...and that is nothing like an argument.

"nothing to see here"
— Punshhh
Indeed.

↪opt-ae So, think on the question: What is south of the South Pole?

"South" starts at the pole.

""before" starts at the big bang.

Boris doesn't want the UK to dissolve.

Well, you said that this was an attribute God has, so God is a creator. He might be other things, but if he is all things, we're back to square one.

I said what you have now confirmed you said- that you believe God exists and that your own existence is evidence of this

The world simply doesn't look like what we'd expect, if something like the deity of western monotheistic traditions (especially the Christian Bible) existed- so creation ex nihilo, a moral world order, immortal souls, and all the rest- and looks an awful lot like we'd expect if it was not created by a moral personal agent.

I can't decide if I'm being trolled or not. You said: "My evidence for the existence of God is my existence".

Enai De A Lukal, I think he's implying that God is the necessary ground of all existence, so since he knows that he himself exists, that is proof of God's existence.

Theism = the position/belief that God exists. So, yeah, that's what you said. And that wasn't the part that was a problem, obviously.

You miss a relevant point — it's not about whatever I don't know, it's about the claims of those that pretend they do, without which a good lot such discussions wouldn't have come about in the first place.

Ok, but there is an implicit assumption here: That "God" is the creator, and not some other player in the world. That's not something you got from observing the world. That's you defining a term.

Evidence could be anything. You show, we take a look.

Evidence of ... what exactly?

How could I possibly exist without God bringing me into existence?
— Punshhh

How is that an attribute?

For example?

So... that's supposed to be better? I think there might be a few missing assumptions...

Yet your response goes ahead and presupposes "Him" anyway. :confused:

Using intellect? † Let's also go by evidence.

Punshhh exists, therefore theism.

Well but this just begs the question: what attributes of good do we "see", in whatever way you propose we can, in reality?

What would evidence for invisible garden fairies look like? Sagan's garage dragon? Fictional characters? Perhaps more pertinently, how would you differentiate?

You mean those who formerly voted labour that didn't get excited about Jeremy Corbyn last time?

why the Amazonian indians thought god had red hair.

no, that isn't it at all. I genuinely cannot imagine how anyone can physically construct the universe in which they live.

this is largely because I think of a person as inhabiting a universe. then anything that person constructs must be inside the universe they inhabit. I cannot envisage how they would then get inside the universe they just constructed.

but, like I said, that is probably more to do with the limits of my imagination than anything else.

Perhaps if you learn how to unleash your imagination (free it from the Western mindset) you might be able to. Before I describe the way I see it, I will point out that Hindu mythology has seen it this way for millennia and this is why the various deities you will find in Hinduism and Bhuddism have fantastical properties. Because this way of viewing reality is foundational to their religion and mysticism.

If you allow for the possibility of beings being able to traverse dimensions then you have a means to solve the conundrum of how the creator of a universe can inhabit that universe. A being creates a three dimensional universe while inhabiting a fourth, or fifth dimensional universe. Then steps down to become present in the three dimensional universe via some appropriate vehicle (a human body).
(The reality in the mythology is more complex than this, but that is essentially what is envisaged)

Also it helps to free your imagination from the conditioning about physical material and rigid time and space. So for example I imagine my self, my being, as a constellation of beings from many different dimensions and scales, all cooperating as one, from entities the size of an atom to entities the size of a galaxy for example, each playing a role which is their nature, within me, outside the rigid three dimensional universe I experience. So physical material, time, scale as I experience them are a construct/simulation produced and maintained by the activity of that constellation of beings.

So for example, every utterance from my mouth reverberates across the universe for all eternity and is imbued with the vibrations of all the other utterances uttered by all the other beings. Not just physically, but also subjectively.

To start with, the definition of God as the source of all contingent things is sufficient for 'belief in God' and sufficient for a simple definition of God.

As for pure atheism, I don't think it can be defended. We are not in a position to say 'God does not exist'. Such a position, I believe, cannot be defended. Ultimately, agnosticism is the only non theist position.

You’re right, it’s rather uncool of the wayfarer to hypocritically reify the ultimate truth.

This is an essential aspect of religion. After all, what good is a religion that doesn’t promise ultimate truth? And just as significantly, what good is a religion that delivers it? Zero, on both counts, because the point is social cohesion via social hierarchy. Worse is that religion doesn’t actually promote the development of virtue because that leads to independence from the group and hierarchy.

Sure, though I'd consider these dreams more symbols (as perhaps you also do.)

This also speaks to me. 'Limited position' is good. We might also talk of finite personalities, blossoming in soils they did not choose, adapted to that soil, dreaming that what has been is necessarily what will be.

I like incarnation as a metaphor. 'In itself' the 'mental' and the 'physical' are one, or something like that. We impose useful distinctions and forget we have done so, it seems to me.

I agree also that symbols are the glue that holds us together. If you want to know an ego, figure out what symbols it incarnates (they incarnate).

That's from the 'Symbols' section. Personally I like to render unto science what is science's. This might sound like 'religion is just symbols,' but this is only reductive if we underrate symbols.

Below is nice quote from Sartor Resartus