"The insane are not those who have lost their reason, but those who have lost all except logic." — Gregory

Sorry, again, this looks like the cart is before the horse again. Surely, its the other way around? Those who have lost reason, but still maintain logic are insane?

Thank you, I'll take a look at that.

So I could also write this as, "Reason was the cause, that gave rise to the effect of Logic". ?

And if there was an "error" in logic, then Reason would be the best tool to find it? Because logic would not be able to find an error in logic (like a snake eating its own tail).

Logic cannot exist without reason but reason can exist without logic?

Humans have been able to reason long before we could write. — fdrake

Ok, that's good. So I could reasonably say, "Reason was used to create logic by the Ancient Greeks". Or put another way, Reason gave birth to Logic.

Logic is the best way for reason to work. — Gregory

But if reason came before logic, then reason does not need logic in order to be? Again, sort of putting the cart before the horse. Forgive my ignorance I just want to understand, that's all. Babylonian and Summeria were before logic, and they had pretty good cities and what have you, without logic.

Ok, so method, outcome. Or perhaps the same as saying, "Cause" reason, "Effect" logic. ? I'm trying to understand order, or sequence in this.

Logic studies methods of reasoning — fdrake

Sorry, I just re-read that. Is that not putting the cart before the horse? Reasoning was, before logic was?

Sorry, started new thread rather than hijack yours, my apologies.

The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god. — Frank Apisa

Could you expand on this a little? You see, being careful with this and scientific, we cannot get to an "idea" of God, because we haven't yet established existence yet. Damn my stupidity, as a scientist, I understand the importance of Order and Disorder. I very easily fall out of order if I'm not careful.

The concept of "god / creator" is as being of the First Order, assigning to "creator" acknowledges this position. Would you say there are potentially many gods appearing as the First Order?

I've just a had a look at history regarding "Gods" to see if there is any concept of the First Cause being "multi" and so far, cause I'm stupid, I've not seen any. I re-read the wiki agnostic views again, and some of them seem to reference "Gods" but not in context of a First Cause, instead they reference "God" as the First Cause (existent of not).

Again, please be patient, I'm sure we will get there, if you can help with this bit, we can move on to the next bit.

Whilst your working, I'll read up on the law of Cause and Effect so I understand that a bit better too.

Work with what you have. The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god. — Frank Apisa

Whether there is one, or more than one, will still firmly sit in the "exists" camp, if we can agree that?

The part highlighted makes no sense, Anti...and does not follow from what I said. — Frank Apisa

No problem, there's my stupidity again. I've highlighted the bit that I understood it relate. It would be easier (because I know nothing) if you could then re-define what you meant, but if not, we'll try and get there instead.

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason why gods could exist

should this be:
I see no reason why gods would be impossible to exist

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I do no know if gods exist
I do not know if gods don't exist

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist
I see no reason why gods could exist

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I see no reason that gods must exist
I see no reason why gods would exist
I see no reason that gods are needed to explain existence

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods exist
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods don't exist

...so I don't.
So I don't make or form a view or opinion either way.

Please be patient with me, and please keep in mind I'm as dumb as a lump of wood so I get confused very easily. Can you please confirm where we have gone wrong on the above, so we can put it right, in the view of the agnostic so we understand better what the view point is.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

Is there any chance of re-writing these principles in singular form, for the sake of ease? If not, we'll work with what we have.

My TV hasn't worked for some years now, but I am planning to fix it soon and perhaps you can recommend a show for me? My brother says, "Alaska: the final frontier" is quite good?

No, I said I was as dumb as a lump of wood (singluar) - you said, as dumb as a bag of wood (plural). In the very beginning of our example, I established such by saying the ground to start from was "I know nothing". Now back, to the example.

Our scientist did not have a good nights sleep last night, for he realised that having very carefully (and we kept reminding ourselves we needed to be careful) taken each step along the process, the agnostic position was not allowed for. You see our scientist was using reason to see if he could establish anything at all from the experiment. But, fortunately, our scientist (true to his word) said he established the ground for the purposes of remaining open. In this vein, we now need to include the view of the agnostic. He woke up very excited this morning because something new had been added, so perhaps we may be able to find a better answer than we did the first time. This is "buzz" a scientist gets when the learning takes place and we may discover something.

