Normally I hate using big words on my blog to describe religion or Christianity in particular, but... I have had this topic on my mind for quite some time and have finally decided to write about it here. I believe that this is one of the tell tale signs that man created gods and not the other way around. When I read the bible I do not see any imprint of the divine, in fact it all looks like a product of human fabrication.
I generally attack Christianity because it is the number one religion in the world with the most adherents, and because it is what I know. But the analyses contained in this article is relevant to all religions past and present that worship some form of deity that is similar to man.
So let's start this article by defining that big word that is included in the title of this article in the simplest way possible. According to the Sage dictionary that I have on my system it is defined as: 'The representation of objects (especially a god) as having human form or traits.' It is important to understand that this definition is needed to understand not just today's religions but those of antiquity as being of human origin.
It is interesting to note that our gods, from the beginning of time have always been described as having some sort of human form or traits. Many ancient gods are also described as gender specific by his/her (goddess)followers. The Greeks and the Romans religious beliefs were a perfect example of anthropomorphism. They generally believed that everything in the universe, including random acts of nature were determined by the gods. Disasters were the physical display of a gods displeasure with his/her adherents.
The biblical God is said to be omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere at once), and finally ineffable (defying expression or description). Yet, the bible is chock full of descriptions of this god and coincidentally he seems all too human for my taste. In fact, all of those divine traits are overshadowed by his human traits. This God displays both positive and negative human traits that if we are to take the bible at face value betray the sacredness of God himself.
Most of the time we hear from believers that God is love but we seldom hear that he is also jealous and a consuming fire as described in Deuteronomy 4:24. God hates certain acts or deeds, he is jealous of other gods, he punishes and curses those that oppose him etc. All of these negative traits in my opinion don't belong to a deity who is supposed to be holy, perfect, and without sin. When you think of it doesn't the bible teach that hating and cursing people is a sin? The bible teaches that you should love your enemies and bless them that curse you (Matthew 5:44). Yet God can't seem to adhere to his own Word.
Why is this disparity so contradictory to what we hear about God from his adherents? Because it is not the word of God but the word of man, it's as simple as that. God is said to be holy yet his words and deeds as ascribed to him by the many authors of the bible betray this assumption.
The bible teaches that we were created in His image Genesis 1:26 when in fact the truth is the other way around. We created God in our image and I believe that if we were any other species capable of worship our god would look just like us as is illustrated in the 2001 movie 'Planet of the Apes.' In this film the apes were awaiting the return of their chimpanzee messiah Semos. Many have stated that God is the creation of primitive man in a pre-scientific age. In closing I second this opinion.
What is your concept of God then?
ReplyDeleteI believe God is a human invention of man in a more primitive state and time.
Delete"My specialty was exorcisms aka as a deliverance ministry."
ReplyDeleteDid you cast out any evil spirits or demons or whatever you were supposed to cast out when you did exorcism?
I like to hear from you about exorcism: because it is an interesting subject in particular to ascertain the existence or non-existence of entities, you if ever succeeded in casting out from a human being.
Just like I don't believe in God I don't believe in demons. I think that those that were so called possessed were actually acting out a mental concept of demon oppression. Remember these people are indoctrinated and for the most part attribute anything bad that happens to them to demon activity in their lives.
DeleteThanks for your replying to my comments.
ReplyDeleteYou say God is an invention of man, but you have not told me what is your concept of God.
And forgive me, but you have not told me whether you had ever cast out any entity at all from a possessed human, or brought him back to a condition, so he no longer shows signs of possession.
Okay my concept of God comes from the Judeo-Christian idea of God. He is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and is supposedly the creator of all things. Of course as an atheist I don't believe that such a being exists and that there are passages in the Bible that actually contradict all of those attributes of God that I have just mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI have cast out so called demons from possessed people many times it was the focus of my ministry. Don't get me wrong when I mean cast out a demon or performed exorcisms I do not mean it in the traditional Catholic sense. I was a Pentecostal evangelist and we believe that we have the Holy Spirit abiding within us. Like the apostles and Christ himself we have through our relationship with Christ the same power over demons as Christ did.
I never performed any ritual but rather cast out demons through the exercise of authority and the spoken word. Later people would testify to having intentions of killing themselves and claim to have been compelled to come into the service I was conducting.
