Patrickatheism

Posted on by

If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.

Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.

This is the world of Patrickatheism.

762 thoughts on “Patrickatheism”

  1. Sure, let’s talk about anything other than whether it can be empirically known that God exists. Since you folks don’t believe God exists, your questions about Jesus being God are mere hypotheticals.

    If Jesus is not God, does it follow that God does not exist? If Jesus is not God, does it make it less likely that God exists?

    Last time I answered a keiths question I asked one in return. Did I ever get an answer?

  2. Mung: act/potency

    Yes, if one’s version of classical theism is Aristotelian-Thomistic. But I’m willing to leave the door open to Neoplatonic versions of classical theism, in which the degrees of emanation don’t neatly map onto the act/potency distinction.

    dazz: Makes sense. Thanks so much KN

    You’re quite welcome.

  3. fifthmonarchyman: I think dazz has me on ignore

    No, no point.I use the wp-admin comment page and ignored users still show up there, so I don’t use the ignore function. I just ignore most of your posts because I see no point in arguing over the same (revelation) crap over and over again.

    fifthmonarchyman: no one ever concluded that Jesus is God’s son by looking at empirical evidence

    What a waste of miracles

    fifthmonarchyman: Instead God uses various means (including materiel evidence)

    ROTFLMAO, wouldn’t material evidence be empirical too? Now go tell classical theists they’re wrong and it’s not nonsensical to ask for evidence of God, because He can do it according to you.

  4. dazz: Now go tell classical theists they’re wrong and it’s not nonsensical to ask for evidence of God, because He can do it according to you.

    Why do you respond to me if you don’t even read what I post?

    I just said that no one believes because of empirical evidence and some how you take that to mean that I’m disagreeing with classical theists when they say it’s nonsensical to ask for evidence of God.

    talk about whiplash

    In a world where what I post can be interpreted to mean just the opposite of what I intended it should be obvious why empirical evidence is nonsensical when it comes to God’s existence.

    peace

  5. keiths,

    Yeah, and generally speaking, if the Bible is God’s word, would it count as objective empirical evidence of God’s existence? One can’t possibly believe a physical book is not empirical evidence of the author, or inspiring entity or whatever God contributed to it.

  6. fifthmonarchyman: Why do you respond to me if you don’t even read what I post?

    Why don’t you try following the discussion?

    fifthmonarchyman: I just said that no one believes because of empirical evidence and some how you take that to mean that I’m disagreeing with classical theists when they say it’s nonsensical to ask for evidence of God.

    Why would it be nonsensical to ask for empirical evidence for God if nothing in (your) God definition precludes him from providing it? Classical theism doesn’t allow for such a thing if I got it right: Mung claimed it doesn’t even make sense to ask for empirical evidence of God because of it’s nature/definition. So it follows that you don’t believe in the same (Classical ) God

  7. Mung,

    You quoted Exodus 33:20. Why are you afraid to answer my questions about it?

    Here they are again:

    Mung, fifth,

    1. Is Jesus God? (I’m guessing that you’ll both say yes.)

    2. Does Jesus’s face qualify as God’s face? Why or why not?

    3. If yes, then how do you reconcile this with Exodus 33:20?

    19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

    Why didn’t the disciples drop dead when they saw Jesus’s face?

  9. Mung: Why are you afraid of my lack of response?

    It’s you who should be afraid. You have no response for legit challenges on topics that literally rule your whole existence. You’re committed to those things for eternity, but if we mortals can’t get an answer within our life time that’s ok.

  11. dazz: Why would it be nonsensical to ask for empirical evidence for God if nothing in (your) God definition precludes him from providing it?

    what part of “inaccessible light, that no eye can attain unto” do you not understand? 😉

    From my definition

    quote:

    That God as He is in Himself, cannot be comprehended of any but himself,dwelling in that inaccessible light, that no eye can attain unto, whom never man saw, nor can see;

    end quote:

    peace

  12. keiths: Does Jesus’s face qualify as God’s face? Why or why not?

    Christ is one person with two natures his divine nature is entirely immaterial his human nature not so much.

    So when folks see Jesus’ face they are seeing the human nature of Christ as apposed to his divine nature.

