Kay 17:

Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality.

The appearance of designs and orderliness is directly attributable to the Universe's personality, which may be called physical laws which we in turn are compelled by necessity to follow. That's why our cars follow the relevant laws of motion, our houses gravity, and our inventions are more or less discoveries of how the Universe accommodates our ideas.

In order words, it has always being here

When I read this post, I licked my lips. I see pak has been treating it.

MyJoe:
When I read this post, I licked my lips. I see pak has been treating it.

You don't have to lick your lips, there are evidences sub-atomic particle has a nature not influenced by outsiders(if you like you can called it sub-atomic universe).

jayriginal:

Deep Sight knows absolutely EVERYTHING about anything.

Lol. Well, this is Deep Sight in the twin thread:

Deep Sight:
Initial Summation: Beyond these, I am not sure that there is much else that the individual can honestly claim that he knows for certain. Everything else there is to be known, which is relevant to the individual’s existence, I believe are inferences and intuitive perceptions from the foregoing basic truths. I can only say for now that the advanced and exact knowledge of supposed celestial spiritual happenings which are contained within the many religions - in my humble opinion – cannot really be said to be known for sure by anybody, and are thus largely assumed beliefs – and not steady and certain truth. This is the basis for my claim to that which I believe I may rationally and intuitively know for certain; namely that there is a source – God and that the purpose of the source is harmony.

Enigma:


Very nice; so, bookmarked for reference.

PS I added the things in blue for grammatical and quote accuracy purposes only.

PPS @Kay17 ---- I wonder if you will ever raise "infinite regress" again (you don't have to answer that now)

EDITED

MyJoe:
When I read this post, I licked my lips. I see pak has been treating it.

Thank you bro(s).
That was a statement that called for some serious 'lip licking' . Infact, I copied it out verbatim in notepad before I even started doing anything else.
What a concise and apt way to express the Theist view point.


In fact, its like this guy has 'anointing'. Really Kay, when you are through with this atheist stuff , maybe you should consider pastoring, you go flow wella

all4naija: You don't have to lick your lips, there are evidences sub-atomic particle has a nature not influenced by outsiders(if you like you can called it sub-atomic universe).

I doubt you realise what those few lines do to "infinite regress" or what they say about the thought process of the atheist. Well, some atheists.

MyJoe:
I doubt you realise what those few lines do to "infinite regress" or what they say about the thought process of the atheist. Well, some atheists.

all4naija: Nature has no proof of whatsoever such thing exist though religionists point to it and expected us to believe in imperfection from perfect being in somewhere imagined. Yes, I think so. People would have believed - there is more evidence with proofs observe through sight(seeing) than the abstract baseless and unproven evidences.

Nice one
He apparently does not

MyJoe:
I doubt you realise what those few lines do to "infinite regress" or what they say about the thought process of the atheist. Well, some atheists.

Infinite regress is more a theory. Aren't there proven evidences of fundamental particles possessing such? It never said anything not obvious about Atheists thought. You always leave out the free-thinker element in it though.

I am a christian.But on seeing this thread i researched and found this for those who care to know.

Welcome to Deism!

Deism has a lot to offer you! It also has a lot to offer society! Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion. The natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. (These religions are called revealed religions because they all make claim to having received a special revelation from God which they pretend, and many of their sincere followers actually believe, their various and conflicting holy books are based on.) When enough people become Deists, reason will be elevated over fear and myth and its positive qualities will become a part of society as a whole. Then, instead of having billions of people chasing after the nonsensical violence promoting myths of the "revealed" religions, people will be centered on their God-given reason which will lead to limitless personal and societal progress!