So, having been presented with new information (the agnostic) and I must say, thank you to the patience of our agnostic because, recognising our scientist was a dumb as a lump of wood, he stuck with us until it finally got through his thick skull that the agnostic, even if presented as such, was not an atheist. The example was certainly sufficient for the "believer" or "non believer" so I wont repeat it.

Now, our scientist knows, thanks to his fellow scientist (Einstein) that the world "out there" is relative. He describes this much better than our dumb scientist can, so I won't repeat it, but the principle of such is very simple, thus:

Hot doesn't not mean anything without cold.
Fast doesn't mean anything without slow.

If we just had HOT, then it would just be, and temperature would have no meaning. Fortunately, everything in the outside world has an opposite. This is a dichotomy. Not to say it's only a dichotomy but this is evidenced in the outside world.

One pole we call "Hot", the opposite pole we call "Cold". The spectrum we call "temperature".
One pole we call "Fast", the opposite pole we call "Slow". The spectrum we call "speed".

And so on, and so forth.

Our original example had this automatically built into the example by having two poles. "Believer" and "non-believer". The spectrum could loosely be called "faith".

Now sadly, we only have one agnostic, so creating a relative link between to fellow agnostics would have helped us a great deal. Wiki, sadly, is not much clearer because what becomes apparent is that of the "fathers of agnosticism" presented there, none of them seem to agree much with each other. If we look at our atheists, they all agree very well. So do our believers, they all very much agree too.

So to this end, we are going to have to look at the "cornerstones" present by our one agnostic in the form of the 4 principles presented and see if we can find something there. A little more digesting, then we'll have a try. After all, our agnostic could indeed have a better answer than we, and perhaps their position is a better one. We will see.

All remains valid in terms of the athiest, the arguement is reasonable and sound.

In terms of agnostic, if the option is for or against the agnostic is sat well and truely on the fence so what is their arguement other than to "be" the arguement in the form of a slippery fish. I will digest. It is not actually practical to be able to live your life as an agnostic so its just a pointless conceptual mental arguement that has no ground.

Are there any other agnostics here with a view point? Is the view point of the agnostic one of refusing to answer the question?

I have said in no uncertain terms that I DO NOT KNOW if gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa

Happy to leave it there, I'm not sure how we progress from here other than for me to get a better understanding from you on what your agnosticism is? But it sort of doesn't matter, because the entire thread was for atheists, and you're not an atheist !?!

I'm really sorry if this has caused you grief, I think there has been a misunderstanding on my part as I read your messages as though you were an atheist, in line with the first comment of the "thread creator". I've no idea about agnosticism. I did say I was dumb as a lump of wood !

Okay, that's an interesting one, if you are an agnostic, when we arrived at the "fact" which showed it was "not known", why didn't you agree? Surely that is the view of the agnostic, in which case the "fact" shown was the one you support? I'm confused by this. You have argued like an atheist, and then proclaimed agnosticism ?

Perhaps if you are an agnostic then why disagree when the "fact" was in line with such. In effect, in a conversation of "creator exists" or "creator doesn't exist" - you don't have an opinion, do you? Or if you do, then you are playing which ever side suits you in the moment, therefore able to move between the sides as you see fit, but support neither?

Remember, I'm not very clever, so I need this to be clearer to me so I understand. If the "believer" is supported or grounded by "a creator" and a "non-believer" is supported or grounded by "no creator", which in many cases they assume creator position, then where does the "agnostic" stand?

If your agnosticism were a ballot paper, which box would you tick? Non of them? Or is the agnostic actually the antithesis of Christ?

Yes for sure, we need to be very careful or will will jump to conclusions. Okay, so we have taken a backward step again, or i misunderstand you because it sounds like we are splitting hairs. Or prehaps you are not an athiest? The only difference in my two statements is the word, "dont"

Did the scientist in the example prove there was no creator?
Did the example leave enough doubt or room for a creator to exist in potential?
Do you consider yourself an athiest (no creator)? If not, then your are not an athiest.

I say this because where we got stuck in a bit of a loop was in the transgression you made when you said, "... so i dont". Perhaps you could explain what you meant by this?

