Christianity

[henry quirk]

We can both see that fire exists, but you haven't explained in what way a 'natural' right exists.

Go look in a mirror.

If I were to accept that they did exist, and wanted to take advantage of them, how do I find out how many natural rights I have, and what those rights entitle me to?

You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property and no right to anyone else's. What you do with yourself in the world, is your business. The limit of your rights and how you exercise them is obvious.

[seeds]

Here, try one of these: https://www.google.com/search?q=christi ... s-wiz-serp

There you can just ramble on and on and on about things that others will believe simply because they believe in the Christian God.

Nah, I'd be booted from a Christian forum before the ink dried on my sign-in papers.

Clearly, you've paid no attention to anything I have said about the absurdity of the concept of "Original Sin" and the nonsense of needing a "Saviour" to absolve us of it.

But this is a philosophy forum. And those like us who take philosophy seriously have to endure those like you who come here preaching...

Now I'm starting to feel sorry for you, for it must be painful having your mind squeezed into such a tiny little area surrounded by an excreted shell that is utterly impervious to logic and reason.

Oh, and by the way, according to your tiny-minded concept of what philosophy is all about, the following list of people taken from Wiki would also be unwelcome on this forum...

• Thales of Miletus (624–546 B.C.) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and mathematician from Miletus in Asia Minor. Many, most notably Aristotle, regard him as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition. According to Henry Fielding, Diogenes Laërtius affirmed that Thales posed "the independent pre-existence of God from all eternity, stating "that God was the oldest of all beings, for he existed without a previous cause even in the way of generation; that the world was the most beautiful of all things; for it was created by God."[2]
  Socrates (469–399 B.C.) was a classical Greek Athenian philosopher; he is the earliest known proponent of the teleological argument,[3] though it is questionable if he abandoned polytheism.
  Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) founded what are currently known as the "cosmological arguments" for a God (or "first cause").[4]
  Chrysippus of Soli (279–206 B.C.) was a Greek Stoic philosopher. Chrysippus sought to prove the existence of God, making use of a teleological argument: "If there is anything that humanity cannot produce, the being who produces it is better than humanity. But humanity cannot produce the things that are in the universe – the heavenly bodies, etc. The being, therefore, who produces them is superior to humanity. But who is there that is superior to humanity, except God? Therefore, God exists."[5]
  Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.) was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist.
  Plotinus (204–270 A.D.) was a major philosopher of the ancient world. In his philosophy there are three principles: the One, the Intellect, and the Soul.
  Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) was an Italian polymath and is widely considered one of the greatest painters of all time. According to biographer Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, "He found proof for the existence and omnipotence of God in nature—light, color, botany, the human body—and in creativity."[6] Marco Rosci, author of "Hidden Leonardo Da Vinci" (1977) notes that for Leonardo "[m]an is the handiwork of a God who retains few links with traditional orthodoxy. But man is emphatically no mere 'instrument' of his Creator. He is himself a 'machine' of extraordinary quality and proficiency and thus proof of nature's rationality."
  Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695) was a prominent Dutch mathematician and scientist. Huygens was first to formulate what is now known as the second of Newton's laws of motion in a quadratic form. He regarded science as a form of "Worship", that is, one can serve God by studying and admiring his works: "And we shall worship and reverence that God the Maker of all these things; we shall admire and adore his Providence and wonderful Wisdom which is displayed and manifested all over the Universe, to the confusion of those who would have the Earth and all things formed by the shuffling Concourse of Atoms, or to be without beginning."[7]
  Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1726) was an eminent English mathematician, often regarded as one of the three greatest mathematicians who ever lived. Newton was known for his interest in biblical theology and said the following about the scriptures: "We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever." Newton rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and denied recognising the deity of Jesus in his works, which were only found out later by Keynes.[8]
  Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) was an important German polymath, regarded as the father of digital computing. As a philosopher he argued for the existence of God on purely philosophical grounds. Leibniz wrote: "Even by supposing the world to be eternal, the recourse to an ultimate cause of the universe beyond this world, that is, to God, cannot be avoided."[9]
