Originally posted by twhitehead So why should we trust that you are telling the truth? How do you know about the creator?
You do not have to trust that I am telling the truth. My new religion is truly free. I know about the creator(s) for the same reason other believers believe - the miracle of life, the universe and everything. The major difference is, I think it must have been a joint effort so I suspect, though can not be certain, that there is more than one creator.
"So why should we trust that you are telling the truth? How do you know about the creator?"
he/she heard it from a reliable source (a prophet) who in many other senses is a deceiver but not in this case, who is now being grilled as I type this?
tis tricky!
Originally posted by znsho You do not have to trust that I am telling the truth. My new religion is truly free. I know about the creator(s) for the same reason other believers believe - the miracle of life, the universe and everything. The major difference is, I think it must have been a joint effort so I suspect, though can not be certain, that there is more than one creator.
But you claimed to know intimate details such as the fact that the creators have never communicated with humans. How did you find that out?
Originally posted by twhitehead But you claimed to know intimate details such as the fact that the creators have never communicated with humans. How did you find that out?
Originally posted by znsho I want to create a new religion based on the following:
1) Life is so miraculous and near perfect that it must have been created (invented and made).
2) Thus, there is indeed a God (Creator) or, indeed, Gods (Creators).
3) BUT!!!! The God /Gods have NEVER, after creation, communicated with humans or any other living things.
4) All who claim to be P ...[text shortened]... s) go to heavan. All those who claim to be a Prophet of God(s) get burned or something terrible.
….Life is so miraculous and near perfect that ….
..…
“near perfect”? I don’t know exactly how “near” it has to be to be “near perfect” but I would say that the fact that such flaws exist in life such as the blood vessels for the human retina being in front of the retina where it partly blocks incoming light etc means you would surely not call it “near perfect”?
So I would say your new religion is a non-starter because this basic assumption can be apparently shown to be wrong.