    Confusing Christ’s divine nature with his human one is the heresy of Monophysitism

    peace

  13. keiths: The smallest challenge to Mung’s beliefs, and he folds like origami. Mr. I don’t just read the Bible, I study it can’t even defend the truth of a Bible verse he quoted.

    No need to throw a tantrum every time you don’t get your own way.

  14. fifth,

    So when folks see Jesus’ face they are seeing the human nature of Christ as apposed to his divine nature.

    You’re contradicting yourself again.

    You’ve told us that when God appeared to Moses, it was Jesus’s physical body that Moses saw.

    If Moses couldn’t look upon Jesus’s physical face without dropping dead, why could the disciples do it?

    Don’t you ever think critically about your religion? Why don’t you notice these obvious inconsistencies?

  15. Mung,

    No need to throw a tantrum every time you don’t get your own way.

    My laughter is not a tantrum.

    I think it’s hilarious when someone declares indignantly that he doesn’t just read the Bible, he studies it, but then can’t respond to a simple challenge about a Bible verse that he quoted.

    Did you forget to “study” Exodus 33, Mung?

  16. keiths: …but then can’t respond to a simple challenge about a Bible verse that he quoted.

    Your mind-reading skills are legendary.

    The Exodus text says nothing about Jesus. For that you have to bring in something not in the text I quoted. So your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

    That I don’t respond therefore I can’t respond is also a failure in logic.

    Not that you’ll ever admit you’ve made such a simple mistake.

  17. The Bible also says Jesus was the rock that the Israelites drank from.

    keiths and his silly literalism.

  18. keiths: You’ve told us that when God appeared to Moses, it was Jesus’s physical body that Moses saw.

    If Moses couldn’t look upon Jesus’s physical face without dropping dead, why could the disciples do it?

    Who said Moses could not look at Jesus’ face?

    quote:
    The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire,
    (Deu 5:4)
    and
    And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
    (Deu 34:10)
    and
    Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
    (Exo 33:11)

    etc etc

    What Moses could not do is look at God’s unveiled Glory (Exo 30:18). Face is a metaphor

    peace

  19. What a dickhead your God is that knows nobody can see him but still tries to scare his gullible followers by telling them they would die if they could see him

    …but…wait… a… minute…. no one can see him, K alright, but he could speak to Moses? what difference does that make? Isn’t hearing a form of perception too?

    You guys believe in such a childish story that it’s… well, it’s unbelievable

  20. dazz: no one can see him, K alright, but he could speak to Moses?

    It’s all about the incarnation

    quote:
    He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
    (Col 1:15)
    and
    For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
    (Col 1:19)

    end quote:

    peace

  21. So to sum things up, God is imperceptible, but he still managed somehow to communicate with those prophets.

    Also Jeebus is God, but not really because he’s in a bodily form, and can’t count as empirical evidence of himself to those who saw him because… well because, who knows why but it must be so for some transcendent reason that lowly humans can’t understand. And when it’s time for the rapture Jeebus is going to have a hell of a time at convincing Christians to raise to heaven with him because he’s invisible and stuff. Poor him, might be crucified again by his own followers for pretending to be God

  24. fifth,

    What Moses could not do is look at God’s unveiled Glory (Exo 30:18). Face is a metaphor

    It wasn’t a metaphor. Don’t you know your Bible?

    21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

    Exodus 33:21-23, NIV

  25. dazz,

    If you would just take a minute off from your mockery.

    You’d see that the Christian God is uniquely qualified to bridge the gap between the transcendent and the immanent. No other god will do the trick.

    dazz: God is imperceptible, but he still managed somehow to communicate with those prophets.

    Through Christ 1st peter 1:11

    dazz: Jeebus is God, but not really because he’s in a bodily form,

    no, he Is God manifested in the flesh ———-incarnation

    dazz: and can’t count as empirical evidence of himself to those who saw him because… well because

    what does “empirical evidence of himself” even mean?

    dazz: when it’s time for the rapture Jeebus is going to have a hell of a time at convincing Christians to raise to heaven with him because he’s invisible and stuff.

