Is it possible to believe in God and a meaningless universe?

I am thinking lately about the question of suffering. If atheism is correct, and there is no God, therefore there is no order or meaning in the cosmos, and the whole issue of suffering is irrelevant because it does not matter whether one is good or evil, suffering just happens.

The theistic argument is that there is a God, and so the issue of theodicy comes into play: how can bad things happen to good people if there is a God?

Is it possible to believe in a loving God, and at the same time, believe that there is no meaning in suffering, that suffering just happens?
«1345

Comments

  • There is a word for it which I forgot, but it is possible to believe in a deity who is not all-powerful and is unable to stop things happening.

    Some seem to think this is not a deity worth believing in. Which I don't understand. Providing he is several magnitudes bigger than you are, does it really matter if he is not actually all-powerful?
  • I think the term you are looking for is Theodicy.
  • Does my dog love me, or a baby bird the mother bird which feeds it? Is it just a wee bit pompous of me to think what I call a loving god is anywhere close to a loving human. I expect the gap between me and doggie and bird is smaller than the gap between God and me.
  • Does my dog love me, or a baby bird the mother bird which feeds it? Is it just a wee bit pompous of me to think what I call a loving god is anywhere close to a loving human. I expect the gap between me and doggie and bird is smaller than the gap between God and me.
    True. But all of this is working from analogy. The way the dog acts towards me is similar to the way I act toward people I love, so I conclude that the dog loves me. So when I think about God, and the idea that "God is love," I assume that means She has feelings towards me similar to feelings I have about my wife, or that I assume my dog has towards me.
  • If the God we believe in is one who is the creator of the universe, and we observe that its natural processes and reactions have no sense of right or wrong, nor do its life forms except for human beings, why should we assume that God would make a special bubble of heaven for us which doesn't behave naturally?

    God is with us through the pain, but doesn't take it away. Jesus taught us to pray 'Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven'. He suffered.

    So yes, it is possible to believe in a loving God and that suffering just happens. I do.
  • To the title: YES! I do. Although God gives the otherwise meaningless multiverse meaning. If God exists then He is the ground of completely freely autonomous being that looks like He doesn't exist. If God does not exist there is nothing missing in explaining existence.

    But let's assume He exists. He omms (aums) all that is from forever. That's love. He cannot intervene. As a 99.99..99% rule. That's love. Once you start, where do you stop? The 0.00..01% exception is incarnation. That's love. 110%

    Without incarnation there would be no need for God at all. No warrant. Even if He were there.

    Beyond this conception-gestation existence is transcendent birth-life. That's love.

    The only way for the transcendent, the sublime to be populated, to grow, is from the physical. It just is.

    The omnis are all nonsense. Syntactic but unsemantic, like Lewis Carroll's The Walrus And The Carpenter. Surreal. Absurd. Meaningless. But on the cusp of meaning. Sounding like it could mean much. But utterly meaningless (you know, the opposite of Lacanian analysis). Omniscience is impossible for a start. Even of what you're omming. Quantum and relatavistic uncertainty is integral, fundamental to, inextricable from, existence. It just is. Even in Heaven, even that part of God, which, who, is constrained by logic.

    This is the shallow end of the best of all possible worlds.

    Or there is only shallow end.

    In the deep end all is restituted. All will be well. That's love.

    An' that.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Is it possible to believe in a loving God, and at the same time, believe that there is no meaning in suffering, that suffering just happens?
    I think so. Certainly in Christian theology suffering has no intrinsic meaning - all evils are a lack that can only acquire meaning from a greater context. At least some suffering is the direct result of sin and I think very few Christian theologians have given sin a place in the divine plan.