The statement now appears to be mostly correct because no conclusion was drawn, a god, many gods is irrelevant. All of it in bold is correct, is it not? Lets not guess, or you will undo the good work. Rather, I insist you don't make a guess, as the thread has shown, if we do make a guess we will be outside of the fact. You told me the problem of guessing, did you not?

So having been scientific about this, we can now draw a conclusion. Having tested both ways for the existence of creator, both answers were false meaning, we are no clearer now then when we were when we started. But that's not completely true, because what we have proved is:

Those people who believe in a creator do so by faith.
Those people who dont believe in a creator do so by faith.

I will define faith here for clarity. Faith is what you have when you don't have the fact, and therefore choose to make a choice either way. Your faith says, no creator. My faith says, a creator.

Now as highlighted before, what are the consequences of both our faiths? My faith attempts to make me kind, and caring towards others. I show people love even if they are horrible to me. I try to put the needs of other before me. I do not think I'm God, because i believe in a creator. I attempt to be humble because that is a quality that my faith requires.

We have already seen the virtues of your faith, as I pointed out earlier.

So the choice is yours, we have both choosen our faiths, and i guess we are both happy with them.

Okay, so let's imagine something else for a moment. Let's say we want to drive a car to London. Now, we agree London is the place to get to, we draw a precise map detailing the roads, and know precisely how to get there, etc. Then we start the journey. We drive along, drive to London and then keep driving all the way to East Anglia and stop. Yes we drove to London, but we went through it, and London is not where we ended up. We ended up in East Anglia.

If you hold to the "fact" that we have established already, "not known" and no further, you cannot be an atheist without it being an assumption, that is, not a fact. I apologise because I thought you saw that earlier which is why I was being playful.

The same objection stands, it's your last statement, "...so I don't. As in you don't believe creator exists". We established that "creator doesn't exist" wasn't true, or it was false. So your last statement makes you false, wrong. Whatever you want to call it. Forget the wording and your argument, because it is a work of fiction. We proved it time and time again.

or are not particularly bright. — Frank Apisa

I'm not bright at all. I'm as dumb as a lump of wood. Or as some people call it, receptive.

Stop playing this game! — Frank Apisa

We didn't play a game, although I was trying to lighten it up a bit as I felt bad, I will be more serious, sorry.

You read the example, you saw there was no guessing involved. We moved carefully, one step at a time from one point to the other and concluded that fact was "don't know". This is not, maybe could be, must, probably, or any other affirmative word, it was "don't know" or "not known" what ever word you want to use that clearly states, "Neither is true". We were looking at the ground that an atheist stands on "creator DOESNT exist" and proved this wasn't true. We looked at the ground a believer stands on too, "creator does exist" and proved this wasn't true either. However, in terms of did we find anywhere that a creator "could" exist, we said yes, in growth. Because we don't know "how" growth works, a "creator" could be in there. Not that there is, but this ground proves that "doesn't exist" had no ground to stand on, and therefore could not be proved.

That's as far as we got. Until someone can tell us "how" growth occurs, we cannot move further than this. And to be clear, not "why" it occurs, we established that... seed, soil, sun, water, time, tree.

The "must" is essential — Frank Apisa

Is "must" affirmative or subjective? If I say to someone, "you can do this if you like", or say, "you must do this". Is it affirmative? The reason it is essential is because as soon as you remove it the "deck of cards" falls down.

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

Come on Frank, really. You not seeing this? Why you making me hit you with this all the time, I feel bad :(

A small digression here, for fun. I remember being told by my tutor when studying hypnosis, "Who do you imagine is harder to hypnotise, clever people or not so clever people?" Quick as a flash, I said, not so clever people of course. The tutor said, "Wrong. Clever people are easier to hypnotise because they are looking for it. All the time they look for it, they miss the actual suggestion being offered." That stuck with me because it eluded to that fact that, well, clever people can't be that clever then ultimately.

Oh, and there is no hypnosis involved here, and I never finished the course.

