@silvereyes Another way to say it.

If you guys and gals would only look through your heads and try hard to come up with a concept that you can believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe is labeled "a concept of God", you would realize that you can't! "God" is meaningless, and that destroys theism, atheism, and agnosticism. But for some reason, you just can't stand to admit to yourselves that all three stands, theism, atheism and agnosticism are beliefs on faith. That faith is that "God" is a meaningful word, when the truth is that "God" is just as meaningless as "Zab".

@EdwinMcCravy Don't know what you use for definitions, but I totally disagree. there is no 'faith' in atheism. Atheism is that someone says "there is a god!" the atheist says, "prove it", the theist says "I can't", so the atheist states, "then I don't believe it". No faith needed or wanted. It's a lack of belief. 'god' is meaningful as a concept because it carries so much weight in so many societies, but it still doesn't prove the concept is a tangible, actual 'thing'.

@phxbillcee Look, Phxbillcee, use your head, please. If I had said "I can't play the violin", would you say "I disagree"? Of course not! That would be a very dumb thing to say! So when I say "I cannot "imagine God, nor believe you can either", you don't say "I disagree". What you say is "I can imagine God and here is a description of what I am imagining when I imagine God: __ -- and then fill in the blank. That way you will have educated me and then I will be able to imagine God. So educate me as to how to imagine God. Otherwise I can only believe you are like me and can't, but can only fib and say you can when you can't.

@silvereyes [en.m.wikipedia.org]

@cmadler I agree, I have said similar statements, that said, I don't get hung up on what you call yourself.

I would love to talk to an agnostic theist. I can't understand the notion of not knowing and yet believing.

@cmadler You said "Agnostic is about knowledge, atheist is about belief". No. They are BOTH about BELIEF. They both require the belief that "God" or "Allah" is a meaningful word. See my post above: "Unless you can show that "God" is a meaningful word, you can't use it meaningfully in a sentence either to say "God exists", "God doesn't exist" or "God may or may not exist".

@EdwinMcCravy I don't understand your argument. The term "God", capitalized and with no descriptors, is commonly understood to mean the Abrahamic god.

@cmadler I don't know how to even suspect in the least, let alone believe, that there is any possible mental image of anything to call "the Abrahamic god". I contend that if I can only speak or write the sequence of 3 words "the Abrahamic god", but cannot conjure up in my head any possible image of anything that sequence of words could stand for, then I cannot know of anything I could be talking or writing about when I speak or write that sequence. If you claim to be able to have a mental imagine anything that "the Abrahamic god" could refer to, then please describe the mental image to me so that I may be able to have it too. Without a mental image for some row of alphabet letters to refer to, all I can know of is the row of alphabet letters.

@EdwinMcCravy There are plenty of non-physical concepts for which no mental image (or no accurate mental image) exists. What is your mental image for "infinity"? What about "imaginary"? What about "vacuum" (as in an absence of physical material)? What about "noun"? For that matter, what about "mental image"?

@cmadler You ask "what is my mental image for 'infinity'?  Let's analyze the term.  The prefix "in-" on infinity means "not". the "fin" is like the "fin" of "finish".  "Infinity" means "something that is never finished, or 'all there'.  So "infinity" is meaningless because it means "all of what is never all there".  Yes, "infinity" is meaningless.  Contrary to popular belief, mathematicians never speak "of infinity".  We only say "as x approaches infinity", which only means "as the quantity x grow larger and larger".  We don't define 1÷ 0 "one divided by zero".   

You want to talk about our awareness of bodily activities as if they are not something physical.  But they all are.  We all agree that we imagine things.  Scientists have discovered that  neurons in our brains behave a certain way, and when they do, we can detect the results of their activity, and label our experience "imagining".  

Don't you imagine things?  Of course you do.  Everybody does.   What about "imaginary"?  That's a word we use for things we can imagine in our heads.  I can close my eyes and imagine unicorns and mermaids galore.  You can too.  So you know very well what I'm talking about.  Can you describe feeling pain?  No, but you know when you feel pain.  Everybody knows about having pain.  When we say "we have pain", our nerves are behaving a certain way that makes us feel uncomfortable.  It's an activity going on within our body that we are detecting.  

But I have no idea what you are claiming to imagine when you claim to imagine something for the row of words "God, the infinite incorporeal spirit that created the universe".  So I don't how to believe that you are imagining anything for that row of words to mean.  It looks to me like you're just speaking them or writing them and believing (on faith, what else?) that they refer to something.  