This is not a utopian pipedream. Deism has the potential to connect with every human being because every human being possesses God-given reason. Because of this fact, Deism clicks with the vast majority of people who are made aware of it. This God-given reason, which is so dear and key to Deism, is the natural state of humanity. The superstitions of the man-made "revealed" religions are NOT the natural state of humanity. The cause of our God-given reason being overrun with these man-made myths and superstitions is very simple. ACTIVE people promoted these falsehoods. Some of these active people were motivated by self gain while others were acting on ignorance. Since the problem was brought about by ACTIVE people, it can be corrected by ACTIVE people. As the number of ACTIVE Deists grows, our actions and energies will cause Deism to eclipse the "revealed" religions of the world and Deism will eventually, through lots of hard teamwork and altruism, replace the "revealed" religions. Humanity and the individuals who make up humanity will then be able to reach their full progressive potential!

Please familiarize yourself with Deism by reading the many articles the links to the left take you to. By using this site you will learn such things as God and religion are two distinct things, that one of the many benefits Deism offers you and your family and friends is solid protection from cults, that America's Declaration of Independence is a Deistic document, that the Bible and Koran paint a very evil and insane picture of God, that the Designer of Nature is as real as the designs in Nature, plus much, much more!

We hope the following statement by the man who did more than any other person to bring Deism to everyone, Thomas Paine, will ring true in your heart and mind after you learn what Deism really is: "There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.

"But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes."



Deist Glossary
Compiled by the World Union of Deists

I'd like to thank everyone who contributed their ideas to this new Deist Glossary! Your help is much appreciated! The editor.



Cult: In Deism, a cult is an embracing of unreasonable beliefs by a group of people. Based on this definition, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all cults because their members suspend their God-given reason in order to believe or accept the unreasonable dogmatic teachings and superstitions such as God giving real estate as a gift to the Jews, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, faith-healing (as just one example of faith-healing being a superstition, if faith-healing was REAL innocent helpless children would not be dying from the attempts of their parents at Biblical faith-healing) and Mohammed's ascension to heaven, among many more false and unreasonable claims. Because Deism always promotes free and independent thought and reason, it is impossible for Deism to become a cult.

Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

Faith: This word has been so terribly abused by "revealed" religions that it has come to really mean the suspension of an individual’s God-given reason in order to accept, or at least to tolerate, an unreasonable claim made by a "revealed" religion. It is the only way "revealed" religions can get people to accept such insane and unreasonable claims and ideas as original sin, walking on water, healing the sick without medical care, splitting the Red Sea, etc. Deists prefer to use the word "trust" instead of faith due to the twisted meaning the word "faith" has acquired after centuries of abuse from the "revealed" religions.

One key difference between Deism and the "revealed" religions is that Deists don't believe faith is required to believe in God. This quote from Voltaire sums it up, "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."

God: The universal creative force which is the source of the laws and designs found throughout Nature.

Intelligent Design: Intelligent Design refers to the structures in Nature, such as that of DNA, which can be observed and the complexity of which required an intelligent Designer. In this context "structure" means something arranged in a definite pattern of organization. In Deism, Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with the unreasonable Biblical myth of creation.

Natural Religion: Belief in God based on the application of reason on the laws/designs of Nature as opposed to revealed religion which is based on alleged revelations.

Philosophy: The study of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Reason: The mental powers used with forming conclusions or inferences based on facts. Deists look at reason as the second greatest gift from Nature's God to humanity, second only to life itself.

Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.

Revelation: The act of revealing or of making known. In the religious sense, revelation usually means divine revelation. This is meaningless, since revelation can only be revelation in the first instance. For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true.

Revealed Religion: An organized system of belief in and worship of God based on the belief that God communicated/communicates with certain individual founders/members of the particular revealed religion. As mentioned above, by believing in any of the revealed religions a believer is not putting their trust in God, but in the person/people making the claim of receiving the divine revelation.

Trust: Trust is confidence in a person or thing based on reason and experience.






Frequently Asked Questions about Deism

[b]What is the basis of Deism? Reason and nature. We see the design found throughout the known universe and this realization brings us to a sound belief in a Designer or God.

Is Deism a form of atheism? No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. Deism teaches there is a God. Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God.

If Deism teaches a belief in God, then what is the difference between Deism and the other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.? Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions (with the possible exception of Taoism, although superstition does play a role in both Buddhism and Taoism) make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate.

