Scientific proof that God exists?

[Lethn]

Any yes, most religious people know nothing of the history of religion, let alone science, mentally lazy I guess.

Well it is just laziness really, it's just another extremely long winded way of saying "I don't know the answer to life and the universe! So I shall make it up" and so began religion, where they took advantage of naive people who didn't know any better and brainwashed them into the army of angry, xenophobic, homophobic, easily offended drones we see today.

[1715544145]

1715544145

[Cortex7]

Any yes, most religious people know nothing of the history of religion, let alone science, mentally lazy I guess.

Well it is just laziness really, it's just another extremely long winded way of saying "I don't know the answer to life and the universe! So I shall make it up" and so began religion, where the took advantage of naive people who didn't know any better and brainwashed them into the army of angry, xenophobic, homophobic, easily offended drones we see today.

You're right, but it's worse than that, it's like saying:

"I don't know the answer to life and the universe! So I shall take on the beliefs of someone who says they do, will I audit the info... fuck no!"

[nsimmons]

Please talk to a psychiatrist, you seem to have very severe depression if you hate living on this planet.  Not even being Sarcastic.

Back to the topic, the science of evolution is based on observation.  We have made organisms evolve in a lab right before our eyes.  Dog breeding works the same except with humans deciding which traits to keep instead of nature.  We can observe our common ancestors by looking at the body compared to other primates.  While the fossil record is not complete, what we have so far points to evolution.  

I don't believe in spiderman because there are fans of his enemies, that is pretty much the logic you're going on for saying satanism proves it.  Same with saying gods word proves it, says so right there in the comic that he is real!

I love the beauty of God's creation that I see all around me.  I love the people that I am thankful to have relationships with.  I love the people that speak with on these boards, even if they hate me and say I need a psychiatrist.

But I also see the misery of life and the hate (due to Satan's influence) that causes people to kill, steal and destroy.  There is evil all around us.  You must be marvelously blessed to have avoided the sufferings that are common to man?  Seriously.  We all deal with death, pain, sickness and so on.  This is not how God intended for us to live.  It is part of the fact we live in a fallen and not perfect world, one that eventually He will make right again.  

Dog breeding produces dogs right?  Has anyone bred a dog to become a cat?  Until I can see changes from one kind into another kind I will not believe in evolution.  There have been adaptations but these adaptations are not proof of evolution from one kind into another.  We as humans have more in common with dogs than apes so looking at the physical bodies to make comparisons is not enough.

You don't have to agree with me.   You don't have to believe in God.  That is the amazing thing about "free will."  I am just trying to encourage a few people on here to think about the risks of not believing.  If something is true then it doesn't matter if I believe it or you believe it or if any of us believes it.  If God's word is true then we will all be accountable to it.  

My point about "satanism" was just an interesting fact.  There is no other religion that has an "anti-religion" formed to fight it.  It was not proof by any means. I just figured it was an interesting thought that should at least cause us to pause and think for a minute.

You pretty much just admitted that evolution exists.  Macro evolution (changing species) is nothing more than micro evolution (changing traits) over a long period of time, to the point that one is not able to breed with another, and you have a new species just like that.  Think about domesticated dogs vs wolves and how different they are.  Over time they will become more and more different, to the point that they are no longer able to mate (this would be if they were in the wild, doesn't really apply since pets aren't going to be subjected to survival of the fittest but irrelevant to the example).  At this point you have a new species.  

For the record I don't hate you, you really did sound depressed

Macro and Micro evolution are very different!  We have not seen evidence of macro evolution (changes of a fish to a dog for example).  The solution that evolutionary scientists give is just to throw "millions of years" into the equation so that they can rationalize that it took that long to happen. (still not long enough)  If the changes that occur cause differences that make it so the species cannot mate isn't that an evolutionary problem in itself?  Creationists completely agree with "micro evolution" because it is simply adaptations or changing of traits within a species.  It is such a huge jump from changes within a species to changes outside of a species though, one that has no fossil record or evidence to support whatsoever.

You are completely wrong.  The process of a new species being formed is (using the wolf example)

Due to something, wolves are separated into A and B and unable to reach eachother.  Group B is in a different climate than group A

Both groups breed over a long period of time and evolution makes them adapt to their surroundings

Over a long enough period, the changes are so great that if group A and B met, their different features would make them unable to mate.  This could be from different mating periods/rituals, physical changes, etc



The dog and wolf example wasn't the best as I forgot to throw isolation in there, but same basic idea.

