Pinnacle of Reason-
Why I believe? Because I “feel like it!”
This has no place in intelligent discussion.
Dust of the Earth-
Mankind instinctually knows He exists.
I strongly disagree with this. Mankind does, however, instinctively want answers to questions without them. Mankind wants to understand his own life, and assign purporse to an existence without one. Delusions of grandeur, I suppose. But the instinct toward answering these questions prompts Man to lessen his need for proof, thereby giving answers that would be pathetic in any other public forum, and somehow logic is overlooked.
Those who indicate otherwise are rejecting their own personal concept of God…not actually God Himself.
I assure you I openly reject ANY concept of God, not just my own. For you to claim otherwise is poor manners.
Apocalypse of War-
Therefore anything in harmony with relatios to the world must operate on the logic which the world is, hence anything in relation to the world may be explained through this system of logic.
Exatly. Anything which can be said to affect the world HAS to be explainable in relation to it.
Dust of the Earth-
It is logical that man has basic instincts.
There is NO instinct towards God. Someone who grows up in a bubble would not believe in God. But, on the toher hand, put 12 people in a bubble, they will want to sound better and cooler than the others, and will start a (as I am wont to say) a religous pissing contest. Hey! There’s God!
Plus, instincts are things that keep us alive in a evidence/experience less situation. Believing in God/lessening your level of evidence needed for belief does NOTHING for us.
It’s also observable thought-out history, and from culture to culture, to isolated culture, that God’s existence is instinctual.
Isn’t it also observable that every religion in every one of these societies you speak of started with ignorant barbarians trying to define an existence that was beyond their grasp? Is that an instinct as well?
Bold? Is the truth bold?
He is not questioning whether Truth is bold or not. Just that your statement was true.
You know God exists, but choose to deny that knowledge based on an accepted conceptual misrepresentation(s) in which you feel you have something to gain physically and/or emotionally by dening His existence.
Again, poor manners. You do not know Apocalypse of War. How can you know how he thinks unless you believe that your little maxim is the the way of the world? How egoistic is that?
ImmanuelAy-
Scythekain: Ultimately nothing in the natural world can be proven infallibly. Everything, from “Fact” to God is based on faith.
But, we go on probabilities, not proof. Nothing can be proven, but I am not about to waste my life by believing in a God who (probably) doesn’t exist. Seeing as I just know Sythekain from ILP, I would not trust him with my $10,000. Seeing as I (nor anyone) has ever met God, I will not put my life into him. It’s plain stupid, in my opinion. But, to each his own. At least Pinnacle of Reason has stopped trying to prove the existence of God.
(especially Christianity, since most Atheists–let’s be honest–don’t argue much against the Hindu Gods or the Sikh conception, or the Islamic conception, as adamantly as they rebel against Christianity.)
That’s because Christianity has oppressed and killed WAY more people than any other religion. The Crusades and Missions only happened with Jesus, not Shiva. Is it any wonder people hate Christianity more than other religions? (Hey, let’s go beat up that Bhuddist! He is being all nice and amenable. He is actually listening to other points of view! He is actually admitting that he COULD BE WRONG!!!)
But, refuting the dogmatic definitions that religion has put on God only means that the religious God has been refuted, and not the theological God.
I agree with this.
As for your Cosmological Argument:
Examine this:
An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.
Why? This argument wants to slip this past us, I think.
Sincerely,
Floyd