There is no God

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

*In order for something to be logical it needs to be shown. It is illogical to believe that when you open your closet, an invisible dinosaur will eat you when you have no evidence of it. If a theist can show no evidence of his God, then it is also illogical to believe that. If you wish to use illogical, be my guest, but don’t expect anything good to come out of it.
*
You think of God as illogical.

I think of God as supralogical.

Throughout this diuscussion you have alluded directly or indirectly to Occam’s Razor. William of Occam was a Franciscan priest. He was able to apply the Razor to reality, but he knew it could not be applied to God, who is above Creation and whose logic is not subject to our logic, just as He is not subject to us, but we are subject to Him.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

I disagree that the space wrapped by the wrinkles is an intrinsic part of the blanket, any more than oil is part of water or darkness part of light. The blanket by itself does not change its nature or lose any perfection, etc.

This analogy doesn’t work, and is self refuting. There are an infinite amount of wrinkles in a blanket that contains everything, and there are an infinite amount of non-wrinkles. The two are mutually exclusive though, and the blanket can’t contain both. You can’t have an infinitely-wrinkled-infinitely-flat blanket. Therefore, the blanket could never be infinite existence.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

I said:

But certainly the atheist is not reasonable when he demands that God be knowable in His pure essence without even the effort to know Him.

I think this is a reasonable position for me to take and I don’t see how your reversing it would make any sense. What effort does it take to be an atheist? A simple No is all that’s required. Case closed. No material proof? No God in the petri dish or at the end of a telscope? Then God does not exist. But who ever said that God is matter?

You said:

It is illogical to believe that when you open your closet, an invisible dinosaur will eat you when you have no evidence of it.

Again, the equation of God with material fantasies does not work. Over and over it can be pointed out to atheists that our God is not material, and yet they keep demanding proof that the material God exists. And then God is equated with a material fantasy, such as a dinosaur or a Santa Claus.

The atheist needs to base his objection on something more solid that Occam’s Razor, which is too dull to cut through the Creator’s logic.

 

[Alois]

Free will and reason: have you ever seen an organism besides Homo sapien in the animal or plant kingdom commit suicide? Answer: no. All other organisms do not have free will. They are programmed or live by what biologist call “instinct”.

Suicide is a product of emotion, not of free will. Humans have more developed emotions, but have lesser developed traits in other departments.

Order: the perfect tilt of the earth’s axis and distance from the sun to create life, the cycles of the earth (CO2, N2, O2, C, etc.), the organization of organs in the body, I could go on and on.

This is a pointless argument. If the order of things was different, the evolution of things would be different. This may be good or bad for the human race, but that’s irrelevant to the situation. You don’t give life enough credit. The Earth isn’t a “perfect system”, it has its flaws. The odds of there being other planets able to produce life is, for all purposes, 100%. None of these planets will be “perfect” either.

Lack of scientific evidence: where’s the “missing link”, all the suppositions and assumptions (i.e. faith) in science to explain natural phenomena such as evolution, the lack of disproof of the existence of God.

This one is a double whammy of ignorance, followed by a logical fallacy.

1.) There are no “missing links”. Every time we find a fossil (C) that fits in between A (us) and B (common ancestor) you creationists then tell us to find a fossil in between A and C. This cycle has repeated itself hundred of times, and you guys just don’t get it. Every fossil is a missing link, every fossil shows transition between species.

2.) The burden of proof is on you to show God, not on science to disproof it. You’re the one making the claim of a God. Have you even seriously looked into this debate?

 

[Alois]

Gilbert Keith:

I think this is a reasonable position for me to take and I don’t see how your reversing it would make any sense. What effort does it take to be an atheist? A simple No is all that’s required. Case closed. No material proof? No God in the petri dish or at the end of a telscope? Then God does not exist. But who ever said that God is matter?

You have yet to show me any other way to show God, or anything through means other than empirical evidence. It is easy for an atheist to say no, because that’s the rational position. In a rational debate, the most rational position is often the easiest. As such, I could care less about the “effort” you put in to believing your God, because you could be putting up all that effort only to deceive yourself. Effort doesn’t factor in to this debate, this isn’t elementary school.

Again, the equation of God with material fantasies does not work. Over and over it can be pointed out to atheists that our God is not material, and yet they keep demanding proof that the material God exists. And then God is equated with a material fantasy, such as a dinosaur or a Santa Claus.