    Attempts to justify suffering are usually unconvincing, and historically have often tend to mean that it becomes less urgent to alleviate it.
  • I am thinking lately about the question of suffering. If atheism is correct, and there is no God, therefore there is no order or meaning in the cosmos, and the whole issue of suffering is irrelevant because it does not matter whether one is good or evil, suffering just happens.
    Until the human species evolved, what we call suffering was biology! It is only with our ability to use language that.the vocabulary came about and the labelling of different aspects of ourselves, with all the connotations that go with it, began.
    Is it possible to believe in a loving God, and at the same time, believe that there is no meaning in suffering, that suffering just happens?
    The answer has to be yes, since so many people do just that.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Providing he is several magnitudes bigger than you are, does it really matter if he is not actually all-powerful?
    Well, yes.
    I'd firstly question the equation of size and power and being a worthy object of worship: being big has nothing to do with worship. That's just power-worship.
    But God has to be such that it makes sense for Julian of Norwich to say of creation that it continues to exist because God loves it. And of no being of merely finite magnitude, however big that magnitude, can that be said. Anything of merely finite magnitude is just another part of creation.

    Another point is that the end of human existence is supposed to be the beatific vision. That can only be an ontological fact about human existence, a truth about fundamental reality as such, as in some strains of Hindu thought (*) fundamental reality is said to be Being, consciousness, and bliss. A being that isn't part of human nature, even if it's supposedly causally responsible for human nature, can't meet that requirement. It can't be, as Augustine said of God, closer to me than my own self. To worship such a thing would be heteronomy: to make my being dependent on something alien to it. (This is one of the many theological confusions in the concept of 'intelligent' design, which posits God as being exactly that kind of very big causal origin.)

    (*) according to the Eastern Orthodox theologian Bentley Hart at any rate

  • So you are saying that if I am some being the size of an ant and I worship a being the size of a mountain, it makes a difference that the deity is not the size of the universe even though functionally I can't tell the difference.

    Huh?
  • I was just mulling over a section in the OP, "if there is no God and no order or meaning in the universe". There is clearly some order in the universe, so that seems a peculiar argument, unless you are going into reverse, there is order, therefore God. As to meaning, well, I think ultimate meaning and proximate meaning have been discussed on other threads. For example, this post has meaning for me, maybe not for others! Aren't we dealing here with straw men?
  • I think the problem is in believing in a loving God. There was a widespread view in the 18th century that God had made the universe and then never interfered again. This view might be called Deism, but I can't be sure.
  • To be more explicit, I've never heard an atheist say, there is no God, therefore there is no order or meaning. That's self-contradictory, since the utterance itself has order and meaning.
  • I was just mulling over a section in the OP, "if there is no God and no order or meaning in the universe". There is clearly some order in the universe, so that seems a peculiar argument, unless you are going into reverse, there is order, therefore God. As to meaning, well, I think ultimate meaning and proximate meaning have been discussed on other threads. For example, this post has meaning for me, maybe not for others! Aren't we dealing here with straw men?

    Possibly there are two different ideas of "order".

    Because of gravity, things on this planet's surface are pulled down. Disorder would presumably mean that instead that things were chaotic and impossible to understand and predict.

    But the concept of "God's ordering" is something else.

    Unfortunately I'm not sure I can define it now.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Providing he is several magnitudes bigger than you are, does it really matter if he is not actually all-powerful?
    Well, yes.
    I'd firstly question the equation of size and power and being a worthy object of worship: being big has nothing to do with worship. That's just power-worship.

    But God has to be such that it makes sense for Julian of Norwich to say of creation that it continues to exist because God loves it.
    So my theology above is only 700 years behind the times.
    And of no being of merely finite magnitude, however big that magnitude, can that be said. Anything of merely finite magnitude is just another part of creation.
    But creation is infinite and eternal (up until (relatively simultaneous, fuzzy) now (you know, where each point in creation has a different one)). Therefore God is trans-infinite, meta-eternal.
    Another point is that the end of human existence is supposed to be the beatific vision. That can only be an ontological fact about human existence, a truth about fundamental reality as such, as in some strains of Hindu thought (*) fundamental reality is said to be Being, consciousness, and bliss.
    Hey man. Hmmmm. You know?
    A being that isn't part of human nature, even if it's supposedly causally responsible for human nature, can't meet that requirement. It can't be, as Augustine said of God, closer to me than my own self. To worship such a thing would be heteronomy: to make my being dependent on something alien to it. (This is one of the many theological confusions in the concept of 'intelligent' design, which posits God as being exactly that kind of very big causal origin.)
    So is God alien to me or not? He sustains me in His one way aum and He locally (with regard to all of Himself) and immanently, omnipathically is closer to me than my own carotids? I am not alien to Him? But He doesn't cause anything about me beyond auming my fundamental essence (grounding my being)? Feels alien. Even tho' He's thinking me?
    (*) according to the Eastern Orthodox theologian Bentley Hart at any rate