  Émilie du Châtelet (1706–1749) was a French mathematician, physicist, her most celebrated achievement is considered to be her translation and commentary on Isaac Newton's work Principia Mathematica. In Du Châtelet's words, "[t]he study of nature elevates us to the knowledge of the supreme being; this great truth is even more necessary, if possible, to good physics than to morality, and it ought to be the foundation and conclusion of all the research we make in this science."[10]
  Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) was an American Founding Father who was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence. He argued for God's existence on teleological grounds without appeal to revelation.[11]
  Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) A crucial figure in the transition between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western art music, he remains one of the most famous and influential of all composers. Beethoven never affirmed that he was a Christian later in life, nevertheless he did affirm that "if order and beauty are reflected in the constitution of the universe, then there is a God."[12]
  Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot (1796–1832) was a French military engineer and physicist, often described as the "father of thermodynamics". As a deist, he believed in divine causality, stating that "what to an ignorant man is chance, cannot be chance to one better instructed," but he did not believe in divine punishment. He criticized established religion, though at the same time spoke in favor of "the belief in an all-powerful Being, who loves us and watches over us."[13]
  Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) Sometimes referred to as the "Princeps mathematicorum" (Latin, "the foremost of mathematicians") and "greatest mathematician since antiquity". According to biographer Dunnington, Gauss's religion was based upon the search for truth. He believed in "the immortality of the spiritual individuality, in a personal permanence after death, in a last order of things, in an eternal, righteous, omniscient and omnipotent God".[14]
  Sir Richard Owen (1804–1892) was an English comparative anatomist and paleontologist. He produced a vast array of scientific work, but is probably best remembered today for coining the word Dinosauria (meaning "Terrible Reptile" or "Fearfully Great Reptile"). Owen is also remembered for his outspoken opposition to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. He wrote "The satisfaction felt by the rightly constituted mind must ever be great in recognizing the fitness of parts for their appropriate function..the prescient operations of the One Cause of all organization becomes strikingly manifested to our limited intelligence."[15]
  Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was the 16th President of the United States, serving from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865. According to James W. Keyes, "A reason he gave for his belief [in a "Creator of all things"] was, that in view of the Order and harmony of all nature which all beheld, it would have been More miraculous to have Come about by chance, than to have been created and arranged by some great thinking power."[16]
  Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) was a British naturalist, biologist and co-discoverer of natural selection. Wallace later began to doubt his own theory of natural selection and advocated a teleological form of evolution, in a letter to James Marchant he wrote, "The completely materialistic mind of my youth and early manhood has been slowly molded into the socialistic, spiritualistic, and theistic mind I now exhibit."[17]
  Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) was an American philosopher, logician, mathematician, and scientist who sketches, for God's reality, an argument to a hypothesis of God as the Necessary Being.[18]
  Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) was an English mathematician and philosopher who found that following through on the development of an innovative philosophy led to the inclusion of God in the system.
  Henry Truro Bray (1846–1922) was an English-American priest, philosopher and physician who promoted a type of philosophical theism in his book The Living Universe.[19][20]
  John Evan Turner (1875–1947) was a Welsh idealist philosopher known for defending an idealistic theism in his books Personality and Reality (1926) and The Nature of Deity (1927).[21][22]
  A. C. Ewing (1899–1973) was an English philosopher who authored Value and Reality: The Philosophical Case for Theism in 1973.[23][24]
  Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) was the preeminent mathematical logician of the twentieth century who described his theistic belief as independent of theology.[25] He also composed a formal argument for God's existence known as Gödel's ontological proof.
  Martin Gardner (1914–2010) was a mathematics and science writer who defended philosophical theism while denying revelation and the miraculous. Gardner believed that many liberal Protestant preachers, such as Harry Emerson Fosdick and Norman Vincent Peale, were really philosophical theists without admitting (or realizing) the fact.[26]

And let's not forget a few other notable people who weren't afraid to consider the creation of the universe being the result of a higher intelligence...