This response provides an alternative view to the typically-proposed false dichotomy of Evolution vs. God:

I've always been fascinated by interpretations of data associated with evolution.  Accordingly, I have two main points I'd like to add, one of which focuses on the data itself, and the other focuses on a priori philosophical knowledge, i.e. knowledge that is evident independent of any evidence.  An example of such knowledge is the law of identity, i.e. x = x.  Because of this knowledge, we know right off the bat that we don't need to go searching for something that is not itself because we know a priori that it's a logical impossibility.

1) In consideration of the overwhelming body of evidence collected in support of Modern Evolutionary Theory, I'd like to point out that there exists other, equally-plausible interpretations of the same data set that lead to different theoretical conclusions.   For example, it is valid to conclude that the data suggest that the evolution of conscious states leads to evolved physical states; in contrast, modern evolutionary theory concludes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states.

These are what we call "mathematically uncertain" theories because it is uncertain which theory is 'more correct.'  Mathematically uncertain theories are constantly overlooked as the vast majority of people -- even those with advanced educations -- lack the awareness that mathematically uncertain theories exist.  To this end, we must either find new evidence to help distinguish between multiple equally-valid theories, or find flaws in either our methodology for interpreting and explaining the data.  This brings me to my second point...

2) As mentioned previously, a priori knowledge -- which is real and should not be outright discredited because it does not rely on empirical observation -- helps us to know certain things in advance so that we don't waste our time exploring ideas that are logically impossible.  If it weren't for this sort of knowledge, it would be impossible to devise the scientific method in the first place.  Right from the get go, science carries certain assumptions based upon a priori knowledge. A fundamental example would be the knowledge that observation must be the basis for any and all empirical study; we did not need any empirical study or evidence to reach this conclusion.

Accordingly, we can look to see what types of a priori knowledge might be useful in helping to guide our interpretation of the evolutionary data set.  In my opinion, one of the most fundamental logical principles is the sameness-in-difference principle, which simply put is the idea that differences necessarily arise from similarities.  Put in more complex terms, it means that any two relational entities A and B must share a common, relational medium.  Therefore, it is impossible for any entity to be absolutely different from any other; to state that A and B are absolutely different is to reinforce their similarities by binding them together such that, at the very least, they share a common medium of absolute difference .  If two things actually could be absolutely different from each other, then it would be impossible talk about them in the same sentence.  Descartes, though obviously an intelligent fellow, overlooked this error when proposing his idea of Cartesian Dualism.  He attempted to place an insurmountable barrier between physical and mental reality, thereby violating the sameness-in-difference principle of logic.  Science abides by this split since it assumes a Positivistic Universe does not, will not, and can never be influenced by observation itself to any significant degree.  

The implications of such a principle are vast as they speak to the core nature of all entities. Perhaps most notably, it points to a shared relationship between mental and physical reality.  This is important because it allows room for talk about things such as Universal Consciousness (God?) and an inherently meaningful Universe.  

I'd also point out that there is a case to be made for a Universe that relies more on the abstract rather than the physical.  Observation by itself employs a metric (a standard of measurement) which allows us to distinguish between the things we want to study and examine through empiricism.  Without this metric, it would be impossible to define *any*thing.  Scientists talk about the Universe as if it could be described if all conscious agents were removed from it.  Unfortunately, they forget that without any conscious agents it would be impossible to define the Universe and all entities contained therein.  Accordingly, anybody who tries to tell you anything about what the Universe would or could be like if all conscious agents were removed is wasting their time; it's simply impossible to say *any*thing about such a Universe.

I would only add to this wonderful post a distinction between logically possible and demonstrably possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

[Lethn]

Any yes, most religious people know nothing of the history of religion, let alone science, mentally lazy I guess.

Well it is just laziness really, it's just another extremely long winded way of saying "I don't know the answer to life and the universe! So I shall make it up" and so began religion, where the took advantage of naive people who didn't know any better and brainwashed them into the army of angry, xenophobic, homophobic, easily offended drones we see today.

You're right, but it's worse than that, it's like saying:

"I don't know the answer to life and the universe! So I shall take on the beliefs of someone who says they do, will I audit the info... fuck no!"

