God as the first cause.

[yrreg]

 

yrreg, on 8 March 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

 

I like to invite you to give me from your stock knowledge what is evidence, because you use that word everytime and everywhere in the question of God's existence.

 

 

-----------------------

 

 

 

You say that " it's possible the universe has existed for eternity."

 

I would propose that you make the qualification that the universe as the totality of existence has existed for eternity, however as we humans now observe the universe, it is a totality of existence now that is not identical to the totality of existence prior to the existence of man and also prior to the existence of time and space.

 

On that qualification I will heartily agree with you that the universe has existed for eternity.

 

So, the universe as the totality of existence has existed for eternity even before the existence of man and the existence of time and space, that totality of existence that has existed and is existing for eternity is the totality of existence that consists in the existence of God.

 

 

--------------------------

 

 

 

Please don't forget to give your concept of what is evidence, but from your stock knowledge.

 

 

Yrreg

 

 

Repeatable and objectively documentable observations via a known and shared methodology that either tend to add weight to a theory or run contrary to the theory's predictions, processes, or axiomata and thus might disprove the theory.

 

That the universe has changed is indisputable, but you seem to be positing some form of change of quality (otherwise why are you bothering) which I cannot see.

 

"prior to the existence of time and space." Is a self-contradiction until and unless you accept something outside the universe. As this is the subject of the argument to rely on that acceptance is begging the question and logically very suspect.

 

Your last sentence is just a blank assertion dressed in its Sunday best.

 

/edit typo

 

 

 

You have given a definition of evidence, now please give some at least two examples of evidence.

 

 

About the universe, have you given your definition of the universe?

 

I have given my definition of the universe, namely, the totality of existence.

 

 

-------------------------

 

 

And don't engage in talking about Sunday best whatever, that is irrelevant.

 

If something you read is a blank assertion, tell readers why it is a blank assertion without resorting to flippant association whatever which says nothing except the flippancy of the speaker.

 

That is no substitute whatever for rational discourse.

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

This assertion

"It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about."

or the equivalent on "The existence of God is not a pure assumption but a principle of human rational knowledge, otherwise you have no explanation for the origin of everything with a beginning."

is just plain wrong, but anyway...

 

There is a Universe. Either it has always been here or it came into being at some time in the past.

It might be an un-caused event. We don't know because we were not there at the time.

The fact that we see a universe is only evidence that there is a universe to see (and that we aren't blind to it).

It's existence tells us nothing of its origin or history.

It's possible (but not certain) that it was created by some sort of creator.

However there is nothing about the universe that tells us anything of the nature of that creator (or even if one exists).

That creator might be something like the Christian God.

But there is no reason to favour that suggestion over the idea that the creator might be the flying spaghetti monster or even something like the Christian "Devil".

 

It is, based on a more or less total lack of evidence, just as true to say "the universe is evidence for the existence of the FSM (blessings upon his noodly appendages)" as it is to say "the universe is evidence for the existence of the Christian God".

 

But the two are not the same and the existence of one precludes the existence of the other, because there can only be one creator.

Only one of them could be true, yet it is paradoxically asserted that the existence of the universe is evidence for both the existence of God and also for his non-existence (because the universe was created by the FSM).

 

This post has been edited by John Cuthber: Today, 07:10 AM

 

 

 

 

Please edit again your post and take out the FSM, unless you have no rational force in your exposition and have to resort to irrelevant and flippant labeling.

 

I propose that you first order your thoughts in preparation to putting down your thoughts in words.

 

 

If you have to resort to labeling like FSM and you justify your labeling that you just want to tell readers that God is an unbelievable concept, just say God is an unbelievable concept or invalid concept, but you don't have to resort to labeling which says nothing but emotional flippancy from your heart and mind.

 

After you declare that God is an unbelievable or invalid concept, explain why; but you don't need to resort to labeling, unless as I already said you are bereft of rational exposition and must substitute rational discourse with resorting to flippant labeling.

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

[imatfaal]

You have given a definition of evidence, now please give some at least two examples of evidence.

No. This is about your claim - not mine. You are trying to avoid the central accusation that you have made an unwarranted assertion with no evidence.

 

About the universe, have you given your definition of the universe?

 

I have given my definition of the universe, namely, the totality of existence.

This is just chop-logic. I can use your definition. The great thing is that you argument fails for almost every rational definition

 

-------------------------

 

And don't engage in talking about Sunday best whatever, that is irrelevant.

It is characterizing your argument in a negative way - by polishing the phrase and using inessential terms you tried to detract from the fact that it was a mere affirmation. This is is by no mean irrelevant, in fact it is highly pertinent; I could have said the argument was disingenuous and specious but I decided to show that this was the case through metaphor

 

If something you read is a blank assertion, tell readers why it is a blank assertion without resorting to flippant association whatever which says nothing except the flippancy of the speaker.

I do not need to explain to the forum members what a blank assertion is; but when I see one, especially and instance which I believe is masquerading as something else, then I feel it is right to highlight it. Flippancy - which is often more a pricking of preciousness depending on your point of view, simile, metaphor and hyperbole are superb methods of argument.

 

 

That is no substitute whatever for rational discourse.

Yrreg

Correct - it is not a substitute - it is rational discourse. So I have given you a definition of evidence and agreed to use your definition above of the universe. You now need to show how the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of the Christian God. It is now time to put up or shut up.

 

\edit typo and grammar

Edited March 8, 2012 by imatfaal

[Moontanman]

The existence of God is not a pure assumption but a principle of human rational knowledge, otherwise you have no explanation for the origin of everything with a beginning.

 

Says you with absolutely no evidence to back up that pure assumption...

 

A pure assumption is like saying that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, it is a pure assumption because it explains nothing that is worth or requires explaining, like how to explain everything in existence that has a beginning.