Well this is an easy counter. Just change the dinosaur to something immaterial that will cause you to go to Hell if you open your closet. Is that a more rational position than the dinosaur? No, it’s the exact opposite. It’s less rational. Can you honestly say that your God is not material, and expect someone to just say “Oh well, you can’t prove it, so that means it must be right!”? Do you believe you will be sent to Hell if you look in your closet?

The atheist needs to base his objection on something more solid that Occam’s Razor, which is too dull to cut through the Creator’s logic.

A witty closer does nothing to prove your point’s validity.

 

[Alois]

You think of God as illogical.

I think of God as supralogical.

Throughout this diuscussion you have alluded directly or indirectly to Occam’s Razor. William of Occam was a Franciscan priest. He was able to apply the Razor to reality, but he knew it could not be applied to God, who is above Creation and whose logic is not subject to our logic, just as He is not subject to us, but we are subject to Him.

You just don’t get it, do you? Anyone can make these claims about anything they want to, but it proves nothing. If you want to continue to say that your God is above logic, go ahead. It is still an illogical and unreasonable position however, and based on nothing but your say-so. I am here to debate a logical, reasonable, and rational God, because those are the things life has relied on and evolved on. Those are the things that guide our lives. If you can not show a God with those traits, then you concede the debate.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

*“Oh well, you can’t prove it, so that means it must be right!”? *

Is that what I said? That I can’t prove God, so that means God must exist.

Please identify the post where I said that and the exact sentence.

I think now you are starting to create some dinosaurs of your own.

If God exists, it stands to reason that God’s logic is far more difficult to grasp than ours. But you want to put God on your plane, and on your plane only with **your **capacity for logic.

You just don’t get it, do you? And that’s because you don’t want to get it. It has nothing to do with logic. You don’t want God to exist, and you have ordered your intellect to demand proof that you know full well cannot be supplied on your terms because your terms are not God’s terms.

You want God to be a dinosaur or a Santa Claus of imagination. He is nothing of the sort by definition. He is above and beyond anything we can grasp of this universe.

Your brain wants God’s brain to be the same as yours, to operate on your level? This can only mean one thing: you do not want to imagine a brain bigger than your own.

Again, your Will has ordered your Intellect to deny. And it has obeyed, as Intellect always does.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

A witty closer does nothing to prove your point’s validity.

I would always welcome a witty closer from you.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

For one, existence doesn’t create anything.

Yes it has, and I have shown how: by making temporal “existences” that don’t exist of themselves. This is both logical and proven by the manifested universe, among other things.

Our statements will probably remain obscure unless we establish more precise meanings for terms such as “existence”, “create”, and others.

Alois:

Everything is in it. Everything makes up parts of it. Everything has always existed, in essence.

We should clarify this. I agree that the “perfect somethingness” has always existed, and is the essence of existence. But things manifested in the universe appear, change, and disappear. The physical universe cannot logically be an “inherent” “part” of the essential existence. It only exists by participation.

Alois:

The space shuttle example isn’t valid because it assumes that something can exist and be nothing, you have not shown this to be logically true.

I did not assume, instead, I demonstrated. And I have shown it to be logically true. Countless times. And I am willing to do so again. For it is eternally consistent. But you seem to merely dismiss it. You dismiss it by claiming it is not logical, but you yourself do not establish the logic of your own conclusions. I cannot control your will, but I will contend for the truth.

Alois:

You will have to do so before this becomes a valid argument.

It is already so. Nonetheless, I can forever show the validity of the fact that something can exist and be nothing. Only we must understand terms in light of the basis of established logic.

Established: “perfect somethingness” has always existed
We established this in post #735, which you accepted, if I am not mistaken. I will recap:

1. Logical basis: Nothing can come from “total nothingness”
2. Sensible basis: There is not “total nothingness” now
3. Conclusion: There never was “total nothingness”
4. Corollary : There must always have been “perfect somethingness”

This “perfect somethingness”, which must have always existed, must have certain attributes. First of all, it must be the “essence of existence”, and exist of itself. There is nothing else that exists in the same manner, for there is nothing else existing of itself. True essential existence cannot have a start or an end.

So you see, we can already know that it must be eternal, complete, and the very essence of existence.

