Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Roy Perry

some of you make the Claim there is no God

193 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hammerclaw

:no: Trust me you don't want to try and read my posts if I don't edit them. I'm not sure what you are insinuating? Are you suggesting I am changing my arguments? Are you still attempting to make this about me.

You posted an article about athe holographic principal. Did you not?

Here I'll follow the links to the pdf for you.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf

Seriously, I don't think you are intersted in discussing the subject matter. Which actually speaks to a point I mentioned earlyier in this thread. So unless you you actually have something to contribute to the conversation I am not going to continue to defend insinuations about me personally I'm not intersted in playing with trolls.

Oh, no. Go on posting your gobbledygook of pseudoscience and look even more foolish. I don't care. :clap:
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Oh, no. Go on posting your gobbledygook of pseudoscience and look even more foolish. I don't care. :clap:

You havent addressed anything. Nothing I have suggested is psudoscience. That's simply another emotional term those of your ilk throw around to avoid actually debating anything. Add an ad hominem and repeat. Typical. Yes it's evident that you don't care otherwise you would address the arguments not the person.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Well, if you want to debate, let us hear the ideas of a simulated, holographic or what term for it is currently in vogue, universe from the man who wrote the paper. I think he would be rather bemused by the way you're using his concepts.

Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Well, if you want to debate, let us hear the ideas of a simulated, holographic or what term for it is currently in vogue, universe from the man who wrote the paper. I think he would be rather bemused by the way you're using his concepts.

Cool now we are getting somwhere. I'll take some time and go over the entire video latter tonight it's like an hour long. So what is your argument. Are you saying that the evidences that we have of pixilation is pseudoscience? You are not being very clear about what you are trying to argue? Using rely on one source. A single man did not come up with the entire idea there are many.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Well, if you want to debate, let us hear the ideas of a simulated, holographic or what term for it is currently in vogue, universe from the man who wrote the paper. I think he would be rather bemused by the way you're using his concepts.

Excellent find Hammer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Cool now we are getting somwhere. I'll take some time and go over the entire video latter tonight it's like an hour long. So what is your argument. Are you saying that the evidences that we have of pixilation is pseudoscience? You are not being very clear about what you are trying to argue?

The simulation is based on a model of a hypothetical string-theory universe, not the real one. A model is only as accurate and complete as the information put into it. Thus, the science of physics and quantum mechanics are always in flux as new information is input. Your elaborate house of cards falls to pieces under scrutiny.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Oh, I could care less about how he would be mused. That's dosnt concern me. I'm concerned if reality is pixilated or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I don't think there is an accepted way; I think there are good reasons and not so good reasons, and I am open to hearing them and at times hashing it out, marshaling it out, refining. Many a good point has been made via a lot of ways.

That is the philosophical view point within you. A scientific viewpoint would be slightly but significantly different . For example, not based on reasons but on evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

The simulation is based on a model of a hypothetical string-theory universe, not the real one. A model is only as accurate and complete as the information put into it. Thus, the science of physics and quantum mechanics are always in flux as new information is input. Your elaborate house of cards falls to pieces under scrutiny.

There is no house of cards. I could care less about string theory at the moment though that does play a bit latter. Nor do I base my arguments on a single concept. If you pay attention there are multiple things from statistical probabilities, to quantum mechanics, to some of the material presented there, that suggest that it's likely we live In a simulation. I already mentioned them. That paper is just one peice of the puzzle to offer some support of one place. And I still don't understand your argument. Are you saying that because string theory is still being worked out and a strong version not proven yet, that it collapses my house of cards? Your not making any sense. Did you even read that I am suggesting likleyhods based on available information or are you only reading absolutes into my assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Provide some of this evidence, then. And while you're at it, be proud that you've done something that no other human has ever been able to do. Go on, I'll wait.

To address the second part of your post, I am not one of those atheists. If evidence surfaced proving a deity, I'd accept it. If an entity appeared and demonstraby could violate a basic universal law (entropy, conservation of mass, etc) then I would accept it. Nothing of the sort has happened yet, however.

