Not to extend this any longer than I need too. GOD does not love guns. GOD did not create people as walking targets to shoot at. GOD created people to love one another and carry on his message that anybody who believes in him and lives by the commandments will be saved at redemption day.

You got one part right, 'GOD did not create people'.

Then who did create people?

There is no who, just a very simple chemical reaction, evolution, a few billion years and here we are, no need for the god hypothesis. If you throw a god into the equation where there is no need for one, then you must decide which of the thousands of gods that have existed in the minds of the delusional is the guilty one, then you are left with the 'where did that god come from' problem.

1. need? yes because there isn't a better explanation, as yet.

2. which one? choose the best of the lot, like you do with everything else in life.

3. where did that one come from? if you have to ask that question about your choice then you haven't chosen well, because if your choice came from somewhere then your choice is not God, by definition. God, by definition, is uncreated.  

1. RNA is the most basic form of life that we know of and is is easily (now the formula is known) produced from abundantly available chemicals.
2. If there was indeed a god then surely there would be only one and therefore no need to choose.
3. That is a very handy definition to use when trying to prove that your god does not need a creator but sadly it is not proof of anything, ask yourself who came up with that definition and why they needed it.

1. RNA is far better than 42 as the answer for the whys and hows of life, the universe and everything, but I don't think it will convince the philosophical and inquisitive minded among us or those looking for sentience in THE ultimate source.

2. YOU're the one who set the trap of an almost endless choice. I merely suggested a way out of that one.

3. Well, think about it. If god were to have a creator wouldn't that creator have a more valid claim to the title of God? There's no other more sensible way of looking at it, or defining it, really.

1. Get the 'philosophical and inquisitive minded among us' into a laboratory and have them prove that what they claim to be able to perceive is indeed real, till then your and every other god remains pie in the sky.
2. Actually I was not involved in any way in deciding who or what a god should be so I did not set or have a hand in 'the trap of almost endless choice'.
3.  Well, think about it you are 100% correct, so decide who it is that created every god of the past, the present and the future, there is only one answer and it is not a god, after all there is 'no other more sensible way of looking at it'.

1. Since that's YOUR suggestion I hope YOU'll tell us what sort of philosophical tools and instruments your lab will be equipped with and what sort of measrements and proofs you'd consider sensible for the identification and quantification of God.

2. I did not say you were "involved in any way in deciding" that, but okay, let's say you pointed to the "problem" and I suggested a simple solution.

3. I agree with you on that. Of course they're ALL our ideas. Everything we humans talk about are human ideas. They've got to be, for as long as we're humans. WE create and change human ideas as we go along, hopefully for the better. Our great great grandfathers had no idea about black holes, or the so called god particle. They're the ones who told us that the sun rises from the East and sets in the West. We know it's not really true but we still say so because we haven't found a better way of expressing the phenomenon.

4. I can understand you wanting us to reject the credentials of the gods presented to us, like you have rejected the credentials of the god(s) presented to you, but the case for such a rejection is not complete or valid, at least not yet. Don't tell me we should reject god because there is no direct evidence for the existence of god. We all know that lack of direct evidence for the existence of a thing is not itself evidence for the non-existence of that thing.

5. However, having said all that I think we must never stop challenging prevailing ideas. If we do so then we run the danger of getting stuck in stagnation. Challenging prevailing ideas can lead to changes but we need to be very careful that the changes we usher in are changes for the better.


edited in attempts to remove strike through inserted by Answermug









This post was edited by CLURT at November 21, 2017 11:50 AM MST

1. It is not my lab, so your philosophers will need to decide what tools and instruments they require in order to demonstrate their illusions/delusions to be anything other than their own personal illusions/delusions. Before asking for either identifications or any quantifications a definition of what a god is would be a good starting point and fcuk knows we are not short of them.
2. Your suggested 'simple solution' gets us no nearer to the truth of the matter.
3. I am not exactly sure of what you are saying here but it appears to me that you are in agreement that gods are all man made inventions but I ask myself if that is indeed the case then they serve no purpose, so why bother with them?
4 It is not a case of me 'wanting' to reject credentials for any given god, it is more that there are no credible credentials on offer to even reject. I would not ask you to reject god because there is no direct evidence to support the existence of a god any more than I would ask to reject the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, talking snakes, men living inside fish, the loch ness monster, the yeti or alien abduction, at least the last three have living eye witness accounts to support their existence.
5. I can think of no greater case of stagnation than ass kissing a deity for eternity.