Also, "revealed" religions, especially Christianity and Islam, use greed and fear to catch and hold converts. The greed is belonging to their "revealed" religion so you can get rewards such as eternal life, and in Christianity, anything you ask for. In combination with greed they use fear of death. Deism does neither. Deism teaches that we should do what is right simply because it's the right thing to do. And Deism doesn't pretend we know what, if anything, happens to us after our bodies die. We love and trust God enough not to worry about it. As Thomas Paine wrote, "I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that He will dispose of me after this life consistently with His justice and goodness. I leave all these matter to Him, as my Creator and friend, and I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter."

Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it? Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs. For example, when George Washington was faced with either a very risky evacuation of the American troops from Long Island or surrendering them, he chose the more risky evacuation. When questioned about the possibility of having them annihilated he said it was the best he could do and the rest was up to Providence.

Do Deists pray? Only prayers of thanks and appreciation. We don't dictate to God.

Are there Deist rituals, vows, etc.? No. Since Deism does not attempt to control people, there is no need for rituals. Regarding vows, like wedding vows or words at a funeral, we believe they are too important to the individuals involved to have been written by anyone else. Deists are too independent to rely on a member of the clergy to do these important things for them.

Are there Deist churches or temples? No. However, we are working towards having Deist Reason Centers all around the world. Currently we have our first ever Deist Reason Center in the beautiful Mt. Rainier National Park area in Washington. This Deist Reason Center is staffed by a knowledgeable Deist and is open every weekend introducing new people to Deism and providing camaraderie to fellow Deists. As the World Union of Deists continues to grow we will have them staffed with volunteer doctors, nurses and dentists to provide people who lack the means and who haven't been able to be healed by a faith-healer with free medical and dental care. We'd also like to offer the public free literacy programs as well as classes in astronomy, biology, and all of the sciences. This is very much in line with Thomas Paine's ideas which he expressed in The Age of Reason.

How do Deists view God? We view God as an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will. The following quote from Albert Einstein also offers a good Deistic description of God: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

Is Deism a cult? It's impossible for Deism to be a cult because Deism teaches self-reliance and encourages people to constantly use their reason. Deism teaches to "question authority" no matter what the cost.

Unlike the revealed religions, Deism makes no unreasonable claims. The revealed religions encourage people to give up, or at least to suspend, their God-given reason. They like to call it faith. For example, how logical is it to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus walked on water, or that Mohammed received the Koran from an angel? Suspending your reason enough to believe these tales only sets a precedent that leads to believing a Jim Jones or David Koresh.

What's Deism's answer to all the evil in the world? Much of the evil in the world could be overcome or removed if humanity had embraced our God-given reason from our earliest evolutionary stages. After all, all the laws of nature that we've discovered and learned to use to our advantage that make everything from computers to medicine to space travel realities, have existed eternally. But we've decided we'd rather live in superstition and fear instead of learning and gaining knowledge. It's much more soothing to believe we're not responsible for our own actions than to actually do the hard work required for success.

Deism doesn't claim to have all the answers to everything, we just claim to be on the right path to those answers.

Source: http://deism.com/

You can go to the site and learn about it.

all4naija: Nature has no proof of whatsoever such thing exist though religionists point to it and expected us to believe in imperfection from perfect being in somewhere imagined. Yes, I think so. People would have believed - there is more evidence with proofs observe through sight(seeing) than the abstract baseless and unproven evidences.

What am saying his that whether or not God is evident in nature can be seen as a relative argument. Some people have what they term as proofs which you might or might not agree with

pak:


Nice one
He apparently does not

I think you are biased with your points. Forgetting the odds in our understanding of nature, in the real sense of what can pass to be facts than mere theories, imaginations, miseries, myths, etc.

pak:


What am saying his that whether or not God is evident in nature can be seen as a relative argument. Some people have what they term as proofs which you might or might not agree with

Then we we now start to define God and how evident those proofs qualify any entity to be a God would be another thing. You see it is a premise based on what we don't have much idea about in nature. So, why would we claim such thing to exist without evidences proving it to be than looking at what surrounds us in our environment(nature)? That's the bone of contention, it is like unproven theory!