    Christians aren’t the ones demanding “empirical evidence.”

    dazz: Poor him, might be crucified again by his own followers for pretending to be God

    You do know that it was not his followers who demanded a sign from him don’t you?

    peace

  27. Kantian Naturalist:
    Some generic points:

    1. One cannot establish the existence of anything based on the definition of that thing. — A definition is an explication of a concept; it illustrates the place of a concept in an inferential web. It doesn’t tell us whether anything exists to which the concept is correctly applied.

    Another good generic point would be to understand why any good scientific paper starts out with definitions. Is it to exclaim right up front that those things exist? No, it’s to lay out what it is that is being investigated in the paper, to eventually establish how those things exist – or not.

    Kantian Naturalist:
    (Notice that we can define “witch” or “phlogiston” perfectly well.)

    Precisely. And that’s how we know in what way and to what extent those things exist or not. If we could not define them, we would hardly know it.

    Kantian Naturalist:
    2. The strategy of classical theism has always been to deny that God is anything like an entity, and therefore nothing at all like “”phlogiston”, “coffee-mug” or “quark”.Instead the strategy has been to insist that God is a necessary being, an absolutely transcendent being, and so on. That makes the whole thing an exercise in a priori metaphysics. What we have evidence for has nothing do to with it.

    If anybody has ears to hear…

    Kantian Naturalist:
    3. The problem here is that most people of faith merely parrot the words of classical theism without any understanding of what classical theism was, what metaphysical arguments are or were, and so forth. Since they don’t understand what classical theism was (or is) and simply parrot the formulations established by classical theism, they confuse themselves and everyone else.

    Alas, true. On the other hand, since the bulk of lay theists perform so dismally in classical theist metaphysics, it should be easy for atheists interested in the topic to inform themselves over and above the bulk of lay theists and thus raise the level of discussion, instead of lowering it further. Not happening in this life.

    Kantian Naturalist:
    4. However, since modern atheists also don’t understand what classical theism is or was, they are just as confused.

    True again.

    Kantian Naturalist:
    5. To avoid the confusion, one has got to pick up where Hume and Kant left off — it’s all about the a priori. Whether the a priori is only analytic or also synthetic, whether there are universal synthetic a priori truths, or whether synthetic a priori principles are true by virtue of the world or true by virtue of how the mind (or: language) function — these are the questions that would actually need to be worked through carefully and systematically in order to establish either the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the classical theistic conception of God.

    Yes, if one adheres to those categories. The way I studied metaphysics, things were much simpler and more obvious: When we say “This brick exists” it’s self-evident that the space where the brick resides pre-exists the brick. Somebody who requires separate proof (or worse, empirical evidence) for the space is just being nonsensical, out of their minds, not on the level worthy of having a discussion about these things.

    On classical theism, we all exist in God. On materialist physicalism (or whatever you call your common atheist “naturalist” philosophy these days), we exist in (primordially empty) space as a combination of atoms. This latter view does not explain why we have instinct of self-preservation, why we have feelings, interest in the ultimate beginning/foundation of things, why we concoct models of metaphysics beyond mere physics, etc. (heck, it doesn’t even explain why atoms would combine to form objects) while the former implies a purpose to it all. To go through the exercise of building a philosophy which concludes that there is no purpose is the same as saying that one’s exercise was self-contradictory and pointless, that one’s train of thought ended up refuting itself. Normally that’s a lesson for others how to not go about doing things, but this century things seem to have changed and abject irrationality is the new normality.

  28. Erik: On materialist physicalism (or whatever you call your common atheist “naturalist” philosophy these days), we exist in (primordially empty) space as a combination of atoms. This latter view does not explain why we have instinct of self-preservation, why we have feelings, interest in the ultimate beginning/foundation of things, why we concoct models of metaphysics beyond mere physics, etc. (heck, it doesn’t even explain why atoms would combine to form objects) while the former implies a purpose to it all.

    Just physicalism is fine.

    The problem is physicalism and theism are not opposing explanations for “why the universe”. They are also not opposing explanations for “how the universe”. Physicalism does not answer (or in my view purport to answer) “why” questions. On the other hand theism purports to give “why” answers without taking much account of “how”.

