Does God exist? (14 Viewers)

[melanieeeee.]

No, not with respect to the supernatural claims of the bible. You can't simply assume them to be true in the absence of evidence. What if I were to propose that we accept the supernatural claims of Homer's Iliad and that burden of proof was on you to disprove this. Such a method is too arbitrary - it allows us to accept the claims of any purportedly 'historical' text on mere impulse. How, then, are we to adjudicate between competing historical claims? Simple: evidence.

burdon of proof is a logical fallacy. it claims that x cannot be logically incorrect just because there is a lack of evidence in y. it doesnt necessarily mean that because of this y is true because x is was fallicious if that makes sense.

You are still missing the point. The argument does not show that god does not exist. Instead, it shows that it is intellectually irresponsible to believe that god does exist. The difference is subtle but precise.

it is intellectually irresponsible if god was based on nothing. but the bible isnt nothing.

Your above criticisms only apply if you overestimate the claims made by, and thus make a strawman of, the argument. (Again,it is primarily an argument for agnosticism, not for the atheistic 'god does not exist' conclusion)

my criticism for what. lol you are way too smart for me. im lost.

 

[KFunk]

burdon of proof is a logical fallacy. it claims that x cannot be logically incorrect just because there is a lack of evidence in y. it doesnt necessarily mean that because of this y is true because x is was fallicious if that makes sense.

I'm not sure that I follow. My understanding of the notion of 'burden of proof' is that it is used to indicate which side of a debate is to be assumed true (if any) in the absence of positive argument. I am not saying that you should assume an atheist position. I am saying that an agnostic position (with respect to 'supernatural' events in the bible, in this case) is reasonably assumed - this should not be an overly controversial claim. Burden of proof thus falls on the individual wanting to claim the existence of supernatural events.

I don't feel that I am exercising any great degree of philosophical trickery in suggesting this.

it is intellectually irresponsible if god was based on nothing. but the bible isnt nothing.

But my argument was not claiming that belief in god is irresponsible simpliciter. Rather, my argument holds in the absence of positive evidence for god. Clearly if you could demonstrate the historicity of supernatural biblical claims in a way which made a convincing argument for god's existence then belief in god would no longer be intellectually irresponsible (because you would have evidence!). You have not demonstrated this yet, in my opinion.

my criticism for what. lol you are way too smart for me. im lost.

Your criticisms of my argument which aimed to show that the agnostic stance is most reasonable, but which you misconstrued as an argument aiming to show that god does not exist. I admit, it gets a bit convoluted once you introduce crossed readings of arguments :S.

 

[melanieeeee.]

the empty tomb.

missing body

1) The discovery was made by women. In the first century women were not considered reliable witnesses. So the fact that women are in all gospels named as the first witnesses to the empty tomb is very significant, since their word would have been widely rejected. If the account would have been invented, surely a man (why not Joseph of Arimathea himself?) would have been chosen to make that discovery.

2) The Jerusalem factor. Jesus was publicly executed in Jerusalem and it was here the apostles at Pentecost, only 50 days later, began to proclaim the resurrection. It would, for obvious reasons, have been completely impossible for the new faith to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body had still been in the tomb.

3) The Jews never denied the empty tomb. There are no recorded accounts of the Jews denying that the tomb was empty. In fact the opposite is true. They confirm the grave was empty, and in order to explain it, they claim that the disciples stole Jesus'' body.

The tomb was sealed.
The tomb was officially Finally, they put an official Roman seal over it. This probably would have been a cord stretched across the stone and anchored at each end on the rock wall. A glob of wax imprinted with the official Imperial Seal of Rome was then placed on the string and rock. This told everyone that anyone who broke the seal would incur the wrath of the and we've already seen what the Romans could do to people