What about "vacuum"?   We just use the word "vacuum" to speak of something that does not contain any air or gas.. What about nouns?  Those are words in a language that stand for things.  Nouns are part of a language that humans have invented. A mental image is what we say we have when our neurons behave a certain way,  A neuroscientist can tell you about how they behave (move around and vibrate).  

@traceyanarchist that was all over the place. I am not sure what kind of emphasis you tried to give in the use of uppercase letters, but the idea is very wacky. Knowledge is, traditionally, a subset of belief. The opposite of knowledge is ignorance, and the opposite of belief is... well, disbelief or negation. Let me give you a fairly simple example of what I mean:

John did not count the number of words in his dictionary. However, he believes the number of words is even. Robert claims to have received revelation from his god, Lexicon, and believes the number is odd.

I can accept the fact that both John and Robert believe what they claim to believe. I understand why Robert thinks he is justified in holding his belief, though I'd disagree with him on that. But I do not understand how John can jump from not having any justification to believing something. It is not that complicated.

p.s.: just to make sure I am not saying BS, I made a quick stop at Wikipedia: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.". Even the Venn diagram shows knowledge as a subset of belief.

@cmadler "Non-physical concept?" I don't know what that means. Please educate me. Maybe give me some examples of whatever you think "non-physical concept" means.

@traceyanarchist so Wikipedia is wrong because you say so. Wonderful. I'm glad I have up on this site

@hlfsousa I'd categorize my mother as an agnostic theist. She believes there is a god, but is also convinced that all the religions are wrong and that humans are unlikely to ever know the true nature of god. shrug Worked out for me, never had to go to church growing up and she knows and accepts that i'm a full atheist.

Exactly. It can be tedious but otherwise you have no way of knowing if your intent is reaching the other person and vice versa. @TheMiddleWay

@TheMiddleWay however, what if the person has neither of the colors within their viewable range? You may see red, however the other person sees a color not even in your spectrum in place of red. So, your strict and tedious description only applies to you and those like you. Also, how do you strictly and intricately describe or define something that's ultimately unknown? Hence, the reason we're supposed to identify as agnostics and the reason I relate to the definitions and theories of agnosticism.

The meaning(s) of abstractions, concepts, words, et cetera are the central point of every debate. That's why it is so important to clearly define your terms in any academic endeavor. The problem is that to the religious, defining terms is secondary to their inviolable pro-god/supernatural stance. To them anything you say against their version of god/supernatural must be wrong - and by extension you must be an outsider. If you are familiar with ingroup outgroup social dynamics then you already understand how easy it is for these people to purpetrate blatantly evil acts.

@TheMiddleWay That is a super good practice. When asked "do you believe in God" one should first reply with "Well, what do you mean when you say God?" A lot of people will be completely perplexed by this question - as so many have never considered the idea. Their reaction will tell you a lot about where that conversation can go.

@TheMiddleWay Are you talking about gods like Zeus and Thor? They are finite material things (superhumans) that ancient people imagined to exist. They drew pictures and made statues of them that are still around today. These gods didn't exist, but the labeled "Zeus" and "Thor" referred to these imaginable material things. Such things are called "gods" with a small "g". Nobody today believes they exist.

I find myself unable to believe that "God" with a capital "G" or "Allah" with a capital "A" refers to a god or to anything at all. If you believe it does, why do you?

I've recently come to the conclusion that it all boils down to believing if disembodied souls can exist (spirits, ghosts, gods, etc.). Since I can't come even close to explaining how a disembodied soul could exist (What is it made of?), they are an impossibility, and thus I don't believe they exist. Because of the non-existence of disembodied souls, there is no life after death; no spirit warehouses such as heaven, hell, or purgatory; and no reincarnation. Also, since gods are disembodied souls (with special powers, of course), I don't believe they exist, too.

Got a label for my belief system?

Well put.

@WizardBill True. Unknown. But, the concept has no basis in fact. Just a concept. Same as warp drive. An idea until someone proves it's either possible or impossible.

i think this keeps it necessarily simple, otherwise it get's tiresome having a discussion using words that mean different things to different people.
[mycinqminutes.com]

That is a great chart and sums it up nicely.