MyJoe:
What’s the issue about multiple makers and multiple gods? So if I say there multiple gods, you will buy it?

Not really. I just want to know that you're not tied to some sort of monotheistic idea.

MyJoe:
Both physical and spiritual laws. Read my earlier post to Mr_Anony. I already told you what convinced me. I gave you two points. But you are still asking for them – that I why I reminded you that I have no mandate to convince you which is all that remains since I already did all you asked for.

And I responded to both of them. You were wiling to grant that your point on spirituality probably won't be definitive to one such as my self. This left you with your claim on design. I thought you were willing to examine whether or not it was fallacious.

MyJoe:
Yes. There probably are others.

According to physics, if time is a necessity, then space too is a necessity. Do you agree? Would space be one of the others you had in mind?

MyJoe:
Lol. You need a body to have consciousness? That’s new to me.

Well that is what neuroscience seems to be saying. And not just a body, but a brain of some degree of complexity.

MyJoe:
It’s a simple comparison and there is nothing weak about it. For anything to exist, a maker is a necessity. This, of course, is not a self-contained argument.

The comparison is weak because a shirt is not like a person or a planet for you to conclude that they were all designed. Can nothingness exist?

thehomer:

You'll still be committing the genetic fallacy if your conclusion is that science progresses today because some 17^th century scientists believed in some God.

I'm saying Christianity provided a platform for science to develop. Note that in the Middle Ages the most common citadel of learning where the Christian monasteries. You need to be reminded of that.

thehomer:

By that reasoning, a volcano lava flow is intelligently designed. Would you agree?

Does it have several intermatching components ?

thehomer: It is not a non-sequitur. If there was never a state of nothingness, then your question is pointless.

It is generally agreed that there was nothingness before the Big Bang. That is by the way. You haven't responded appropriately to the original statement I made.

thehomer: While I can respond to a statement, I cannot answer a statement. Let's be clear. When we're talking about time, we're talking about it with respect to how it is used in physics so don't start equivocating.

Respond reply same thing. Please respond or reply my statement about God being a necessity. You are straying away from what's important.

thehomer: No I'm asking you if consciousness makes sense to you without a physical component.

Maybe you should ask if the physical component is all that is required for consciousness to exist. And that isn't the case with dead bodies and that thing called being unconscious.

thehomer: Why don't you simply state it? I don't want to start guessing at what you're trying to say.

I generally assume my opponent is educated. Weren't you taught basic philosophy in the university. I ask because you should know Aquinas' First Cause argument.

Uyi Iredia:

I'm saying Christianity provided a platform for science to develop. Note that in the Middle Ages the most common citadel of learning where the Christian monasteries. You need to be reminded of that.

Whether or not Christianity provided a platform for science to develop doesn't mean Christianity is correct. Thinking that it is correct commits the genetic fallacy. You can either accept that you're reasoning fallaciously or try to show that you're not committing the fallacy.

all4naija: Isn't the words in bold look like something made up too you? If you can figure that out it means the contradictory book is deceiving you, with all the odd information presented in it.

and the words you bolded was that "time/day is relative" since the holy book(bible) says that man 365days round the sun = 1day to God.
^^^ this "really" eluded you?

Am disappointed.

I think atheist should really start opening their mouth and say/teach/explain what they "really" think on issues and not just ask questions.

You really did surprise me though.

Consider:
1. are the sizes of all the planets the same?

2. Are they revolving round "their" sun at equal distance (distance from the sun to the planet)? that they will all go round "their" sun at same time?

3. What happens if the velocity of the planet, increase or reduces?

4. What Happens if two planets goes round the sun at varying speed? Will they both still have a 360days/year time scale?

5. What happens if the revolution of planet on it axis are slightly faster or slower? will they all still have a 24 hour day?