"We" have ALL presented the evidences which convinced us of "gods" existence or of other supernatural paranormal realities. Eg the abilty to touch see and hear. The contextual interaction of a entity with thh rest of the surrounding solid reality The existence of witnesses The physical changes created, the information provided, and the accurate prediction of future events.

You and others chose not to believe or accept them coming for "us" That is normal because we ALL take the truth of every thing we do not personally experience, on faith from others. LAck faith in the other and you wont acceptt their evidences.

If you have exaclty the same evidences that a god is sitting beside you, as you do that a dog is sitting beside you, then the same evidences are equally compelling. Either both are real and solid, or neither can be.

And how would you know,if that entity was " violating a basic universal law", (who says gravity is a universal constant, by the way?) that it was not doing so by the application of advanced technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

There is no house of cards. I could care less about string theory at the moment though that does play a bit latter. Nor do I base my arguments on a single concept. If you pay attention there are multiple things from statistical probabilities, to quantum mechanics, to some of the material presented there, that suggest that it's likely we live In a simulation. I already mentioned them. That paper is just one peice of the puzzle to offer some support of one place. And I still don't understand your argument. Are you saying that because string theory is still being worked out and a strong version not proven yet, that it collapses my house of cards? Your not making any sense. Did you even read that I am suggesting likleyhods based on available information or are you only reading absolutes into my assertions.

I'm saying you are espousing speculation based on an unproven and mostly discredited hypothesis as though it were fact. Where will you take this specious argument? Are laying the groundwork for bringing the Omphalos Hypothesis into the discussion as well? By the way, the phrase is "I coudn't care less." Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

From this reply I actually think we agree. I don't argue that there isn't any evidence for a creator species, or us living in a simulation. I think it is highly unlikely and far (faaar) from fact, but possible. I argue there is no evidence for an all-powerful god, which most religions profess to follow, and which you seem to agree with. You're using the term "god" to mean anything that isn't life being created on its own, which is where we're losing each other.

Indeed. There is no god if you define god too precisely and construct a deity which is physically impossible, but there is a god, or many gods, if you loosen that description.

Some argue that because they are real they cannot be gods I don't accept that. Humans label things as they will for the purpose of classification and communication . If a real zeus materialised in my back yard or a real Ra or Horus, I'd accept that they were gods. The "god" i know is not really the same as the Christian version, but is close enough for me to see how it was perceived and interpreted as the Christian version. It is an evolved entity or a construct of the universe, not the creator of the universe. It is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, (no self aware consciousness can achieve that state due to the relationship between self aware consciousness and the universe around it ) although in human terms it can appear to be so because we really have limited knowledge and understanding at this point in our evolution..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

The simulation is based on a model of a hypothetical string-theory universe, not the real one. A model is only as accurate and complete as the information put into it. Thus, the science of physics and quantum mechanics are always in flux as new information is input. Your elaborate house of cards falls to pieces under scrutiny.

Um, then what is "the real one" and how do you know the model is not accurate? Modern mathematics combined with what we know scientifically about the component elements of the universe almost proves mathematically that the universe must be a multi verse, if the maths and our current knowledge is correct. So should one accept that modelling or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

"We" have ALL presented the evidences which convinced us of "gods" existence or of other supernatural paranormal realities. Eg the abilty to touch see and hear. The contextual interaction of a entity with thh rest of the surrounding solid reality The existence of witnesses The physical changes created, the information provided, and the accurate prediction of future events.

You and others chose not to believe or accept them coming for "us" That is normal because we ALL take the truth of every thing we do not personally experience, on faith from others. LAck faith in the other and you wont acceptt their evidences.

If you have exaclty the same evidences that a god is sitting beside you, as you do that a dog is sitting beside you, then the same evidences are equally compelling. Either both are real and solid, or neither can be.

And how would you know,if that entity was " violating a basic universal law", (who says gravity is a universal constant, by the way?) that it was not doing so by the application of advanced technology.