Can't agree with that chart. There are two kinds of people in the world. There are those who claim 100% certainty about God one way or the other. And then there are honest people.
Additionally, from a Believer's point of view, this chart denies the existence of faith. Where there is 100% certainty there is no need for faith. One does not have faith that one plus one equals two.

@Heraclitus sounds like you are oversimplifying.
Nothing wrong with choosing to specify if you are an agnostic atheist vs a agnostic theist. And while I don't agree with gnostics and both may be irrational stances there are certainly some major differences between gnostic theists and gnostic atheists, I would only lump them together in the category of claiming to know something for sure that they don't.
Referring to the latter half of your statement:
"Certain in/of their faith" then(or at least they say)

@ClaytonE83 Yes, I can agree with what you say, just not with the oversimplication of that chart.

Agreed. Except the label is not very convenient haha. Easier to say atheist and then if people ask why, you talk about how god doesn't have a proper referand and therefore doesn't make sense etc...

@silvereyes It's not lower case "god" that's meaningless. It's upper case "God" that's meaningless. "Zeus" is not meaningless for Zeus was an imaginary god.

@Manestor The word "god" with a small "g: is NOT meaningless. "Zeus" is not meaningless. Zeus was an imaginary god. "Zeus" is like "unicorn", a meaningful word for something nonexistent. It's the word "God" with capital "G" that's meaningless. Why do atheists want to write the meaningful word "god" for the meaningless word "God"? I showed you that the word "creator" can only be learned in terms of the already existing universe. Therefore "Creator of the universe" is meaningless. Thus "God" is meaningless but "god" is meaningful.

"Thus "God" is meaningless" Only if everyone stops talking about him/her

Yes, I learned a long time ago that a room of people can all proclaim a belief in God and yet everyone in that room believes in a somewhat different God, even if everyone in that room claims to believe in the Christian God. But, to admit this is to concede that every believer is, in effect, their own religion.

@Heraclitus You claim "a room of people can all proclaim a belief in God and yet everyone in that room believes in a somewhat different God". Does each say "My God created the universe"? Or do some say "My God did not create the universe"? I claim that if they all said "My God created the universe", then they're all speaking nonsense instead of referring to a concept of anything they could be imagining. If you are able to have a mental concept of anything any of them in the room could be talking about, then please describe that mental concept you claim to be able to have, so I will be able to have that mental concept too. As it is, I am unable to believe that "creator of the universe" can mean anything, since the word "creator" can only be defined in terms of an already existing universe.

@Manestor Why do you misspell the meaningless sound that theists mouth, "God" or "Allah", as "god" with a little "g"? The word "god" with a little "g" is meaningful, but the row of letters "God" with a capital "G" is meaningless. I guess it's because you hold a believe that I am unable to hold -- that theists have coherently defined the row of letters "God" to refer to a god. Why do you believe that?

@Mcflewster People speaking and writing a meaningless sound does not cause the sound to be meaningful.

@EdwinMcCravy

These are words that make no much sense.

For example, Jesus Christ is the hero of the New Testament, where he is described in great detail. While we know little about the historical Jesus, the New Testament Jesus, we know a lot.
We also know that this book with this character has defined the last 2,000 years of our history.

This is enough to make sense to comment, explore, and criticize this hero, who is God for millions of people today.

Both do... Like some decent transliterations of the Tao te Ching... We can't know the light sans darkness.

Don't credit me. I have no idea who beat me to it, but I know I'm not nearly clever enough to have thought of it first.
@silvereyes & @Tenacious

@BobFenner that occurred to me but I declined to elaborate for the sake of pithiness

@stinkeye_a Heeeee! I so wish I were pithy. Cheers

Exactly!

That is why I define myself as an agnostic atheist, but mostly call myself an atheist when soaking to others.

Tyrel77's: >>Theism is a belief in god/s. Atheism is lack of belief in god/s.<< What god/s do you believe Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Jews and Muslims have DEFINED that they believe in? If they haven't DEFINED a god, then they don't really have a god to believe in, so they can't be believing in a god. They only BELIEVE THAT THEY BELIEVE in a god.

@EdwinMcCravy I agree, I've never gotten a sensible definition of a god. But they believe none the less. I know, it doesn't make sense to me.