Fucking typos >_<

lol yes that's another problem, people just didn't question any of it, then again anyone who does is often persecuted and it wasn't so long ago they were burned at the stake.

[My Name Was Taken]

Of course I can't force anyone to believe what they don't want to.  I totally get that. But the question seems to be more about "absolute truth" more than anything.

Your 'absolute truth' is subjective. "Absolute truth" as a universal constant is not knowable.

So you are saying that you would rather live life with a carefree attitude and if you die and realize only at that point that there is indeed a God and that there is Heaven and Hell and that you are sent to Hell because you chose to a) ignore warnings b) didn't want to believe in God c) didn't think religious rules were cool d) didn't have time to worry about it (and so on) then you will be fine with God saying "depart from me, I never knew you" and then you will suffer for eternity?

You're putting words in my mouth. Who says I have a carefree attitude? I care for other people the same as I would if I were religious. I just don't feel a need to compel them to believe what I believe. I won't respond to anything concerning heaven and hell and "what ifs" because those don't exist.

Again, just because you don't believe something isn't true, doesn't make it untrue.

Just because you believe something is true doesn't make it true.

I can close my eyes while it is raining and say, "I don't like rain.  I don't believe in rain.  Rain doesn't exist" but I will still be pelted with raindrops.  The same thing goes for the laws God has made.  When you die and stand before God I would just be concerned that your reasoning of "I didn't believe You were real" won't be a good enough excuse to give you a "free pass" into Heaven.

If you're getting wet, it doesn't matter what you say. You believe what is happening to you based on your observations. You can't convince yourself it's not raining when it is anymore you can convince me there is a god when there isn't. (See, I'm now dropping the pretense and responding with the same truths you are.)

and I very much chose to believe in God!  I had many reasons to be ticked at Him. I saw hypocrisy in the church and wanted nothing to do with the church.  But God, out of His amazing love for me, met me in a very supernatural way.  I have never been the same and I never will.  Call it stubborn, call me crazy.  I believe in Him to the core of my being.

You don't choose to believe. You choose to accept him as your god, but you don't choose to believe he exists for the same reason you don't believe it's not raining when it is. You can deny it's raining just as you can deny your god as your savior, but you can't force yourself to believe something you don't believe. You believe what you believe based on your life experiences. So you believe in your god, but you choose to accept him for all the reasons you've already stated about eternal punishment and so on. You have to accept him as your savior, otherwise you know you will be punished for all eternity, because that's what the church has taught you. That's your absolute truth, even though I know it's wrong.

You are as sure I am wrong as I am sure that I am right.  

I am not really trying to fight about who is right or wrong, but just encourage you to reflect that perhaps you are making a very serious decision, one with eternal consequences.  

Yes, I've already made that point. Your point of view is that I haven't considered it or haven't considered it long enough or whatever it might be, as though what I belief is simply a function of not thinking about it long or hard enough. I could say the same thing to you, well clearly you believe in god because you just haven't thought it through long enough. This is not a fruitful avenue.

[Cortex7]

Any yes, most religious people know nothing of the history of religion, let alone science, mentally lazy I guess.

Well it is just laziness really, it's just another extremely long winded way of saying "I don't know the answer to life and the universe! So I shall make it up" and so began religion, where the took advantage of naive people who didn't know any better and brainwashed them into the army of angry, xenophobic, homophobic, easily offended drones we see today.

You're right, but it's worse than that, it's like saying:

"I don't know the answer to life and the universe! So I shall take on the beliefs of someone who says they do, will I audit the info... fuck no!"

Fucking typos >_<

lol yes that's another problem, people just didn't question any of it, then again anyone who does is often persecuted and it wasn't so long ago they were burned at the stake.

You're still innocent brother, typos aren't quite as bad as murder

But yes you're dead right; throughout history religious folk have proven to be real nasty. The biggest religions of today being the biggest culprits committing large scale genocide,  employing unusually cruel methods to accomplish it.

It's the logical consequence of competing memetic entities (religions), a good attack power is needed as well as defense in the global arena of competition. Religion is a mind virus, fear opens the mind to infection.

But besides that, how anyone could champion an organization with such a ruthless past is quite beyond me. Some moral introspection is in order, unless they are incapable of that which would imply they are void of empathy, it puzzles me so.