 

How is saying a god did it any different?

 

---------------------

 

You make a lot about evidence, please just give me from your stock knowledge what is evidence.

 

Evidence would be something tangible that you could show me and I could show Phi and he could show swansont and so on. It would be plan and simple for anyone to see and reproducing this evidence would be possible for anyone.

 

 

----------------------

 

 

You also say: "I do not have a belief in any god or gods, i cannot define god because i do not believe there are any gods."

 

See, you are being irrational in denying the existence of God when in the first place you claim not to have any definition of God or god.

 

First, have an idea of the something that you do not believe in before you can say that you do not believe in it.

 

I do not believe in the Christian God for the same reason i don't believe in Zeus, Thor, Krishna or Aswang. I do not need to define god before i can not believe in him. I have traveled this road many times yrreg, I was raised creationist or fundamental theist, every word in the bible was true, had to be true and questioning the veracity of these absolute truths often resulted in a beating. I have read the holy bible many times straight through and and read huge amounts of it many times as the small sound bites the pastor would read to us to assure us of these absolute truths. Usually this meant interpretation of scripture to mean what ever the pastor wanted it to mean.

 

 

Tell me, you don't believe in aswang, do you?

 

No, i already know what Aswang is supposed to be.

 

You will ask me what I mean by aswang if you are rational.

 

But you are not rational if without first finding out what is aswang, you already say that you do or you don't believe in aswang, i.e. even though you have no idea what is an aswang.*

 

I am not stupid, i know how to search for things to find out what they are.

 

Again: first get the correct idea of something before you say that you don't believe in it -- or you believe in it.

 

How about you stop assuming you know things everyone else does not because they do not agree with you..

 

-----------------------------------

 

 

I am telling people that they are being flippant for saying that rabbits explain the existence of the universe or cheese explains the existence of the universe; however they would not be flippant if they first define what they mean by rabbits and by cheese, namely, as their words for the creator of everything in the universe that has a beginning.

 

You are being equally flippant by making unsupported assumptions about god

 

In which case I will just tell them to choose other words instead of rabbits and cheese, because these two words, rabbits and cheese, have already established definitions in English which is the language used in this forum.

 

I can't help it if you do not get analogies based in sarcastic wit...

 

Now, if they then insist that for them rabbits and cheese mean whatever they want them to mean, then I will certainly tell them they are being flippant and in effect irrational: because these are already English words with established meanings and they just want to be troublesome instead of contributing to the exchange of sensible ideas and opinions.

 

Again i got the comparison and why it was accurate, you evidently did not.

 

It should be quite easy for a god to provide evidence for it's existence, write Jesus Christ across the sky in stars should do the trick i would think....

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Please edit again your post and take out the FSM, unless you have no rational force in your exposition and have to resort to irrelevant and flippant labeling.

 

I propose that you first order your thoughts in preparation to putting down your thoughts in words.

 

 

If you have to resort to labeling like FSM and you justify your labeling that you just want to tell readers that God is an unbelievable concept, just say God is an unbelievable concept or invalid concept, but you don't have to resort to labeling which says nothing but emotional flippancy from your heart and mind.

 

After you declare that God is an unbelievable or invalid concept, explain why; but you don't need to resort to labeling, unless as I already said you are bereft of rational exposition and must substitute rational discourse with resorting to flippant labeling.

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

No. I won't, however, rather than complaining about how I phrase an argument, you might wish to try to show why it is invalid or, better still, you may wish to accept that it is valid.

Oh, BTW re. "you just want to tell readers that God is an unbelievable concept, just say God is an unbelievable concept or invalid concept, "

I didn't.

I just pointed out that he is neither more nor less believable that the FSM. Nothing flippant about it.

Edited March 8, 2012 by John Cuthber

[doG]

I like to invite you to give me from your stock knowledge what is evidence, because you use that word everytime and everywhere in the question of God's existence.

 

define: evidence

 

ev·i·dence/ˈevədəns/

Noun:

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

You say that " it's possible the universe has existed for eternity."

 

I would propose that you make the qualification that the universe as the totality of existence has existed for eternity, however as we humans now observe the universe, it is a totality of existence now that is not identical to the totality of existence prior to the existence of man and also prior to the existence of time and space.

 

On that qualification I will heartily agree with you that the universe has existed for eternity.

Note: I said it's possible, not that it has. I have drawn no conclusions about the beginning of the universe, if there was one. I am still open to all possibilities. I am not open to giving up the search for truth and simply declaring 'god did it'. That approach is for quitters.

[yrreg]

yrreg, on 8 March 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

 

You have given a definition of evidence, now please give some at least two examples of evidence.

 

No. This is about your claim - not mine. You are trying to avoid the central accusation that you have made an unwarranted assertion with no evidence.

 

 

About the universe, have you given your definition of the universe?

 

I have given my definition of the universe, namely, the totality of existence.

 

 

This is just chop-logic. I can use your definition. The great thing is that you argument fails for almost every rational definition

 

[...]

 

 

 

 

So, it is obvious you do not have any solid thoughts of evidence as of universe that you understand genuinely what is evidence and what is the universe.

 

Otherwise for evidence you should be able to give examples of what is evidence as you have given the definition of evidence.

 

And as for the universe you have not given any definition at all that comes from your own thinking and formulated in your own wording.

 

 

That says clearly that you do not understand at all what is the meaning of the thesis: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

 

------------------

 

 

Back to your definition of evidence, the fact that you cannot or will not give examples of what is evidence, then it is conspicuous that you do not understand yourself what is your definition of evidence.

