God

[TomK]

And you know you'll get doubts, even surrounded by bishops.

https://youtu.be/V_WUeqlZ5eE?si=J5E4LVWo107f5saW

[Punatang]

After further consideration, I hate to be the one to say this, Mate, but if The Creator intended for us to drink tea, he would not have given coffee the power to actually wake us up, instead of just politely suggesting it.  

If that’s still not enough proof of God for you, Bless you, and and please don't take this the wrong way Sunshine, but you might actually be beyond saving.

[TomK]

How about an argument that a creator gave us neither? We just discovered coffee and tea ourselves? 

I know you're inserting some humor, and I'm glad you're doing so. Sometimes it's the best way to counter nonsense, and, cobber, I'm not taking it the wrong way!

[Punatang]

How about an argument that a creator gave us neither? We just discovered coffee and tea ourselves? 

I know you're inserting some humor, and I'm glad you're doing so. Sometimes it's the best way to counter nonsense, and, cobber, I'm not taking it the wrong way! - TomK


Well, with the greatest respect mate, because it's not just "a creator" we are discussing.  We are talking about The Creator.

Seriously, no one's  magical sky wizard is going to submit to double-blind peer review and publish in Nature for you.  You will never be satisfied.  You will have to allow those you wish to argue with, to just carry on being emotionally stunted primates clinging to prehistoric coping mechanisms.

Yes, humor.  Try reading the last post again in Ricky Gervais' voice (which you have shared is your dialect).  His 2020 Oscars monologue, BTW, was Divinely inspired IMHO.

The one thing that has been proven in this thread is that no two participants are arguing about even remotely the same thing.  It is a fools errand to take this exercise in futility even slightly seriously.  I will honor and respect your beliefs. Beliefs evolve in the fullness of time. We both may think differently in five or ten years but for now we seem to be at a friendly stalemate - which is perfectly OK.

Here is my take on the futility of this thread - in Ricky Gervais (PG version) voice:

Arguing about God is like blind drunk blokes in a pub screaming at each other about whose imaginary friend is real, except one’s picturing a loving cosmic dad, the other a vengeful sky wizard who hates gays or shrimp, a third’s on about some vague “universe energy,” and a fourth reckons it’s just the laws of physics with a posh name. They’re not even arguing about the same bloody thing, but they’ll still call each other idiots for three hours straight, waving their different fan-fictions like they’re receipts. Absolute waste of oxygen, innit? No one’s ever gonna win because they’re not even playing the same game. Pass the crisps.

Bless your heart for not taking any of this the wrong way.

[TomK]

PT - thanks for that last comment! Think about this: there are many who argue in support of a god, and there are many who argue that there is no evidence for a god. There are few who say there is no god. I know you're very intelligent and can put emotion aside, so you know which group I'm in.

[Punatang]

100% Tom! My feelings have not been hurt in the slightest. While no one (at least on Punaweb) can speak for God, I truly believe that God is also not offended. One of my closest held beliefs is that God never takes things the wrong way.

It is  absolutely clear which group you are in and, in some ways, I sense that your faith may be the strongest of anyone in this thread, which seems to have reached it's logical and spiritual conclusion. Thank you. It's been real.

[HiloJulie]

Here is my take on the futility of this thread

I'll add:

It appears that if the non-believer is showered with over-the-top flattery and intellectual admiration, the believer is considered "very intelligent and can put emotion aside," whereas absent any such over-the-top flattery and intellectual admiration, the believer just "comes across as rambling, incoherent nonsense."

[TomK]

Thanks for your take on things. As usual, the argument for religion or a god seems to be to attack those asking for evidence supporting religion or the existence of a god. PT and I do not agree, that's obvious, but our arguments are not a bunch of personal insults, ad hominems, or deflection, as yours is. As to whether this thread is futile, well, that's simply some readers' and contributors' opinions. On the other hand, I see it as an example of what you get when you question strongly held beliefs that require supernatural answers.

[HiloJulie]

In no way, shape or form have I attacked you for asking for evidence supporting religion or the existence of a god, nor have I indicated my belief or non-belief in any religion(s) or the existence or non-existence of any god(s).

All I did was merely point out that of the several people who have expressed their beliefs in any religion(s) or possibilities that a god may exist, YOU have gone on and on with the arguments that are just a bunch of personal insults, ad hominems, or deflections, as you have just done now with your last post above to me, except the ONE poster who shared those same or similar beliefs but showered you with what I would call over the top flattery of yourself.

But, knowing how bluntly conceited you have shown yourself to be, it is no surprise to me.

[TomK]

Yet another personal attack and ad hominem.

(bolding is mine)