  • Blahblah wrote: »
    I was just mulling over a section in the OP, "if there is no God and no order or meaning in the universe". There is clearly some order in the universe, so that seems a peculiar argument, unless you are going into reverse, there is order, therefore God. As to meaning, well, I think ultimate meaning and proximate meaning have been discussed on other threads. For example, this post has meaning for me, maybe not for others! Aren't we dealing here with straw men?

    Possibly there are two different ideas of "order".

    Because of gravity, things on this planet's surface are pulled down. Disorder would presumably mean that instead that things were chaotic and impossible to understand and predict.

    But the concept of "God's ordering" is something else.

    Unfortunately I'm not sure I can define it now.

    But this is intended as a paraphrase of an atheist. Are they really going to say, "There is no God, therefore no God's ordering"?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 27
    Order comes from logic which is bigger than, independent of God. Existence obeys logic. Which includes probability, quantum physics, relativity and the fact of infinite, eternal causal regress. God has no choice within creation at all but to create as if He didn't exist.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Order comes from logic which is bigger than, independent of God. Existence obeys logic. Which includes probability, quantum physics, relativity. God has no choice within creation at all but to create as if He didn't exist.

    I like that, Martin. To create as if he didn't exist. I'm sure there's a very clever atheist reply to that, but I can't pluck it out of my foggy mind.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    I was just mulling over a section in the OP, "if there is no God and no order or meaning in the universe". There is clearly some order in the universe, so that seems a peculiar argument, unless you are going into reverse, there is order, therefore God. As to meaning, well, I think ultimate meaning and proximate meaning have been discussed on other threads. For example, this post has meaning for me, maybe not for others! Aren't we dealing here with straw men?

    Possibly there are two different ideas of "order".

    Because of gravity, things on this planet's surface are pulled down. Disorder would presumably mean that instead that things were chaotic and impossible to understand and predict.

    But the concept of "God's ordering" is something else.

    Unfortunately I'm not sure I can define it now.

    But this is intended as a paraphrase of an atheist. Are they really going to say, "There is no God, therefore no God's ordering"?

    Well natural systems usually tend towards the chaotic. Entropy.

    So if there is a base level of organisation then that takes some explaining.

  • Correction: it might do.

    Personally, I don't know and I'm beyond trying to try to understand it.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I was just mulling over a section in the OP, "if there is no God and no order or meaning in the universe". There is clearly some order in the universe, so that seems a peculiar argument, unless you are going into reverse, there is order, therefore God. As to meaning, well, I think ultimate meaning and proximate meaning have been discussed on other threads. For example, this post has meaning for me, maybe not for others! Aren't we dealing here with straw men?

    Possibly there are two different ideas of "order".

    Because of gravity, things on this planet's surface are pulled down. Disorder would presumably mean that instead that things were chaotic and impossible to understand and predict.

    But the concept of "God's ordering" is something else.

    Unfortunately I'm not sure I can define it now.

    But this is intended as a paraphrase of an atheist. Are they really going to say, "There is no God, therefore no God's ordering"?

    Well natural systems usually tend towards the chaotic. Entropy.

    So if there is a base level of organisation then that takes some explaining.