 

For by being bereft of any samples of evidence, you betray yourself to be without any authentic grasp, i.e., comprehension of what is evidence, notwithstanding that you do pour forth words to seek to impress people that you know what is evidence, namely: according to you evidence is:

 

Repeatable and objectively documentable observations via a known and shared methodology that either tend to add weight to a theory or run contrary to the theory's predictions, processes, or axiomata and thus might disprove the theory.

 

But since you cannot bring forth examples of evidence, your definition of evidence is just all empty words.

 

 

Let me repeat:

 

For not being able to give examples of what is evidence, your definition of evidence is of no concrete relevancy to the world of actual objective existence, namely, that existence that is not founded on empty words alone.

 

In which case your definition of evidence makes up an utterance of vacuous words.

 

---------------------

 

 

Okay, work again on your definition of evidence as to be able to adduce from actual objective concrete existence examples of evidence.

 

 

And do not anymore run away from giving your own definition of what is the universe.

 

-----------------------

 

 

My definition of the universe is the totality of existence.

 

Thanks for the compliment of your accepting my definition of universe, but I challenge you to do your own thinking and writing, as to present to every poster here and all readers of this thread what is your own self-thought out and self-worded definition of the universe.

 

By being able and factually giving your very own definition and in your own wording of what is the universe, I can then be certain that you do know what is the universe, and understand the thesis: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

 

------------------------------

 

 

To everyone else who keeps bringing up the false charge that there is no evidence for God's existence in the universe, please work with your mind (avoiding flippancy) and do serious genuinely productive thinking and writing in your own words, what is evidence -- and give examples.

 

And also what is your own self-thought out and self-formulated concept of the universe.

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

[yrreg]

The title of this thread is:

 

God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God. #Post 1

4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM yrreg

 

I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'.

 

So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question.

 

-----------------------

 

 

Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

 

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

 

 

 

 

What I see of atheists' socalled arguments against God is that they their socalled (fake) arguments are all evasions and obstructions.

 

The existence of God is obvious to human reason, so if a human uses his reason correctly, properly, honestly, consistently, it is obvious to his mind that God exists as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

Now, atheists don't use their reason to see the fact of God's existence.

 

What they do are evading the question and obstructing their reason so that their mind is self-deceived into the arrogance of saying that there is no evidence for God's existence.

 

When you ask them what is their concept of evidence, they will run away; in particular once they if at all give their definition of evidence they dare not give examples of evidence in accordance with their definition.

 

That shows that they are conspicuously aware though suppressing their awareness, that by their definition of evidence and examples of evidence, God will come forth certainly as existing, and the universe is the evidence.

 

That is their way of evading the fact of God's existence.

 

 

Now, next they obstruct their own reasoning faculty so perversely effectively that they themselves don't know that they are into obstructions of their reasoning faculty.

 

How?

 

Here is one very glaring perverse way of atheists' obstructing their reasoning faculty, by calling God a flying spaghetti monster.

 

Ask them what they know to be God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

 

To answer this question all they have to do is just to read the first verse of the Christian source book, the Bible:

 

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth."

[/b]

Gen. 1:1.

 

Then they can just consult the common creed of Christians, the Apostles' Creed, here is the first verse of the Apostles Creed:

 

"I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth."

[/b]

 

 

Why do they want to call God a flying spaghetti monster, and repeatedly in other ways like tooth fairy, or for Bertrand Russell the logician but ironically most self-deceitful of his own heart and mind (and his contemporaries saw him to be such all through and though), celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, and for some today's atheists, invisible pink unicorn?

 

The reason is because the concept of God as the creator of heaven and earth cannot be rebutted at all.

 

So they resort to making God sound ridiculous, but that is their perverse method of giving an appearance of rational discourse for the like of themselves, in order to obstruct their reason from seeing the obvious fact that God exists as creator of heaven and earth.

 

 

So, all atheists here, no longer anymore resort to evasions and obstructions, come forth with your definition of evidence and samples of evidence.

 

Then we can all work together to go forth into an expedition in reason to locate God the creator of heaven and earth, in the universe, which universe is my example of evidence, of evidence that points to the fact of God's existence.

 

 

What are you waiting for?

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

[zapatos]

The title of this thread is:

 

God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God. #Post 1

4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM yrreg

 

 

 

 

What I see of atheists' socalled arguments against God is that they their socalled (fake) arguments are all evasions and obstructions.

 

The existence of God is obvious to human reason, so if a human uses his reason correctly, properly, honestly, consistently, it is obvious to his mind that God exists as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

Now, atheists don't use their reason to see the fact of God's existence.

 

What they do are evading the question and obstructing their reason so that their mind is self-deceived into the arrogance of saying that there is no evidence for God's existence.

 

When you ask them what is their concept of evidence, they will run away; in particular once they if at all give their definition of evidence they dare not give examples of evidence in accordance with their definition.

 

That shows that they are conspicuously aware though suppressing their awareness, that by their definition of evidence and examples of evidence, God will come forth certainly as existing, and the universe is the evidence.

 

That is their way of evading the fact of God's existence.

 

 

Now, next they obstruct their own reasoning faculty so perversely effectively that they themselves don't know that they are into obstructions of their reasoning faculty.

 

How?

 

Here is one very glaring perverse way of atheists' obstructing their reasoning faculty, by calling God a flying spaghetti monster.

 

Ask them what they know to be God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

 

To answer this question all they have to do is just to read the first verse of the Christian source book, the Bible:

 

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth."

[/b]

Gen. 1:1.

 

Then they can just consult the common creed of Christians, the Apostles' Creed, here is the first verse of the Apostles Creed:

 

"I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth."

[/b]

 

 

Why do they want to call God a flying spaghetti monster, and repeatedly in other ways like tooth fairy, or for Bertrand Russell the logician but ironically most self-deceitful of his own heart and mind (and his contemporaries saw him to be such all through and though), celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, and for some today's atheists, invisible pink unicorn?