You know, sometimes I think you're just obtuse, but then you say something like the bolded statement and I realize that you're so far off of the deep end that you're drowning in your own weirdness. If there was equal amount of evidence of a deity sitting next to me as there was a dog chillin' next to me, then obviously the deity would be real. However, there isn't, and hasn't been, and nobody has ever been able to prove a situation like that. But, if Shiva decided to stop by for lunch with his dog, I'm cool with accepting him as my lord and saviour and lunch buddy.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I'm saying you are espousing speculation based on an unproven and mostly discredited hypothesis as though it were fact. Where will you take this specious argument? Are laying the groundwork for bringing the Omphalos Hypothesis into the discussion as well? By the way, the phrase is "I coudn't care less."

I watched the whole video, and you are correct as is Podo, we know very little at this point, we are at current looking for a simulation signature and this is even if it exists and this is contingent on there is so much we don't know.

Which seems to be appropriate when a study starts out by saying hypothesis.

Then, financially it is very expensive, it is interesting though, just not fruitful at this point.

If I am understanding this correctly, and if not your feedback is appreciated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

You know, sometimes I think you're just obtuse, but then you say something like the bolded statement and I realize that you're so far off of the deep end that you're drowning in your own weirdness. If there was equal amount of evidence of a deity sitting next to me as there was a dog chillin' next to me, then obviously the deity would be real. However, there isn't, and hasn't been, and nobody has ever been able to prove a situation like that. But, if Shiva decided to stop by for lunch with his dog, I'm cool with accepting him as my lord and saviour and lunch buddy.

Yep .... that was a typical 'walkies' .... and when you bust him ( like I did ) and present the evidence ...... he just pretends the post was never made ... and carries on as usual , ignoring all previous points that have defeated him.

:su

But we know 49.gif

Um, then what is "the real one" and how do you know the model is not accurate? Modern mathematics combined with what we know scientifically about the component elements of the universe almost proves mathematically that the universe must be a multi verse, if the maths and our current knowledge is correct. So should one accept that modelling or not?

No.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

You know, sometimes I think you're just obtuse, but then you say something like the bolded statement and I realize that you're so far off of the deep end that you're drowning in your own weirdness. If there was equal amount of evidence of a deity sitting next to me as there was a dog chillin' next to me, then obviously the deity would be real. However, there isn't, and hasn't been, and nobody has ever been able to prove a situation like that. But, if Shiva decided to stop by for lunch with his dog, I'm cool with accepting him as my lord and saviour and lunch buddy.

yes but what if a giant SM leather clad space octopus had lunch with you ..... ior what if

:D

The other day he said God can be real even if he is imaginary ( to try and escape from trap he stepped into )

So I guess that means he thinks anything can be real if it is imaginary, or able to be imagined ( like God sitting next to you like a dog ... or a 3 breasted space chick ) ....

... after that comment, his whole wall of posts just crumbled ... since he spent so much time over the last few months in acrobatics trying to convince us he has 'reality checks' and logic and all his past learning behind him and psych check ups to affirm he is all fine ..... to convince us he knows the difference between reality and imagination.

and then he goes and writes ; an imaginary God can be a real God (and admonish me for my uneducatedness for not being able to realise that :-* )

stay tune for further acrobatics as he tries to wiggle out of this one ! (It will either be Podo's fault, or mine of course ;) )

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

yes but what if a giant SM leather clad space octopus had lunch with you ..... ior what if

:D

The other day he said God can be real even if he is imaginary ( to try and escape from trap he stepped into )

So I guess that means he thinks anything can be real if it is imaginary, or able to be imagined ( like God sitting next to you like a dog ... or a 3 breasted space chick ) ....