    Well, that's the reverse argument, there is order, therefore God. The OP seems to be saying that atheists say, there is no God, therefore no order or meaning. As I said I've never heard that, and it sounds utterly daft.
  • If we make the basic Christian assumption of creatio ex nihilo, and also that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and good, then no, we can’t really believe in him and simultaneously a meaningless universe. Ultimately he must have willed everything that comes to pass- an idea of “freedom” as a haphazard irrational swerving (which, at bottom, is really what most people mean by “free will”) is another form of meaninglessness.
  • Maybe he's not omniscient or omnipotent. I have never really understood why this is the only acceptable option.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited September 27
    It’s not the only option but then we are not talking about a Christian God but some demiurge, just another being among the other beings, albeit the most powerful one. In which case the absolute is not this god but some abstract laws that govern both him and the rest of existence. Kind of like Mormonism actually.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 27
    If we make the basic Christian assumption of creatio ex nihilo, and also that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and good, then no, we can’t really believe in him and simultaneously a meaningless universe. Ultimately he must have willed everything that comes to pass- an idea of “freedom” as a haphazard irrational swerving (which, at bottom, is really what most people mean by “free will”) is another form of meaninglessness.

    It's not that binary at all. Minimally creation is from creation. Whether God is the ultimate ground of being or not, stuff has always existed regardless. Always. Whether God exists or not, creation, stuff, doesn't come from nothing. It comes from previous stuff. In infinite regress. Unless stuff has always come in to existence from nothing: that the field (the primary otherwise self-caused stuff), in which quantum perturbations occur that inflate as universes, constantly pours in to existence from the ultimate expression of nature abhorring (not even) a vacuum (: a null). Or there is no field and quantum perturbations just pop in to existence from that principle. Which is absurd. God is infinitely more so. But He may well be that principle. Take your pick. And assuming He exists, the omnis are meaningless. He's as omni as He can possibly be. Which is pretty omni. He wills nothing at all that comes to pass, He cannot, apart from incarnation and grounding being according to the immutable, probabilistic laws of physics (the order from which chaos comes).
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Blahblah wrote: »
    There is a word for it which I forgot, but it is possible to believe in a deity who is not all-powerful and is unable to stop things happening.

    I think the term you're looking for is "open theology" There are many shades of open theology, but my favorite open theologist is Thomas Jay Oord. An example of his work is here.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Blahblah wrote: »
    So you are saying that if I am some being the size of an ant and I worship a being the size of a mountain, it makes a difference that the deity is not the size of the universe even though functionally I can't tell the difference.
    I'm really not sure what being bigger literally or metaphorically has to do with it.
    Can the ant say to another ant the mountain is within you? Not really.

    Infinity is not just a really big number. An infinite entity can pay unlimited attention to an unlimited number of entities; a really big entity has only a limited amount of attention to spend on things smaller than itself.

  • Reminds me of Dawkins' catty remark, what bandwidth.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    Maybe he's not omniscient or omnipotent. I have never really understood why this is the only acceptable option.
    the problem isn’t omniscient and omnipotent, it is omniscient, omnipotent and caring. The is the square that can’t be circled.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Are we talking the "problem of evil" here - how can an all-powerful God allow bad things to happen to people and still be seen as loving?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    So you are saying that if I am some being the size of an ant and I worship a being the size of a mountain, it makes a difference that the deity is not the size of the universe even though functionally I can't tell the difference.
    I'm really not sure what being bigger literally or metaphorically has to do with it.
    Can the ant say to another ant the mountain is within you? Not really.

    Infinity is not just a really big number. An infinite entity can pay unlimited attention to an unlimited number of entities; a really big entity has only a limited amount of attention to spend on things smaller than itself.

    Sounds like special pleading to me - we can't explain how this is possible, so we will just make up a concept and claim this must be what the deity is like.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    So you are saying that if I am some being the size of an ant and I worship a being the size of a mountain, it makes a difference that the deity is not the size of the universe even though functionally I can't tell the difference.
    I'm really not sure what being bigger literally or metaphorically has to do with it.
    Can the ant say to another ant the mountain is within you? Not really.

    Infinity is not just a really big number. An infinite entity can pay unlimited attention to an unlimited number of entities; a really big entity has only a limited amount of attention to spend on things smaller than itself.

    Sounds like special pleading to me - we can't explain how this is possible, so we will just make up a concept and claim this must be what the deity is like.

    Read some Aquinas. He painstakingly goes through this step by logical step.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Are we talking the "problem of evil" here - how can an all-powerful God allow bad things to happen to people and still be seen as loving?

