The existence of the universe requires a god

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 136 here:

...
The universe could not exist in the form that it is in unless there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.
...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the referenced claim is true and factual.

[William]

When I abandoned atheism many years ago, the difficult part of that was not the reasoning, the science, the rationalizing, it was my own stubborn unwillingness to admit I might have been wrong, might have been misled, that was where all resistance stemmed from, preservation of existing belief had been my priority, I even lied to myself about it, that was the hard part, fighting myself.

I read that and realised that I had seen similar scenarios described by many former Christians who had fought hard but eventually had to abandon their beliefs.

Precisely.

That is why I mention from time to time how similar the opposing positions are to one another. Materialists and Religionists appear to be at odds, but do harbor the same-type of mind-set and the existence of both positions is that which make said positions appear to be necessary, because without each, the other is fairly pointless.

Like two sides of the very same coin.

Sherlock appears to be other than a religionist, as far as I can tell from what he/she has already contributed to the debates...

Being a theist is not always about beliefs.

[Sherlock Holmes]

When I abandoned atheism many years ago, the difficult part of that was not the reasoning, the science, the rationalizing, it was my own stubborn unwillingness to admit I might have been wrong, might have been misled, that was where all resistance stemmed from, preservation of existing belief had been my priority, I even lied to myself about it, that was the hard part, fighting myself.

I read that and realised that I had seen similar scenarios described by many former Christians who had fought hard but eventually had to abandon their beliefs.

Precisely.

That is why I mention from time to time how similar the opposing positions are to one another. Materialists and Religionists appear to be at odds, but do harbor the same-type of mind-set and the existence of both positions is that which make said positions appear to be necessary, because without each, the other is fairly pointless.

Like two sides of the very same coin.

Sherlock appears to be other than a religionist, as far as I can tell from what he/she has already contributed to the debates...

Being a theist is not always about beliefs.

This is a good observation, many have drawn attention to the similarities between the prevailing Catholic authorities at the time of Galileo and some of today's vocal exponents of atheism.

There is dogma and closed mindedness in each, a presumed authority, a self declared right to tell the rest of what is true and false, what is a fact and what is not.

A superb talk about this by David Berlinksi can be found here.

As for myself I do avoid "organized Christianity" which so far as my own experience goes, are simply human crafted structures that compliant people willingly join and subjugate themselves to, far removed from what I perceive as God. Many of them are glorified social clubs, where the intellectual effort, struggle to understand is abandoned and adopting a pre-made "statement of beliefs" is all one has to embrace to be included.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
OK - anything is possible in principle unless we can prove without question that it is not.
...

[Sherlock Holmes]

...
OK - anything is possible in principle unless we can prove without question that it is not.
...

Ahh the old ridicule argument, how impressive.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
OK - anything is possible in principle unless we can prove without question that it is not.
...

Ahh the old ridicule argument, how impressive.

If you take offense at the southern accent, I can't help ya a bit.

My point is, all you've got is "it's possible".

[Sherlock Holmes]

...
OK - anything is possible in principle unless we can prove without question that it is not.
...

Ahh the old ridicule argument, how impressive.

If you take offense at the southern accent, I can't help ya a bit.

My point is, all you've got is "it's possible".

I really have no idea what you're talking about, have I said something that you disagree with?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
OK - anything is possible in principle unless we can prove without question that it is not.
...

Ahh the old ridicule argument, how impressive.

If you take offense at the southern accent, I can't help ya a bit.

My point is, all you've got is "it's possible".

I really have no idea what you're talking about, have I said something that you disagree with?

Not even a clue, even though I explained the problem within this thread?

The point is that declaring something possible is a poor means of determining fact.

[William]

[443]

The existence of the universe requires a god
Eventually this led to the human experience

[Sherlock Holmes]

...
OK - anything is possible in principle unless we can prove without question that it is not.
...

Ahh the old ridicule argument, how impressive.

If you take offense at the southern accent, I can't help ya a bit.

My point is, all you've got is "it's possible".

I really have no idea what you're talking about, have I said something that you disagree with?

Not even a clue, even though I explained the problem within this thread?

The point is that declaring something possible is a poor means of determining fact.

Please quote the sentence I posted that you are in disagreement with, enough of the paraphrasing please, lets stick with facts what specific statement of mine are you objecting to?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
OK - anything is possible in principle unless we can prove without question that it is not.
...
...

Not even a clue, even though I explained the problem within this thread?

The point is that declaring something possible is a poor means of determining fact.

Please quote the sentence I posted that you are in disagreement with, enough of the paraphrasing please, lets stick with facts what specific statement of mine are you objecting to?

You were quoted, with a site reference, within the very post to which you just responded. It's included in your response wondering just what sentence I was agetting at

All I had to do was actually read your post, and by my incredible powers of reading, therein did I find the sentence.