A consideration of this and other possibilities of "day" from different vantage points tells you it is relative, and that qualifies the statement that man 365days = God 1day.

Even on planet earth night and day are relative. And God's throne is not on planet earth.

Uyi Iredia:

Does it have several intermatching components ?

Yes.

Uyi Iredia:
It is generally agreed that there was nothingness before the Big Bang. That is by the way. You haven't responded appropriately to the original statement I made.

No it is not generally agreed that there was nothingness before the Big Bang. Which original statement are you referring to?

Uyi Iredia:
Respond reply same thing. Please respond or reply my statement about God being a necessity. You are straying away from what's important.

How do you wish to show that God is a necessity? I've already shown you why your talk of something from nothing makes no sense.

Uyi Iredia:
Maybe you should ask if the physical component is all that is required for consciousness to exist. And that isn't the case with dead bodies and that thing called being unconscious.

I didn't say it was all that was required. But that for it to exist, you need to detect a body. If you have some evidence about consciousness existing without a body, I'll like to see it.

Uyi Iredia:
I generally assume my opponent is educated. Weren't you taught basic philosophy in the university. I ask because you should know Aquinas' First Cause argument.

And I generally assume my discussant is both educated and willing to shoulder their responsibility. Whether or not you were taught basic philosophy in the university, I think you should know that the person proposing the argument actually states it rather than relying on hearsay.

Seriously, if you're not ready to even state the argument you're trying to make, then I won't be wasting my time with you after making this same request several times already.

MyJoe:
Lol. You need a body to have consciousness? That’s new to me.

thehomer:
Well that is what neuroscience seems to be saying. And not just a body, but a brain of some degree of complexity.

MyJoe, would you consider the following article ?
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

MyJoe:

Lol. Well, this is Deep Sight in the twin thread:

I'm going to look for that thread to make sure his account wasn't hacked.

truthislight:

and the words you bolded was that "time/day is relative" since the holy book(bible) says that man 365days round the sun = 1day to God.
^^^ this "really" eluded you?

Am disappointed.

I think atheist should really start opening their mouth and say/teach/explain what they "really" think on issues and not just ask questions.

You really did surprise me though.

Consider:
1. are the sizes of all the planets the same?

2. Are they revolving round "their" sun at equal distance (distance from the sun to the planet)? that they will all go round "their" sun at same time?

3. What happens if the velocity of the planet, increase or reduces?

4. What Happens if two planets goes round the sun at varying speed? Will they both still have a 360days/year time scale?

5. What happens if the revolution of planet on it axis are slightly faster or slower? will they all still have a 24 hour day?

A consideration of this and other possibilities of "day" from different vantage points tells you it is relative, and that qualifies the statement that man 360days = God 1day.

Even on planet earth night and day are relative. And God's throne is not on planet earth.

thehomer:

Whether or not Christianity provided a platform for science to develop doesn't mean Christianity is correct. Thinking that it is correct commits the genetic fallacy. You can either accept that you're reasoning fallaciously or try to show that you're not committing the fallacy.

Showing that Christianity provided a platform for science to develop means it is progressive. Your fallacy doesn't hold because I'm not attributing progress to the likes of Newton.

thehomer:

Yes.

such as ?

thehomer: No it is not generally agreed that there was nothingness before the Big Bang. Which original statement are you referring to?

Yes it is agreed that there was nothingness before the singularity that led to the Big Bang. For you not to know this suggests ignorance on the subject. BTW I was talking about the statement where I said God was a necessity given the law of cause & effect.

thehomer: How do you wish to show that God is a necessity? I've already shown you why your talk of something from nothing makes no sense.

You haven't. You only claim to have.

thehomer: I didn't say it was all that was required. But that for it to exist, you need to detect a body. If you have some evidence about consciousness existing without a body, I'll like to see it.

And if you feel that bodies are all that is required for consciousness to be you must be a careless observer.

thehomer: And I generally assume my discussant is both educated and willing to shoulder their responsibility. Whether or not you were taught basic philosophy in the university, I think you should know that the person proposing the argument actually states it rather than relying on hearsay.