But manifested objects in the universe are not eternal, even if the concept it manifests is. A manifested object cannot “consist” of essential existence, and must therefore “exist” in a different manner. It surely participates in the “perfect somethingness” somehow, for nothing can come from total nothingness. But any manifested object in the universe is nothing “of itself”. It is built from “perfect somethingness” while not actually “being” that “perfect somethingness”. And it has to be this way, because otherwise the self-existing somethingness would not be complete already. So the manifested objects must “subsist” in “perfect somethingness”, and it must do so by some sort of participation.

Now, the concept of existence by participation can even be demonstrated in the universe of manifest objects. For new things are “made” from other objects. With clay we can make a jug. It is made of clay, yet it is no longer called clay, but a jug. The jug only “exists” because of the clay. But the jug is not “somethingness” of itself. We might say the clay is the something that the jug subsists in. But we wouldn’t say that the clay “consists” of jugs, cups, bowls, and anything else that might be “made” from it. Likewise, the essential existence of “perfect somethingness” does not consist of everything in the universe.

This is logical, demonstratable, and reasonable. Perhaps you didn’t understand before because of the semantics of language. I hope this example clears up the issue regarding the difference between the eternal existence that is existence of itself, and the temporal participated existence that is nothing of itself.

Alois:

It is not the source of manifested existence, manifested existence is a part of it.

I have shown the opposite above. Furthermore, it is contrary to logic to say that manifested existence is part of it in the sense of eggs in a basket, because the essential existence is unchangeable in itself.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

As I’ve said earlier, you used the number set example to prove a point, but then drop it entirely later when it doesn’t fit your needs.

What are you accusing me of? It was dropped due to conflict with our particular understandings of what a number set is.

You yourself disagreed with how I intepreted a number set. **Why did you tell me what my example should mean, and then use your meaning to tell me what I said? **

Is it any different from this scenario: someone says “I compare my best friend to a dog”, and another replies “Well, dogs are vicious, so your friend must be vicious”. Later, when the one says how nice their friend is, the other says, “I already have shown that your example was false, and that your friend is vicious.”

Is it any wonder that the first person would resort to a different example to describe how nice their friend is?

But you imply something negative about my case in what you assert.

To settle this once and for all, let’s look at what I said in post #635.

hurst:

We define God as: omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in every perfection.

Is that the kind of God you say is not logical?

It seems logical to me for there to be such an infinite source providing our own instances of power, time, dimensions, intellect, will, and etc. Let me explain by way of analogy where people already accept such a thing.

I was not saying that the infinite set of numbers is the same as God. I was saying that it shows that people already accept the notion of accessing something from an infinite source, without questioning where that source came from or when it started. So the notion of an infinite source providing everything is logical; that was my point.

I then went on to say that God was similar in that He is an infinite source:

hurst:

Similarly, God is a single entity yet able to provide any particular instance of an infinite number of possibilities. The source of all existence, immense. Able to distinguish individual elements, intelligent. Able to choose individual elements or subsets thereof, having will. Not lacking any element, perfect and complete. Spanning all that can be known in time and exceeding it, without beginning or end, eternal.

I was not “defining”, but rather enhancing understanding of something that is incomprehensible. The goal was to show that the “notion of God” as an infinite, eternal source is logical.

I even said so here:

hurst:

Such a similitude of God as the set of all possible particular instances of existence (natural, spiritual, conceptual, etc.) provides a perspective that might allow you to see the logic in believing in God as the source of all of them.

And lest you say that I made it out that each element in the set made up God, further on I said:

hurst:

I could go on, but suffice it to say that all we could ever need is in this set, just as all numbers we need are in a number set. And this set is of existence, and is analogous to God: omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in every perfection. And yet, each element, though contained in God, is not itself God.

However, in your reply (#653),

Alois:

I did read it all, however, and found it to be both interesting and thought-provoking in other ways than you probably intended.

Here is where I think the problem lies. For you thereby show that you saw something in it, and that it was probably different than what I was trying to show.

In fact, you kept bringing up that example in a way against what I meant, even after I repeatedly corrected your incorrect understanding of it. What doesn’t “fit my needs” is your take on that example. Since you kept trying to make use of it contrary to what I intended, I avoided referring to it and moved on to other examples (starting with a sculpture) that you might grasp more accurately. It turns out that you still don’t grasp the concept of somethingness creating virtual existences out of nothing. Perhaps we should focus on that more clearly, for it seems to be the crux of the problem in you not getting the number set analogy (remember I said it doesn’t work like a basket of eggs?).

hurst:

Originally Posted by Alois
This may be beside the point, but I view the INS as infinite basket full of an infinite amount of eggs. How is that inconsistant with the view of existance as infinity?