[Cortex7]

on a lighter note:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbjpwyesk0

[My Name Was Taken]

on a lighter note:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbjpwyesk0

"Well, there are no yes or no answers."
"What?! I can think of two yes or no answers right off the top of my head!"

Brilliant.

[vokain]

on a lighter note:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbjpwyesk0

"Well, there are no yes or no answers."
"What?! I can think of two yes or no answers right off the top of my head!"

Brilliant.

ty for the laughs and smile

[username18333]

You don't need a deity to make the right choices in life, you've already proved that to yourself.

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

And I very much NEED a "diety!"  I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul.  I would just question if that risk is a good one and if it will work for you if you happen to be wrong.   Will believing in ourselves be enough to pay the price for our sins?

Your being does not contain within it entropy sufficient for "free[dom]." (And, indeed, it is for "His Spirit" that you have so known deprivation.)

The flaw in your thinking is that you missed the part about, while God exists within this universe (for His own pleasure), He also exists entirely without the universe. God, neither entropy or non-entropy.

“Entropy,” within American English, may refer to “a trend to disorder” (which neither yourself nor “BitChick” seem to exhibit—considering your consistency). Without disorder, one proceeds within defined bounds and, thus, proves constrained—not "free."

[username18333]

I never got this:

If there was life on Mars, another planet, or, a very, very, far away Galaxy - how is the book of Genesis consistent when it comes to that? What if this 'life' were either humanoid and/or very hard to distinguish from humans.

Keep in mind at this point in time, it would've been greatly impossible for Adam and Eve to know what a human specifically was since the term was invented afterwards, I assume. (If it wasn't - that makes absolutely no sense at all.)

How would this coincide with Genesis?

Since really no one has any proof at this moment of distant life, and, in those days they didn't know the classifications of a human...
----

Anyway, to a different tone:

Another error in Genesis (I'm sure this was brought up already), I'm pretty sure it's been proved that the flood didn't happen. There have been trees dating back to 4,000 years old. We wouldn't have fossilized plants, either, older than that.

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt.
----

Plus it's the whole Bible-diet thing, but, let's not get into that.

You should read the Space Trilogy books by C.S Lewis if the idea of life on other planets and with a connection to Genesis if that interests you.  

Personally, I don't have a problem with the thought that God could have created more people in another galaxy if He chose too.  Who knows, maybe He did and they are doing a far better job than we are?  Maybe Eve didn't eat the forbidden fruit and sin never entered their world?  I like to joke though that if there was centuries of people that had avoided eating the fruit, knowing that I have a problem not indulging in curiosity, I would have been the one to eat it!    

What do you mean about no proof that the flood happened?  The fact that trees only date back 4000 years proves something must have caused all the trees to die at that point?  It is estimated that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC.  The fact that there are no trees older than this brings great validity to a world wide flood.  Also, there are over 200 (I have even heard over 300) flood stories from different cultures around the world.  Here is a link to read more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html  The fact that there are stories with similarities in all these cultures that did not speak to each other should cause at least someone to think that there is validity to it. Also, there are fossils of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas and in the Himilayas.  How would sea creatures be at these locations without a flood?  Also, if we look at the number of people on the earth there had to be a catastrophic event that happened about 4000 to 4500 years ago too because the population of the earth at the rate of growth per year coincides with this time.

You must've missed it:

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt. Not to mention, when he created the world, I was disappointed to not see any dinosaurs mentioned.

There's no validity if there's a ton of stories. There's something called FOLKLORE and it's a part of every culture. Should we believe that, too?

And, the population of Earth is estimated and always will be. Using this in that context is highly inaccurate.

The dating of trees is not an exact science.  The fact that the oldest tree we can find on earth is said to be 5000 years old, when the earth is considered billions of years old, should make a person pause for a moment and question what happened about that time.  Shouldn't we find thousands of trees older than that otherwise?

Shouldn't we find a global layer of mineral deposits correspondent to flooding?

Yes.  And we do.

On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

Consider the sedimentary rock layers exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona  This sequence of layers is not unique to that region of the USA. For more than 50 years geologists have recognized that these strata belong to six megasequences (very thick, distinctive sequences of sedimentary rock layers) that can be traced right across North America.

