Here is another response from my email correspondent. I will try to remember to put all his remarks in bold:
Look, Ralph, as long as you insist on playing the game of keeping me on the defensive, then there is no way we can have a civil discussion.
Oh, and of course I'm not to be bothered at all when the first thing I read from you is that I subject you to "preaching" at the rate of two entries a day? Is there a rule for atheists that they are so superior they can just insult anybody and expect that person to say "Oh, I'm sorry! I apologize deeply for even having an opinion, much less actually believing I can prove my statements!"
That is aside from your confused, contradictory thinking, bluster, bravado, and childish language.
See? Not one word examining what I've said, just more ad hominem about what I said.
Here is the core of my argument, and no one yet has even thought to even mention it: there is no decision procedure whatever by which any person can get from "here" to "God".
A simple premise. A simple statement.
I'll admit that my present technical inability to make my posts isn't helping to advocate my case.
I agree. It would save me trouble of trying to actually get your discussion involved. But at least I've tried.
I suggest with all your learning you might pursue a course of how to communicate.
Probably true. But I generally don't like intimidation or bluster unless somebody decides he or she wants to insult me right out of the gate. I'm an ex-marine. I once defended myself in a Special Court Martial, which I not only won, but received an apology from the marines and a meritorious promotion out of a court martial. I don't know many people that have ever done that. Apparently they had no trouble understanding me.
Do all you True Believers take the same course on how to confuse, intimidate, and embarrass your opponent without half trying?
I must have, and I must have made a good grade on it, because I seem to be able to do it to you without trying at all! I do love your scientific evaluation of me as an individual as well, "Al you True believers". Nothing insulting about that, obviously. What right should I have to ever be offended at your statements?
Maybe it's a gift from one of your gods. Could be. I have no way of knowing. Do you?
I would also suggest you read a bit on what is atheism. It's clear you don't understand it any more now than the rest of the religions I've engaged over the years.
Let's see, I've read Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great", and Dawkins' "The God Delusion", both of which I found very good. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, but atheists say there is no God. Correct? Have you ever heard me stating that there is a God? Have you ever heard me offering any kind of proof that there is a God?
But you see, there is the great flaw in your entire argument. The only way you can possibly begin to beat me is to conclude that I'm a "True Believer" and lump me into a general category that cannot possibly ever go beyond what you amazing atheists know. See? I've just lumped you into a group. That's ad hominem, and it proves nothing one way or another.
To fault the atheist because he is unable to prove there is no god shows your ignorance and confused thinking on the matter.
Are you saying you CAN prove there is no God? Then simply state your case, prove there is no God, and I will still win this argument! Let's look at the core of my argument from the point of view of William James. James pointed out that if God is all knowing, then we are not free,since God would already know in advance what choices we will make. If we are free, God is not all knowing, and if God is all knowing, we are not free.
You and I can argue until cows start roosting in trees whether there is or is not a God, bit the fact is, neither of us can ever offer conclusive proof. The only thing we can possibly agree on is what we can see as results from actual observation. Here is my observation:
If there is a God, it would be useless to believe in a God who is not all knowing, since a less than omniscient God would simply be greater by comparison, merely a smarter being, though never complete in knowledge.
Paul has argued from his understanding of God that God is indeed all knowing in regard to whom his "children" are, and that he has predestined them from the very beginning. This will logically lead to the result William James pointed out, above. If God is all knowing, then there is not one choice we can make in any sense that will alter our destiny in that regard.
Okay, let's substitute that with your statement there is no God. We can come up with this conclusion: There is not one choice we can make in any sense that will alter our destiny in that regard....in any possibly measurable context.
To me, those conclusions are exactly the same, except the atheist says there is no measurable way in which any decision we make can alter our destiny in any absolute sense. In fact, if God does exist, and IS all knowing, there is STILL no way to alter our destiny in any measurable way, in any absolute sense. Either way, based on what Paul said in Romans 8:29-30, there is no difference in the outcome, EXCEPT Paul says there is a God, and you say there's not a god. But the results in either case will be exactly the same.
This means, in the simplest language I'm able to convey, there exists no decision procedure, no algorithm, no human process of thought by which we can in any way, get from "here" to "God".
Are you saying there is some way we CAN get from here to god? That would seem to contradict your point of view, wouldn't it?
Paul stated in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God. As I've said in several different places, this will have two logical, verifiable results:
1.No one can claim any authority from God, since no human mind can be subject to God
2. Any attempt to do so will result in a splintering and speciation of religions tending toward infinity, AS WEE SEE AROUND US TODAY.
No one yet, least of all you, Mr. Ex-Android, has even begun to touch that statement. You know why? You have no argument against it. It's true because its observably true, and it conforms to the logic of Romans 8:7, showing the resulting logic of Romans 9:16-22.
What is confusing about that? If you cannot be subject to God, any choice you make regarding the knowledge of God will reflect the confusion apparent in your own thinking. Therefore, you will see over 38,000 versions of "god" as you see today. Since the natural mind cannot be subject to God, there can exist no decision procedure by which you can get to God, which is exactly what Paul said in Romans 9:16-22.
Why is that confusing? Maybe because you've been conditioned all your life to believe that IF we believe in God, we MUST follow some decision procedure to please God?
Besides, the matter of proof falls to the believer, and you've already clearly stated to your credit that you cannot do that.
Well, finally, you actually point to something I specifically said!
I would suggest you try reading an excellent primer, 'Atheism: The case Against God' by George Smith. That was a major aid in helping set me free from the gods. The book has clarity and absence from confusion.
P.S. If you want to quote me in the forum then do it completely and fairly and respond honestly. Sign me 'Ex-Android'.
In your responses so far, all I've seen is ad hominem, writing about what I said, but never in any disciplined, or even scientific way of pointing out any flaw in my logic. I've responded as honestly as I know how, and if I left anything out in previous posts, let me know, and I will respond to that as well.