I don't believe in that any more and think that it has a very rational explanation. I believe that so called demonic possession and oppression are the result of psychosomatic disorders and only exist in the minds of those who suffer. I have never seen a bed rise from the floor, nor flying furniture of any kind. Those are just tales that are greatly exaggerated for entertainment purposes. Don't let yourself be misled by Hollywoods so called demon possession movies that claim that it is based on true events. It is for the most part but they have to make it interesting. In their retelling they tend to go overboard with the details and greatly exaggerate the events they depict.
Thanks for replying.
ReplyDeleteYou are always referring to the Bible which is a text written thousands of years back in man's history of thinking.
Suppose you think with our present day critical thinking procedure about the origin of the existence of everything that we know today to exist, where does it all come from?
About your exorcising ministry, did it work benefit of lasting duration to the human subject?
It if did, then it is a useful ministry, and there is a agency involved and we have to examine what is that agency.
"Suppose you think with our present day critical thinking procedure about the origin of the existence of everything that we know today to exist, where does it all come from?"
DeleteThe best that we know from the evidence is that the universe began to exist at the big bang. To date how life has evolved from inanimate matter is still a mystery that is being researched and there are no definitive answers at this time. There is plenty of evidence to support the evolution of species through the process of natural selection but that does not answer the question of origins (abiogenesis).
"About your exorcising ministry, did it work benefit of lasting duration to the human subject?"
Honestly I could not answer that question for you since I preached in various churches from time to time and that is what an evangelist does. It is up to the pastors of those churches to help nurture the new converts and teach them about their beliefs etc.
Finally, if the exorcisms did work and had a lasting duration on the subject doesn't mean necessarily that there was an agency (God) behind it. Have you ever heard of psychosomatic disorders? This does not only refer to mental infirmities that appear to display physical symptoms on a subject but also to so called demon possession. What I'm trying to say is that it could all be in your head.
Ultimately there is or has always been something which is the origin of everything but is itself not originating from something else.
ReplyDeleteIs that acceptable to you?
About psychosomatic effects for the betterment of a subject or for the worsening of a subject, that is a descriptive term but it does not answer the question of agency, it just merely says that the brain can effect results in the rest of the human body.
But that is a program in the human entity, and a program needs a programmer.
And ultimately there has always been something that is the origin of everything else but itself does not originate from something else.
Can you accept that as essential to critical thinking?
Or your critical thinking stops at brain influencing body?
That is not thinking to the ultimate agency.
"ultimately there has always been something that is the origin of everything else but itself does not originate from something else."
DeleteBased on the wording of this statement it leads me to believe that you are presupposing an uncaused cuased or as creationists refer to him the prime mover. But inferring from that that God did it does not make any sense. If you can accept that everything has a cause for its existence then you would have to apply that same reasoning to what you call God. Otherwise all that you are doing is what is referred to in critical thinking as committing the logical fallacy known as special pleading.
"But that is a program in the human entity, and a program needs a programmer."
Stop referring or comapring to living organisms as computers. We are biological orgamisms who actually created computers and made them to work based on a model or understanding of how our brains and bodies seem to work.
I am content to say that when it comes to how everything began from the universe to life that I don't know. Science is still working on the problem and has made great strides towards finding an answer. We may never find a definitive answer in our lifetime or in the future but God did it is neither scientific nor logical.
What you are doing is inferring from ancient folklore and myths that that is what started it all. You might as well say that Santa is the uncaused cause. No one knows the answer at this time but I am pretty sure that ancient myths and their crazy beliefs are not the answer.
If you are interested in the science then read books about science and stop trying to claim knowledge from a book of myths. If you want to go the myth route then if I had to say God did it I would rather call that god Zeus. The god of the bible is a tyrant who is not worthy of recognition or praise. He is the shining example of everything I hate in a fellow human being. He is egotistical, arrogant, dictatorial, immoral, and evil.
Everything has a cause should read everything with a beginning has a cause.
ReplyDeleteThat is what has always been again and again deficiently stated by atheists, but theists always state that everything with a beginning has a cause.
Now, our knowledge is based on our experiences: directly and also indirectly but as reliably by rational inferences from our experiences.
And it is our experience that everything that we make to operate uniformly is due to our making it to act according to the program we enable it to act or operate, and we humans are the ones who make the program.