The Wrong Tomb Theory

The first alternative theory is the Wrong Tomb Theory. It assumes that the women got confused and went to the wrong tomb, an empty one at that. If so then the disciples who went to confirm the women's claims went to the wrong tomb. The big problem with this theory is that the Jewish and Roman authorities who had so much at stake and who placed the Roman guard and Roman seal at the tomb, would not have been confused about which was the right tomb. The Roman authorities didn't forget where they put their guard units and Imperial Seals. They could just go to the tomb and say, "see the guards are still here, the stone and the seal are still in place. Jesus is still in there." They could have even had the tomb reopened to show everyone that the body was still there. But they couldn't do that because they were at the right tomb and Jesus was gone.<O

The Swoon Theory

The second alternative theory is the Swoon Theory. It's proponents maintain that Jesus didn't really die; he merely swooned or fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood and mistaken for dead. Then later he revived and convinced his disciples he had died but came back to life. Now think back over all that Jesus suffered physically. First remember that when the Roman executioner thrust his spear up into Jesus' heart, blood and water came out. Any medical examiner would say that was proof positive that he was dead. Second, if Jesus was still alive he would have to move a very heavy rock out of the way and overpower the Roman Guards. Next Imagine Jesus, still half dead, weak, ill, in dire need of the best of modern medical treatment, staggering up to you and saying, "I am the Lord of Life, Conqueror of Death. I am your Messiah, Savior and Lord of Lords." Would you believe him?
The distance from the Praetorium to Golgotha was 1/3 mile. The necessary trips include:

Praetorium to Golgotha was 1/3 mile. The necessary trips include:
Joseph Golgotha to Praetorium 0.33
Messenger from Praetorium to Golgotha 0.33
Centurion from Golgotha to Praetorium 0.33
Joseph from Praetorium to Golgotha 0.33
Total 1.33
Even at the rapid pace of 5 mph (a very brisk walk indeed!) it would require a minimum of 16 minutes to complete all the trips. This time does not include any waiting time, which is unrealistic. Joseph would have had to wait for Pilate to be summoned, Pilate would have to wait and instruct the messenger, the messenger would have to convey the request to the centurion, and the centurion would have to report to Pilate and be questioned by him. Realistically, the entire scenario probably required over an hour. Jesus would have been dead well before that time if He had only swooned.

The Stolen Body Theory

The third alternative theory is the the Stolen Body theory which says Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples and they went around claiming he rose from the dead. Remember when Jesus was arrested they went into hiding. They split the scene baby. They feared for their own lives. They were reduced to depressed cowards. They would have to come to the tomb overpower the battle hardened, trained, disciplined, "I-would-be-put- to-death-if-I-fail" Roman Guards. What do you think? If they were able to do that and steal the body they would have to carry Jesus body around, prop open his eyes, prop him up into a standing position, and move his mouth use ventriloquism to say, "Hi everyone, it's me, Jesus. I've come back to life. Now follow me."
Another problem is the disciples endured great hardships and even martyrdom as they went around the then known world proclaim Jesus resurrection. They would have had to allow themselves to be tortured and killed for what they knew was a lie. Very few people are willingly die for the truth. No one in their right mind would willingly die for a lie. And these people didn't fit the description of a lunatic.

The Legend Theory

The fourth alternative theory is the Legend Theory. Some scholars a while back postulated that most of the gospels were simply made up of legends and myths one to two hundred years after Jesus lived. I wish I had more time to address this theory but that would be a whole other talk. But I will summarize three points. First, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead was almost immediately put into creeds and songs by these people even before the books of the NT were written. Scholars have determined there just wasn't enough time for a legend or myth to develop. Second, the New Testament was written within a generation of Jesus' life and death by people who had either seen Jesus alive again or knew people who had. They would not allow legends to develop. Third, the early church grew so confidently and rapidly because their faith and message were based on solid factual evidence rather than something they knew to be a lie that was being turned into a legend. For these reasons and others the legend theory has fallen out of favor with the majority of scholars