The lowermost sedimentary layers in Grand Canyon are the Tapeats Sandstone, belonging to the Sauk Megasequence. It and its equivalents (those layers comprised of the same materials) cover much of the USA . We can hardly imagine what forces were necessary to deposit such a vast, continent- wide series of deposits. Yet at the base of this sequence are huge boulders  and sand beds deposited by storms. Both are evidence that massive forces deposited these sediment layers rapidly and violently right across the entire USA. Slow-and-gradual (present-day uniformitarian) processes cannot account for this evidence, but the global catastrophic Genesis Flood surely can.

Another layer in Grand Canyon is the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone. This belongs to the Kaskaskia Megasequence of North America. So the same limestones appear in many places across North America, as far as Tennessee and Pennsylvania. These limestones also appear in the exact same position in the strata sequences, and they have the exact same fossils and other features in them.

Unfortunately, these limestones have been given different names in other locations because the geologists saw only what they were working on locally and didn’t realize that other geologists were studying essentially the same limestone beds in other places. Even more remarkable, the same Carboniferous limestone beds also appear thousands of miles east in England, containing the same fossils and other features.

Also, a 1/40 scale of the Grand Canyon was made after Mt. St. Helen's erupted in 3 days.  It did not take millions of years.  We can observe this.  In fact, now we know this was how the Grand Canyon was made.  

For all your “evidence,” you still proceed by faith for you have not surmounted those challenges of solipsism (and, thus, those of Lemakasidian entropism).

[BADecker]

You don't need a deity to make the right choices in life, you've already proved that to yourself.

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

And I very much NEED a "diety!"  I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul.  I would just question if that risk is a good one and if it will work for you if you happen to be wrong.   Will believing in ourselves be enough to pay the price for our sins?

Your being does not contain within it entropy sufficient for "free[dom]." (And, indeed, it is for "His Spirit" that you have so known deprivation.)

The flaw in your thinking is that you missed the part about, while God exists within this universe (for His own pleasure), He also exists entirely without the universe. God, neither entropy or non-entropy.

“Entropy,” within American English, may refer to “a trend to disorder” (which neither yourself nor “BitChick” seem to exhibit—considering your consistency). Without disorder, one proceeds within defined bounds and, thus, proves constrained—not "free."

Entropy is visible in all of us, though it isn't very evident from one day to the next. It's called aging. The higher order of natural operation - such as life - the more evident entropy may be, simply because there are many more operations for it to act on.

You are a little difficult to understand at times, but if you are suggesting that people are not free, that is true from a scientific standpoint. There is no evidence of anything other than cause and effect, except perhaps, in higher math, where you can often prove things opposite of each other if you work at it hard enough.

[username18333]

You don't need a deity to make the right choices in life, you've already proved that to yourself.

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

And I very much NEED a "diety!"  I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul.  I would just question if that risk is a good one and if it will work for you if you happen to be wrong.   Will believing in ourselves be enough to pay the price for our sins?

Your being does not contain within it entropy sufficient for "free[dom]." (And, indeed, it is for "His Spirit" that you have so known deprivation.)

The flaw in your thinking is that you missed the part about, while God exists within this universe (for His own pleasure), He also exists entirely without the universe. God, neither entropy or non-entropy.

“Entropy,” within American English, may refer to “a trend to disorder” (which neither yourself nor “BitChick” seem to exhibit—considering your consistency). Without disorder, one proceeds within defined bounds and, thus, proves constrained—not "free."

Entropy is visible in all of us, though it isn't very evident from one day to the next. It's called aging. The higher order of natural operation - such as life - the more evident entropy may be, simply because there are many more operations for it to act on.

You are a little difficult to understand at times, but if you are suggesting that people are not free, that is true from a scientific standpoint. There is no evidence of anything other than cause and effect, except perhaps, in higher math, where you can often prove things opposite of each other if you work at it hard enough.

Entropy can also be observed within a word of one whose output does not, necessarily, correspond to its input (that is, an “entity”).

[vokain]

For all your "evidence," you still proceed by faith for you have not surmounted those challenges of solipsism (and, thus, those of limakasidian entropism).

Will you please explain the etymology of "limakasidian"? What does it symbolize?

[username18333]

For all your “evidence,” you still proceed by faith for you have not surmounted those challenges of solipsism (and, thus, those of Lemakasidian entropism).

Will you please explain the etymology of “Lemakasidian”? What does it symbolize?

“Lemakasidian” is an adjective derived from the name of Lemakasidion, a modern [withheld] politician.