@silvereyes

Actuaslly a theist would believe and an Atheist would lack that belief (a prefix)
No one has any need to DISBELIEVE in something fantastic and unproven but claimed (say the millenium falcon in your backyard) IF you believe that You believe, if I do not, that is not my DIS belief but my failure to be convinced in the first place.
When it com,es to God I find no way to disbelieve it IN FACT, as I find such poor and incomplete definitions that I cannot build a proper model to either believe or not.

I think for me personally, it's the disbelief connotation of "atheist" which keeps me from self-identifying as such, whereas "non-theist" lacks such a connotation. I would be okay with "non-theist," but "agnostic" is a much better fit.

@bingst What are you agnostic about the existence of? I ask that because I don't know how to have any concept of anything that theists label "God" to be agnostic about the existence of, so please explain what you're agnostic about. Thank you..

@EdwinMcCravy The nature of ultimate reality, per Webster's definition. It helps to stop thinking within the Judeo-Christian framework.

@bingst "The nature of ultimate reality"? I see those words there "the nature of ultimate reality" but for the life of me, I'm not able to conjure up any thought of anything in my head fror "the nature of ultimate reality" that I know of any reason to believe that any Christians, Jews or Muslims would label "God". If you are able to conjure up such in your head, please describe it for me. Then I will be able to conjure up a concept in my brain for it to mean like you say you are able to have in your brain..

@EdwinMcCravy You make it sound as though I'm talking about a god that I believe in. I am not. The whole point of agnosticism is that the nature of ultime reality is unknown, and you want me to describe it?

I can give you an example. There's been a lot of talk lately that we're actually living in a simulation. One could describe what might be outside the simulation as ultimate reality. But what is its nature? Is it a god? Is it... another level of simulation? Or what? Who knows?

@bingst You said "You make it sound as though I'm talking about a god that I believe in." No, no. You sound like you're talking about a god that you DON'T believe in." Are you able to imagine any god that you DON'T believe in? I claim you aren't able to. So why do you believe you disbelieve in a god if you can't think of any god to disbelieve in. I'm not an atheist because I don't believe Christians have defined any god for me to not believe in. As I have said before, Christians do not believe in a god. They just believe that they believe in a god. They can't be believing in a god because they haven't defined one to believe in. So they don't believe in a god. They just think they do.

@Rhetoric: You say "For me it's the 'strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods'" that I don't really possess at the moment and because of that I can't really call myself an Atheist. Why do you believe that Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in a god? I know they THINK they do, and they SAY they do. But what god have they defined? They haven't defined a god to believe in. They just think they have. But they haven't. They say "God is the creator of the universe", but that can't possibly mean anything. Why believe it means something? I don't because I don't know how to. How are you able to?

@silvereyes I have a sneaking suspicion you and I are probably closely aligned as our Agnostic views go. It wasn't so much that I was frustrated, well, yeah I supposed I was frustrated. lol! I am just not a fan of that much aggression, contention and disagreement in one place, at one time, by Many individuals. It was a tad overwhelming. I work hard to keep my life harmonious, streamlined, smooth... hence, I am no fan of heated tempers and heated heads, especially. Even I got so irritated and pissed off that I said some nasty things in response to consistently being drug back in After I Tried so hard to explain/express my perspective and get the heck out of dodge. It was like the gravity of that thread kept pulling my poor shuttle back in for a fresh landing and I couldn't escape. lol I did not want it to get to that point, but, even I lost my shit and went after the juggular too and that isn't how I like to go. Sure, I might be sarcastic and even a smart ass from time to time, but in reality I am a Very gentle, compassionate person and I Don't Enjoy hurting others nor insulting them. I was getting it from many angles at once though. I simply didn't reveal what was taking place outside of that thread. That only served to exasperate and already sticky topic to begin with.

Now, because I tend to agree with TMW, frequently, and I swear I am Not trying to simply agree with him, as I have been accused of doing, that seems to have an entirely different wave of bullshit associated with it. It is assumed I am "teaming up" with him, by a few, and that just isn't true. We do not sit around in a private convo some where online deciding how to "tag team" others. We weren't speaking outside of A.com during that entire thread last night, hence, we clearly were not teaming up and plotting. I think it was basically a culmination of events occuring all at once that got under my skin. It isn't how I want things to remain though and I cannot help the fact that I do agree with TMW on a things of this nature. It isn't something planned out. It isn't me trying to kiss his ass. It isn't us plotting this out behind the scenes either, so for anyone wondering or stating those things, I can say right here and now, that isn't the case. Our approaches are different as well. TMW and I don't even have the same approach. I believe people see what they wish to see. If they wish to see it as a coup, they will. I can do nothing to alter that perception other than doing what I am in this moment: explaining things I feel I needn't, but do so for the sake of making it Clear where my head is at.

