Nobody Dies for a Lie

[37818]

Well it's part of the evolution of monotheism from polytheism, that's about it. No indication that it might be true in any way.

Well you are assuming monotheism evolved from polytheism. Where as God was known to the first man and woman that He made. Which you do not believe.

[Tassman]

Well you are assuming monotheism evolved from polytheism. Where as God was known to the first man and woman that He made. Which you do not believe.

...and polytheism evolved from animism, i.e. the belief that objects, places and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence. The earliest human hominids, if they had any religious beliefs at all, would have been closer to animism than the much later, more sophisticated monotheist religions.

[37818]

...and polytheism evolved from animism, i.e. the belief that objects, places and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence. The earliest human hominids, if they had any religious beliefs at all, would have been closer to animism than the much later, more sophisticated monotheist religions.

That theory does not do away with the account that mankind became sinful which lead to the human race moving away from knowing the true God.

[shunyadragon]

That theory does not do away with the account that mankind became sinful which lead to the human race moving away from knowing the true God.

Which is an assertion of belief based on faith.

[Tassman]

That theory does not do away with the account that mankind became sinful

This "account" is based upon folktales.

which lead to the human race moving away from knowing the true God.

Says who?

[37818]

This "account" is based upon folktales.

You do not know that. That is what you choose to believe.

Says who?

The God you refuse to know.

[JimL]

You do not know that. That is what you choose to believe.

No, that is where the evidence leads, should you care to take an objective look at it.

The God you refuse to know.

Did god tell you this personally, or did your knowledge of gods existence come to you second hand?

[Tassman]

You do not know that. That is what you choose to believe.

It's what I believe based upon the available evidence.

The God you refuse to know.

As opposed to the god you believe you "know". There is no good reason why I should believe your personal deity exists.

[37818]

No, that is where the evidence leads, should you care to take an objective look at it.

Present this evidence.

Did god tell you this personally, or did your knowledge of gods existence come to you second hand?

Through the self authentication of Holy Scripture you can know God for yourself. God is invisible and everywhere. God speaks to man through the laws of nature (creation) and the Holy Scriptures. Evidence is contingent on said evidence existing. God being the fundamental self evidence being the uncaused existence behind all other existences.

[37818]

It's what I believe based upon the available evidence.

How does the available evidence as you interpret it rule out God being the uncaused existence behind all other existences?

As opposed to the god you believe you "know". There is no good reason why I should believe your personal deity exists.

What do you want for a good reason? You have not provided an argument which irrefutably rules out God.

[JimL]

Present this evidence.

We've presented it to you a hundred times over. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Through the self authentication of Holy Scripture you can know God for yourself.

That's what I said, you think you know god, because you read about god in your bible. If you were brought up Muslim, you'd think you know Allah too.

God is invisible and everywhere.

Yes, the bible tells you so.

God speaks to man through the laws of nature (creation) and the Holy Scriptures.

Yep, so does Allah.

Evidence is contingent on said evidence existing. God being the fundamental self evidence being the uncaused existence behind all other existences.

Gobbledygook.

[Tassman]

How does the available evidence as you interpret it rule out God being the uncaused existence behind all other existences?

Why would one rule it in?

What do you want for a good reason? You have not provided an argument which irrefutably rules out God.

No one can irrefutably "rule out" gods, it's just highly improbable that they exist, given the lack of evidence. They belong to an earlier, pre-scientific era when there was no other means of explaining what was otherwise inexplicable.

Present this evidence.

Through the self authentication of Holy Scripture you can know God for yourself. God is invisible and everywhere. God speaks to man through the laws of nature (creation) and the Holy Scriptures. Evidence is contingent on said evidence existing. God being the fundamental self evidence being the uncaused existence behind all other existences.

If god is invisible and immaterial how does he connect with material creatures like us? Where is the connection or nexus between the immaterial and the material?

[37818]

If god is invisible and immaterial how does he connect with material creatures like us? Where is the connection or nexus between the immaterial and the material?

First, uncaused existence would need no gods. Secondly, what ever could be god would have to be one and the same as uncaused existence or would not be God. As for interfacing with the caused material existence it would need be by what ever uncaused cause brought caused existence to begin. Cause being something else than its existence.

[37818]

We've presented it to you a hundred times over. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Give the tweb link of just a once. Then at least I will have something to comment against or to admit to.

Through the self authentication of Holy Scripture you can know God for yourself.

That's what I said, you think you know god, because you read about god in your bible. If you were brought up Muslim, you'd think you know Allah too.

No. Reading about God is not knowing God. God is the one who makes Himself known. And no Muslim can know God from the Quran.

Yes, the bible tells you so.

Tells one what?

Yep, so does Allah.


Gobbledygook.

Cite the Quran.

[Tassman]

First, uncaused existence would need no gods.

Well, yes!

Secondly, what ever could be god would have to be one and the same as uncaused existence or would not be God.

But we don’t need a god, as you’ve pointed out above.

As for interfacing with the caused material existence it would need be by what ever uncaused cause brought caused existence to begin. Cause being something else than its existence.

This is incoherent. There is no logically coherent alternative to a material universe.