I was using the set of Integers as a reflection, not a composition. In other words, I don’t view the universe as the set. The universe is a manifested subset (basket of eggs), and the set is invisible actualities that could potentially be manifested.

This very exchange proves that we needed a different example.

hurst

 

[alms]

Alois, check this essay out…just published this morning:

“Darwinism on Defense”

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47973

Any thoughts?

 

[mikew262]

mikew262:

I think TySixtus has surrendered from this thread. He hasn’t posted here in many days. Hopefully, he is busy reconsidering his current position.

FYI. TySixtus was suspended.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

The atheist point of view is dogmatic. It is generally taught as a fact, but nowhere is evidence ever offered, nor can it be offered, that a God behind the world we know and the Creator of the world we know cannot possibly exist.

Yet there are some atheists (I have known a few of them) who on their deathbed begin, for some peculiar reason, to doubt their lifelong conviction that God does not exist. When this happens, it is because they are learning the Christian theological virtue of hope, which they have denied all their lives.

And often they learn it with a vengeance.

This is God’s way of offering them one last chance.

 

[mikew262]

Gilbert Keith:

The atheist point of view is dogmatic. It is generally taught as a fact, but nowhere is evidence ever offered, nor can it be offered, that a God behind the world we know and the Creator of the world we know cannot possibly exist.

Yet there are some atheists (I have known a few of them) who on their deathbed begin, for some peculiar reason, to doubt their lifelong conviction that God does not exist. When this happens, it is because they are learning the Christian theological virtue of hope, which they have denied all their lives.

And often they learn it with a vengeance.

This is God’s way of offering them one last chance.

I reckon fear of their alleged belief of nothingness after death and/or the knowledge they’ve “blown it” up to this point, tends to make most atheists believers, real fast.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

If existence is an infinite set and has always existed, then all possibilities contained within it have always existed and make up its entirety.

It is mainly “like” an infinite set in that it is infinite, complete, and eternally existent. And it is “not like” an infinite set in that it does not consist of a collection of things. The things created “exist” outside of it, yet depend upon it. I have now said what I intended multiple times. Please stop bringing up your perspective of what an infinite set is in order to dispute the case. Either take it as I meant it, or refer to another simile. The eternal existence can not “consist” of manifested objects. Those objects “subsist” in that existence (the “perfect somethingness”).

Alois:

You’re trying to look at something infinite from the outside in, and that’s impossible.

Finally you get it!! :clapping:

This is precisely why we cannot directly observe “perfect somethingness” in our manifested nature. Our “nature” is nothing of itself, even though it subsists in “supernature”, which is existence of itself. We are like bubbles inside of it. We cannot know the essence of existence by the power of our nature, but we can know it is there by our natural senses, reason and logic. And yet it can reveal itself to us in more depth if it so chooses, by forming in us more of a likeness to itself. But again, this knowledge is by participation, for we will never ever “be” this “perfect somethingness”.

It is important to keep in mind that we are as different from existence as light is to darkness. To equate our “existence” with that of the “perfect somethingness” would be idolatry. To call this universe or our own nature “essential somethingness” is giving the name of self-sufficient existence to a manifested object, and is indicatative of “idolatry”. For we only “exist” by participation. It is likewise the reason why it is appropriate for us to worship and value this “infinite somethingness” in which we subsist and yet are outside of - we look up to that from which all our existence comes. By honoring this inifinite source, we bring honor to ourselves in truth.

hurst

 

[Alois]

hurst:

Yes it has… [snip]

This does not make logical sense. Every form of existence, including this one itself, makes up part of existence. If it were not a part of existence, then existence wouldn’t be complete.

We should clarify this… [snip]

It is a possible form of existence manifested. How does this preclude it from being a part of existence? If it exists by participation, it still exists in existence. Like the number system analogy, the numbers in an equation can change, but they are still contained within the number system. Things change in this manifested universe because that is an aspect contained in existence. Existence contains all that there is, change is no different.

But manifested objects in the universe are not eternal, even if the concept it manifests is. A manifested object cannot “consist” of essential existence, and must therefore “exist” in a different manner.