From our experiences then, we know that the universe has a program because it is obviously following a program; for example, the sun and the moon which are parts of the physical universe, and also our heart-beat, they are all following programs, otherwise we would be in a chaotic situation if we at all could exist and be living -- which is impossible physically.
So, we do observe and thus understand that the universe follows a program, and we infer thus that there is a programmer for the universe -- again, from our own experiences of how and why we make things work for us, with our inventions of tools and now advanced electro-mechanical devices, like for example, a communication satellite in outer space.
You see, sir, you are now into non-thinking by bringing up the categorical declaration that you cannot know, but if you have reason to think and to think on the basis of our experiences, then you have to scientifically know that as the universe exhibits a program so also there is a programmer.
This so called program that governs the universe must be quite special. You allude to the so called fine tuning of the universe etcetera but you neglect to mention that it is not so neat as it appears. The universe is a dangerous and chaotic place. There are stars dying all the time (super nova), new galaxies are being discovered all the time, there are meteor showers and all sorts of debris in space that pose a real threat to our planet. In fact, the universe is a very hostile environment as is the world we live in.
DeleteIn claiming design in everything and inferring from that fallacious assertion that God did it you are in fact the one who has stopped thinking logically. Let's talk about this perfect program you keep seeing in your horrible analogies.
If God did it then explain to me why there are flaws in our dna that cause horrible birth defects, what is the purpose in giving birth to a still born (dead) child,what is the purpose of creating species only to have them go extinct? In fact, how do you know that the human race itself wont eventually go extinct? Explain to me the reasoning behind natural disasters such tsunami's, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, typhoons, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, droughts, etc. ?
"everything with a beginning has a cause"
If this statement is true than the same must apply to your God. If you believe as you've stated earlier that there is no such thing as an infinite regress and that the universe had a beginning which it did, then I have to ask where did God come from? Based on your assertion he cannot have existed eternally because that in and of itself is an impossibility.
What was God doing before the big bang? Before the existence of time and space as we know it? In short if God created everything then what created God or where did God come from? This is where your argument falls completely apart and relies on nonsensical assertions not culled from experience but rather from faith.
I know you will counter that God did not begin to exist therefore he is not bound by the same rules as the rest of all existing things that had a beginning but this reasoning is flawed. If you can't explain the origin of God then you must also concede that he came from nothing.
Finally, if I were to concede that there was something called god that created all things I would believe in a deistic god which is an impersonal creator that just set things in motion and left us to our own devices. If you accept a personal creator then you must also explain why you choose him as your god and how you came to the conclusion that he was the correct god.
Thanks for your reply.
ReplyDeleteLet us talk about whether there has always been something.
What is your take on that?
I hope we can continue to talk.
ReplyDeleteYour intention is to do away with God.
My intention is to get to know how you think.
If you do get to do away with God, that is only your self-conviction that God does not exist, which is a conviction in your heart, but not in your mind: because the mind is like a cctv, if you do not cover it with your heart, then it sees everything that is what we call knowledge of things existing and things that can exist.
Anyway, let us talk about your thinking that leads you to know that there has never been always something.
My thinking leads me to know that there has always been something even in that status in which science has not come to the existence of the universe which according to scientists has a beginning in the big bang at which point even space and time themselves began.
I hope we can continue to talk on and on.
And I have the pleasure to commend you that so far you have not suppressed my presence in your blog -- even though you have the notice all the time at the top of the edit box:
"Your comment will be visible after approval."
Thanks, so far you have approved my thinking to appear in your blog.
You grant [though of course not conceding] that: "Finally, if I were to concede that there was something called god that created all things I would believe in a deistic god which is an impersonal creator that just set things in motion and left us to our own devices. If you accept a personal creator then you must also explain why you choose him as your god and how you came to the conclusion that he was the correct god."
ReplyDeleteSo, you know or even just suspect that there has always been something that is the origin of everything we know to exist, and by which we come to know that there has always been something.
Only you do not see that something to be as intelligent and powerful as you would be if you were that something, because then you could have made everything so perfect, that then there would be no more such things as tsunami and chaotic dangers in the vast universe, and also people born with cleft lips.
Well, that is a most may I use the term ambitious aspiration from your part when you get to be that something that has always existed, but you know that will never ever happen.
In the meantime you have the privilege of criticizing that something that has always existed, for not doing a more intelligent and better universe.
Aha!