    By solidarity.
  • And of course all-powerful, all-knowing at least is meaningless.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    So you are saying that if I am some being the size of an ant and I worship a being the size of a mountain, it makes a difference that the deity is not the size of the universe even though functionally I can't tell the difference.
    I'm really not sure what being bigger literally or metaphorically has to do with it.
    Can the ant say to another ant the mountain is within you? Not really.

    Infinity is not just a really big number. An infinite entity can pay unlimited attention to an unlimited number of entities; a really big entity has only a limited amount of attention to spend on things smaller than itself.

    Sounds like special pleading to me - we can't explain how this is possible, so we will just make up a concept and claim this must be what the deity is like.

    I thought with supernatural stuff, there are few constraints. I suppose this is a blessing, since one can wriggle out of most tight spots, or do a Captain Picard, "make it so", and a curse, since it seems to let in oddities, or many religious claims, e.g., Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse. Well, why wouldn't he?
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    So you are saying that if I am some being the size of an ant and I worship a being the size of a mountain, it makes a difference that the deity is not the size of the universe even though functionally I can't tell the difference.
    I'm really not sure what being bigger literally or metaphorically has to do with it.
    Can the ant say to another ant the mountain is within you? Not really.

    Infinity is not just a really big number. An infinite entity can pay unlimited attention to an unlimited number of entities; a really big entity has only a limited amount of attention to spend on things smaller than itself.

    Sounds like special pleading to me - we can't explain how this is possible, so we will just make up a concept and claim this must be what the deity is like.

    No because infinity is real. So is eternity. If they are within God, He's greater.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 27
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    So you are saying that if I am some being the size of an ant and I worship a being the size of a mountain, it makes a difference that the deity is not the size of the universe even though functionally I can't tell the difference.
    I'm really not sure what being bigger literally or metaphorically has to do with it.
    Can the ant say to another ant the mountain is within you? Not really.

    Infinity is not just a really big number. An infinite entity can pay unlimited attention to an unlimited number of entities; a really big entity has only a limited amount of attention to spend on things smaller than itself.

    Sounds like special pleading to me - we can't explain how this is possible, so we will just make up a concept and claim this must be what the deity is like.

    Read some Aquinas. He painstakingly goes through this step by logical step.

    Eight million steps, of straw. His word. Or only two million. Depending who who read.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    So you are saying that if I am some being the size of an ant and I worship a being the size of a mountain, it makes a difference that the deity is not the size of the universe even though functionally I can't tell the difference.
    I'm really not sure what being bigger literally or metaphorically has to do with it.
    Can the ant say to another ant the mountain is within you? Not really.

    Infinity is not just a really big number. An infinite entity can pay unlimited attention to an unlimited number of entities; a really big entity has only a limited amount of attention to spend on things smaller than itself.

    Sounds like special pleading to me - we can't explain how this is possible, so we will just make up a concept and claim this must be what the deity is like.

    I thought with supernatural stuff, there are few constraints. I suppose this is a blessing, since one can wriggle out of most tight spots, or do a Captain Picard, "make it so", and a curse, since it seems to let in oddities, or many religious claims, e.g., Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse. Well, why wouldn't he?

    Well, notwithstanding my lack of reading of St Thomas Aquinas, the assertion makes little sense to me.

    It might not be possible for a human beekeeper, but it seems entirely possible for some big being to have a lot of information about the individuals in a beehive. This being perhaps has a way to track where they go, has learned to identify the minute differences between them. That being much be bigger and more intelligent that us, but that doesn't mean he is infinite or all knowing.

    Scaling up in the same way, if we really want to, we can postulate a being who knows a lot about every individual human person. But that doesn't need to mean that his is all-powerful or all-knowing either. He just needs to be a lot bigger and cleverer than we are.

    Personally, if I believed in a deity at all, it would probably be like a beekeeper. The deity who generally cares about the hive, who is interested to see it continue, who has limited ability to shape things but who doesn't know or care very much about individual bees.

    But I can't see a lot of evidence of even a hands-off deity.



  • The only evidence is the earliest writings of the Church.