(Underlying work.)

[vokain]

For all your “evidence,” you still proceed by faith for you have not surmounted those challenges of solipsism (and, thus, those of limakasidian entropism).

Will you please explain the etymology of “limakasidian”? What does it symbolize?

“Limakasidian” is an adjective derived from the name of Limakasidios, a modern [withheld] politician.

(Underlying work.)

So what does Limakasidios mean? "Eυκλειδης", for example, means "good/true glory".

[cryptodevil]

@BitChick @BADecker

Do you want to know why you should not consider it harmless to maintain your religious beliefs?

Because they require you to induce 'magical thinking' and 'thought avoidance' in order to ensure that the intellectually honest part of your psyche, your subconscious, does not break it down into its component parts and inform your conscious self of the truth of the delusion.

This means you are living a life of persistent neurological stress, with raised levels of cortisol causing a dysfunctional stress-response as it can never resolve the dichotomy between what you wish reality to be, versus what your brain knows reality to be.

It is an abusive relationship, between you and your theism. The theism causes stress levels to rise when you encounter conflicting positions about your reality, and when you cannot conjure up a sufficient resolution to the conflict, you double-down and immerse yourself more into your theist narrative by seeking ways to wrap it around you tighter, adding layers of explanations as to why your mythical deity might permit so much horror and abuse in our lives if he is so powerful, you dream up excuses for him, to explain away the lack of intervention in natural disasters or personal suffering, all the while looking for ways to pretend to yourself that the good in your life is a reward from him and the bad is simply him testing you, you know, because he loves you so.

It is disturbingly akin to the type of relationship that develops between a parent and the child they routinely abuse. The child seeks to excuse the behaviour of their parent, seeks to be able to find ways to get the parent to love them and approve of them, the child blames themselves for when the parent gets mad and hurts them and the child is elated and grateful to the parent when there are moment of fleeting reward from them.

You keep citing 'science' to support your position when, the truth is, your sources are utter crap. That's not science its pseudoscience reverse-engineered to support the end position of the theist delusion. It is mangled data and shonky interpretations designed to ensure that A+B=Bible.

Stop quoting 'facts' as facts, they are not. You are so terribly, terribly, wrong it isn't even funny. You have been, and are being, brainwashed and conditioned to readily accept the worst examples of theist 'scientific data' solely on the basis that they worked back from where they wanted to get to and ignored and discarded all the data that didn't fit their requirements.

You boldly assert things as true which are absolutely absurd. You make grand statements about your God's behaviour and intentions, as if these things are facts when they are simply what you have been told to believe.

Tell me, what's the difference between your God and Harry Potter? What aspects of your God exists outside of your imagination?

[username18333]

For all your “evidence,” you still proceed by faith for you have not surmounted those challenges of solipsism (and, thus, those of Lemakasidian entropism).

Will you please explain the etymology of “Lemakasidian”? What does it symbolize?

“Lemakasidian” is an adjective derived from the name of Lemakasidion, a modern [withheld] politician.

(Underlying work.)

So what does Lemakasidion mean? "Eυκλειδης", for example, means "good/true glory".

"Lemakasidion" = "Λῆμακασἰδιoν" = "λῆμα" + "κασίδιoν" = "will, desire, purpose" + "cassis, helmet"

[vokain]

This means you are living a life of persistent neurological stress, with raised levels of cortisol causing a dysfunctional stress-response as it can never resolve the dichotomy between what you wish reality to be, versus what your brain knows reality to be.

Not necessarily.

It is an abusive relationship, between you and your theism. The theism causes stress levels to rise when you encounter conflicting positions about your reality, and when you cannot conjure up a sufficient resolution to the conflict, you double-down and immerse yourself more into your theist narrative by seeking ways to wrap it around you tighter, adding layers of explanations as to why your mythical deity might permit so much horror and abuse in our lives if he is so powerful, you dream up excuses for him, to explain away the lack of intervention in natural disasters or personal suffering, all the while looking for ways to pretend to yourself that the good in your life is a reward from him and the bad is simply him testing you, you know, because he loves you so.

I think you're projecting.

Have you ever heard of the saying, "ignorance is bliss"? There comes a point where one perceives they can reliably place their beliefs and faiths upon What there's no need to question anymore.

[cryptodevil]

LOL projecting?

Please explain.