Congratulations, nearly 70 pages and no end in sight ... normally you have to be a really cute girl with a provocative photo to get this much attention !! ;-)
Let me float this suggestion : is it possible you have received so many responses becasue folks aren't as sure as they purport? To paraphrase ol' Will Shakespeare: " methinks [they] doth protest too much
That is an interesting hunch. As many of us were reared in religion, there might logically be a bit of it still taped upon us. I for one always found the notion rather heinous. I didn't like the idea of an all knowing being watching me while I slept, or carried on the rest of my existence. I especially detested the idea that the master of the universe was a spectator to any private... exertions, shall we say.
But I think a lot of people find comfort rather than offense in the idea that there is a galactic gastapo and that it is somehow working in their favor. For my own part, my mother proposed reincarnation from a tender age as if it were a given. While I don't believe it for lack of evidence of both the process and a soul to endure the process, were we to vote, I would certainly choose for reincarnation to be real.
But reality is not a democracy.
I am reading a most refreshing book : The Atheist's Way - subtitled Living Well Without Gods by Eric Maisel.It is a wonderfully empowering and inspiring read for anyone going through religion withdrawal and rebuilding their worldview. I'd recommend it highly to all
I am 1000% positive that all this gods muck garbage is purely made up rubbish.
It was made up eons ago to keep people subordinate and has evolved into the slaughterous mess that has infected all of our otherwise fantastic planet.
I wish all the godgobbers would hurry up and finish murdering each other into extinction.
Especially the filthy godgobbers who use religion to sexually abuse kids.Which is another part of the gods muck and jehovah jiving jesus junk.
how much more g?d bull shit can our Earth and we take?
100% their is no G$ds, or a g0d!!!!!
I admit I have not been following the discussion entirely. I apologize if I'm beating the proverbial deceased equine.
Take the proposition "Black Swans do not exist". Until 1697 when cygnus atratus was discovered in the wilds of Australia on, of all placed, "The Swan River", this was taken to be fact as no Black Swans had ever been observed. In fact it was a proverb for that which was impossible. If you were to take yourself back to 1696 and ask, "Can you prove that Black Swans exist" The answer is no. You can only say "there is no evidence that Black Swans exist" or "I have not been presented with evidence for either the propostion that "all swans are white" or that "black swans do not exist".
You might say, "until I have evidence which I can examine for the existence of Black Swans and submit to the scientific process I will conclude with 100% certainly that no Black Swans exist". That is faulty reasoning and bad scientific method. The best you can conclude in the face of a claim that Black Swans do exist is to say there is no evidence and to ask for that evidence. In the face of a claim that "No Black Swans exist" you can only say there is not yet any evidence for the existence of Black Swans. You cannot conclude with 100% certainty simply because of the lack of evidence that Black Swans do not exist.
In the case of Black Swans, if you asserted with 100% certainty in 1696 that "Black Swans do not exist" you would be made a fool of in 1697.
Now take the proposition, "God does not exist". Unless you can argue that the proposition does not make sense, that there is no possible evidence that would be sufficient to prove the existence of God, you cannot with 100% certainly prove "God does not exist". You cannot with scientific principle and process of with reason prove a negative with 100% certainty.
Scientific method will observe, hypothesize, test and then prove of adjust the hypothesis. Such observation and testing must be available to anyone and results must be reproducible and is subject to review by your peers. Scientific method may also be used to evaluate claims about reality even if the claim is not subject to experimentation. The claim and it's evidence is subject to scrutiny, to the contriving of tests if possible and to review. All evidence must be accessible to your peers.
As a result, as I stated before, I do not think you can categorically with 100% certainly prove, not just claim, but prove God does not or cannot exist unless you can argue that no evidence is possible to prove the claim because of the nature of what you are claiming.
In this vein, as Karl Popper asserts, all claims must be falsifiable. For the theist and especially the Christian this is not the case. That in itself raises questions that the claim is a claim about reality.