Also, "I don't know" also is established. We can also carefully ignore believers, non-believers and people with faith at least in the attempt of proving/ disproving God's existence because, believing something because it is useful and not because it is true poses a threat to our intellectual integrity. — Zeus

Correct, "don't know" is established, so let's call that "Fact". Because the fact is neutral.
Believers / Non believers are in possession of no greater fact than that we have already established.
Those of faith are in the "believer" camp. We only have two groups here.
Any further move beyond the "fact" will be a transgression. Or we could call is a "persuasive argurement" or just error. We are being "convinced" one way or the other. Of course, each camp will say, "join us". But as scientists, we already have the fact that if we choose one group, we exclude the other in which case we might be in the wrong group because the fact said, "don't know or not known"

modern science can prove with evidence how and why — Zeus

Careful, we are in danger of transgression again. Science can prove "why" it grows. Seed, soil, water, sun mix it together, tree. Science cannot however prove, "how" it grows. Or if it can, then we may be able to change the "fact" for a new fact, depending on what science proves the "how" to be.

do we really need to establish a creator when we can break down the whole process with microscopic precision — Zeus

Grab your microscope, let's go looking, we might be able to prove it one way or the other :) Our experiment only got us as far as proving "creator DOESNT exist" wasn't true. Equally, is proved "creator exists" was true either. So we didn't find the creator, but we did prove that "creator DOESNT exist" couldn't be true. Because there was a place where the "creator" could have existed. The fact it produced was "not known".

Ahhh...you are playing a game. — Frank Apisa

I'm just trying to say, as clearly and concisely as I can, we agree the answer is "not known". If we reason further and say anything more, we are assuming, whether its "does" "doesnt" matters not because we already established "dont know". Not "doesnt". :)

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST — Frank Apisa

Its the MUST bit I see as wooly. We were only concerned with "does" or "doesn't". Otherwise we are sort of dropping inbetween "does" or "doesnt" and therefore losing the straight clarity we were trying to maintain. The answer we keep returning to is, "don't know". Neither "believer", neither "non believer".

That's why banks usually pay you interest or at least provide free services, such as transfers. If the contract doesn't say you get a share of the profits, then they don't "have to" give it to you. — Echarmion

Do you imagine the 0.01% interest is what your bank is making on the what was your money, but is now their money? Like I said, give them a call and ask them. We don't need to keep going round in circles on it, because you can the answer conclusively by asking them.

Are you by any chance confusing debtor and creditor here? Because otherwise this seems to be nonsense. — Echarmion

I can safely say then, you have not owned your own business if this makes no sense to you. That's how business works. What do think the financial advisors get paid for? Don't tell me, arranging mortgages right?! Sorry I'm teasing.

It's not like wealthy people are a different species that looses all empathy with other humans. — Echarmion

True, they aren't a different species, and many will optionally choose to pay more tax because they morally sound, and like sleeping at night with a clearer conscious. Just have a look at which companies choose to run out of Ireland, our Jersey where the tax laws are very favourable. Also, what do think "off shore bank accounts" are all about? Why do you think the wealthy got "really anxious" when they talked about "transparency" of these bank accounts? It's because there is a lot of wealth hidden in them.

Yeah, I am pretty sure I know what a balance sheet is. — Echarmion

If you read that correctly, you would have noticed I said, "Financial Statement" not "Balance Sheet". They are two different things. The balance sheet is an accountant produced statement and does not included "Income, Expense, Assets and Liabilities" crossed. I feel like I'm just giving you free training here. Would you mind donating some money to me for this? Lol, I'm kidding.

But if I were to open a business, which involves me driving to clients, I could transfer the car to the company and it'd be listed as an asset. — Echarmion

Would you give your car to the business for free? Or would you want a few quid for it? Lets say you want £1000 for it at £100 per month. So on one side, it would be listed as an asset "Car" worth £1000, depreciating each year, etc etc. to zero value. On the other, it would be listed as a "liability". The business now owes you £100 per month. If the car fails before you've paid it off, now you have a liability with an unexpected zero-valued asset. Sad times. As an example of course.

