Everyday thousands of people pray to God ask for things from him because it makes them feel better about it. For some it's the fear of the unknown. 

There is nothing God can do and the reason is very simple. The reason lies in the relativity and circular logic.

For example let's take us, human beings. We go about doing our own things. Let's say someone sneezes sending particles into the air. Each particle can develop millions of micro organisms within the particle. We cannot go deep into the sub nuclear level to see what goes on in there. There could be civilizations within that particle. There could be an organism which fears God and the god is the human being who sneezed.

In the same way, in the realm of our God, the whole milky way could be a speck of dust particle floating in God's environment. The God Civilization is completely unaware of this speck of dust but this speck of dust contains the whole universe, the whole milky way and the unexplanable void beyond which is just too large for the organisms within that speck of dust to comprehend. We do see how electrons and nucleus acts similar to the solar system so I draw the parallel universe comparision from there.

For each level of God there can be sub level creations and it can go on a circular way till we reach back on the starting God since everything about relative sizes. Relative sizes in one reality may be vastly different in different realities including different time cycles.

In conclusion, since GOD cannot ever experience or observe the minute sub sub atomic existence of their creation, they cannot in any way affect their life cycles. 

So don't worry about God, and enjoy life for what it's worth.

PS: Don't take this too seriously. I just had some time to burn and this thought had been dwelling as a possibility since the god discussion some time back

 any talk about nature and nurture, regardless of subject, appeals to the same sociological discussion about nature vs nurture. That is why i asked you to read that thoroughly so that you will understand the contradictions which you have already made by bringing it up.
I agree with both nature and nurture theories. Our social traits, some of them are a result of Nature whereas others are Nurture. So there is no conflict here, unless you want to devinely intervene and make it as issue. lol !!

God does not need to prove his existence to us and is least bothered. You seem to be so interested in proving existence. The way i see it, putting roughly at about a thousand who know about your existence, some 6, 999, 999000 people do not know that you exist.
God does not need to prove his existance to us and is least bothered ? lol Who told you and when dood ? Of course he made a personal appearance to his devine follower Freedom2012. Existance is everything in this world, you exist therefore you are Freedom2012 not Harry Houdini or Gandhi. Nobody will mistake you for that. Just because 6,999,999000 people know god, therefore he exists ? That Psy dood who sings Gangam style is also recognized by 6,999,999000 people, does that make him god too then ? lol   Now what kind of Asinine logic is that ? 


So dont you think it is a great idea for you guys (snurp, rethink, bathroom, fellow ekalavya sponsored Atheists who give thumbs up), to go on a mission to prove your existence because, using your own logic, it would mean that you do not exist.
Freedom who do you think is responding to your coments ? God ? lol !! I BathroomCoffee am proving my existance by replying to your MORONIC LOGIC. 


 

@Bathroom,

From morality now you moved to social traits. Morality(Single), Social traits(Many).
You contradicted yourself when you said one has an inborn sense of what is moral and
what is not. And added that moral values have to be taught and nurtured. That is an oxymoron.

Let me help you here. Yes morality needs to be nurtured. There is no such thing
as a Conscience given by nature. Conscience is a by product of the nurturing of
your morality.

"I BathroomCoffee am proving my existance by replying to your MORONIC LOGIC."

But this does not fit into your own parameters for existence to be valid. For all i know,
Rethink and you could be the same person. Or you could be my friend who is just pulling my leg.
I have not seen you yet. For you to exist, according to your own logic, i must verify
your existence as a single and distinct entity apart from all sajha members. So not only will i
have to just see you, i will also have to make an appointment with other sajha members and
verify their existence also. But even after verifying your existence, we will still have some
problems at hand as you do not believe in personal existence.

1)Were you existing before you replied to my post?

2)For some 6,999,999000, you do not exist.   