I have no idea why you scored out part of 4 and all of 5 rather than simply delete them but I have taken the liberty of replying in part to them anyway.

1. The lab may not be yours but you're the one who suggested, or asked for, a lab proof. So naturally, you should specify what you will accept as proof.

2. If you're not happy with my suggestion of what to do when faced with multiple choices then put forward your suggestion, simple.

3. You appear to be saying that if ideas are man made "then they serve no purpose". Since ALL our ideas are, and have always been, man made your statement is self evidently quite strange.

4. "there are no credible credentials on offer" is YOUR value judgement made according to YOUR personal criteria.

5. Your rejection of religions is perfectly understandable if your vision of religions is limited to "ass kissing a deity for eternity."

The strike through is a feature that Answermug sometimes applies to my text through the use of a secret mysterious algorithm. I'll see if I can edit it out.

1. If a god who created everything does exist then I would gladly accept as proof if he/she/it contacted every person on earth simultaneously with the same message, even if that message were, 42 is the answer for the whys and hows of life, the universe and everything.
2. My answer to the multi choice question is very simple, all gods cannot be correct but they do have one thing in common, they can all be wrong, so ignore them all till such times as said god provides the proof requested above.
3. You appear to be trying to muddy the waters by turning what was clearly a comment on god/gods being man made into any idea that man has ever had.
4. If you feel that you have any credible credentials to put forward then I would gladly look at them.
5. I hardly feel that it is my vision, after all it is written in the buybull that in order to get eternal life in the company of said god then one of the things you must do is worship said god and as he is so insistent that we do this here on earth, I see no reason why he/she/it should behave differently in eternity.

1. and you think everybody should accept YOUR critereon ["contacted every person on earth simultaneously with the same message"] as sufficient proof of a god in whom you may or may not believe according to choice! That says two things: that you have ambition to speak for about 7 Billion people and that you have a strange understanding of free will.

2. So during the stone age your advice to those wondering which flint tipped hunting tool to buy would have been to "ignore them all till such times as" mankind moves onto the iron age. I leave you to think about how useful such advice is

3. No, you want to treat the god idea as if that's the only idea man has ever come up with. That's blatantly untrue. Man has always been coming up with all sorts of ideas, some he abandons, others he retains and improves on. That's how we've got to knowing what we do today and that's how our knowledge will continue to grow bigger and better. That's the reality of human life.

4. I am no sage or great philosopher that I would "have any credible credentials to put forward". There are enough out there already. I have chosen what I think is the best of the lot. There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from choosing what you think is the best of the lot.

5. I don't think that those who have chosen the Bible as their answer to the vexing question about life and its purpose would share your view of that scripture or set of credentials for God. In any case, there are several others besides the Bible for you to consider. 

1. You asked me, 'you should specify what you will accept as proof'. I gave you what I would accept as proof, in no way did I even suggest that I was speaking for anyone but myself.
2. There was a need for such tools in that period, there never has been a need for a god other than to explain away the as yet unknown, an explanation that has held human progress back since its conception.
3. You do appear to enjoy putting words I never said into my mouth. I refer you back to my 'You appear to be trying to muddy the waters by turning what was clearly a comment on god/gods being man made into any idea that man has ever had.' comment in my last reply to you.
4. Did you close your eyes and stick a pin in a list of eligible gods to reach that decision? You must know that I did not ask for your 'credible credentials' rather I was asking for those of your god, the ones that you claimed I rejected.
5.  Do you feel that the ones who have chosen the buybull have managed to answer any vexing questions whose answers stant up to scrutiny regarding life and its so called purpose? You are correct when you say there are other holy books to consider, each spawning its own sub cults, with approx 41,000 in christianity alone but that simply leads us back to the multiple choice selection with the list, the blindfold and the pin. 