... after that comment, his whole wall of posts just crumbled ... since he spent so much time over the last few months in acrobatics trying to convince us he has 'reality checks' and logic and all his past learning behind him and psych check ups to affirm he is all fine ..... to convince us he knows the difference between reality and imagination.

and then he goes and writes ; an imaginary God can be a real God (and admonish me for my uneducatedness for not being able to realise that :-* )

stay tune for further acrobatics as he tries to wiggle out of this one ! (It will either be Podo's fault, or mine of course ;) )

Everything is Podo's fault! That guy sucks! :tu:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

You know, sometimes I think you're just obtuse, but then you say something like the bolded statement and I realize that you're so far off of the deep end that you're drowning in your own weirdness. If there was equal amount of evidence of a deity sitting next to me as there was a dog chillin' next to me, then obviously the deity would be real. However, there isn't, and hasn't been, and nobody has ever been able to prove a situation like that. But, if Shiva decided to stop by for lunch with his dog, I'm cool with accepting him as my lord and saviour and lunch buddy.

You see that is a pov or belief which has evolved from your own personal experiences It is fair enough but you cant apply it to other people with different experiences. Just because you have not encountered god does NOT mean god does not exist, or thatt others cannot encounter "god". Cant you GET that.? I wonder what you would do if a real and physical god manifested before you and physically changed you, then set up an ongoing relationship with itself HOw would YOU adapt and cope?

But at least you recognise that, IF the evidences are equal, then the reality is equal.

I hope if it ever does happen to you you are cool. I wasnt cool i was both disbelieving and petrified I thought i was going to die. It took me years of experience and study to accept and understand and adapt myself to living with a real and powerful god and learn how to comprehend and work with it. . I was a total atheist right up until the first time god manifested, and it took many more manifestations and time for me to accept and evolve my understanding of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

yes but what if a giant SM leather clad space octopus had lunch with you ..... ior what if

:D

The other day he said God can be real even if he is imaginary ( to try and escape from trap he stepped into )

So I guess that means he thinks anything can be real if it is imaginary, or able to be imagined ( like God sitting next to you like a dog ... or a 3 breasted space chick ) ....

... after that comment, his whole wall of posts just crumbled ... since he spent so much time over the last few months in acrobatics trying to convince us he has 'reality checks' and logic and all his past learning behind him and psych check ups to affirm he is all fine ..... to convince us he knows the difference between reality and imagination.

and then he goes and writes ; an imaginary God can be a real God (and admonish me for my uneducatedness for not being able to realise that :-* )

stay tune for further acrobatics as he tries to wiggle out of this one ! (It will either be Podo's fault, or mine of course ;) )

But this is true And yes you are too limited in understanding to comprehend it/ What is "real"? if we imagine a deity and then live as if that deity is real we act and shape ourselves (and the world around us) exactly the same as if the deity had physical independent reality That god is as real and physical as my love for my wife is real and physical The god exists in our mind as electro chemical impulses, stored memories etc It is just as real and powerful as many other things like love or hate or fear.

/BUT that is a different form of a "real" god, to one which has its OWN independent physical existence, which a human perceives and interacts with, as we do with a dog, for example.

Think of two people One has an imaginary dog which they act with as IF it was real The other has a real dog. If you observe their behaviours and relationships with the dogs you wil notice many similarities and a few obvious differences the real/physical dog is much more expensive to keep, for example But both gain the same things and give the same things .

Indeed both gain th psychologicla and physicla wel being and longevity associated with peole wo keep dogs as companions.

The only problem would be if the person with the "real" imaginary dog did not realise what they were doing in constructing an imaginary dog, and thought it was a physically independent dog thus buying food for it and worrying why it didn't eat the food. But equally if the person with the real "physical" dog didn't realise it was real and thus didn't feed it, that would be sad.

My logic is impeccable and correct i do not back track or alter my world view, which i have held for decades. It is your failure to be able to comprehend which causes you to think or see as you do.

Ps i asked first. What WOULD you do IF you encountered an entity with all the characteristics of a god? It is a question worth considering before it happens. as is what you would do if you encountered a ghost or an alien or a SM clad octopus in an amorous mood.