    It must be a worry for those who need “why” answers that there are none and they all regress to “we don’t know”. If I suggest there may be no ultimate purpose to the existence of the Universe and all that we find in it; it just is – what can you call on, other than opinions, to refute the suggestion?

  29. Erik: …since the bulk of lay theists perform so dismally in classical theist metaphysics, it should be easy for atheists interested in the topic to inform themselves over and above the bulk of lay theists and thus raise the level of discussion, instead of lowering it further. Not happening in this life.

    I absolutely loved this.

  30. Alan, Your comments above make no sense to me.

    Why is there something rather than nothing is not a question that can only come from a theist. The same can be said of how it can be that there is anything at all.

  31. Mung:

    Great. What’s your rigorous definition?

    Have I ever claimed to have a rigorous definition of God? If I have, I take it back. But I don’t think I ever have.

    That’s fine. I’m not sure why you’re participating in a discussion about there being no rigorous definition of “god” nor any objective, empirical evidence for such an entity, but as my teenagers say “You do you.”

  32. fifthmonarchyman:

    it will probably be to point out that no theist here is willing to provide a rigorous definition of what they mean by “god”

    Quote:

    That God as He is in Himself, cannot be comprehended of any but himself, dwelling in that inaccessible light, that no eye can attain unto, whom never man saw, nor can see;

    that there is but one God, one Christ, one Spirit ……….

    God is of Himself, that is, neither from another, nor of another, nor by another, nor for another: But is a Spirit, who as his being is of Himself, so He gives being, moving, and preservation to all other things, being in Himself eternal, most holy, every way infinite in greatness, wisdom, power, justice, goodness, truth, etc.

    In this Godhead, there is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; being every one of them one and the same God; and therefore not divided, but distinguished one from another by their several properties; the Father being from Himself, the Son of the Father from everlasting, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

    end quote: 1644 LBCF

    prediction– It will now be claimed that the definition is not good enough for some reason.

    It’s not a definition at all, just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and undefined terms.

    If you have a definition that would allow an objective observer to distinguish between an entity that is a god and one that is not, I’d be very interested in hearing it.

  33. Erik:

    You could provide a coherent definition of what you mean by “god” and some objective, empirical evidence that such an entity actually exists or you could simply admit that you can’t and the conversation is over.

    (Un)luckily for you, I am very good at definitions. You, on the other hand, are not.

    Your modesty is underwhelming.

    For about a year soon, you have not managed to define “proof” so that it would be relevant to our discussion.

    I disagree. First, I’m not asking for proof, just supporting evidence. Second, you and other theists start squirming whenever common standards of evidence are applied to your god claims.

    Of course, God has been defined here in different ways.

    I have yet to see a rigorous definition that is internally and externally consistent and broadly aligned with what most people consider to be a “god”.

    We don’t need just any old definition. We need a non-arbitrary definition on whose relevance we both agree on.

    Not quite. I am asking for a definition of the god that people here actually believe in and actually worship.

    Here’s a scientific (Spinozan) God calculated from ground up http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016012914521576.pdf Good enough for a start?

    It’s interesting, but then again I enjoy science fiction. Defining “god” as “the universe plus awareness” is an okay start, but the support for any actual awareness in the universe as a whole is unconvincing. Still, I appreciate the reference.

    I’m interested in the gods that the people in the pews actually believe in, because those beliefs are the ones that have a negative impact on other people when they are used to support governmental policies.

  34. Erik:

    Weird. I never heard anyone demanding any “proofs”. Just evidence.

    Patrick has been playing the burden of proof (yes, that’s proof) game very long now, including in this thread.

    It’s not a game, simply a reminder to those who need it that the person making a claim like “gods exist” has the burden to support that claim. Thus far none have.

    dazz:
    Do you think, like Mung, that it’s nonsensical to ask for empirical evidence of God and why?

    Yes, given the definition of God of classical theism and mainstream Christian theology, empirical evidence of God is nonsensical. There’s “immaterial” in the definition, so it should answer your why question. Also, given the same definition, intelligent design theory is nonsensical, inasmuch as it involves empirical “detecting design”.