Actually, worse than this, now the business owns the car, your tax code will go negative, for fun, lets same your tax code with now be "K1500". The K means negative, so before you earn any money, you now owe the tax man £1500 each year. Of course, we are assuming the business has "assigned" the vehicle to you, being a car, they would probably have to. You tax code would have been, say L1200 of whatever. So before having the car assigned, you would have been able to earn £12,000 tax free. But not now, now you owe them. You will also need to complete a P11D etc etc. Oh and fuel too, who pass that? You or the business? If the business pays, now you gotta pay the tax man a bit more because you see, that's classed as a benefit so you gotta pay tax on that.

The truth is, company car's are now taxed so badly, that most businesses would rather give you the money to buy one, and then you own it and fuel it, etc etc. So the tax laws have encouraged the opposite of what your suggesting. But I digrest... a lot.

wars are good for the economy. — Echarmion

Google it. There's isn't an economist in the planet that is going to say war is bad for the economy.

Right. You'd first have to establish that wars are fought only for economic reasons. You could start with any of the two world wars. — Echarmion

There not fought just for economic reason, but the economy will always be considered and those economies can boost "production" by having a war. If you Google, how much are America spending on military hardware these days? Especially when a "super fancy missle" can cost up to a million dollars of more these days.

Those companies that are solely serving the Military are dependent on the military, and the military on them. If I had a company supplying helicopters, I will also be supplying upgrades, training manuals, etc etc. Do you think the military will say, "no wars on at the moment guys, we don't need any helicopters for now". The business would be bust and the military would have a load of helicopters that have no manufacturer. Instead, they sit around a board room table and say, "Ok, military guys, we are getting short on funds, so let's start a project." We'll upgrade all such as such group of helicopters, or whatever. And the news will report, "Our great military are keeping us all safe by performing a safety upgrade to all our old stuff and making it all shiny and new again."

Unfortunately, its all very much smoke and mirrors. Not just America, everywhere. You think you're not being told the truth, and of course you're not. National security is at stake, you only know what you need to know, like the rest of us.

What is interesting here, is my point about taking either position, "believer" kind and caring and "non believer" aggressive, is sort of being proved. I didn't imagine the "non believers" would attack each other??! Are they not on the same side? Maybe the "non believer" is just destructive to everything it comes across?

I do not know if gods exist or not; — Frank Apisa

True, same as the rest of us.

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible; — Frank Apisa

Already, in a slightly clever way making a presumption that "creator exists"

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence; — Frank Apisa

Sort of true as the statement is a little woolly.

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa

True.

So it's statement 2 that "suggests" you do, or might do.

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

Opps, done it again. Now you assumed there isn't. So an assertion, so in error. Remember, the truth is "don't know". :)

Does it not look like we all have faith here? Or I have missed something? We cannot argue if we agree.

They are not contradicting each other, — Nobeernolife

Absolutely right, I didn't say the were contradictory. I said they were the same, on which point it looks like we agree.

I have never said that a blind guess that there is at least one god...or that there are no gods... — Frank Apisa

I do see that. The point is, to make any assertion to "does exist", "doesn't exist" is wrong, in error. We don't know, that was the point. It is unknown. Yes, either might be correct, neither might be correct we can apply all the combinations of either. But as soon as we say, "something is", there is the error. Or we say "IF" we are already presuming a position (we took one step into transgression)... or if we say, "probability of" (again, a footstep into transgression) its still presuming and therefore taking a position, when the truth is, the position is, "no position".

IF...please note thatIF you are asserting either is an error...that assertion is just a guess. — Frank Apisa

I'm not asserting either (true/false) but I highlighted where a creator could be found using reason (null). Not that we found a creator or proved one. Rather we proved there was a reasonable place where we might find one, and so the assertion of "definitely no creator" could not be true (neither true nor false).

and one almost certainly IS CORRECT. — Frank Apisa

Here lies the error, the assumption. That statement itself shows "not atheist". So I'm glad to see you do have faith! :)

happy with "there are things we don't know" — Nobeernolife

That's the right starting point. We don't know. Those of the faith "don't know" and those without faith "don't know". In general, those with faith seem to be kinder, more caring but then again, that would follow because they have faith that in the end, they will be judged. And if so, lets make it for the good, not for the not good! If there is no creator, what does it matter, you were kind and caring, you didn't lose anything. I suppose that's the point too.

introducing a "creator" does not answer any question — Nobeernolife

Look at both your statements here, they are really saying the same thing aren't they? So I certainly do see it.

