Its simply a tool for visualizing a difficult concept.
Or it's another rationalization forced upon you because of your inability to accept that folks make up gods a the drop of a hat without consulting each other.
Well that is what you would expect from the many source descriptions of God.
It's what I would expect if the object under consideration was fictitious. I've never heard anyone describe the moon as cubic or tetrahedral.
Some Buddhism 'sects' have supernatural aspects to their religion some may not. Of course if they do not worship any God at all I feel that those tailors are making God parade around in a very ill fitting suit! . I personally feel that a non spiritual non deity ”religion’ is about as incorrect as one can get, and of course with all due respect to atheism & to any atheists here, all forms of atheism is the most wrong of all, with hard or strong atheism making no suit at all! partial levity again guys> .
Firstly, there's really no reason to titter. Very few atheists have an emotional attachment to their simple non belief in a god. How upset would you get if someone told you you were wrong about the Tooth Fairy being made up? No one cares so long as you don't have the force of law to insist.
Secondly, you've made no progress at all in explaining why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Your feeling so isn't one of the more impressive theses exhibited on this board in the last 24 hours. You've SO running against you.
Due to several reasons a mono-god seems most probable (not statistically probable).
Are any of those reasons unrelated to what your mommy and daddy told you when you were growing up?
My art student example would be like this; I would instruct my students to paint a image of the creator of everything. If God exists some of the paintings etc would be more accurate than others (if God had a form that could be expressed in a temporal universe).
Your analogies are not so difficult to follow that you need to keep explaining them. They are not misunderstood: they are rejected. Your analogy say nothing more then "My image of god is the right one, and people who agree with me have the right idea too. Others, not so much. But that just means I've had better access to god, but they still love the same god." Handy for you to have a ministry to to update them.
No, but I could say 'your painting is way off God looks nothing like that'. Of course my critique would only be valid if I knew what God looked like. That is precisely why I never say my painting is correct and yours is wrong to an accuracy of 100%. I would say rather 'my beliefs lead me to believe that my painting is more accurate, do you want to know why?', which I am sure makes some people happy and a few people not so happy.
How could you type that without cringing? If you don't know what god looks like, how can you say anything? If I draw a picture of some random person from the phone book, do you think you'd be in a position to say it doesn't look like them?
However I use many evidences that some other religions may not have at their disposal. Also I use some of the sciences (archeology and astronomy for example).
Ever hear the expression "Cut to the chase."? This would be the important bit around here. Screw the personal experience. How have you not caught on to that simple principle?
Because their religious books texts and beliefs seem less credible when taken as a whole.
The Bible is piss your pants funny if your not disposed to excusing every last, dim witted misadventure. Few of the stories in the Bible are more sophisticated than Marvel Comics.
its simply that they are two different disciplines.
NOMA fails miserably as soon a religion make a claim in the real world.
As per the KCA nothing begins to exist without a cause, and that cause in my opinion was God. So, in my world its more reasonable to assume that there is a creator.
and
The KCA is a pretty good objective evidence. However there is no empirical way to prove God exists to my knowledge.
KCA is a joke. It's putting a fancy name on a silly rationalization. Ignorance should not be an excuse to say anything but a reason to say nothing. It is not possible for something to be both objective and non empirical.
One creator/God is the most simple explanation and therefore the best choice as per Ockham's razor.
Not when you have thousands of mutually exclusive descriptions. Then it is more parsimonious to assume separate causes. Parsimony still requires one to take all the fact into account. That there is no real world evidence of magic combined with the knowledge that people pick answers a through d rather than answer "e: none of the above" no creator/god is even more parsimonious.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Suspended, in part because of incivility in this message
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson
™ Version 4.2