Thanks for completely ignoring everything that I stated in my last reply. You are dishonest in your attempt to try to know how I think. Isn't lying a sin? You are trying to get me to accept that there is a god and that he is the one that you choose to believe in.
DeleteSecondly, I am not trying as you say to "do away with God" I just have not seen evidence of this deity's existence. Besides, the onus on proving this beings existence is entirely on you so stop trying to flip the burden of proof onto me. You are making the positive assertion that he exists so you must prove your case which to date you haven't.
The whole think with you mind and heart thing is just another bad analogy by you since you have presented several already and none that I have not seen before. We think with our minds not our hearts and contrary to the ignorance of theists our thoughts and emotions all originate in the brain. The heart has nothing to do with thoughts and emotions. It is simply a pump that helps oxygenated blood travel throughout the body.
I am growing weary of discussing this issue with you because it is going to end the same way that it started. You are going to leave believing in your ancient myths and fairytales and I am going to leave rejecting them due to lack of evidence. What you are doing is known as circular reasioning. You start with God exists and you end with God exists. But in all honesty that is not how one goes about logical reasoning.
Lastly, you completely ignored my questions. If God did it then where did God come from? How is it that everything that exist must have a beginning and yet your god doesn't? If your answer is that he did not begin to exist but always has then you have left the path of reason and jumped into the realm of irrationality.
Basically, theists like yourself love to point to the gaps in scientific knowledge such as how did everything begin to exist and stated that we believe that it all came from nothing. That is called the god of the gaps theory. Then you go on and state that God did it but you can't explain what did God or where he/she/it came from and what was its origins. Basically you are saying that God came from nothing because you can't explain the origins of God.
When it comes to the origins of everything such as the universe and life I am humble enough to state that I don't know. What kills theists most is their arrogance to knowledge which quite frankly is beyond their reach at this point in time. Your so called knowledge is not based on any research or thorough study but on ancient myths and beliefs.
You have not even stated what it is you actually believe or what god you believe in. If you have nothing new to add to this discussion I would appreciate it if you just stop posting comments. I will no longer post nor reply to them if I see that they are nothing but the same circular arguements over and over again.
You say, "Lastly, you completely ignored my questions. If God did it then where did God come from?"
ReplyDeleteMay I just answer to your question above if I have not answered it already in many words earlier and by implication all the time: God does not come from anything, He is independently existing, independently from any other entity whatever.
If God is dependent on another entity to come to existence, then He is an entity with a beginning, and I define God as an entity without any beginning.
That is my answer to your question at the top of this message.
You will ask what evidence do I have? The answer is the evidence from thinking. You have also the evidence from thinking, that God is not dispensed from depending on something else to come to existence, but then you are defining God as having a beginning.
So, each of us have to define first our concept of God, then we look up evidence from thinking or from the universe, to support our definition of God; but if we get our evidence from the universe: then we have to process the evidence from the universe by again with our thinking -- evidence founded on physical things are evidence only when we use them in our thinking..
I am trying to find out whether we can agree on some things at least.
That is why I am bringing up the question or idea that something has always existed: for if something has not always existed, then we would not be here to exchange ideas or even ask the question, Has something always existed.
Your answer to that question is what?
Here is my answer to that question: Yes, something has always existed even in the status in which the universe as studied by scientists were not existing.
You see, if we do not agree on something always having existed, then on your part as you deny that something has always existed, you cannot anymore continue to talk about anything at all, as from nothing as a starting point of our discourse, if paradoxically we agree to that, then we should both from that point onward stop, cease and desist from all talking, because then we are observing the scenario of nothing at all having ever existed, and consequently as we do have a beginning, we could have began at all from nothing having existed at all.
Please, can we just at least get to agree on some things?
If the question something has always existed is too abstract, then let us see whether we can agree that you exist and I exist and we are interacting.
You prefer to go into very minute things, like what kind of a god do I believe in; can we go to the most crucial questions, like whether something has always existed? or that you and I exist and are interacting: these are very crucial questions which can be answered with our concurrence, on thinking and thinking on facts.
Please, don't get tired out, let thinking be your greatest delight and challenge.
When you say for instance that "God does not come from anything, He is independently existing, independently from any other entity whatever." You have left the realm of reason and entered into the realm of faith without evidence.
DeleteNo amount of thinking can lead a reasonable person to invent a being that is not subject to the universal law that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Gods are created by man and are strictly the product of the human imagination due to lack of understanding of the universe and the world we live in.