And honestly, I do agree with you on not minding as much what a person opts to refer to themselves as so long as they do not infringe upon my rights either. I dislike being told I do not understand my Own, self selected label for Myself. Most people that view this as a ridiculous point of contention are typically the ones who have No issues being mislabeled, typically an Atheist around this neck of the woods. And, like you, I am willing to simply accept labels I come across so long as my own is respected all the same.

I would always acknowledge and heed to a request you make of me because I consider you an honest, forthright, genuine person. I see you as a solid beacon at this site and you were one of the first people here that I initially took notice of. There are a small few of individuals here that I would do whatever they asked of me because of Who they are, How I perceive them based on their input and output. I am fond of you so, naturally, I would come if you made a request for my attendance, so to speak. chuckle Even if I wasn't too keen on the topic at hand, haha, I would still succumb to your request.

@silvereyes I just posted a public apology, actually, for my behaviour last night. I'm bothered by my behaviour. I'm ashamed of some of the mean things I said. It's not my nature. It was just a lot to deal with all at once and I lost control. I felt it Necessary to publicly take responsibility for what I did, what I said and to truly apologize for my actions.

I don't like where that went...

Yes, I agree about TMW. I like to practice the same philosophy of taking my own beliefs and theories apart and deeply delving into my own nature to find the real "truths" I hold to. It's a difficult process. It's also how I became an Agnostic. I,too, bounced around from atheist to Agnostic for a time there. Eventually I realize I prefer the Eastern philosophy of the middle path. This is why I tend to agree with TMW on numerous things. That's why I first clicked his name, because I adhere to belief in the middle path. It didn't just happen to me. It took decades of difficult self analysis and of painful honesty to come to this conclusion, all the while u was losing religion. There was a time I was devout. Hardcore. Pentecostal. Eventually I stopped at latter day saint, last of over a dozen churches I was baptized in while in search of the True Church. I Earned the middle path philosophy through bloodletting my... Soul, if you will. So, it is much the same for me. I continue to purge my truths, to refine them, and to try each day to become a better version of myself. It is a constant work in progress. But I find it is Well Worth It. I would want to be no other way.

And I do think you and I have some similar points of view too. I honestly do watch and study people typically before I approach them, so even though you do hear a ton From me, directly, I have been watching, and not just you, I watch Many people. Haha. And si senorita!!

@silvereyes typo, "so even thought you Don't hear a ton From me, directly".

For some reason it would allow me to edit that post.

Exactly Paula. My question, and I'll ask it again, is this: Why do atheists and agnostics criticize me for my DISBELIEF that "God" is a meaningful word?

@EdwinMcCravy Paula? If you're asking me, then I can't I can't explain to you what I think others are thinking... If you're asking me to do that, then you should be able to do it too and your question is pointless.

@Paul628 You and I cannot know for sure what concepts others have, but we can know for sure whether we know of any reason to believe that "God" and "Allah" are any different from the rows of alphabet letters "Ziggle", "Floof" and "Driffit", which I just made up, as far as having any meaning.

Paul628 And how can anyone possibly argue with that?

@EdwinMcCravy To me, when someone describes their god in the most common generic way I've usually heard... omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, they might as well be describing the Easter bunny to me. I see no reason to believe in either one.

@Paul628 You're trying to "compare the incomparable". You're trying to compare the meaningLESS capitalized row of letters "God" with the very meaningFUL term "Easter Bunny". It's easy to imagine the Easter Bunny, which is what the term "Easter Bunny" refers to, but it's impossible to imagine anything that the row of three alphabet letters "God" could stand for. .

@EdwinMcCravy I'm comparing two fantasies.

@Paul628 What fantasy do you think theists refer to when they say "God"? I am unable to imagine any fantasy they are referring to when they say "God"? If you know of a fantasy labeled "God", then please, please, tell me how to have a concept of it, because I do not know how to..

@EdwinMcCravy ^^^ Go up three replies.