So, what do I do? — Zeus

When looking too far forward seems too much, shorten your sights. You don't need to create a life plan all in one go, that's not how it has to work. Yes have a direction, but take it one step at a time. Take a step towards something that interests you. Then pause, see how you feel and then make another step.

The journey is progressive. Each step widens your horizon, gives you more knowledge and changes they way you feel about life. So at each step, re-evaluate what you learned and where the next step you thought you wanted to take, really still is the one you want to take. If it, then take it. If its not, come up with a new direction based on what you know now, and take a different step. This makes you dynamic and flexible.

Some people do make a life plan, and that's totally fine for them. They stick to it, and enjoy it. Otherwise don't. They need more flexibility because they are searching for something else. Do you feel more comfortable being fixed, or flexible? Most of my friends still don't know what they want out of life, and they are the most interesting people I know.

Life is a journey not an assignment. Maybe you will find your life purpose, maybe you won't but either way you are on the journey so enjoy it and do things that make you feel good. Find you passion.

The fact is "we don't know". That's the point being made, albeit a rather strong point. Is it better in light of "not knowing" to deny it or have faith? I don't know either as you can see, although given the consequences, I prefer to have faith. We presented the example just to prove the position of the atheist is no different to the position of the believer, accept one is aggressive one way, and the other is kind and caring the other. But the consequences of such are very much different. I wish no ill-will on anyone or anything, and I prefer the way of love to the other. If I can help someone else see that, maybe they too will be more loving, or maybe not but I tried.

Now, having made the assumption, and therefore incorporated the error, what influence has that error had on the people you know, the way you have chosen to lead your life, and the conversations you have had with others who you have also convincingly told that there is "no creator"? What is the impact on mankind as a whole as all those people who asserted such falseness? If there is a creator, the creator is not going to be best pleased about all that. If you were the creator, how would you feel about that?

You see, responsibility is part and parcel of your actions, so you are responsible for your part in the destruction of the faith. Imagine you convinced someone who had faith that your non sense was true, and as a result of that, they then gave up their faith. I believe it was written, "it would have been better for them if they had not been born." But, if there is a creator, it is acknowledged that such things happen (such is infinite love), and repentance and acknowledgement of such things may undo your damage, well if you were listen to the written record on faith that is.

But of course, your in a bit of a quandary now, because not only have you made an error on "creator DOES NOT exist", you have also denied the only thing that is capable of saving you - faith. Unless of course you do have faith, and the atheist stand is something else?

I say this as the scientist still, because we started from the position of "knowing nothing" which allowed us to remain "open" to the possibility of "maybe there is a creator" and so far, we could not prove it either way so although I say the above, it's still very much from the position that neither have been proved.

the word "IF" — Frank Apisa

The word IF already suggests were a not sure of the ground below us. In the example, we established the ground as "knowing nothing".

This "using reason" — Frank Apisa

Reason is a ladder. We used it to start from "ground" and climbed it to see if we could prove "creator doesn't exist", which is the position the atheist stands on. We managed to climb as far as "cannot prove creator DOESNT exist" and then we acknowledged that from here, we could go no further.

If you go any further than this, you have transgressed because you are in the realm of assumption, which we have acknowledged as making "an ass out of you and me". Or simply, error.

As for "it would be in growth or its opposite" I truly do not understand what that means — Frank Apisa

So in the absence of understanding, you drop back into assumption. I feel I'm repeating myself a lot here. What you are failing to grasp, is there nothing to grasp in the example we gave. Your position as "creator DOES NOT exist" has grasped where there is no grasping. Hence, in error.

Because you have asked for it, I will give it.

THAT IS A POSITIVE ASSERTION ABOUT WHAT IS OR IS NOT. — Frank Apisa

As you saw, we didn't positively assert anything, because we already identified the flaw if we did so. There is not positive assertion of "a creator does exist", only a positive assertion that "we couldn't prove a creator doesn't exist". If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption and therefore in error.