    Real Christians in the real world in real churches worship an anthropomorphic god that they claim intervenes in reality. Vanishingly few worship your conveniently undetectable version.

  35. Kantian Naturalist:
    . . .
    And that would in turn justify why the ordinary standards of empirical evidence, that do make good sense for navigating one’s perceptually salient environment, diagnosing an illness, or testing competing models of causal processes, do not apply to God.That’s why it’s nonsensical to ask for empirical evidence of God, if God is defined as classical theism has traditionally defined Him.

    That said, there of course many people of faith who don’t understand classical theism and who do imagine God to be the kind of being to whom empirical evidence is relevant. To appreciate what classical theism is about, one has to have the ability to entertain a complex set of abstract metaphysical distinctions (necessary/contingent, transcendent/immanent, immaterial/material), and that’s a tall order.

    As I just noted to Erik, the vast majority of Christians do not worship the classical theistic concept of a god. They don’t sing hymns to the ground of being (some of my Buddhist friends come closer to that). Their god concept is an anthropomorphic alpha male with all the dials turned to 11: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Their god definitely impacts the real world.

    Believers justify their actions based on that god concept. Those actions affect other people. That, I submit, is reason to demand evidence that such a thing exists.

  36. Erik: On materialist physicalism (or whatever you call your common atheist “naturalist” philosophy these days), we exist in (primordially empty) space as a combination of atoms. This latter view does not explain why we have instinct of self-preservation, why we have feelings, interest in the ultimate beginning/foundation of things, why we concoct models of metaphysics beyond mere physics, etc. (heck, it doesn’t even explain why atoms would combine to form objects) while the former implies a purpose to it all. To go through the exercise of building a philosophy which concludes that there is no purpose is the same as saying that one’s exercise was self-contradictory and pointless, that one’s train of thought ended up refuting itself. Normally that’s a lesson for others how to not go about doing things, but this century things seem to have changed and abject irrationality is the new normality.

    Just as sophisticated theists can justifiably complain that naturalists tend to attack the least sophisticated version of theism, so too sophisticated naturalists can justifiably complain that theists tend to attack the least sophisticated version of naturalism.

  37. Patrick: the vast majority of Christians do not worship the classical theistic concept of a god. They don’t sing hymns to the ground of being (some of my Buddhist friends come closer to that). Their god concept is an anthropomorphic alpha male with all the dials turned to 11: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

    Yes. The majority of self-described Christians in the US these days are, in fact, idolaters. What they worship is an idealized version of their own egos. I believe this is particularly true of conservative, white, male Christians.

  38. Patrick: Wrong. I have consistently been asking for, first, a rigorous definition of “god” and, second, objective, empirical evidence for such a thing.

    Mung: You regularly ask for the second without any mention whatsoever of the first.

    Patrick: I think if you review my posts in this thread you will find that is not the case.

    I certainly didn’t have to go far into this thread to find an example:

    Patrick: It’s been noted several times that theists are perfectly happy using words like “evidence” until they are applied to their god concepts, at which point the hair splitting begins.

    By evidence I mean objective, empirical evidence. The same type of evidence you would require to accept that sasquatch exists, or the Higgs boson, or x-rays. The same type of evidence you rely on in your daily life before making a financial investment or even just crossing the street.

    So, do you have any such [objective, empirical evidence] for anything that might be accurately described as a god?

    Straight to the demand for “objective, empirical evidence.”

    In fact, you go on to say you’re not even interested in certain definitions of God.

    Patrick: (Yes, I’m aware that Kantian Naturalist has described a god concept that is not amenable to evidential or logical support. I see no reason to consider such entities as anything more than thought experiments.)

  39. Mung:
    Alan, Your comments above make no sense to me.

    I’ve changed my mind over the years about theism. As a kid, I thought I was missing something when people taught me about the (Church of England) God. It seemed no more real than any other story-book character. A little older, I thought “what do they know” (it was the sixties!). For most of my adult life, the issue hardly came up. Church of England Christianity is a sort of atheism, so it’s not surprising. It’s only since coming across the ID controversy that I encountered the kind of fervour that some US Christians seem to possess. It’s taken me a while to accept that this fervour is perhaps genuine. Personally, I no longer find it either amusing or frightening (I am separated from it by the Atlantic) but it’s been a slow process.