 दस वर्ष रामायण पढाए पनि सिता कसको पोइ भन्दा रावण को भन्ने येस्तै भेडा हो !! Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass you will comprehend what I am saying.  One last time: Human behaviour
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                    Nature + Nuture    
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                    (aka social traits)
                                           Do not kill, Do not steal etc etc + Good manners, what to eat etc 

Good Coscience(nature) + Strong Moral Backround(nurture) = NO NEED FOR GOD AND RELIGION.

Freedom,"For all i know, Rethink and you could be the same person." Really ? lol If I apply your logic I could be talking to Lord Vishnu right now and not Freedom2012 ? wow !! Well then Hello Bhagabaan !! How ya doin' ?  lol 

Dood I have been here this whole time talking to you but your asinine state of mind would not accept the fact I am here. You are one delusional fugger !! If you do not believe I am BaffroomCofffeee, I could well be JESUS Christ  to a lunatic like you.  ok I do not exist, you do not exist, nobody is talking to nobody here. lol !! 

@bathroom,

There is no such thing as a good conscience and a bad conscience, quit inventing things.
When a person commits a murder for revenge for example, he will say that his conscience
is clear. Therefore, conscience is not a good source for objective morality.

Nurturing can be influenced by traditions and culture, so that also doesnt account for
objective morality. For example, north koreans are nurtured to hate south koreans.

You put nothing thought provoking in your arguments, only mere statements. I had
appreciate it if you were more scientific in your approach.

"Dood I have been here this whole time talking to you but your asinine state of mind
would not accept the fact I am here."

Simple logic sounds like rocket science to 10 year olds. I have not seen you to verify
your existence. Just because you see sajha has let;s say a thousand members doesnt mean
there are a thousand distinct individuals as members. Some people might have made 2-3 accounts,
but that would account for just 1 distinct existence.

And i thought your parameters for existence was not about chatting with someone,
but rather seeing someone face to face and experiencing. You reject God because 7 billion
people cannot see and experience god. So why dont you reject yourself based on the same
parameters?.

To use another example The running man is a science fiction novel written by Richard Bachman,
later made into a movie starring Arnold. But that was actually just a pseudonym for Stephen
King. So Richard Bachman does not exist. So, i have to meet you and verify whether you are
male or female and whether you really exist as BathroomCoffee, a distinct individual.

Before you get upset, please understand that these parameters were set by you.
 

They say religious fanatics are lunatics and we can see very clearly why. What do we do with lunatics? We put in them asylums so they do not keep bothering other normal people with their crazy talks.

It's one thing to accept that you believe in something and live your life according to your own belief, but it's unacceptable to impose your beliefs upon others.

 At the end of the day, besides making some statements, here is what sajha Atheists failed to prove. But it is ok, Atheists in general always fail to prove this.

1)Atheism can provide accountability for objective morality.

2)Our own existence can come into question and why we ourselves exist without being proven we exist. Atheists failed to prove that they exist contrary to their own parameters for existence to be valid.

3)How unconsciousness can give rise to consciousness.

Freedom it seems like you know what you are talking about. I am interested in knowing where exactly you are coming from. I an interested to know some basic things from you, and perhaps we can have more productive discussion if we start from one topic at a time. 

What is God in your opinion, and what it is not? What is the reason you believe in God? Any concrete reason or just gut feeling?

Freedom2012,

 

I’m appalled by your constant berating of atheists just for being atheists, and your approach is beyond reproach if your only objective here is to show the right path to godless fellows. I couldn’t resist your false accusation and your intransigence in standing your ground without making any plausible philosophical argument in favor of god. When an argument starts with a foregone conclusion and not a premise, there can never be a meaningful conversation, let alone the exchange of ideas beneficial to both parties.