You are not understanding the concept of existence. For infinite existence to exist, this universe must exist inside it. It does not matter if things change within it, for that is simply the form of the possibility of that manifestation. Nothing can exist outside of existence. This is something that you seem to ignore when you make your claims, but it’s something you cannot ignore when trying to debate rationally and logically.

It surely participates in the “perfect somethingness” somehow, for nothing can come from total nothingness. But any manifested object in the universe is nothing “of itself”. It is built from “perfect somethingness” while not actually “being” that “perfect somethingness”.

How many times have I explained this now? The numbers in a number system make up its infiniteness, it is not the number system that gives itself to the numbers. In the same way, infinite existence is made up of all the existences in it. You are trying to look at this infinite existence from the outside-in, as a tangible object that provides possibilities. That is impossible because it is infinite. It is made up of all possibilities, an infinite amount.

Perfect somethingness does not build a thing. Perfect somethingness is made of all the objects it contains, much like a number system is made of the numbers it contains.

And it has to be this way, because otherwise the self-existing somethingness would not be complete already. So the manifested objects must “subsist” in “perfect somethingness”, and it must do so by some sort of participation.

“Self-existing somethingness” (just call it existence and stop confusing matters, I know what your definition of it is) is complete, and composed of this possible existence, and all other possible existences.

Now, the concept of existence by participation can even be demonstrated in the universe of manifest objects. For new things are “made” from other objects. With clay we can make a jug. It is made of clay, yet it is no longer called clay, but a jug. The jug only “exists” because of the clay. But the jug is not “somethingness” of itself. We might say the clay is the something that the jug subsists in. But we wouldn’t say that the clay “consists” of jugs, cups, bowls, and anything else that might be “made” from it. Likewise, the essential existence of “perfect somethingness” does not consist of everything in the universe.

This is another false analogy. Both the jug and the clay are made up of atoms (or quarks, depends on how small you want to get) that compose the entirety of the jug and clay. That is the true analogy present in the example. The clay-jug interpretation is one of the English language alone. For instance, if an alien had the same word of clay in his vocabulary, and the same definition of it as we do, he would still call the jug clay if he didn’t know what a jug was. It is a recognition made by humans to call it a jug, and that is it.

This is the false logic that you have used throughout this thread, and I’ve shown it to you over and over again.

This is logical, demonstratable, and reasonable. Perhaps you didn’t understand before because of the semantics of language. I hope this example clears up the issue regarding the difference between the eternal existence that is existence of itself, and the temporal participated existence that is nothing of itself.

It has been shown to be a false and illogical analogy.

I have shown the opposite above. Furthermore, it is contrary to logic to say that manifested existence is part of it in the sense of eggs in a basket, because the essential existence is unchangeable in itself.

Change is a form of existence. You don’t seem to include events in your definition of existence. This is false, because existence is all that is. Please correct it in your logic.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Change is a form of existence. You don’t seem to include events in your definition of existence. This is false, because existence is all that is. Please correct it in your logic.

This is a tautology, since you define existence as itself. Moreover, since by definition the atheist does not believe in a Creator, what existence you observe must be purposeless, without plan, and therefore meaningless.

So why are you trying to make sense out of anything?

What you really mean to say, if I’m not mistaken, is that the existence we know is the only existence there is. This statement cannot be necessarily true since it presupposes that you are personally in touch with all forms of existence, and that you know from all eternity that existence is eternal because you have been in existence from all eternity to observe it.

Hardly convincing!

There is no room for possibilities in the atheist universe, and in particular the possibility that there might be a kind of Existence prior to the universe. Atheism never doubts it own infallibility in this regard. God does not exist. Dogma. Not revealed from on high, but from within … with not a shred of evidence to back it up.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

What are you accusing me of? It was dropped due to conflict with our particular understandings of what a number set is.

It is also the basis of your reasoning for a God. If you drop it, you drop your original logic as well.

You yourself disagreed with how I intepreted a number set. **Why did you tell me what my example should mean, and then use your meaning to tell me what I said? **

Because truth isn’t subjective, it’s objective. If you applied the number system in an incorrect manner, then it is incorrect, and the logic you originally tried to prove using it must be proven again under the correct meaning. You have failed to do so.

Is it any different from this scenario: someone says “I compare my best friend to a dog”, and another replies “Well, dogs are vicious, so your friend must be vicious”. Later, when the one says how nice their friend is, the other says, “I already have shown that your example was false, and that your friend is vicious.”