The Hallucination Theory

The fifth and last alternative explanation is the Hallucination Theory which maintains that all those who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus saw hallucinations or visions. This is probably the most popular theory among liberal scholars. Now let's suppose you are sitting in class. You are bored and begin to day dream. What are the chances that everyone else in the class are having the same day dream at the same time. In a similar way it would be psychologically impossible for more than one person to see a hallucination of Jesus at the same time. Jesus was seen by groups of people as big as 500. A large group of people can not see the same hallucination at the same time. Neither could the appearances been visions like when people report they see Mary, Mother of Jesus. The eyewitnesses touched Jesus with their hands and felt a solid physical, fleshly body. You might think you are touching the person in your own hallucination or a vision but you can't touch the person in someone else's hallucination or vision. You can't even see them.
This were not hallucinations. People really did see and touch Jesus' new physical body. It wasn't the empty tomb that convinced people that Jesus rose from the dead; it was His numerous appearances over 40 days. His appearances disproved every other explanation for the empty tomb anyone can think up

 

[melanieeeee.]

(4) The benefits of faith: You indicate that you are willing to believe in god for the health benefits of faith and because it gives you a psychologically satisfying explanation. I think that's fine if you want to give a pragmatic justification for your belief (in that it is useful for you to believe in god). My arguments, however, are with respect to the intellectual warrants of belief in god, not their practical utility. It may well be useful to believe that one is well liked and respected by some choir of angels (as it may instill happiness, confidence and wellbeing), but it need not, for that very reason, also be true.

There is actually some interesting literature on how positive delusions contribute to our happiness. For example, depressed and 'normal' individuals were asked to play a video game during which they had variable degrees of control (sometimes the computer was actually in control). When asked to rate their degree of control 'normal' subjects overestimated their control of the situation while 'depressed' individuals were very accurate. Similar findings in the literature support the claim that a false sense of control over the world contributes to well-being.

Is it worthwhile to overestimate one's influence on the world? Sure, if you want to be happier. Is this belief therefore true? No.

okay consider this study:

Back in the 1990s, The Journal of the American Medical Association printed a summary of a study indicating that hospitalized heart patients do better when somebody prays for them. In the early 1980s, 393 patients at San Francisco General Medical Center's coronary care unit were randomly assigned to two groups. One experimental group was prayed for by a group of born-again Christians, and a control group wasn't prayed for at all. Those who did the praying never met the patients. They were just given first names and diagnoses. Also, the patients had no way of knowing whether they were prayed for or not. The doctor who ran the experiment, Dr. Randolph Byrd, didn't know either. Dr. John Thompson, who wrote about the study, says that it met "all the scientific standards for testing." The results?
Even though all the patients were equally sick when they checked into the hospital, twelve of those who weren't prayed for needed breathing or feeding tubes, while none of those who were prayed for did. Nine in the unprayed-for group needed antibiotics, while only two in the prayed-for group did. Fifteen percent of the control group needed diuretics, while only five percent of the patients who were prayed for did. One doctor complained that prayer was "an attempt to return medicine to the Dark Ages, and to reduce physicians to the same status as witch doctors and faith healers." But Dr. Thompson, who wrote about the study, says that anything that helps patients get well is valid, and that prayer "is about as benign a form of treatment as there is" because there's no danger to anybody. There are now 1,200 studies done at research centers around the world that show a correlation between faith, prayer, and recovery from illness.

 

[Garygaz]

Since you've begun talking about Jesus, I think it's kind of interesting to think how one man could cause one of the worlds largest religions to begin. Think about it logically, there were already established religions in the day. SO what did he do so different to all the other so called prophets of god who were around then. A man could not just simply be a powerful orator and have a massive following without actually providing something different from the rest. When the bible was written, it would not have been accepted by people if there wasn't some kind of prior knowledge or belief that the events within it were true (not the old testament, just new). There are historical records which state Jesus existed. So, again, how did one man command such a massive following if he was simply a man who wielded nothing but a powerful oratory skill?

actually, I'm a agnostic, so I don't totally believe what I just said. Food for thought.

 

[KFunk]

okay consider this study:

Back in the 1990s, The Journal of the American Medical Association printed a summary of a study indicating that hospitalized heart patients do better when somebody prays for them.