 

Personally, I have felt faith should be a personal matter and its influence should not cross one’s personal realm and have thus stayed away from discussing about faith with my family and friends, as it always tends to end up in an unpleasant manner. However, having said that, and as it had to happen and here we are conversing about it, I feel I’m on defensive about my core beliefs since my conviction of my own morality has been questioned. Therefore I’m reluctantly getting into conversation again and firmly standing up for myself and people who share my position alike. But if you are going to substitute theological supposition- based upon religious scriptures attributing to higher power- as the foundation of morality (leaving aside the metaphysical question whether there is god or not for a moment) and not its utilitarian agenda based upon philosophical argument, I personally will dismiss it. You may feel it’s a moral obligation to spread divine message to fellow brethrens but I have wholesale disagreement with that idea itself.

 

Before even getting into discussion about your questions, I would like to point there is distinction between your belief (emanating from religious dogma), the ethical principles (objective or not), and culture that has incorporated religion as a way of life.

 

1)      Atheism can provide accountability for objective morality.

Philosophically, the most common division of morality is:

Note that it doesn’t talk about God. Essentially, you are saying that objective morality is due to God (via religious scriptures; otherwise there is no way of knowing objectivity from religion. You’d need to extrapolate your scriptural writing to address modern day problems that are not objectively included in them, but objectively so that its truthfulness and falsity can be ascertained.

There was an interesting material published by Harvard professors about morality without religion which was for the purpose of educating students.

Since the focus of the argument is about moral objectivity, I am not going to elaborate on other kinds. The moral objectivity through religion categorically denies there are other two types of morality.

 b) Relativism (Subjectivism): Morality is relative to a group and shaped by culture. Subjectivism says morality is subjective to individual perception. E.g. Is it morally right or wrong to send your parents to senior care (eastern vs. western)? If a poor boy steals medicine for his dying mom and he didn’t have money, is that morally right or wrong?  Definitely you will not get universal answers to these questions – which may depend upon an individual and the society/culture she belongs to. Moral relativism

 Remember you were saying “what is good for goose is not always good for gander.” That’s moral relativism, not objectivism.

 

2)      Our own existence can come into question and why we ourselves exist without being proven we exist. Atheists failed to prove that they exist contrary to their own paramaters for existence to be valid.
I am not clear what this question has to do with atheists. Human evolution (theists, atheist and in-between) has been explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution. It’s older than 6,000 years old what religious fanatics had been saying (and some of them still do despite abundance of scientific evidence). But a clever ploy to invoke creationism with teleological argument never fails to push the argument into indeterminate question. This ontological question about self-existence has been explored, probably, since there were human on earth (Adam and Eve??).  A statement that summarizes your self-existence may help - Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) by Rene Descartes. Read about Phenomenology too.  

 

3)      How unconsciousness can give rise to consciousness.
I guess you are talking about big-bang theory. I don’t have a definite answer, and no one does. As I had previously said in one of my posts, a possible explanation could be Anthropic principle. Scientifically, we are still far away from getting an explanation, and there is a possibility we may never get a definite answer. That’s the ultimate goal post for the question for the existence of God.

This is what Stephen Hawking had to say:

“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It's like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere, it doesn't have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.

We are each free to believe what we want, and it's my view that the simplest explanation is there is no god. No one created the universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization: There is probably no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful. “

@rethink,

you sound friendlier now hehe, just a post back you were calling me a fanatic and a lunatic.
I find that very strange indeed. :). Please explain yourself and then we will move ahead.
And do read my posts thoroughly, which clearly you did not, otherwise you would not have
called it a gut feeling. I am 100% sure that there is a God.

@ALternate,

due respect to all Atheists. There is no need to get personal in the search for truth.

Morality
 
Atheism provides no core values to motivate people to pursue moral values like compassion,forgiveness,
egalitarianism, self sacrifice. Humans need motivation and religion provides plenty of that.

If this was a moral world based on objectivity, there would not be a situation where you would question
whether a boy stealing medicine/parents in senior care are moral or not. In a thousand years, will we be
questioning whether pedophilia is right or wrong or whether getting pregnant at 9 years old is right
or wrong. This is where we went wrong, we made morality a matter of opinion rather than objective.