Most theists share several common goals. They want to find a reason for their existence, they hope that this is not all that there is, they hope to live forever in eternal bliss. All of these things are not facts but fantasies.
If you define energy as god then maybe we can agree on something because energy is a very real force that manifests itself in varied forms such as work or heat,etc.
I cannot commend you more because you have not turned away much less deleted all my posts here.
ReplyDeleteLet us continue.
I am asking you whether you agree with me that you and I exist and are interacting.
I do not see your answer to my question above.
You say, "If you define energy as god then maybe we can agree on something because energy is a very real force that manifests itself in varied forms such as work or heat,etc. "
ReplyDeleteOkay, let us agree that energy is God, but don't you think that first we have to agree on a concept of what is energy?
I think you do have a concept of energy: "...energy is a very real force that manifests itself in varied forms such as work or heat,etc. "
I agree with you on your concept of energy.
Now, shall we continue to think?
Let me think and ask you what you think of my thought.
You say: "...energy is a very real force that manifests itself in varied forms such as work or heat,etc. "
So, accepting that concept of energy and its role in the whole realm of existence, can we agree that before what scientists say about the beginning of the universe in the Big Bang, then energy is the cause of everything that makes up the universe which has a beginning: meaning in that status in which status there has not been any universe, there is energy: you agree to that consequential thought from me?
I want to tell you that you are exceptional among Christians who turned into atheists, that you have not turned away much less deleted all my posting here.
No, I am not trying to bring you back to Christianity, though I know that from charity I am bound to do so, but I am right now taking a leave of the work of charity to do thinking with you, because my great delight is to do thinking and try to see whether I can succeed in getting another thinker to for us to agree on the fruits of our thinking together.
"I am asking you whether you agree with me that you and I exist and are interacting."
ReplyDeleteI consider this to be a stupid question with an obvious answer.
I would say that energy in some form or another could have caused the big bang and set off a chain of cause and effects that go on to this day. My problem is that I don't believe in a personal god such as the Christian concept of god. That is also why I said if I was ever to become a theist again I would become a deist. If you don't know what a deist is you can read about them here: http://deism.com/index.html
The biblical god is flawed, evil, and tyrannical. I would never submit nor bow down to such a beast even if I found that he did exist. I wont delete your post but I will just stop replying when I get tired of talking to you about this matter.
You say, "My problem is that I don't believe in a personal god such as the Christian concept of god. That is also why I said if I was ever to become a theist again I would become a deist."
ReplyDeleteSo, if I may, you do accept a god that is impersonal.
And also consequently that an impersonal god is the cause of everything that exists, anything which is not the impersonal god himself.
In which case, we must both work on a concurred on concept of what is a personal god as distinct from an impersonal god.
Is that all right with you?
Earlier, I was asking you whether you agree with me that you and I are existing and interacting, you agree with me because you say that it is a stupid question and the answer is obvious, namely, it would be stupid to not agree with me.
Let us now proceed to work on a concurred on concept of what is a person as distinct from a non-person.
Here is my concept of a person, "An existing entity that has intelligence and power and free will to act or not."
But I am disposed to modify my concept of what is a person, as we work together on a concurred on concept of person.
Now it's your turn: What is your concept of a person, from which concept you draw the concept of a non-person, namely, an entity that is not a person.
Please don't get tired with thinking, or get tired as not to ever return to thinking; when you do get tired, just rest a while and then we can resume out interaction on each other's thinking.
"So, if I may, you do accept a god that is impersonal.And also consequently that an impersonal god is the cause of everything that exists, anything which is not the impersonal god himself."
ReplyDeleteYou assume too much! I said if I accepted a concept of god, which I don't. Like I've said several times and you refuse to acknowledge is that I don't know what caused the beginning of the universe and life as we know it to exist. In fact, I'll go one step further; no one knows. Not even theists. When you jump from reason to God did it then you are no longer reasoning but making unverifiable assumptions on faith.
The second part of your argument seems like it is going in the way of an argument from consciousness. Once again you'll be wasting your time with me since I think consciousness is the result of the evolution of our human brains. I do not believe in a so called God consciousness. Once again these are not proven facts from the theistic view but rather assumptions made on faith. Faith and so called divine revelation is in my opinion an invalid means of acquiring knowledge.