• Max Planck - "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

  Werner Heisenberg - “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

And I suppose Berkeley and others like him would not be welcome here either?

Again, for those who do believe in a God, the God, their God, I ask them to bring Him here:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

But, in my experience, for those like you that is a complete waste of time. Like trying to have a substantive discussion about God with someone like dattaswami.

What the heck is wrong with you?

In the following quote from the post I was responding to,...

Okay, I'm always one of the few atheists that will concede this point. The Goldilocks factor is not just a coincidence at all...it's actual proof that a God, the God [if not necessarily your God] does exist.

...you conceded that based on the "Goldilocks factor" that it's at least a possibility that "...a God...does exist...".

However, again, you have made yourself absolutely impervious to examining any theories regarding the possible ontological status of such a Being.

It is clear to me that the diagnosis I applied to Alexis Jacobi in an earlier post also applies to you, in that you are the victim of an alternate version of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in which you are simply not conscious enough to realize that you are not conscious enough to understand where I'm coming from.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

Finally, you've made a rational statement.

I tell you what, instead of your incessant complaining and shaking your fist at the sky, why don't you offer some plausible and actionable solutions that might help relieve human suffering?
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

…some guy casually explaining why there is a Jewish plot to take over the world

Amazing! I submitted a video that was a compilation of various religious Jews talking about their views on the topic of Jewish political control and domination. Within religious Judaism this is a core assertion. God having chosen the Jews for that purpose. That is a core belief within Orthodox belief. It is what ‘being chosen’ means.

Christian belief that ‘every knee shall bow’ is an extension of the same core tenet.

I regard both as false. I do not believe either one! I oppose those who concoct such views.

I am aware of many different and divergent views. From Noam Chomsky to David Duke. I’ve made it my business to research them. Not by gathering other people’s opinions about them but by direct reading.

[Harbal]

Morally, natural rights (I have an inviolate claim on my, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property) establishes what is permissible between and among men. The utility is obvious. You are in the wrong if you kill me (without just cause), or slave me, or rape me, or steal from me, or swindle me. Like it or not, the idea that my life, liberty, and property are mine (as your life, liberty, and property are yours) is foundational to what is erroneously called democracy or democratic society.

If you found yourself somewhere where no law existed, how could any claim you consider yourself to have be inviolate? Whether or not any right you thought you had was inviolate would depend solely on you own ability to prevent someone from violating it. Besides, who would be the judge of what is 'just cause'? If someone shot you and took your wrist watch he might well consider his desire to own the watch to be just cause for killing you and taking it.

Finally, I believe I am a person, that I do, as fact, have an inalienable right to my, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. And I believe the same about you, that you are yours. But, even if I'm wrong and have only dreamed, or made up, all those things...Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real one. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom...is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. (I may be only) making up a game...but playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. the last bit is Lewis's, hacked up a bit by me

I agree with the sentiment of that, henry, and it would be a far better word if all men believed in natural rights and behaved accordingly. Unfortunately, not all men do behave in accordance with natural rights, which is why I question their worth.

[Harbal]

We can both see that fire exists, but you haven't explained in what way a 'natural' right exists.

Go look in a mirror.

I have natural rights because it feels like I should have natural rights.

[FlashDangerpants]

I’ve only ever required that he explain what "elements" those might be.

So if I provide one and one alone you’ll be satisfied I take it?

Well for that we would need to ignore your use of the plural form 'some fictional elements' and you don't seem like somebody who would want to be seen as haphazard in his use of language, but what have you got? Something that you fear is illegal to even say out loud in Europe it seems.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I’ve only ever required that he explain what "elements" those might be.

So if I provide one and one alone you’ll be satisfied I take it?

Well for that we would need to ignore your use of the plural form 'some fictional elements' and you don't seem like somebody who would want to be seen as haphazard in his use of language, but what have you got? Something that you fear is illegal to even say out loud in Europe it seems.

What is this use of ‘we’ when it is only you? Why the first person plural?