Existence

For 6,999,999000 people in this world, you do not exist. So the question of them coming to you to verify
your existence does not arise as you do not exist for them. The other option is for you to go to each
one to tell them that you exist. Taking an average lifespan of 70 yrs, if you somehow manage to go to
each person EVERY SECOND to tell them that you exist the moment you are born, you only get to 2.2 billion
people. Of course people die and get born everyday so by the time you get to your final verification for
your existence, the people living to verify your existence would be much less. So we cannot account for
our own existence in this world.

In conclusion, there are no set parameters for existence to be valid. You were existing just fine before
you chatted with me. You do not need me to verify your existence. God does not need us to verify his
existence. And there are no set parameters for existence to be valid. If you say that something must be
seen and experienced to exist, then you are technically saying that you do not exist, using the same
parameters.

 

Consciousness

There is no evidence that something can arise from nothing. ZERO. There is no evidence that unconsciousness
can give birth to consciousness. ZERO. In fact, it is even impossible for consciousness to create
consciousness from nothing, nor with raw materials. (Eg humans making a robot)

The only logical conclusion thus is that a higher level of consciousness created life. Yes time was created,
so was Science. God created life. If there was time then why would it need to be created?. Didnt Science prove
creation of time is possible?. That fits perfectly with attributing creation to God. Time makes us mortal.
Without time, God is immortal. That is the whole point of the Theist perspective. No time=no science,no physics.

So how can you use Science experiments to verify god when he lives in a dimension where there is no time?.
Non science methods should be used as it appeals for same. faith, praying, meditating. This is exactly why
Science talks about Nothingness as Science cannot go into a territory where there is no time(pre big bang).  
That is why they say infinite regress questions are the answer for life because there is no science to account
for there (no time). Thus, using Science, you will never go pre big bang.

   
After Life (This might sound a bit funny!)

I believe in after life. I once thought about this question. Does life end when i die?. So it was Yes for me,
and No for the people who live on. But then i thought how can there be a Yes and No answer to that question
and still be correct?. So i came to a conclusion. Yes life does go on after i die. But how can i know that?,
I am dead!. No proof that life goes on as Science wants proof. The only logical thing would thus be that one
still lives and life goes on. Otherwise life does not go on and should end with you. 
 

"For 6,999,999000 people in this world, you do not exist. So the question of them coming to you to verify
your existence does not arise as you do not exist for them. The other option is for you to go to each
one to tell them that you exist...."

Leave me out of your god exist/god doesn't exist discussion, but this is the stupidest logic I've ever read to prove one's point. You sure know how to play with words, but seriously, this one is just dumb.

For the love of all that’s holy (warning-urban dictionary link), If you are talking about objectivity, can you be objective once and provide a foundation to your belief, even if that means citing a holy book? Did you run out of your arsenal and resort to the salvo of verbal diarrhea? Call it a diatribe but your previous reply is full of diffusion. There is an old saying on the Internet “That post gave me cancer.”
 

 

1)      Is there objective truth and falsity? What is the basis for objective truth and falsity?

2)      Is objective morality based upon objective truth and falsity? If not, what is its foundation?

3)      Is eating beef or pork morally wrong? 

4)      Is smoking morally wrong?

5)       Is smoking weed morally right (hint: lord Shiva smoked it himself)?

6)      Is marrying a kid morally right (hint: Mohammed married a girl 9 year old girl named Aisha)?

7)      Polygamy morally right or wrong?

8)      Defend this on the basis of morality: “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ).”

9)      People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
~Leviticus 21:17-18

10)   Who is a God? Is there one God or are there many? Who is your God, and why?

11)   Who created God? Who created that creator and so on?

12)   Why there are many religion and multiple gods? Which of those gods is true (based upon their scripture) if they have differing opinions?

13)   Religion condemns same-sex but scientists have found sort of “gay gene”, and it has been found some other organism too indulge in same sex. Is same-sex morally right or wrong? If wrong, why did God create them that way?