In the face of RCT studies with conflicting results is is often best to turn to metanalysis (which, as is so often drilled into me, is at the top of the pyramid of evidence). I have found a couple good studies which, considered together, suggest that intercessory prayer has zero (or otherwise negligible) effect. I will read your Jesus comments later in the week when I have time.

A Cochrane review of the effects of intercessory prayer on health states the following:

Background
Prayer is an ancient and widely used intervention for alleviating illness and promoting good health. Whilst the outcomes of trials of prayer cannot be interpreted as 'proof/disproof' of God's response to those praying, there may be an effect of prayer not dependent on divine intervention. This may be quantifiable; which makes this investigation of a widely used health care intervention both possible and important.

...

Authors' conclusions
It is not sensible to interpret any of the interesting results with great confidence. However, for women hoping for successful IVF treatment there are some data suggesting a favourable outcome of prayer but these data are derived from only one of the smaller trials. On the other hand, one of the larger studies suggests that those undergoing operations may not wish to know of the prayer that is being offered on their behalf. Most data are equivocal. The evidence presented so far is interesting enough to justify further study into the human aspects of the effects of prayer. However it is impossible to prove or disprove in trials any supposed benefit that derives from God's response to prayer.


A more recent metanalysis for publication in Annals of Behavioral Medicine states the following:

Conclusions: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.

 

[melanieeeee.]

In the face of RCT studies with conflicting results is is often best to turn to metanalysis (which, as is so often drilled into me, is at the top of the pyramid of evidence). I have found a couple good studies which, considered together, suggest that intercessory prayer has zero (or otherwise negligible) effect. I will read your Jesus comments later in the week when I have time.

A Cochrane review of the effects of intercessory prayer on health states the following:

Background
Prayer is an ancient and widely used intervention for alleviating illness and promoting good health. Whilst the outcomes of trials of prayer cannot be interpreted as 'proof/disproof' of God's response to those praying, there may be an effect of prayer not dependent on divine intervention. This may be quantifiable; which makes this investigation of a widely used health care intervention both possible and important.

...

Authors' conclusions
It is not sensible to interpret any of the interesting results with great confidence. However, for women hoping for successful IVF treatment there are some data suggesting a favourable outcome of prayer but these data are derived from only one of the smaller trials. On the other hand, one of the larger studies suggests that those undergoing operations may not wish to know of the prayer that is being offered on their behalf. Most data are equivocal. The evidence presented so far is interesting enough to justify further study into the human aspects of the effects of prayer. However it is impossible to prove or disprove in trials any supposed benefit that derives from God's response to prayer.


A more recent metanalysis for publication in Annals of Behavioral Medicine states the following:

Conclusions: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.

The first and foremost is that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence. The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. In other words, a skeptic may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by observational evidence. Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. One must ask the question, "Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?" Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God's supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.

Let me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein's theory of general relativity, and early observational evidence, it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the "Big Bang" theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist. Attempts to get around the idea that the universe had a beginning have all met with observational difficulties.5 The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang. So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.
The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting design. If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

 

[xeuyrawp]

we can say that the bible is a historical text right? if so, the burdon of proof actually rests on your side.

No your logic's jumping too far.

Yes, we can say that the Bible is a historical text; at the very least, it's a history of the time the various parts were constructed, authored, altered, etc.

However, the Bible for me as a historian does not prove that God exists anymore than other religious texts.

 

[melanieeeee.]

No your logic's jumping too far.

Yes, we can say that the Bible is a historical text; at the very least, it's a history of the time the various parts were constructed, authored, altered, etc.

However, the Bible for me as a historian does not prove that God exists anymore than other religious texts.

fair enough. im not a historian so you would know more than me.

however i did come across this:

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor. Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).



Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#N_1_). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#N_2_,Mark 13:1-2 http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#N_3_, Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html#N_4_), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."

 

[xONBROKENWINGSx]

lots of copy pasta in this thread

 

[xeuyrawp]

fair enough. im not a historian so you would know more than me.

however i did come across this:

<copy paste>

Well thanks for wasting like five seconds of my life.