 

The reason is because the concept of God as the creator of heaven and earth cannot be rebutted at all.

 

So they resort to making God sound ridiculous, but that is their perverse method of giving an appearance of rational discourse for the like of themselves, in order to obstruct their reason from seeing the obvious fact that God exists as creator of heaven and earth.

 

 

So, all atheists here, no longer anymore resort to evasions and obstructions, come forth with your definition of evidence and samples of evidence.

 

Then we can all work together to go forth into an expedition in reason to locate God the creator of heaven and earth, in the universe, which universe is my example of evidence, of evidence that points to the fact of God's existence.

 

 

What are you waiting for?

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

[Moontanman]

The title of this thread is:

 

God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God. #Post 1

4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM yrreg

 

 

 

 

What I see of atheists' socalled arguments against God is that they their socalled (fake) arguments are all evasions and obstructions.

 

The existence of God is obvious to human reason, so if a human uses his reason correctly, properly, honestly, consistently, it is obvious to his mind that God exists as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

Now, atheists don't use their reason to see the fact of God's existence.

 

What they do are evading the question and obstructing their reason so that their mind is self-deceived into the arrogance of saying that there is no evidence for God's existence.

 

When you ask them what is their concept of evidence, they will run away; in particular once they if at all give their definition of evidence they dare not give examples of evidence in accordance with their definition.

 

That shows that they are conspicuously aware though suppressing their awareness, that by their definition of evidence and examples of evidence, God will come forth certainly as existing, and the universe is the evidence.

 

That is their way of evading the fact of God's existence.

 

 

Now, next they obstruct their own reasoning faculty so perversely effectively that they themselves don't know that they are into obstructions of their reasoning faculty.

 

How?

 

Here is one very glaring perverse way of atheists' obstructing their reasoning faculty, by calling God a flying spaghetti monster.

 

Ask them what they know to be God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

 

To answer this question all they have to do is just to read the first verse of the Christian source book, the Bible:

 

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth."

[/b]

Gen. 1:1.

 

Then they can just consult the common creed of Christians, the Apostles' Creed, here is the first verse of the Apostles Creed:

 

"I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth."

[/b]

 

 

Why do they want to call God a flying spaghetti monster, and repeatedly in other ways like tooth fairy, or for Bertrand Russell the logician but ironically most self-deceitful of his own heart and mind (and his contemporaries saw him to be such all through and though), celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, and for some today's atheists, invisible pink unicorn?

 

The reason is because the concept of God as the creator of heaven and earth cannot be rebutted at all.

 

So they resort to making God sound ridiculous, but that is their perverse method of giving an appearance of rational discourse for the like of themselves, in order to obstruct their reason from seeing the obvious fact that God exists as creator of heaven and earth.

 

 

So, all atheists here, no longer anymore resort to evasions and obstructions, come forth with your definition of evidence and samples of evidence.

 

Then we can all work together to go forth into an expedition in reason to locate God the creator of heaven and earth, in the universe, which universe is my example of evidence, of evidence that points to the fact of God's existence.

 

 

What are you waiting for?

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

 

So you think first we need to assume the existence of a god... then it's your particular god.... then accept the words in a book that is demonstrably false... you can't show any evidence of a god or gods much less evidence of your god, in the absence of any positive evidence the default position is, "there are no gods... or magic... or spells... or supernatural powers... none"

 

you have made a positive assertion, please back it up or admit you cannot produce said evidence... and withdraw the assertion

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

yrreg, it is put up or shut up time. You are required to address the questions that have been asked of you in this thread with a proper answer instead of telling members that they are being flippant for asking them.

Do not respond to this modnote.

[John Cuthber]

Yrreg

You need to look very carefully at this

"The reason is because the concept of God as the creator of heaven and earth cannot be rebutted at all.

So they resort to making God sound ridiculous"

 

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 

If one looks at the idea of God and shows it to be ridiculous then actually that is a rebuttal of the existence (or, at least the nature) of God.

 

If you can't or won't see that then you are on the wrong forum.

[dimreepr]

 

So, atheists who demand evidence for God's existence, define what you mean by evidence, then theists can use your definition to present evidence for God's existence.

 

 

 

This is the definition of evidence in the Oxford English dictionary. Good luck in providing you're evidence btw.

 

noun

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

 

Law information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court: without evidence, they can't bring a charge

 

signs; indications: there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

 

 

And also tell everyone what is your concept of God, for everyone to see whether you have the correct concept of God; and just restrict yourselves to God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe: because that is the God that atheists are really opposed to or denying existence of, it is the reason why they atheists are into debates with Christians and not with other religions having also gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever.

 

 

I don't have a concept of God, of any sort, I'm an atheist.

 

 

To posters who are fond of just giving links, don't just give web references, produce the text you refer to, or better express the thought of the text you refer to in your own words.

 

Adopt this rule and practice: Give the gist of the text referred to, and then give the cite.

 

 

You don't get to decide the rules of the forum.

Edited March 11, 2012 by dimreepr

[imatfaal]

One last try...

 

So, it is obvious you do not have any solid thoughts of evidence as of universe that you understand genuinely what is evidence and what is the universe.

 

Otherwise for evidence you should be able to give examples of what is evidence as you have given the definition of evidence.

Antoine Lavoisier's experiments on burning that showed that burning is a combination with oxygen rather than a release of phlogiston - which fatally flawed the very old phlogiston theory of combustion. Robert Boyle's use of pumps to show an inverse relationship between pressure and volume of a gas. Galileo Galilei's observations of the moons of Jupiter to cast doubt on the notion of a geocentric universe.

 

And as for the universe you have not given any definition at all that comes from your own thinking and formulated in your own wording.