14)   Is changing your religion morally right? If it is morally right, is the god that you previously prayed is wrong, and then why is he god? If changing religion is wrong, why did ancient jews/ pagans change their religion and led by Christ?

15)   If there is only objective truth, and you seem to know better than anyone, why in the name of God, did you ask this question for subjective answer http://sajha.com/sajha/html/index.cfm?threadid=101645 .

16)   What dimension does the God reside? Pleaes cite.

17)   Have you ever visited psychiatrist?  Just a joke, you can take it seriously too.

Christopher Hitchens, an Atheist God, famously asked in one debate: what moral values Atheists don’t have that theist do, and no one could give him an answer. You don’t need a core values written in a paper to have your morality. Morality develops tacitly and explicitly based upon acceptance of society of deeds that are beneficial and harmful to the society. Some of the moral principles are universal while others are relative. This morality passes from one generation to another. But you don’t need a book from God to tell them what is moral and immoral.

I hope you answer the question objective (not as objective as possible). A caveat- please refrain from saying “God works in a mysterious way.”

@slackdemic

If you do not possess critical thinking, you should never take part in a debate.
Atheists believe in visual verification of god, i am extending the same parameters
to account for your own existence. It gives rise to questions like how much verification
is necessary and on what basis?. Existence is independent of verfication.

@Alternate,

Atheism vs religion for morality. We have mother teresa, florence nightingale. Many moral
stories in hinduism, christianity, buddhism to motivate people to pursue excellence in morality.

The point here is not that we can make a perfect society with religion. There is no utopia out here.
The point here is Atheism fails to account for objective morality to a large extent. If murder is
beneficial to a society, evolution allows that.

As for your own morality, you have many things to prove. Did you live in an Atheist society?. Did you
have an Atheist upbringing?. Were your parents Atheists?. And your grandparents?. However hard you may
try, you cannot escape a sociological understanding of your own morality. If you say "murder is wrong",
you are not letting nature decide what is beneficial or harmful for society. You are thus going againsts
evolution.

I had a hindu upbringing, never smoked weed. I do not know anyone who did. Morality is very complex but
if a person gets motivated to show compassion, forgiveness, self sacrifice, egalitarianism it can only be
good for society and eating pork/beef will not matter. There are some strict moral rules like "murder is wrong",
"cheating is wrong" that does need to be universal and objective. You need to go to a church, temple,
monastery and find out what they teach. They do not teach to kill, murder, cheat, rape, loot.

Freedom,

Your reasonings sounds like you are trying to convince yourself. As few others have pointed out, some of your reasoning is plain dumb like the existence logic. 

You have never stated why you believe in GOD. You have beaten around the bush with your own logic but nothing concrete to support your claim. So if you do not want to hide the truth about your belief, just answer why you believe in God 100%. Believe me, I have read your writings and nowhere have you stated any concrete reasons for your belief so it would be a good place to come clean about your belief, unless you want to keep beating around the bush.

You keep saying God created everything. Who created God?

As far as objective morality. Morality is not objective. What's moral for one person may be deemed immoral by another. And as far as accountability for objective morality, that is just a bunch of jibberish that you think sounds big. The only accountability that exists is presented by the law and order of the land. 

Where in the Bible do you see the delineation of objective morality? Aren't there episodes of murder, stealing, incest in the bible? So what are you basing your objective morality upon?

Your logic on existence of 7 billion people is a bunch of balony that you can try to confuse yourself with. I can provide you reference to 1000s of people who can get you to point me out and you and I can actually meet face to face. But can you provide one single reference who can put me in contact with your imaginary God? I didn't think so. So please stop uttering that stupid example of 7 billion people who don't exist. Maybe you will consider facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as a god since he has billions of people in his network.