That has absolutely nothing to do with your argument that the Bible is good evidence for the existence of a god.

What you copied (if you bothered to actually read it) talks about Biblical transmission and dating. Nothing to do with God.

Since you didn't read the ~500 words of your post, can anyone really believe that you've actually read the Bible? Then again, I guess that's like most Christians on this forum...

I know I sound like a broken fucking record player, but seriously... I assume you really believe in Christianity? That when you die, you will be faced with God? That your life should be, at least in part, devoted to Jesus? How can you honestly be true to these beliefs if you don't even know the basics of your own faith. And don't give me that 'I interpret the Bible and Christianity however I want' BS. At the best, that's an excuse to be lazy and not care about what you believe and do. At the worst, it allows people to turn these (generally positive) historical and religious texts into the basis for fucked up acts that are so common in the world today.

/rant.

 

[tommykins]

*awaits another copy pasta that hasn't been read*

 

[KFunk]

Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause.

I am sorry for being so terse, but you are making sweeping generalisations which are very much false. You're working with strawman caricatures of 'the atheist' and 'the skeptic'. Atheists don't have to require that all things have a cause (though some do, I'm sure), and skepticism doesn't require that all truth be derivable from sensory experience, or through observed causation.

In fact, there is a very significant skeptical thread in Western philosophy which doubts whether causation can actually be observed empirically - see David Hume for the classical account of the problem of causation.

Your argument against the atheist/skeptic only stands up because the strawman you have errected by its side takes no account of the diversity or subtlety of skeptical approaches to knowledge and explanation.

P.S. Pwar Yuex, thank you for saving me time on the historicity of Jesus - I was hoping you would weigh in.

 

[xeuyrawp]

P.S. Pwar Yuex, thank you for saving me time on the historicity of Jesus - I was hoping you would weigh in.

No problem, but I can't believe you missed the irony of her post.

She said that all atheists need a cause for things, when in fact I find that theists use theism as the cause for things!

I find that a good offence is usually the best defence.

 

[katie tully]

This chick is clearly insane.

do not believe that an atheist's morality is more significant than of a christian. nor is a christian's morality any more significant than an atheist. however i do believe that christians are more likely to have these morals instilled upon them through the bible, church and religious education.

you are forgetting that morals are intrinsic.

wot

t isn't hard to believe. im not saying that you cannot know what is right and wrong without a higher influence. im saying that [from what i believe] god made us so we can know for ourselves what is right and what is wrong.

as for your next question: what about sociopaths. imo sociopaths are able to understand what is right and wrong however they are unable to act on it.
__________________

Holy contradictions batman.

 

[melanieeeee.]

i only seek truth. gods existance is truth. accept his love so you can enter into his kingdom and bask in gods loving glory.

 

[Kwayera]

okay a few questions for athiests. i like to think of myself as open minded (that is why i believe in god). i like to accept things within reason.
1. why should i be an athiest. what makes an athiest anymore right than a christian.

It's not more 'right'. That isn't the point. Being atheist means you are open-minded enough to see past the fallacies, the lies, and the outright misdirections of religion, as it has done for thousands and thousands of years (predating the cult of Christ!).

2. what are the agruments against the existance of god.
3. what proof is there that god doesnt exist.
serious answers only please.

You can't.. prove a negative. You can prove/disprove a 'positive', but it is impossible to prove a negative, i.e. "there is incontrovertible proof that there are no pink unicorns."

 

[KFunk]

i only seek truth. gods existance is truth. accept his love so you can enter into his kingdom and bask in gods loving glory.

No thanks. Cheers for caring through.

 

[CyanideChrist]

accept his love so you can enter into his kingdom and bask in gods loving glory.

Or else.

 

[nikolas]

i only seek truth. gods existance is truth. accept his love so you can enter into his kingdom and bask in gods loving glory.

i only seek truth. The Flying Spaghetti Monsters existance is truth. accept his Noodley Appendage so you can enter into his Pasta Plate and bask in The Flying Spaghetti's loving Appendage.