All matter, all energy, all space, and the physical laws of nature that govern it.

 

That says clearly that you do not understand at all what is the meaning of the thesis: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

This sounds like a get out clause - I understand your theory and have now jumped through a few hoops to prove it - time for you to pony up...

 

Back to your definition of evidence, the fact that you cannot or will not give examples of what is evidence, then it is conspicuous that you do not understand yourself what is your definition of evidence.

examples provided - point nullified

 

For by being bereft of any samples of evidence, you betray yourself to be without any authentic grasp, i.e., comprehension of what is evidence, notwithstanding that you do pour forth words to seek to impress people that you know what is evidence, namely: according to you evidence is:

But since you cannot bring forth examples of evidence, your definition of evidence is just all empty words.

That's a sweeping statement and getting close to an character assassination prelude to an ad hominem tu quoque argument. As I have provided a quick few famous examples of famous science experiments that lead to a change in the way we view the world due to the power of the evidence they entailed, I hope you will cease making character judgments.

 

Let me repeat:

For not being able to give examples of what is evidence, your definition of evidence is of no concrete relevancy to the world of actual objective existence, namely, that existence that is not founded on empty words alone.

In which case your definition of evidence makes up an utterance of vacuous words.

It wasn't that I was unable - rather I was unwilling. Now,in order to subvert your evasion, and because there is no need not to, I have given a few examples. No doubt you will find fault with these - you have to really, your argument has no internal merit and can only subsist while you are engaged in this debating class argument.

 

/snipped repeat of the same

 

The title of this thread is:

 

God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God. #Post 1

4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM yrreg

 

What I see of atheists' socalled arguments against God is that they their socalled (fake) arguments are all evasions and obstructions.

 

The existence of God is obvious to human reason, so if a human uses his reason correctly, properly, honestly, consistently, it is obvious to his mind that God exists as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

the use of reason, no matter how correctly used, is not evidence in and of itself (that by no means admits that you are using it correctly - you are not). I have now given a definition and examples of what I consider evidence - you must now do the same if you are expecting a scientific forum to accept a piece of reasoning to be evidence.

 

Now, atheists don't use their reason to see the fact of God's existence.

What they do are evading the question and obstructing their reason so that their mind is self-deceived into the arrogance of saying that there is no evidence for God's existence.

When you ask them what is their concept of evidence, they will run away; in particular once they if at all give their definition of evidence they dare not give examples of evidence in accordance with their definition.

That shows that they are conspicuously aware though suppressing their awareness, that by their definition of evidence and examples of evidence, God will come forth certainly as existing, and the universe is the evidence.

That is their way of evading the fact of God's existence.

Now, next they obstruct their own reasoning faculty so perversely effectively that they themselves don't know that they are into obstructions of their reasoning faculty.

No evidence in there, no logic; just assertions that you are correct and multiple contentions that atheists don't reason correctly.

 

How?

Here is one very glaring perverse way of atheists' obstructing their reasoning faculty, by calling God a flying spaghetti monster.

This not done to mock (well it is - but that is a side product) - the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used as a logical entity that without loss of logical or evidential clarity can be substituted for God in most arguments for the existence of God. Only when you can come up with an argument that uses either logic or observations to preclude the FSM will it stop being deployed in this manner - surely that would be easy?

 

Ask them what they know to be God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

To answer this question all they have to do is just to read the first verse of the Christian source book, the Bible:

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth."[/b] Gen. 1:1.

Then they can just consult the common creed of Christians, the Apostles' Creed, here is the first verse of the Apostles Creed:

"I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth."

[/b]

Why do they want to call God a flying spaghetti monster, and repeatedly in other ways like tooth fairy, or for Bertrand Russell the logician but ironically most self-deceitful of his own heart and mind (and his contemporaries saw him to be such all through and though), celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, and for some today's atheists, invisible pink unicorn?

The reason is because the concept of God as the creator of heaven and earth cannot be rebutted at all.

Quite right - it cannot be rebutted; because it is not a logical or falsifiable argument - it is a profession of faith. You are misunderstanding the whole concept of a rebuttable argument and the use that modern thinking post enlightenment makes of the concept of falsifiability.

 

So they resort to making God sound ridiculous, but that is their perverse method of giving an appearance of rational discourse for the like of themselves, in order to obstruct their reason from seeing the obvious fact that God exists as creator of heaven and earth.

Would you find it less ridiculous if we deleted FSM and replaced with Gaia and Uranus. Please try and show that G&U are not valid creators - or at least just as valid as the Judeo-Christian God.

 

So, all atheists here, no longer anymore resort to evasions and obstructions, come forth with your definition of evidence and samples of evidence.

Then we can all work together to go forth into an expedition in reason to locate God the creator of heaven and earth, in the universe, which universe is my example of evidence, of evidence that points to the fact of God's existence.

What are you waiting for?

Yrreg

Waiting for you to explain; what you believe evidence is, how the universe can be uniquely evidential for the existence of your God, how in fact the universe can be evidence of anything except its own existence.

 

\NB I have deleted many line breaks and gaps to make the over post a bit shorter

[yrreg]

 

yrreg, on 10 March 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

 

The title of this thread is:

 

God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God. #Post 1

4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM yrreg

 

[ Post #1 ] yrreg, on 4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

 

I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'.

 

So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question.

 

-----------------------

 

 

Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

 

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

 

 

What I see of atheists' socalled arguments against God is that they their socalled (fake) arguments are all evasions and obstructions.

 

The existence of God is obvious to human reason, so if a human uses his reason correctly, properly, honestly, consistently, it is obvious to his mind that God exists as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

Now, atheists don't use their reason to see the fact of God's existence.

 

What they do are evading the question and obstructing their reason so that their mind is self-deceived into the arrogance of saying that there is no evidence for God's existence.