Probably too much information, but your post conjured up a memory of a girl i knew in the late sixties. She loved leather gear, and although she only had two hands it often seemed like she had eight. She wasn't a space chick but she was spacey.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

You see that is a pov or belief which has evolved from your own personal experiences It is fair enough but you cant apply it to other people with different experiences. Just because you have not encountered god does NOT mean god does not exist, or thatt others cannot encounter "god". Cant you GET that.? I wonder what you would do if a real and physical god manifested before you and physically changed you, then set up an ongoing relationship with itself HOw would YOU adapt and cope?

But at least you recognise that, IF the evidences are equal, then the reality is equal.

I hope if it ever does happen to you you are cool. I wasnt cool i was both disbelieving and petrified I thought i was going to die. It took me years of experience and study to accept and understand and adapt myself to living with a real and powerful god and learn how to comprehend and work with it. . I was a total atheist right up until the first time god manifested, and it took many more manifestations and time for me to accept and evolve my understanding of the universe.

It is not my "personal experience" to say that there is no empirical proof of a deity. There is, flatly, no empirical proof of a deity. There is no hard evidence, no train of clues to be followed with a conclusion laying at the end. There just isn't. We've been through this, you and I, as well as others, but your head is lodged so solidly in your own ass that you just ignore it. Even IF shiva has appeared in someone's kitchen for lunch, if the kitchen owner did not gather any proof, THERE IS STILL NO PROOF. If someone has said proof, but has not made it known or revealed it to the world, there FUNCTIONALLY is no proof. Observation, no matter how true, is not proof. Anecdotal evidence, no matter how legitimate, is not proof. Proof of a thing and the reality of a thing are entirely different, and whenever you decide to figure that out is the day you might start being taken seriously.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

When are people going to learn

That guess was nice but that all it was a guess

even I saw through that guess

with my poor grammar I know it is a waste of time to try to prove something that you cannot see

just like it a waste to unproved it too

Love Roy

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

When are people going to learn

That guess was nice but that all it was a guess

even I saw through that guess

with my poor grammar I know it is a waste of time to try to prove something that you cannot see

just like it a waste to unproved it too

Love Roy

It's not a waste of time Roy and its not a guess. It's a consideration of the avaialable evidence. No one suggested proof. Somone asked for evidence.

We don't know if the existance for God/gods is provable or not. It's lazy to assum it's not and throw up our hands. We have and will never get anywhere that way. If they do exist, then they are provable. It's like saying what can be invent d has been. We know now that that is seriously wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

It is not my "personal experience" to say that there is no empirical proof of a deity. There is, flatly, no empirical proof of a deity. There is no hard evidence, no train of clues to be followed with a conclusion laying at the end. There just isn't. We've been through this, you and I, as well as others, but your head is lodged so solidly in your own ass that you just ignore it. Even IF shiva has appeared in someone's kitchen for lunch, if the kitchen owner did not gather any proof, THERE IS STILL NO PROOF. If someone has said proof, but has not made it known or revealed it to the world, there FUNCTIONALLY is no proof. Observation, no matter how true, is not proof. Anecdotal evidence, no matter how legitimate, is not proof. Proof of a thing and the reality of a thing are entirely different, and whenever you decide to figure that out is the day you might start being taken seriously.

LOl had htis answred and our kitten walked on the keyboard and wiped it

There is no or little TRANSFERABLE empirical proof for the existence of god but millions of humans have personal empirical (evidence based ) proof for the existence of entities we call gods. You struggle to believe this because it hasn't happened with you as yet.

It is almost impossible to provide empirical proofs of ANY claimed personal experience to another.

Suppose i encounter an alien being one night.It transmats down in front of me gives me some advice, tells me it has cured a disease i had and then transmats away.

OR suppose that, for tea last night I had roast chicken, and roast; potato, pumpkin, turnip, zucchini, onion, eggplant, and carrots, along with baby peas in gravy.

How can i prove this occurred to others who were not present? It helps if there were witnesses. It helps if the cure can be medically verified It helps if the advice the alien gave me proves to be true and i was right to move out from under the meteor impact zone. BUT There is no way i can prove using empirical and transferable evidences that such an experience occurred, to a third person Heck i cant prove to you what i ate for tea last night. You will just have to believe me (or not)

Not even photo or videos would be convincing evidences to one who chose not to believe. Some things HAVE to be experienced to be known/ believed.