Well, if I may, I observe that we have come to concurrence on the following points:
ReplyDelete1. There has always existed something.
2. That something is energy.
3. Energy is the origin of everything that is not that something that has always existed, i.e., the primordial energy is distinct from everything that is not the primordial energy.
Now, you also state that if you care to believe in god, it is not the Christian God but an impersonal god.
It is at this point that I am most keen to further pursue exchange thoughts with you, on what is the meaning of the concept of person, as distinct from non-person.
And we also agree that (of course it is stupid to ask as also to answer, because it is obvious) you and I exist and are interacting with our thoughts.
About your getting tired, please if you do get tired of thinking, then rest and return to our work together to come to as many concurrence points as we can work out together.
If however you do definitely want to cease and desist from our conversation, then at least let us say good-bye to each other, in particular from my part that I be given or allowed a last post here, to say good-bye to you.
"If however you do definitely want to cease and desist from our conversation, then at least let us say good-bye to each other, in particular from my part that I be given or allowed a last post here, to say good-bye to you."
DeleteThis conversation is pointless and is going nowhere. It's not that I am tired of thinking it's that I'm tired of hearing the same arguments over and over and over again. You have presented nothing new here that I have not heard of before and you seem to cherry pick from my responses only those points that seem to help your case.
I find this conversation neither progressive nor productive and so unless you have something new to add I would like to discontinue this line of inquiry with you. In the end it ends the way I said it would you leave a theist and I leave and atheist unconvinced of any of the arguments you have presented and their validity.
Well, we have concurred on the following as I have said already:
ReplyDeleteQUOTE
Well, if I may, I observe that we have come to concurrence on the following points:
1. There has always existed something.
2. That something is energy.
3. Energy is the origin of everything that is not that something that has always existed, i.e., the primordial energy is distinct from everything that is not the primordial energy.
Now, you also state that if you care to believe in god, it is not the Christian God but an impersonal god.
It is at this point that I am most keen to further pursue exchange thoughts with you, on what is the meaning of the concept of person, as distinct from non-person.
UNQUOTE
Please, tell me what is your concept of person.
Where am I leading to?
So that we may know on a concurring basis what is a person, because you say that if you were to accept the existence of god then it is going to be an impersonal god.
But you know that we cannot understand what is an impersonal entity unless we first know what is a personal entity.
So, please dear sir, tell me what is your concept of a person.
I have already presented my concept of person, see above (reproduced as follows):
QUOTE
Here is my concept of a person, "An existing entity that has intelligence and power and free will to act or not."
UNQUOTE
Now, you are insisting that I produce an argument for God's existence that is not already all the arguments which you have if I understand you correctly rebutted.
As a matter of fact, I am already into exchange of thoughts with you on how we can know the existence of God as the creator of everything that is not God.
I prefer not to use the term argument because it is too confrontational, but I do invite you to work with me so that we can concur on concepts and realities by which we can eventually come to the existence of God as per the concept of God we will concur on, or come to an impasse by which we know why you do not know God exists and I know God exists, namely, owing to our respective grounds and methods of thinking on truths and facts.
If you want to ask me questions, for I notice that you insist that I answer your questions, if according to what I understand from you, I am not answering to your questions -- then and forgive me, please ask me just one question which is the most crucially important to you by which you in thinking over that question have come to the conclusion that there is no God, but there is if you care to accept a god, there is only energy which on its face is not a personal god, but of course we have yet to concur on what is a person.
So, dear sir, you can ask me one question, that for you is the most crucially important.
Or you can tell me what is a person, so that I can understand thereby what is a non-person, by which non-person, if you were to accept the existence of a god, then that god is a non-person god.
Or you can address both items, one question to me, and your concept of what is a person.
All the time in my posting here, I am already into an argument from me, but let us not use the term argument because it is confrontational to the extent that it sounds like a declaration of war -- of course you will deny that it is a declaration of war -- okay, then it is not any declaration of war...
So, let us continue with our reciprocal argument on from your part, no god, and from my part, yes God.
But dear sir, please, can we clear up our terms and thus our concepts so that our exchange of thoughts or reciprocal arguments will not be to futile purpose: because we are standing of shallow soil owing to lack of concurrence on terms and concepts most crucially vital for the resolution of the present concern, and also for the resolution of any question or issue whatsoever.