 

When you ask them what is their concept of evidence, they will run away; in particular once they if at all give their definition of evidence they dare not give examples of evidence in accordance with their definition.

 

That shows that they are conspicuously aware though suppressing their awareness, that by their definition of evidence and examples of evidence, God will come forth certainly as existing, and the universe is the evidence.

 

That is their way of evading the fact of God's existence.

 

 

Now, next they obstruct their own reasoning faculty so perversely effectively that they themselves don't know that they are into obstructions of their reasoning faculty.

 

How?

 

Here is one very glaring perverse way of atheists' obstructing their reasoning faculty, by calling God a flying spaghetti monster.

 

Ask them what they know to be God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

 

To answer this question all they have to do is just to read the first verse of the Christian source book, the Bible:

 

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Gen. 1:1.

 

 

Then they can just consult the common creed of Christians, the Apostles' Creed, here is the first verse of the Apostles Creed:

 

"I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth."

 

 

Why do they want to call God a flying spaghetti monster, and repeatedly in other ways like tooth fairy, or for Bertrand Russell the logician but ironically most self-deceitful of his own heart and mind (and his contemporaries saw him to be such all through and though), celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, and for some today's atheists, invisible pink unicorn?

 

The reason is because the concept of God as the creator of heaven and earth cannot be rebutted at all.

 

So they resort to making God sound ridiculous, but that is their perverse method of giving an appearance of rational discourse for the like of themselves, in order to obstruct their reason from seeing the obvious fact that God exists as creator of heaven and earth.

 

 

So, all atheists here, no longer anymore resort to evasions and obstructions, come forth with your definition of evidence and samples of evidence.

 

Then we can all work together to go forth into an expedition in reason to locate God the creator of heaven and earth, in the universe, which universe is my example of evidence, of evidence that points to the fact of God's existence.

 

 

What are you waiting for?

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

 

So you think first we need to assume the existence of a god... then it's your particular god.... then accept the words in a book that is demonstrably false... you can't show any evidence of a god or gods much less evidence of your god, in the absence of any positive evidence the default position is, "there are no gods... or magic... or spells... or supernatural powers... none"

 

you have made a positive assertion, please back it up or admit you cannot produce said evidence... and withdraw the assertion

 

 

 

 

Dear Mountanman:

 

You accuse me of assuming the existence of God.

 

Have you read my message in post #1, reproduced several times already, and now again above?

 

Here, I am not assuming the existence of God, but I have solid reasoning to present my claim that God exists, read the following from post #1.

 

Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

 

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

 

 

Okay, Mountanman, tell which is an assumption of the two statements below, namely, not founded on any rational basis at all:

 

A. A teapot orbits the sun between earth and Mars.

 

B. God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

 

 

 

Please stay with me, don't go away; for I have the opportunity with you to come to the expedition to search for God in the realm of actual objective existing things, instead of talking uselessly in the realm of concepts and words and not coming to the reality of actual objective existing things.

 

 

 

----------------------

 

 

Dear readers here, I fear Mountanman will leave me.

 

 

 

-----------------------

 

 

Back to Mountanman:

 

Let me see if you can do really genuine serious and productive thinking:

 

Tell me from your stock knowledge of things what is your concept of evidence and give two examples of evidence.

 

Do your own thinking from your stock knowledge, instead of going to the dictionaries for which you are then dependent on other people's thinking because you are not accustomed to do self-thinking, and also don't repeat the lies of your master atheists who write voluminously to manipulate concepts and words when they can say in few substantial terms why they deny the existence of God, starting with a presentation of what is their concept of God as they are acquainted with the information of what is God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

 

Their voluminous writings all come down to nothing but just shouting repeatedly that God does not exist because for them He is a flying spaghetti monster.

 

They feel that they have proven thus the non-existence of God.

 

Like a socalled modern 19th century Western philosopher (who at the end of his days was kept in an insane asylum) shouting all the time and writing voluminously that God is dead, with nothing else except that shout, God is dead; and thereby he came to feel so certain that he had proven God is dead, and his admirers even today are like him, shouting God is dead; or for the like of hopefully not you, Mountanman (but you are close), but self-shuttered up atheists shouting repeatedly, God is a flying spaghetti monster: and wherefore they have proven to themselves, their shallow selves that is, that there is no God because God is a flying spaghetti monster.

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

Okay, to everyone here who is denying that God exists:

 

Please first give your concept of God as you know it to be in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

 

------------------

 

For posters who have given a concept of what is evidence, please give two examples of evidence.

 

I am sorry if you have given two examples, but you must also explain how the two examples you give if any at all I mean of examples, are illustrations and actual instances of what is evidence as per your own concept or adopted from other sources of what is evidence.

 

-----------------

 

Now, for everyone who wants me to prove that God exists in the actual objective reality of existing things like the nose in our face and the ground where we are standing on, here it is:

 

Before anything else, the concept of God in the Christian faith is that God is the creator of everything with a beginning, which is everything in the universe that is not God.

 

Okay, here are the step by step expatiation of the proof of God's existence in the actual objective realm of existing things.

 

A. You and I we exist.

B. We have a beginning.

C. Before our beginning we did not exist.

D. Using my actual and your actual existing reasoning faculty,

E. We transit to the actual objective existence of God.

F. Why? Because without God we would not be here writing in this forum.

 

 

For you who deny the existence of God, what is your proof?

 

---------------------

 

I will just say in closing this message: that the existence of God as per the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe is obvious to the functional reason of man.

 

That statement is what I call an "obviosity" to the honestly functional reason of man.

 

 

You cannot accept that?

 

We will see, how you can and thus should accept that.

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

I notice that in this forum when I write another post soon after posting a preceding one, the latter one is appended to the preceding one, so that it appears that there is one post instead of two separate posts.