    Why is there something rather than nothing is not a question that can only come from a theist. The same can be said of how it can be that there is anything at all.

    I didn’t say you can’t ask such questions. My suspicion is that “why are we here,” is unanswerable.

  40. And again:

    Patrick: People who lack a belief in a god or gods lack that belief for many different reasons. My personal reason is the utter lack of any evidence for such entities. They could still exist, but until the evidence is presented there is no reason to consider that possibility.

    And again:

    Patrick: You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. You’re the one claiming a god exists. Provide some evidence for it.

    And again:

    Patrick: As I’ve noted previously, the same amount and type of evidence you’d require to rationally conclude that sasquatch exists. Even the type of evidence you need before making a financial investment or just crossing the street would be superior to anything I’ve seen thus far.

    Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

  41. Kantian Naturalist: Yes. The majority of self-described Christians in the US these days are, in fact, idolaters. What they worship is an idealized version of their own egos. I believe this is particularly true of conservative, white, male Christians.

    I also think I understand Patrick’s concerns. For him the presence and power of the religious right is of immediate concern, especially in an election year. I, on the other hand, can indulge my fantasy that this power and influence is on the wane.

  42. Mung:

    Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

    I see a pattern of you picking at nits and word gaming. Objective, empirical evidence can only be used to support a claim if the terms in that claim are well-defined. When discussing this topic with you in the future I’ll make sure to put on my pedant hat so more electrons don’t need to die for whatever purpose you’re abusing them.

    You’ve already admitted that you don’t have a rigorous definition of “god”, though, so it shouldn’t be an issue.

  43. Mung: In fact, you go on to say you’re not even interested in certain definitions of God.

    Exactly he is only interested in definitions of God that are deficient enough that he can disprove them.

    I am grateful that the Christian God can not be so defined

    A God that Patrick can disprove is certainly not worthy of worship.

    peace

  44. Patrick: I have consistently been asking for, first, a rigorous definition of “god” and, second, objective, empirical evidence for such a thing.

    Well, now we know this claim just isn’t true.

    Likewise this one:

    I think if you review my posts in this thread you will find that is not the case.

    And I didn’t even have to leave this thread or even go beyond the third page in this thread to show it. Objective empirical evidence.

  45. fifthmonarchyman: Exactly he is only interested in definitions of God that are deficient enough that he can disprove them.

    Not at all. I’m interested in a definition of “god” that:

    a) is internally consistent.

    b) is not contradicted by real world observations.

    and

    c) is roughly in the same ballpark as what other theists would generally agree is what they worship.

    Got one?

  46. Mung:

    I have consistently been asking for, first, a rigorous definition of “god” and, second, objective, empirical evidence for such a thing.

    Well, now we know this claim just isn’t true.

    Likewise this one:

    I think if you review my posts in this thread you will find that is not the case.

    And I didn’t even have to leave this thread or even go beyond the third page in this thread to show it. Objective empirical evidence.

    Context matters, Mung. At some points in the thread the definition is under discussion, at other points the evidence, and sometimes both. Most people have no problem with the very minor assumption of good faith required to understand that constant repetition is not necessary.

    Of course, if one’s goal is disruption and semantic point scoring rather than substantive discussion, good faith isn’t really present.

  48. fifthmonarchyman: See above.

    I don’t have time to keep re-posting stuff if you simply ignore it.

    I read it and responded to it. Your non-definition doesn’t meet the criteria I listed. If I based my assessment solely on what you wrote, I would be forced to conclude that you quite literally don’t know what you are talking about when you use the word “god”.

  49. Patrick: Most people have no problem with the very minor assumption of good faith required to understand that constant repetition is not necessary.

    But if one is going to assert that he has been consistently repeating himself it sure helps if he actually has been doing so.

    You constantly [repetitiously] demand objective empirical evidence for god without first asking for a rigorous definition of god. The demand for a rigorous definition of god is rarely found on it’s own and the two are rarely found together.

Leave a Reply