No, it’s akin to saying 2+2 = 5, and that the answer is a prime number. Then I correct you and say 2 + 2 = 4, and it is a number, but not a prime one.

Is it any wonder that the first person would resort to a different example to describe how nice their friend is?

My point is that you deny some aspects of the number system while accepting others as being analogous to existence. You can’t pick and choose which are and are not, and that’s what you have been doing.

I was not saying that the infinite set of numbers is the same as God. I was saying that it shows that people already accept the notion of accessing something from an infinite source, without questioning where that source came from or when it started. So the notion of an infinite source providing everything is logical; that was my point.

You also attempted to show that God was omnipotent, infinite in intellect (and therefore sentient), all-good, and having will. When I showed you that the number system did not contain these aspects, you shrugged it off and claimed that you did not try to prove them. When I showed you that the traits you’ve shown are only those of existence and have nothing to do with proof in a God, you completely dropped it all together.

I was not “defining”, but rather enhancing understanding of something that is incomprehensible. The goal was to show that the “notion of God” as an infinite, eternal source is logical.

However, this isn’t a notion of God, it’s a notion of existence.

Here is where I think the problem lies. For you thereby show that you saw something in it, and that it was probably different than what I was trying to show.

I saw what you were trying to show, but also saw how it was incorrect when actually applied.

for it seems to be the crux of the problem in you not getting the number set analogy (remember I said it doesn’t work like a basket of eggs?).

You have said, you haven’t shown. You still haven’t proven something existing while being nothing yet. I have shown your example to be a matter of language, not a matter of actual existence.

 

[Alois]

Is that what I said? That I can’t prove God, so that means God must exist.

Please identify the post where I said that and the exact sentence.

I think now you are starting to create some dinosaurs of your own.

I never even implied that you said that. You are requesting that we, the readers think that. Please read over the post again.

If God exists, it stands to reason that God’s logic is far more difficult to grasp than ours. But you want to put God on your plane, and on your plane only with **your **capacity for logic.

You first have to show that it is logical for a God to exist. Remember, the base before claims spawning from it. I acknowledge that I could never know the true nature of a God, but to be able to understand the existence of one is something that we are able to do. After all, we created Him.

You just don’t get it, do you? And that’s because you don’t want to get it. It has nothing to do with logic. You don’t want God to exist, and you have ordered your intellect to demand proof that you know full well cannot be supplied on your terms because your terms are not God’s terms.

What are you talking about? This is the logical system applied by all people looking for evidence today, Christian or non-Christian. This isn’t some “Atheist-stance” that I’ve taken, this is the stance of needing evidence and reason before we assume. This is the stance the allows you to sit at home and type your posts up. Remember, the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You have to show a rational, logical God with evidence of its existence, but yet again you are spewing out the nonsense of “You have to be a Christian to be a Christian.”

Objectivism is the only thing that has furthered Man’s knowledge. It is the only way to further Man’s knowledge.

You want God to be a dinosaur or a Santa Claus of imagination. He is nothing of the sort by definition. He is above and beyond anything we can grasp of this universe.

So is my Grakisponer. Do you believe in him now?

Your brain wants God’s brain to be the same as yours, to operate on your level? This can only mean one thing: you do not want to imagine a brain bigger than your own.

No, my brain looks at the world and tells me what is and what isn’t through EVIDENCE. This evidence has done everything to further humans, your lack of evidence has done nothing. Again, I seek a rationally showable God through evidence, not a God that I can understand the whole essence of.

 

[Alois]

Gilbert Keith:

The atheist point of view is dogmatic. It is generally taught as a fact, but nowhere is evidence ever offered, nor can it be offered, that a God behind the world we know and the Creator of the world we know cannot possibly exist.

Remember the burden of proof? It’s on you. You’re the one making an extraordinary claim.

Yet there are some atheists (I have known a few of them) who on their deathbed begin, for some peculiar reason, to doubt their lifelong conviction that God does not exist. When this happens, it is because they are learning the Christian theological virtue of hope, which they have denied all their lives.

Doubtful.

This is God’s way of offering them one last chance.

Or it is your way to save face through lying. I have doubts that you’ve ever even spoken to an atheist face-to-face, with all of the misconceptions you carry, and willful ignorance you tout. Don’t take that as an insult, one has to only read your posts to see. How could you not know of the burden of proof, after all?