Atheist are not organized religion and you seem to have serious difficulty understanding that. You seems to categorize atheism as another religion. Theists are the ones who are making a claim to supernatural entities without any supporting evidence besides bunch of lies and sweet sounding words. The same thing as Maoists are doing in Nepal trying to convince illeterate folks in order to rule over them. But they are failing thesedays because how long are you going to lie to the public and give them false hope? They will wake up slowly but surely.

Atheists did not make any claim about anything so they do not have the responsibility to prove anything. One thing is for certain that atheists are not willing to accept the claim of theists that God exists who made it all possible. 

Whenever there is discussion about creation, the theists jump up and down with joy because they think they have the perfect answer and that of devine creation. But as far as an atheist is concerned, the universe could have been created in a thousand different ways. God, big bang, are two of those theories that people have put forward. It is not necessary to have to be restricted to choose from those two theories. There could be thousand other theories and please be aware that not accepting the GOD theory does not automatically mean that one accepts the big bang theory.

The reason you jump to conclusions too soon is because you do not have an open mind to realize that there are million of different possitilities if you think about the permutations and combination of events that lead to something. There is such a thing as coincidence that makes a lot of things possible. 

But NO, you think you know all the answers and you are determined to teach others a lesson who don't believe what you believe in. So doesn't that make you a fanatic?

Personally, I am fine with the fact that you believe in your God, and I have the right to not believe in god. You do not have to confuse yourself to try to make us believe in your god. If you have any concrete supporting evidence then you bring that to table. Otherwise simply do not play with words to try to support your imaginary beliefs. We do not have to prove anything. You do.

@Rethink

I believe in the good things that all religion teaches. That is why i do not have a particular religion and i identify myself as an Agnostic Theist that describes me best. I believe in a higher level of consciousness and that is the only way that can explain life. There is no evidence contrary to that.

The system of visual verification for existence to be valid contradicts your own existence. Your belief on existence is not based on verification by other people but verification by yourself. So even if a million people did see God and you did not, you would still not believe he existed. So God needs to be verified by 7 billion people in order to exit according to this theory.

Before we met in Sajha, did you exist?. Before we met in sajha, how could i come and verify your existence?. You did not exist for me.

You got my argument wrong. Existence does not depend on whether 7 billion people know you or not, we only prove existence to ourselves in the end. God has to prove his existence to himself, not to us.

Freedom

"I believe in a higher level of consciousness and that is the only way that can explain life. "

Do you believe in a higher level of consciousness because that is the only way you feel life can be explained?


"So even if a million people did see God and you did not, you would still not believe he existed. So God needs to be verified by 7 billion people in order to exit according to this theory."

You are interpreting it in a wrong way to beat around the bush. I never said god needs to be verified by 7 billion people. I simply said point me to ONE person that can verify god. 

Let's not try to ask questions like if a tree falls in a forest and noone hears it, then does it make any noise. You don't need to ask if you exist or I exist because these are verifiable truths because you exist physically and you can be verified concretely. We did not exist in each others frame of reference but I am sure that we know someone that knows someone that can concretely provide proof of our existence and even make it possible for us to be face to face. But in the case of god, that is missing, yet you gladly accept such imaginary supernatural being as reality. So your reality is imaginary unless you can point me to someone who can provide support for your claim.

If god only proved his existence to himself then how do you know that he exists?

"Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it" - a U.C Berkeley Professor.

Freedom, you didn't anwer my question, and I didn't expect you to, since I know you're at the end of your own discourse and you don't have a rational explantion to my question and your own position - all you have is your belief and your stubborness. You don't understand the "end justifies the means of morality" and the "act of morality regardless of the end."

"Don't fight with a pig you both get dirty - but the pig likes it."

@Rethink,

yes higher level of consciousness is the only way life can be explained. There is no evidence to the contrary.

You still do not get my point about existence. Before we met in sajha, we did not exist for each other so the
question about seeking proof of our existence does not arise. How and why should we seek proof for something
that does not exist?.

"I simply said point me to ONE person that can verify god."