IF you are asserting that is not so...YOU ARE WRONG. — Frank Apisa

So far, your argument as been in the assertion of "God DOESNT exist". As you rightly say, that is WRONG. If you "change sides" and say "God DOES exist" you are still WRONG. We have done neither. We have pointed out, very carefully, that to assert "God or creator DOESNT exist" was not proved and therefore to do such, is an assumption and therefore in error.

the burden should not be to prove a negative — Nobeernolife

Where is the burden? I appreciate there is investment in "no creator" after all, it makes life a lot easier, but that's not the point - that's a distraction. More often than not, this position is one of "I AM Creator or God". I appreciate here I am in danger of making an assumption when I stay this, so I will leave it there.

We were careful not to fall into error by trying to "prove a creator" because we have already established to prove it is not possible, so instead our only option is to see if we can disprove it. This is what a scientist does when they want to gather facts.

our default assumption should be that there are — Nobeernolife

Once again, you fall into error. You have made an assumption on what is or what isn't, and having created your position, you are now looking to defend it. In our method we have not made assumptions and we have no position. Facts should remain neutral. And yes, I see how ridiculous your statement is.

Any assertion in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess — Frank Apisa

If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite".

As you rightly say, we have to be careful we don't want to fall into error here.

acknowledge that the assertion is just a blind guess — Frank Apisa

As stated above, unless your interpretation of "guess" is different from mine. I would say, in the absence of sufficient fact, a "guess" is offered as a "possibility". But you can clearly see, we didn't do that. We were very careful. Please do pull it to pieces if possible, it will help us all. But if you, do, please keep within the rules and within the example so we can all see, and not fall into error of clever misunderstandings or assumptions.

I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that. — Pfhorrest

Then defend your position sir, because from where I'm looking it looks like your up to your waste in quicksand... and sinking (in a playful manner of course).

You have to remember than I'm no different to you and do not have all the answers, I'm just working it through. We are not far from anything, and we are not so lost - we are blind which means we dont see teh hand in front of us. Beauty is right next to you, love is in your pocket. Think about it. If you are asking the question, "Who am I" then surely the question itself shows your lost or blind? Start from there.

Suffering is the teacher, and she can be hard, especially if you don't listen to her. Everything is anew at all times. The moment is always fresh. However, there are competing "urges" or "pulls" on you. Should you find a partner for sex, or a partner for love? Should you give to the poor, or keep it yourself (after all, you might need it). We are constantly pulled in opposite directions, if you choose to go with one, you exclude the other. Its like having the Angel and the Devil on your shoulders, each whispering to you what to do. The devil always seems exciting and fun and everyone tells you he knows what's good and is fun and ace, YEAH! But when you follow him, it feels bad. Your heart knows its not right and your heart is always faithful to you, no matter how much crap you give it, in life it will not give up on you unless you harden your heart.

When you follow the angel, your friends say your boring, and your no fun anymore and may even stop being your friend. That's their devil on their shoulder trying to persuade you.

But if you carefully look at this, those people who drop away from you, were the nasty ones. They follow the devil on the shoulder more often than not. You may then go through a short period of aloneness or what have you (if all your friend are little devils!), but then something will happen. Nice people will start coming into your life, the kind, the caring, the sharers, etc.

Again, don't try to take on the problems of the world, its way too much for one person, just work on getting yourself fixed. Once your fixed, then you can fix the world! Get the order right and you will prosper and benefit well, or if you haven't quite got it right, then you'll get a lesson instead, and that's fine because that means you have learned and your getting better !

When love is dead, we will most certainly know about it. Everything will stop growing, and everyone will die and the sun probably wont even come up. In fact, this time of year is like no other, spring is here and growth is beginning to show. So no, love is not dead. If you have turned from love (had a broken heart in the past, whatever) then all that has happened is you don't pay attention to love anymore. That's a very different matter, but in lies the most amazing hope - if you turned from love, then you can turn back. Use the power of forgiveness for yourself, and for others and see how easy it is to let go of the pain you may have been carrying. Then be humble and compassionate, keeping others in mind.

Love overcomes all things. Once you find love (or rediscover it), make sure you give it away because here in lies the beauty. The more you give it, the more you get of it (not from others, but in the very act of giving it). It may sound odd, but try it for yourself, give yourself the chance to love.