Not hearsay, but a shared understanding of the argument. You previously stated that there were several first cause arguments. I pointed out one and now you still want me to state what you should have been taught. You are lazy.

thehomer: Seriously, if you're not ready to even state the argument you're trying to make, then I won't be wasting my time with you after making this same request several times already.

If you don't know the First Cause argument by Aquinas we shouldn't even be talking. I'm sorry for you.

Uyi Iredia:

Showing that Christianity provided a platform for science to develop means it is progressive. Your fallacy doesn't hold because I'm not attributing progress to the likes of Newton.

Means that what is progressive? Christianity or science? If Christianity, just how progressive can it be when it is all tied down to a Book?

Uyi Iredia:

such as ?



Yes it is agreed that there was nothingness before the singularity that led to the Big Bang. For you not to know this suggests ignorance on the subject. BTW I was talking about the statement where I said God was a necessity given the law of cause & effect.



You haven't. You only claim to have.



And if you feel that bodies are all that is required for consciousness to be you must be a careless observer.



Not hearsay, but a shared understanding of the argument. You previously stated that there were several first cause arguments. I pointed out one and now you still want me to state what you should have been taught. You are lazy.



If you don't know the First Cause argument by Aquinas we shouldn't even be talking. I'm sorry for you.

Your dull and lazy attempt at obfuscation and time wasting means this part of the discussion has come to an end. Next time, if you wish to have a serious discussion, first present your argument.

@ thehomer, I heard you are in real life a Pastor at Mountain of Fire and Miracles.

Deep Sight:
@ thehomer, I heard you are in real life a Pastor at Mountain of Fire and Miracles.

Lol !!!
Seriously what is wrong with you ?

Deep Sight:
@ thehomer, I heard you are in real life a Pastor at Mountain of Fire and Miracles.

If I were, would it bother you?

I heard someone rename it "Mountain of Fraud and Madness".

thehomer:

If I were, would it bother you?

I heard someone rename it "Mountain of Fraud and Madness".

thehomer:

If I were, would it bother you?

I heard someone rename it "Mountain of Fraud and Madness".

LMAO

This got me laughing in tongues.

jayriginal:
MyJoe, would you consider the following article ?
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

I just took a look at the write-up. It’s well-written and I’d like to find time to read everything, but my thinking right now is that the writer appears stuck in his materialist universe. I think the problem is, perhaps, that you guys look for things spiritual with the tools of science.

In asserting that consciousness cannot exist outside of a body because of observations made of humans, science or philosophy may be off its turf.

BTW, if a body is needed to have consciousness, it doesn't take anything away from the God argument.

MyJoe:
I just took a look at the write-up. It’s well-written and I’d like to find time to read everything, but my thinking right now is that the writer appears stuck in his materialist universe. I think the problem is, perhaps, that you guys look for things spiritual with the tools of science.

In asserting that consciousness cannot exist outside of a body because of observations made of humans, science or philosophy may be off its turf.

BTW, if a body is needed to have consciousness, it doesn't take anything away from the God argument.

God argument based on fallacy. It is right we define God first before making claim of religion God(as most of you are already distancing yourselves from religion God in your comments).

jayriginal:

Lol !!!
Seriously what is wrong with you ?

In fact i heard him shouting, satan, die, die, die! outside their church

MyJoe:
I just took a look at the write-up. It’s well-written and I’d like to find time to read everything, but my thinking right now is that the writer appears stuck in his materialist universe. I think the problem is, perhaps, that you guys look for things spiritual with the tools of science.

In asserting that consciousness cannot exist outside of a body because of observations made of humans, science or philosophy may be off its turf.

BTW, if a body is needed to have consciousness, it doesn't take anything away from the God argument.

Actually, it does because it would mean that God would need to have a body to be considered as being a conscious entity. If he does have a body, then it would mean that he exists in space and time.