There are millions who can verify god but not through visual verification that you seek. You are not
wlling to use non Science methods like meditation, praying, having faith in order to experience. Even if god
was physical (which he is not) and having coffee in my house and you come over and see him, that would only
verify his existence to you. So using your theory, everyone will have to come over to my house to verify god and
that would be a never ending process. So even if God could do that, he would never account for his own existence
and make his existennce a universal truth as those who have not seen him yet will never believe in his existence.
So when should the verification process stop?. And how much is enough to account for existence to be valid for all?.

@Alternate,

which question?. I have answered all your questions. You have not answered mine.

@Alternate,

yes you are right there are other forms of morality other than objective morality, now when did i deny that?.
I already said that morality is complex. I am talking about moral principles that are universal and objective.
For example "Killing is wrong", "Cheating is wrong" would contradict Evolution which is technically an unguided
and purposeless process.

It is the concept of god, represented by religion that guides and gives a purpose.
 

Freedom2012,

You have selective amnesia and only see or remember what you wish to do. All along the discussion, you were talking about objective morality due to religion. If you are now saying there are other kind of moralities (including subjective), then you can't invoke the universality of its truthiness, and thus you are against the morality from religion (it doesn’t recognize other forms, including your esteemed William Lane Craig) whose crutch (besides the wolf-in-a-sheep-skin tag of agnostic atheist) you were holding and thus walked this far. Then you are talking about the philosophical nature of morality rather than the theological nature of morality. You chew on your own words and metamorphose whenever and whatever suits you. As I observed, the only reason you are here is to condescend atheist for their belief through your conceited and myopic beliefs – full of inconsistencies and bigotry and you are in need of constant validation of you belief. In process you even mentioned your belief in miracle, afterlife - didn't you say you personally had a miraculous incident and hence strenthened your unwavering belief in higher power. If so, you can prayer harder for the deity to "surprise" others as well. 

Not only here, all over there have been discussion about religion and god, morality and ethics etc, and they have been indecisive – precisely because there is no sledgehammer (statements) to knuckle down the contentious issues. That’s the reason we are still talking about it. But that doesn’t mean you can effuse about the topic and shift shape at every corner.

Here I have the silliest thought, and pardon my caustic and offensive propostion I call "The God Dilemma: if you are sodomized by a an invisible power, will you believe and tell it to others as a proof?”

If you can, can you give me a point to point answer to my question I had finely listed in an earlier post, then I will meet you there. Until then, I don’t’ want to discuss with a nincompoop who only has hubris but not an intellectual capability and merit to partake in a discussion.

Freedom

"yes higher level of consciousness is the only way life can be explained."

That is what you think and it is not necessary that what you think is the only way that is correct. Unless you are a fanatic and you want to impose your imaginary beliefs onto others.

"There is no evidence to the contrary."

When I ask for any evidence that supports your claim you fail to deliver anything and question the visual verification so what kind of evidence are you looking for contrary beliefs?

"There are millions who can verify god but not through visual verification that you seek. You are not
wlling to use non Science methods like meditation, praying, having faith in order to experience."

I am not asking for visual verification. I'm asking for anything that supports your claim besides imaginary beliefs. I never said I am not willing to use non science methods like meditation and praying. Can you give me the steps that I need to take while meditation or praying in order get a concrete support of your claim?

"How and why should we seek proof for something that does not exist?."

We don't need to seek proof of something that does not exist, but you say God exists, and hence people seek for proof. Any verifiable proof or are you just going to keep beating around the bush trying to confuse yourself into believing in something that you are beginning to question yourself?

"So using your theory, everyone will have to come over to my house to verify god and
that would be a never ending process."

What theory are you talking about? I am asking you a follow up question regarding your claim of Gods existence. That question is not a theory. But wait, you like you confuse yourself.

By the way I don't know why you opened the other thread saying you can't post here, because I could. Perhaps it is a divine intervention because God is getting embarassed by your logic and reasoning.