I asked you if providing you with one element if that would satisfy you and what you are after. The topic holds very little interest for me. But if you agree to accept one example (as an example) I will provide it.

[FlashDangerpants]

So if I provide one and one alone you’ll be satisfied I take it?

Well for that we would need to ignore your use of the plural form 'some fictional elements' and you don't seem like somebody who would want to be seen as haphazard in his use of language, but what have you got? Something that you fear is illegal to even say out loud in Europe it seems.

What is this use of ‘we’ when it is only you? Why the first person plural?

I asked you if providing you with one element if that would satisfy you and what you are after. The topic holds very little interest for me. But if you agree to accept one example (as an example) I will provide it.

Just explain what you meant when you wrote "The Shoah narrative has some fictional elements which are still contested."

Just do that, like an honest man would.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Quoting AJ:
"The Shoah narrative has some fictional elements which are still contested."

I would like your affirmation that if I provide one, and just one, that this will satisfy what you are after. This topic holds little interest for me in and of itself. But it seems to be very important to you. If you agree I’ll provide.

[FlashDangerpants]

Quoting AJ:
"The Shoah narrative has some fictional elements which are still contested."

I would like your affirmation that if I provide one, and just one, that this will satisfy what you are after. This topic holds little interest for me in and of itself. But it seems to be very important to you. If you agree I’ll provide.

You previously demanded that I should have an exhaustive list of published sources in order for me to be at a level worthy of your conversation on this exact subject, so you are obviously lying about not having much interest as you must have done very extensive research.

Just explain what that sentence meant. I don't trust you, with good reason, not to pull some silly evasive trick like that again, so I will not sign a contract to be satisfied with any old shot.

[Lacewing]

The Shoah narrative has some fictional elements which are still contested.

Can you explain what you were referring to here when you said "fictional elements"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

… so I will not sign a contract to be satisfied with any old shot.

Have it your way. The topic holds little interest for me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Shoah narrative has some fictional elements which are still contested.

Can you explain what you were referring to here when you said "fictional elements"?

I surely can. If you and FlashDance will agree to accept one good example so that the topic is dropped, I will.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You previously demanded that I should have an exhaustive list of published sources in order for me to be at a level worthy of your conversation on this exact subject, so you are obviously lying about not having much interest as you must have done very extensive research.

I had a certain interest, during a certain period, in these questions. I moved on from that era.

You do not have, and you never have had, any substantial interest in it and have done little or no reading. So you have no base of any sort to discuss it.

You are here for other reasons as I made clear in previous posts. Those have to do with a perverse wielding of a moral narrative to attempt to demonstrate and prove villainy.

Are you catching on yet?

[iambiguous]

Here, try one of these: https://www.google.com/search?q=christi ... s-wiz-serp

There you can just ramble on and on and on about things that others will believe simply because they believe in the Christian God.

Nah, I'd be booted from a Christian forum before the ink dried on my sign-in papers.

Clearly, you've paid no attention to anything I have said about the absurdity of the concept of "Original Sin" and the nonsense of needing a "Saviour" to absolve us of it.

But this is a philosophy forum. And those like us who take philosophy seriously have to endure those like you who come here preaching...

Now I'm starting to feel sorry for you, for it must be painful having your mind squeezed into such a tiny little area surrounded by an excreted shell that is utterly impervious to logic and reason.

Oh, and by the way, according to your tiny-minded concept of what philosophy is all about, the following list of people taken from Wiki would also be unwelcome on this forum...

