The existence of a creator entity

@josephw said
If, for you, "the extraordinary nature of the universe and human consciousness" "is the best evidence", then why can't you find, or see, its reflection in the reality of this world?

I am open-minded about it.

@josephw said
Is that a good summary of how you're thinking?

I think what I posted was a good summary of my thinking. Just refer to that.

@josephw said
You say you think the best evidence is extraordinary in support of the existence of God, yet you see no manifestation of the acts or actions of God on creation.

This is what I said: "I believe the extraordinary nature of the universe and human consciousness is the best evidence that theists have to support their beliefs in a creator entity." I'm not sure what your attempt to paraphrase it is for.

@fmf said
"Validate" my position? Nice try.

This thread was started to address your low-integrity deceitful posts on page 42 of the "Meta-narrative" thread.

You said: You want to deny the possibility of something that transcends the universe, even though many things we all agree are part of the universe that have nothing material in their makeup exists; you already accept such th ...[text shortened]... out of hand.

That post by you contains knowing falsehoods by you, so I started this thread.

You have nothing but an opinion; can you even give a theory as the beginning that
you could use when saying God didn't start everything by creating it all? Can you
offer up some authority of knowledge that we can all trust, or are you offering an
opinion without anything to compare it to the creation story? Is there some
logical argument you can apply that we could work out, you have anything other
than you disagree with me so I'm being deceitful?

What makes all of your complaints valid? Can you show your right and not just
offer up your opinion calling me deceitful by saying you don't agree with me? How
arrogant you are! The only reason a falsehood could occur is if there is a truth that
the falsehood is being pushed to replace. Suggesting my thread was a low-integrity
deceitful post without ever being able to compare truth to only shows you are
being deceitful by making a false claim; you know you right when all you got is
an opinion without basing it on anything but your opinion.

@fmf said
This is what I said: "I believe the extraordinary nature of the universe and human consciousness is the best evidence that theists have to support their beliefs in a creator entity." I'm not sure what your attempt to paraphrase it is for.

Actually, that's not what you said.

"...who has an open mind about the existence of a creator entity based on the extraordinary nature of the universe and human consciousness..."

It's your evidence. You do with it as you will.

@josephw said
Actually, that's not what you said.

"...who has an open mind about the existence of a creator entity based on the extraordinary nature of the universe and human consciousness..."

It's your evidence. You do with it as you will.

I quoted me and you quoted me. That's fine. But you haven't made a point for me to address.

@kellyjay said
Suggesting my thread was a low-integrity
deceitful post without ever being able to compare truth to only shows you are
being deceitful by making a false claim; you know you right when all you got is
an opinion without basing it on anything but your opinion.

I haven't said your thread is deceitful.

You claimed that I deny the possibility of something that transcends the universe. That is a falsehood and you know it.

You claimed that I deny the very possibly God. That is a falsehood and you know it.

@fmf said
I haven't said your thread is deceitful.

You claimed that I deny the possibility of something that transcends the universe. That is a falsehood and you know it.

You claimed that I deny the very possibly God. That is a falsehood and you know it.

Yeah, which is why you have to change the meaning of the words you use to
describe yourself twisting their meaning into knots. You are what again, an Athiest,
Agnostic, Theist, or Deist? Trying to find some middle of the road open-minded
description so people cannot make you defend your views as you criticize others
for theirs, maybe you should consider adding the word hypocritical to your long
list of descriptions as you attempt to be all things to all people, which means you
don't have to stand for anything specifically, after all, you are just speculating as
you call others deceitful.

@kellyjay said
Yeah, which is why you have to change the meaning of the words you use to
describe yourself twisting their meaning into knots.

Nonsense.

@kellyjay said
You are what again, an Athiest,
Agnostic, Theist, or Deist?

The OP is at the top of page 1. Are you pretending not to have read it?

@fmf said
The OP is at the top of page 1. Are you pretending not to have read it?

No

@kellyjay said
you
don't have to stand for anything specifically, after all, you are just speculating as
you call others deceitful.

I call you deceitful when you deliberately misstate my beliefs for some disingenuous conversational purpose.

@kellyjay said
No

Well then, why are you pretending not to understand? Why on Earth are you wondering if I am a "theist" or not?

@kellyjay said
Trying to find some middle of the road open-minded
description so people cannot make you defend your views as you criticize others
for theirs

I think I express, explain and defend my perspectives just fine.

@fmf said
I call you deceitful when you deliberately misstate my beliefs for some disingenuous conversational purpose.

No, I'm telling you what I see when I read what you write. I have taken your words to
mean exactly what you have said, and you don't like my interpretation of your
change of mind concerning Jesus Christ. You have also said you once held the same
views as I do now, which is that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. He calls us, we
receive Him, and He comes into our lives literally, not symbolically, not in opinion,
not in theory but reality.

I call your Christianity false because of your convoluted description of yourself now
as you deny the faith, which means that it is not true now for you, and back then, it
was only an opinion that you later acknowledged as false. Truth does not change as
we do; it remains the same no matter what we believe, think, or feel, so your
denial now means you denied what you had back then even though you claimed
you once believed it. This isn't a lie on my part, and it is the only way what you have
said can be interpreted as far as I'm concerned.