1. If you're speaking ONLY for yourself then surely it shouldn't really matter the slightest bit what this god [or devil?] has said to anyone else. In any case how are you going to ascertain what has been said to 7 Billion people around the world, if you make that your condition?

2. [a] If "there never has been a need for a god" then I'm sure there would never have been any gods. Humans tend to discard things they no longer have any need for. (b) I'm not sure if religion "held human progress back since its conception" Europe did hold back its progress in its so called Daark Ages which lasted about a 1000 years until it was helped out of it by the Islamic Golden Age.

3. All I was doing is to say that it's not only "god/gods being man made" ALL of man's ideas are man made. So why single out man's ideas about god/gods. It was just a call to fairness and perspective.

4. I'm sure as a thinking person you don't "close your eyes and stick a pin in a list of eligible" options whenever you have to make a choice, and neither do I, as a rule, and I did not do so in choosing between the credentials of God that have survived and are available as scriptures.

5. I can't speak for those who have chosen the Bible, but judging from the fact that they are not looking beyond it, they must have found answers in it that have overcome their level of scepticism.

edited to remove block lettering inserted by Answermug



This post was edited by CLURT at November 21, 2017 11:53 AM MST

" just a very simple chemical reaction, evolution, a few billion years and here we are"
Quite a theory. The majority seem to accept that. Too bad all test and observations have proven that all life only comes from preexisting life. Even when given all of the building blocks to make some simple cell in a laboratory if actually accomplished proves it took an intelligent person to do it. 
This post was edited by texasescimo at November 20, 2017 7:59 PM MST

I do not know about you but I would consider something that lives, reproduces and dies to be life as we know it and that has already been done and been repeated in laboratories throughout the world so that negates your 'Too bad all test and observations have proven that all life only comes from preexisting life.' You dismiss nature when you say it takes an intelligent person to create life but no doubt when that is shown to be correct you will say that we have some supernatural deity to thank for nature, all you do is continually move the goal posts.
I cannot access your first link but from what I know of the story is that the universe should not exist given what we currently know about matter and antimatter, you will note that rather than throw up their hands and say "well fcuk me, there must be a god and we have just proved it" they actually say "we need to develop better instruments in order to measure this problem more accurately", so regardless of what slant you wish to put in this, you are no nearer your goal of convincing anyone that a god is needed in the hypothesis. 

Oh yes, this is where you likely got your hostilities towards JW's, my bad.
No need for proof, just some smart sounding guy to say something like: "just a very simple chemical reaction, evolution, a few billion years and here we are"

Suppose you didn't like scientist saying:
https://www.newsweek.com/universe-should-not-exist-cern-scientists-discover-692500
n
https://nypost.com/2017/10/25/the-universe-shouldnt-exist-according-to-science/

The universe shouldn’t exist, according to science

Quote: "I do not know about you but I would consider something that lives, reproduces and dies to be life as we know it and that has already been done and been repeated in laboratories throughout the world so that negates your 'Too bad all test and observations have proven that all life only comes from preexisting life.''

So the people that work in the labs are not life?
Did you miss this:
'Even when given all of the building blocks to make some simple cell in a laboratory if actually accomplished proves it took an intelligent person to do it.'

EDIT:
Also, did the scientist or lab technician create their own building blocks from rocks, dirt, what? 

Moving the goal posts again, the issue was life coming from non life, now it really would take a miracle for it to be done in a lab without human life to replicate early earth. It does not take any special knowledge to repeat the experiment but it did take intelligence to figure out how to do it, nature took over and did the work given the right ingredients. No the scientist or lab technician did not create their own building blocks from rocks or dirt, nature did that billions of years ago.
Have a quick look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFzpAh-x_IY&t=1541s from approx 15:00 it will only take about 10 mins of your time.

Ps. You may need to copy and paste the link, I'm not sure how to post a link here in such a way that you only need click on it

He who kills with a gun is god?