• Thales of Miletus (624–546 B.C.) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and mathematician from Miletus in Asia Minor. Many, most notably Aristotle, regard him as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition. According to Henry Fielding, Diogenes Laërtius affirmed that Thales posed "the independent pre-existence of God from all eternity, stating "that God was the oldest of all beings, for he existed without a previous cause even in the way of generation; that the world was the most beautiful of all things; for it was created by God."[2]
  Socrates (469–399 B.C.) was a classical Greek Athenian philosopher; he is the earliest known proponent of the teleological argument,[3] though it is questionable if he abandoned polytheism.
  Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) founded what are currently known as the "cosmological arguments" for a God (or "first cause").[4]
  Chrysippus of Soli (279–206 B.C.) was a Greek Stoic philosopher. Chrysippus sought to prove the existence of God, making use of a teleological argument: "If there is anything that humanity cannot produce, the being who produces it is better than humanity. But humanity cannot produce the things that are in the universe – the heavenly bodies, etc. The being, therefore, who produces them is superior to humanity. But who is there that is superior to humanity, except God? Therefore, God exists."[5]
  Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.) was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist.
  Plotinus (204–270 A.D.) was a major philosopher of the ancient world. In his philosophy there are three principles: the One, the Intellect, and the Soul.
  Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) was an Italian polymath and is widely considered one of the greatest painters of all time. According to biographer Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, "He found proof for the existence and omnipotence of God in nature—light, color, botany, the human body—and in creativity."[6] Marco Rosci, author of "Hidden Leonardo Da Vinci" (1977) notes that for Leonardo "[m]an is the handiwork of a God who retains few links with traditional orthodoxy. But man is emphatically no mere 'instrument' of his Creator. He is himself a 'machine' of extraordinary quality and proficiency and thus proof of nature's rationality."
  Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695) was a prominent Dutch mathematician and scientist. Huygens was first to formulate what is now known as the second of Newton's laws of motion in a quadratic form. He regarded science as a form of "Worship", that is, one can serve God by studying and admiring his works: "And we shall worship and reverence that God the Maker of all these things; we shall admire and adore his Providence and wonderful Wisdom which is displayed and manifested all over the Universe, to the confusion of those who would have the Earth and all things formed by the shuffling Concourse of Atoms, or to be without beginning."[7]
  Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1726) was an eminent English mathematician, often regarded as one of the three greatest mathematicians who ever lived. Newton was known for his interest in biblical theology and said the following about the scriptures: "We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever." Newton rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and denied recognising the deity of Jesus in his works, which were only found out later by Keynes.[8]
  Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) was an important German polymath, regarded as the father of digital computing. As a philosopher he argued for the existence of God on purely philosophical grounds. Leibniz wrote: "Even by supposing the world to be eternal, the recourse to an ultimate cause of the universe beyond this world, that is, to God, cannot be avoided."[9]
  Émilie du Châtelet (1706–1749) was a French mathematician, physicist, her most celebrated achievement is considered to be her translation and commentary on Isaac Newton's work Principia Mathematica. In Du Châtelet's words, "[t]he study of nature elevates us to the knowledge of the supreme being; this great truth is even more necessary, if possible, to good physics than to morality, and it ought to be the foundation and conclusion of all the research we make in this science."[10]
  Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) was an American Founding Father who was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence. He argued for God's existence on teleological grounds without appeal to revelation.[11]
  Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) A crucial figure in the transition between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western art music, he remains one of the most famous and influential of all composers. Beethoven never affirmed that he was a Christian later in life, nevertheless he did affirm that "if order and beauty are reflected in the constitution of the universe, then there is a God."[12]
  Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot (1796–1832) was a French military engineer and physicist, often described as the "father of thermodynamics". As a deist, he believed in divine causality, stating that "what to an ignorant man is chance, cannot be chance to one better instructed," but he did not believe in divine punishment. He criticized established religion, though at the same time spoke in favor of "the belief in an all-powerful Being, who loves us and watches over us."[13]
  Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) Sometimes referred to as the "Princeps mathematicorum" (Latin, "the foremost of mathematicians") and "greatest mathematician since antiquity". According to biographer Dunnington, Gauss's religion was based upon the search for truth. He believed in "the immortality of the spiritual individuality, in a personal permanence after death, in a last order of things, in an eternal, righteous, omniscient and omnipotent God".[14]
  Sir Richard Owen (1804–1892) was an English comparative anatomist and paleontologist. He produced a vast array of scientific work, but is probably best remembered today for coining the word Dinosauria (meaning "Terrible Reptile" or "Fearfully Great Reptile"). Owen is also remembered for his outspoken opposition to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. He wrote "The satisfaction felt by the rightly constituted mind must ever be great in recognizing the fitness of parts for their appropriate function..the prescient operations of the One Cause of all organization becomes strikingly manifested to our limited intelligence."[15]
  Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was the 16th President of the United States, serving from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865. According to James W. Keyes, "A reason he gave for his belief [in a "Creator of all things"] was, that in view of the Order and harmony of all nature which all beheld, it would have been More miraculous to have Come about by chance, than to have been created and arranged by some great thinking power."[16]
  Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) was a British naturalist, biologist and co-discoverer of natural selection. Wallace later began to doubt his own theory of natural selection and advocated a teleological form of evolution, in a letter to James Marchant he wrote, "The completely materialistic mind of my youth and early manhood has been slowly molded into the socialistic, spiritualistic, and theistic mind I now exhibit."[17]
  Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) was an American philosopher, logician, mathematician, and scientist who sketches, for God's reality, an argument to a hypothesis of God as the Necessary Being.[18]
  Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) was an English mathematician and philosopher who found that following through on the development of an innovative philosophy led to the inclusion of God in the system.
  Henry Truro Bray (1846–1922) was an English-American priest, philosopher and physician who promoted a type of philosophical theism in his book The Living Universe.[19][20]
  John Evan Turner (1875–1947) was a Welsh idealist philosopher known for defending an idealistic theism in his books Personality and Reality (1926) and The Nature of Deity (1927).[21][22]
  A. C. Ewing (1899–1973) was an English philosopher who authored Value and Reality: The Philosophical Case for Theism in 1973.[23][24]
  Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) was the preeminent mathematical logician of the twentieth century who described his theistic belief as independent of theology.[25] He also composed a formal argument for God's existence known as Gödel's ontological proof.
  Martin Gardner (1914–2010) was a mathematics and science writer who defended philosophical theism while denying revelation and the miraculous. Gardner believed that many liberal Protestant preachers, such as Harry Emerson Fosdick and Norman Vincent Peale, were really philosophical theists without admitting (or realizing) the fact.[26]

