I must say, though, that i believe that if we can admit that we do not know, then that calls us to be careful and cautious. Practicing a religion is better than taking a total gamble on your life after death.

Religion only enriches the lives of intelligent people, while no doubt the gullible will be taken advantage of. However this is not the fault of religion. You should have nothing against it.

mmsen:
You cannot use 'logical', religion and Christianity in the same sentence.

That in itself is irrational.

Why is that sir?