@Paul628 I don't know which reply is "three up", nor am I able to conjure up a concept in my head of anything, fantasy or whatever, Christians are talking about when they utter the sound or write the row of three alphabet letters "God", written with capital "G". (not with little "g", like so many atheists write instead of "God" ). Since I can't have a concept of anything labeled "God" that Christians believe in and atheists and agnostics claim to disbelieve in, I cannot be a theist, atheist or agnostic.

@EdwinMcCravy "Go up three replies" means go up to the reply I posted three replies up from there. There are arrows pointing the way ^^^ Label yourself however you want. I'm not trying to do it.

@AMGT I've called many things... Paula is a first.

@Paul628 But I have a very vivid mental concept of the Easter Bunny, just as I do for Santa Claus. Therefore the terms "Easter Bunny" and "Santa Claus" are meaningful, for I have vivid mental concepts of them both. 'Meaningfulness' has nothing to do with 'existence', for we all have vivid images of mermaids and unicorns, neither of which exist. Now if you claim to have any mental concept of something nonexistent labeled "God" or "Allah", then please describe it for me so that I will be able to have it too. Thanks. But I claim that "God" and "Allah" are NOT like "mermaid" and "unicorn", which refer to the imaginable, but are like "Zipple" and "Smoofage", which I just made up, and which refer to nothing at all.

@EdwinMcCravy Describe for me the mental images you have for non-existent things like the Easter Bunny, Santa, Mermaid, or a Unicorn.

I can say with confidence that your descriptions will not be identical to mine. Similar but not identical.

Now if I describe the image I have of god I picture an old man with a white beard, white hair and white robes standing on a cloud in heaven.

Allah, I picture someone with dark skin wearing robes who looks similar to Osama Bin Laden or maybe even Jeebus.

Now you have mental images of God or Allah similar to mine but not identical.

@Paul628 You say "Describe for me the mental images you have for non-existent things like the Easter Bunny, Santa, Mermaid, or a Unicorn". The Easter Bunny is a big rabbit. Santa Claus is a big fat man in a red suit with a white beard and a pointed cap. It's easy to imagine such things. Did you see the movie "Splash"? That was a mermaid Darryl Hannah played. You can easily imagine what you saw in that picture. That was the concept of a mermaid. You are talking about finite things -- animals. They are easy to have a mental concept of. We can imagine all sorts of nonexistent animals. If I could draw on here I'd draw them for you. I can find pictures of all these things on the Internet. Is that what you want me to do? All Santas look very similar to the men we see in shopping malls at Christmas time.. All look very similar. But there is no way to have a concept of anything labeled "God, the omnipresent infinite incorporeal spirit that created the universe". You can't even make sense when you say "created the universe" because you can only define the word "created" in terms of one part of the already existing universe creating another part of the already existing universe. So when you stick the word "universe" with "create", you are constructing a row of words that sound like it refers to something but it doesn't. So don't be fooled into thinking it does. If you believe you are able to conjure up a concept in your head for "creator of the universe" to refer to, then why not explain it to me so I can have that concept too? I can easily explain the concept of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, a unicorn and a mermaid. And while you're at it, explain how the verb "create" can be defined without speaking of anything in the universe. You can't and you know you can't. So why not just admit that you can't? . .

@EdwinMcCravy "Also explain how "create" can be defined without speaking of anything in the universe. You can't and you know you can't. So why not just admit that you can't?"

I ate a big dinner and created a big shit later. (Yes I know I shit inside the universe. Give it rest already.)

Surely you have been able to imagine something similar to one of these images and can summon it up in your head from memory.
I couldn't find an image of Allah because it is considered blasphemy and I really didn't care enough to keep searching, so you'll need to use your very limited imagination.

This is the last time I'm going to respond to this circular argument since it is going nowhere and I think you're only keeping it alive because you like to quibble over meaningless bullshit.

I haven't felt the need to block anyone since I signed up here, but you could be #1.

@Paul628 "I ate a big dinner and created a big shit later. (Yes I know I shit inside the universe. Give it rest already.)"

Right, a part of the universe, YOU, created another part of the universe, the SHIT. But if you say that one part of the universe creates another part of the universe, and then you are calling a PART of the universe "THE WHOLE UNIVERSE", then you aren't making a lick of sense. So realize it.

@TheMiddleWay That's great info - I think empirical agnosticism is what I would like to refer myself as. Thanks.

Please define the deity that you believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in. Thanks.