    The deity cares so He creates. Always has, always will. He has no ability to shape anything but by popping in to the hive that looks uncreated as a worker. He knows every bee in His care.
  • Lo, the Assertatron explodes into life!
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Sounds like special pleading to me - we can't explain how this is possible, so we will just make up a concept and claim this must be what the deity is like.
    It's rather more starting with a particular role in one's theory and then seeing what logical constraints there are upon any concept that purports to fill that role.

    Nobody's ever directly observed a quark: they've just worked out what properties any candidate must have to fit the role in the theory.

    If you think that the seeds of a tree on a particular island must once have been spread by some now extinct animal, you can work out some traits of that animal from the hypothesis that it must have been able to spread the seeds of the tree.

    As to why you have such a role in your theory in the first place, that's a different question. In the case of religion, you're trying to explain some metaphysical considerations about the being of the universe together with religious experience and also what must be the case in order for there to be coherent ethical obligations, and in the case of Christianity, your candidate has to be capable of raising Jesus from the dead. (You also need some additional argument to justify saying that the answer to all those cases must be the same.)
  • When am I quiescent?
  • Lo, the Assertatron explodes into life!
    Brilliant!! That really made me laugh out loud! I was starting to consider , using the beekeeper analogy. asking what the beekeeper of the next hive would do if a war started between the two sets of bees ...

  • Explored superbly by Larry Niven in Protector.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 27
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Are we talking the "problem of evil" here - how can an all-powerful God allow bad things to happen to people and still be seen as loving?
    An earthquake that triggers a tsunami that kills thousands and displaces more from their homes is not evil. It is awful, horrible and completely natural part of how the earth functions. Without the mechanism behind the things we call disasters, we would not exist.
    That alone puts question ot a benevolent and competent creator god. Ya gets one or t'other, not both. Or neither, that is an option as well.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    So you are saying that if I am some being the size of an ant and I worship a being the size of a mountain, it makes a difference that the deity is not the size of the universe even though functionally I can't tell the difference.
    I'm really not sure what being bigger literally or metaphorically has to do with it.
    Can the ant say to another ant the mountain is within you? Not really.

    Infinity is not just a really big number. An infinite entity can pay unlimited attention to an unlimited number of entities; a really big entity has only a limited amount of attention to spend on things smaller than itself.

    Sounds like special pleading to me - we can't explain how this is possible, so we will just make up a concept and claim this must be what the deity is like.

    No because infinity is real. So is eternity. If they are within God, He's greater.

    So we can prove God exists using Cantor and the diagonal argument? Mathematicians and logicians everywhere are weeping.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Sounds like special pleading to me - we can't explain how this is possible, so we will just make up a concept and claim this must be what the deity is like.
    It's rather more starting with a particular role in one's theory and then seeing what logical constraints there are upon any concept that purports to fill that role.

    Nobody's ever directly observed a quark: they've just worked out what properties any candidate must have to fit the role in the theory.

    If you think that the seeds of a tree on a particular island must once have been spread by some now extinct animal, you can work out some traits of that animal from the hypothesis that it must have been able to spread the seeds of the tree.

    As to why you have such a role in your theory in the first place, that's a different question. In the case of religion, you're trying to explain some metaphysical considerations about the being of the universe together with religious experience and also what must be the case in order for there to be coherent ethical obligations, and in the case of Christianity, your candidate has to be capable of raising Jesus from the dead. (You also need some additional argument to justify saying that the answer to all those cases must be the same.)

    But there doesn't seem any logic to the assertion that (for example) a deity had a god-man who came back to life, therefore he must be infinite and all-powerful.
  • Lo, the Assertatron explodes into life!

    Assuming that was me of course?

    Whatever I implicitly conditionally assert (IF God exists THEN... He cares) is rational.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Lo, the Assertatron explodes into life!

    Assuming that was me of course?

    Whatever I implicitly conditionally assert (IF God exists THEN... He cares) is rational.

    Sorry, Martin, I get fed up with endless assertions by theists, nothing personal. I tell you that Quetzalcoatl lives and spreads his scarlet cloak across the firmament!
  • Hey, me too q.
Sign In or Register to comment.