Proof and evidences are fixed factors They can exist in the experience of ONE person and still be proofs and evidences. An individual can use proofs and evidences to absolutely establish the existence of something. it is NOT necessary for more than one person to have proofs and evidences for that thing to be true/real

An individual must use proofs and evidences to ascertain knowledge of anything We can transfer that knowledge so that others can experiment and gain the same proofs and knowledge, OR we can chose to believe what others tell us is true.

I KNOW water is wet, because i have experienced it I believe mt everest is 8848 metres above sea level, because THAT is what experts tell me, and i have faith in their expertise, But i can't know it to be so until I measure and confirm it for myself

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

LOl had htis answred and our kitten walked on the keyboard and wiped it

There is no or little TRANSFERABLE empirical proof for the existence of god but millions of humans have personal empirical (evidence based ) proof for the existence of entities we call gods. You struggle to believe this because it hasn't happened with you as yet.

It is almost impossible to provide empirical proofs of ANY claimed personal experience to another.

No, no it isn't. If I see a bear, I can take a picture to prove it. If a cougar walks across my lawn, I can take a picture of a footprint or make a cast of its impressions. If I catch a big fish, I can take a photo or provide the meat of that fish to say "hey, look, this is proof that I caught a big fish." Collecting empirical evidence is NOT impossible, at all. Some things? Sure, intangible stuff, like the northern lights, or a pretty sunset, but again, photographs exist and everyone has a camera on their smartphone, and millions of people have photographed both of those things. If you don't gather any proof, however, there simply is no proof that it happened. A person could plausibly believe that a cougar walked across my lawn, but if I have no proof then I can't expect them to unquestioningly believe me. The same goes for deities, and the same goes for EVERYTHING.

Suppose i encounter an alien being one night.It transmats down in front of me gives me some advice, tells me it has cured a disease i had and then transmats away.

How can i prove this occurred to others who were not present?

Unless you gather evidence (pictures, physical traces, etc) then you can't. As I have previously said, the reality of a thing is divorced from the evidence of a thing. If the alien thing happens, even if it is entirely real, if you can't prove it there is no reason to believe that it happened. Evidence supporting a thing is entirely separate from the existence of that thing. Once again, you can tell the story and some people may believe you, but if you don't have proof you can't get mad if they do not.

It helps if there were witnesses. It helps if the cure can be medically verified It helps if the advice the alien gave me proves to be true and i was right to move out from under the meteor impact zone. BUT There is no way i can prove using empiracl and transferable evidences that such an experience occurred, to a third person Heck i cant prove to you what i ate for tea last night. You will just have to believe me (or not)

No, no, you're just simply wrong. There ARE ways to prove it. If you didn't collect that evidence, or you couldn't, then you don't have proof. Same with your dinner last night. You COULD have proved it, it's POSSIBLE, but since you didn't record it, you now can't. Whether what you say you ate is true or not is irrelevant in the face of a lack of evidence. As I have said many, many times, the truth is divorced from the evidence. You could take a video of yourself eating, for example; that would prove what you say about what you ate. Likewise, you could have photos or video of the alien. If you couldn't or wouldn't take steps to gather evidence, then no, you can't prove it. It's that simple.

Not even photo or videos would be convincing evidences to one who chose not to believe. Some things HAVE to be experienced to be known/ believed.

If someone chooses not to believe something that has withstood rigorous quality testing and then declared legitimate, that's an entirely different situation because that person is clearly not interested in having their mind changed. The existence of a physical, tangible thing is not something that needs to be experienced. I know that Australia exists without having been there. I know that platypuses exist without having seen or touched one. I know that atoms exist without having touched them (consciously, anyway). If atoms can be empirically proven, and the northern lights, and pretty sunsets, and cougars walking across lawns, then so can a deity. If it exists, anyway.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.