 

Well, I have come across such an arrangement in only one other forum I have been to.

 

It is all right though, no trouble with me.

 

 

But the fact in actual objective reality is that I wrote two posts, one intended for Mountanman, and the other afterwards as a post directed to anyone whom I could not be directing myself individually to each of you who have contributed a reply to my thoughts.

 

You see, I am only one poster, and you are several; so my practice is to choose one who is in need of special attention because he has more interesting ideas, whereas others have what I call already time and again rehashed materials.

 

 

But of course my judgment of what is original or more interesting materials and what are rehashed materials is not beyond challenge.

 

 

 

Yrreg

[Moontanman]

Yrreg, so far you have shown nothing but totally unsupported assertions about what you think about god, you cannot support the assumption of any god or gods much less the assumption that your own god exists. To be completely honest your god, if he is real, is not worthy of my worship, as described in your holy book he is a psychopathic monster.

 

If your god exists then the universe is nothing but a machine built to make humans suffer by lies and confusion followed by punishment for not being able to follow horrific rules designed to make sure we fail.

 

You are either willfully ignorant or far to brain washed to see your error. i think someone on this forum described religion as being the same as "Stockholm Syndrome"

 

I do not reject god, I see no reason to believe in god, no evidence for god, no reason what so ever to live my life by rules that are laid down by an insane individual that benefit only those in power.

 

Show me some real verifiable evidence for god, he could easily show his existence to everyone, the bible is full of stuff he supposedly did for bronze age sheep shaggers, why can't he show himself to us now in a verifiable way? I honestly feel bad for you, you obviously are not stupid, you do have the necessarily skills to learn but you choose to worship a god who's very existence defies reality and requires we ignore the evidence all around us in favor of a book that is nothing but legends about what people 3500 years ago though about god. We must also ignore what every one else has written and or imagined about god, some of those writings are far older and far more complex than the drivel you believe in, why not them? Why the one you are pimping out? Or to be more accurate is pimping out you?

[imatfaal]

\snipped

Okay, Mountanman, tell which is an assumption of the two statements below, namely, not founded on any rational basis at all:

 

A. A teapot orbits the sun between earth and Mars.

 

B. God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

 

Please stay with me, don't go away; for I have the opportunity with you to come to the expedition to search for God in the realm of actual objective existing things, instead of talking uselessly in the realm of concepts and words and not coming to the reality of actual objective existing things.

Well A is founded on a very rational basis as an artifice to show the lack of evidential basis for assertions of faith. B is an assertion of faith.

 

Dear readers here, I fear Mountanman will leave me.

Wouldn't bet on that.

 

Back to Mountanman:

 

Let me see if you can do really genuine serious and productive thinking:

 

Tell me from your stock knowledge of things what is your concept of evidence and give two examples of evidence.

I think we are all waiting for you to do the same. Are you ignoring the posts which have done this?

 

Do your own thinking from your stock knowledge, instead of going to the dictionaries for which you are then dependent on other people's thinking because you are not accustomed to do self-thinking, and also don't repeat the lies of your master atheists who write voluminously to manipulate concepts and words when they can say in few substantial terms why they deny the existence of God, starting with a presentation of what is their concept of God as they are acquainted with the information of what is God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Ok so no dictionaries (bit anti-enlightenment that concept - but then religion was so much more powerful in the ancien regime, so it's understandable).

 

Their voluminous writings all come down to nothing but just shouting repeatedly that God does not exist because for them He is a flying spaghetti monster.

I do hope this is an attempt to ridicule - otherwise it would seem that you still don't understand the utility of the argument.

 

They feel that they have proven thus the non-existence of God.

Only the most naive rationalist would think that - mainly because anyone with even a passing acquaintance with logic and philosophy will know the futility of trying to prove the non-existence of anything. What the argument shows is the flaws in your positive argument - this is not the same thing.

 

Like a socalled modern 19th century Western philosopher (who at the end of his days was kept in an insane asylum) shouting all the time and writing voluminously that God is dead, with nothing else except that shout, God is dead; and thereby he came to feel so certain that he had proven God is dead, and his admirers even today are like him, shouting God is dead; or for the like of hopefully not you, Mountanman (but you are close), but self-shuttered up atheists shouting repeatedly, God is a flying spaghetti monster: and wherefore they have proven to themselves, their shallow selves that is, that there is no God because God is a flying spaghetti monster.

Yrreg

Your description of Nietzsche's mental illness and death is quite incorrect - and the spirit of Christian charity is certainly lacking in the subtext glorifying in a man's collapse into mental suffering

 

Okay, to everyone here who is denying that God exists:

Please first give your concept of God as you know it to be in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

So you are erecting another hurdle? Firstly, we are questioning your evidence that God exists - not the same thing at all. Secondly, the existence or non-existence of supernatural beings that are able to transcend the laws of nature can be debated within or without Christian theology; the demonstration of a working knowledge of Christian dogma cannot be an entry requirement. The Christian God is usually creditted with such attributes as uniqueness, eternal and infinite presence; all the omni.s; unchanging, constant, and ineffable - yet loving and caring; supernatural and beyond the human world.

 

For posters who have given a concept of what is evidence, please give two examples of evidence.

I am sorry if you have given two examples, but you must also explain how the two examples you give if any at all I mean of examples, are illustrations and actual instances of what is evidence as per your own concept or adopted from other sources of what is evidence.

Done - "put up or shut up time"

 

Now, for everyone who wants me to prove that God exists in the actual objective reality of existing things like the nose in our face and the ground where we are standing on, here it is:

 

Before anything else, the concept of God in the Christian faith is that God is the creator of everything with a beginning, which is everything in the universe that is not God.