And let's not forget a few other notable people who weren't afraid to consider the creation of the universe being the result of a higher intelligence...

• Max Planck - "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

  Werner Heisenberg - “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

And I suppose Berkeley and others like him would not be welcome here either?

Again, for those who do believe in a God, the God, their God, I ask them to bring Him here:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

But, in my experience, for those like you that is a complete waste of time. Like trying to have a substantive discussion about God with someone like dattaswami.

What the heck is wrong with you?

In the following quote from the post I was responding to,...

Okay, I'm always one of the few atheists that will concede this point. The Goldilocks factor is not just a coincidence at all...it's actual proof that a God, the God [if not necessarily your God] does exist.

...you conceded that based on the "Goldilocks factor" that it's at least a possibility that "...a God...does exist...".

However, again, you have made yourself absolutely impervious to examining any theories regarding the possible ontological status of such a Being.

It is clear to me that the diagnosis I applied to Alexis Jacobi in an earlier post also applies to you, in that you are the victim of an alternate version of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in which you are simply not conscious enough to realize that you are not conscious enough to understand where I'm coming from.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

Finally, you've made a rational statement.

I tell you what, instead of your incessant complaining and shaking your fist at the sky, why don't you offer some plausible and actionable solutions that might help relieve human suffering?
_______

Okay, let's try this...

However you construe your own "theory regarding the possible ontological status of such a Being" -- God -- given a particular context revolving around my own interest in God and religion...connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then...we can examine your conclusions going one by one down the list of factors I noted above:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

Number 1:

Do you or do you not believe in a God, the God, your God? And, if you do, how would you go about demonstrating that to others? Do you have videos like IC? Do you have a Scripture you can quote from like IC?

It's the same thing that I would ask of all of those you noted above. Though not expecting many YouTube videos from them.

Doesn't interest you? Fine. I'll endure you no longer here, you'll endure me no longer here. Win/win.