 

Okay, here are the step by step expatiation of the proof of God's existence in the actual objective realm of existing things.

 

A. You and I we exist.

B. We have a beginning.

C. Before our beginning we did not exist.

D. Using my actual and your actual existing reasoning faculty,

E. We transit to the actual objective existence of God.

F. Why? Because without God we would not be here writing in this forum.

So this is what we have been waiting for - excellent. What a let down - A thru E are superfluous; they do not impact on the validity of F at all. F is a blank and unsupported assertion of a truth.

 

For you who deny the existence of God, what is your proof?

Again (for the umpteenth time) this thread is about your proof that God exists - not trying that impossible task of proving non-existence.

 

I will just say in closing this message: that the existence of God as per the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe is obvious to the functional reason of man.

 

That statement is what I call an "obviosity" to the honestly functional reason of man.

So why has the Christian God not sprung up from the pursuit of pure reason before the arrival of Christian Missionaries? The Far East, the Americas, even Northern Europe were far removed from the nascent faith for hundreds of years - yet none of these civilizations came up with the notion of the Christian God or even a dominant form of monotheism.

 

You cannot accept that?

We will see, how you can and thus should accept that.

You see, I am only one poster, and you are several; so my practice is to choose one who is in need of special attention because he has more interesting ideas, whereas others have what I call already time and again rehashed materials.

It's frightfully good of you to give special attention to those that need it. I presume that I am past praying for and have had time called - I guess that's cos I called your bluff and jumped the hurdles you have erected.

 

But of course my judgment of what is original or more interesting materials and what are rehashed materials is not beyond challenge.

Yrreg

No Kidding!

[iNow]

You are either willfully ignorant or far to brain washed to see your error. i think someone on this forum described religion as being the same as "Stockholm Syndrome"

Peoples defense of religion, not religion itself.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/49678-defense-of-religion-is-it-ultimately-just-a-form-of-stockholm-syndrome

[zorro]

The inquisition upside down. Now it is pseudo science Papals lashing an religionist intelligent design folks.

 

LOS ANGELES — A computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is going to court over allegations that he was wrongfully terminated because of his belief in intelligent design.

http://www.msnbc.msn...e/#.T197r3ic-uQ

Edited March 13, 2012 by zorro

[dimreepr]

The inquisition upside down. Now it is pseudo science Papals lashing an religionist intelligent design folks.

 

LOS ANGELES — A computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is going to court over allegations that he was wrongfully terminated because of his belief in intelligent design.

http://www.msnbc.msn...e/#.T197r3ic-uQ

 

 

I’m sorry what exactly is your point here? Even God has had his day in court (not literally) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Yrreg,

do you really not understand the contradiction in saying

"Here, I am not assuming the existence of God, but I have solid reasoning to present my claim that God exists, read the following from post #1.

Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself."

?

Ascribing any property to God - for example that " He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself." implies that you assume He exists.

 

So the first thing you do is assume there is a God.

Then you try to deny that you did so.

 

Did you think we wouldn't notice?

[zapatos]

The inquisition upside down. Now it is pseudo science Papals lashing an religionist intelligent design folks.

 

LOS ANGELES — A computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is going to court over allegations that he was wrongfully terminated because of his belief in intelligent design.

http://www.msnbc.msn...e/#.T197r3ic-uQ

Yeah, let's see how they like it for a change.

[Appolinaria]

The inquisition upside down. Now it is pseudo science Papals lashing an religionist intelligent design folks.

 

LOS ANGELES — A computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is going to court over allegations that he was wrongfully terminated because of his belief in intelligent design.

http://www.msnbc.msn...e/#.T197r3ic-uQ

 

Honestly, that's not cool. He was there 15 years!? His personal beliefs should not in any way affect his job at NASA.

 

I guess he was "harassing" his coworkers, though. So I'm sure there's a lot more to the story.

[Moontanman]

Honestly, that's not cool. He was there 15 years!? His personal beliefs should not in any way affect his job at NASA.

 

I guess he was "harassing" his coworkers, though. So I'm sure there's a lot more to the story.

 

 

Honestly, if he is too stupid to understand science what is he doing working at NASA to begin with and if he is not smart enough to keep that bullshit to himself then he needs a reality check. If your religion requires that you believe things that are either stupidly wrong and anti what ever it is you are doing then you shouldn't be doing it. Like letting a NAZI work at a Jewish school or something. He might have a right to his "beliefs" but if there is a conflict of interest between his beliefs and his job then he should look for a new job...

 

To be honest I am a bit tired of theist bullshit artists who think everyone owes their particular fairy tale some kind of automatic respect.

[iNow]

Honestly, that's not cool. He was there 15 years!? His personal beliefs should not in any way affect his job at NASA.

 

I guess he was "harassing" his coworkers, though. So I'm sure there's a lot more to the story.

Of course there is more to the story. If by "more" you mean he was let go after the mission he was working on drew to a close and his written and verbal warnings continually went unheeded.

 

http://www.space.com/14868-nasa-employee-lawsuit-intelligent-design.html

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/203966/intelligent-design-lawsuit-involving-fired-nasa-scientist-begins-today/

[Villain]

Peoples defense of religion, not religion itself.

 

http://www.sciencefo...ckholm-syndrome

 

Didn't want to reopen such an old thread, but I think Stockholm Syndrome could quite easily be explained as a withdrawal from large amounts of adrenaline and other euphoric chemicals produce while in a life or death experience. These exhilarations get subconsciously attributed to the people holding them captive, much like how a drug addict craves his fix and therefore will do anything to get it even though the long term effects are negative. I don't however think that the religious relation would give off high enough amounts of these chemicals to be considered in the same way.

 

Sorry for leaving the overall topic of the thread but I'm not sure of the normal protocol when such an old thread is referred to.