If they don't want to go, they get to hang out with me, or we go to the church playground. When they're older, some other arrangement will likely be worked out.

well, that's all good then.

points for your wife, and donuts for all.

> If someone uses this definition, there's not much point in arguing over
> the existence of god-by-their-definition; that would be the same as
> arguing over the existence of anything. Even solipsism doesn't necessarily
> present a counterpoint.

I figured I didn't have to state the obvious, that by this definition there is no difference between "God" and "simply the entire universe," except the word one uses. I agree though, using the word God gives it a new connotation. Even capitalizing "Universe" has new implications.

> there is no god. show me proof. Quantum physics proves (via mathematical
> calculations) the existence of multiple, parallel universes. Accordingly, I
> may exist in all of these in these multiple, parallel universes, at the same
> time. I will believe in this notion (as absurd as it may seem), because it is
> quantifyable, before I believe in any "god".

I think it's great that you can find a reason to use the words "quantum physics" in a post. I don't want to get into arguments about physics but no one should intimate that just because someone talks about "God" that they don't know anything about quantum mechanics. And, quantum physics merely suggests the possibility of parallel universes as one of the consequences of its principles; it doesn't prove them. Only observation can do that.

As for proof that the universe exists, well, my take on that whole thing is, if what I perceive seems real and I have no way of proving it doesn't, then I may as well treat it as real. That's my article of faith - the world is real. It is obviously yours, too.

I do not require a human invention like mathematics and quantitative descriptions before I believe something exists. For example, the Higgs boson is assumed to exist, because without it the Standard Model would fail. Since the Standard Model fits so much of quantum mechanics experimental data and has succeeded in predicting the existence of so many other particles (all 6 quarks e.g.), many feel the discovery of Higgs is imminent. However, the Standard Model was invented; it was not discovered, just like all other mathematical and scientific ideas. Its accuracy is measurable using other inventions by human beings, and observation by human beings. It will very likely be reworked, just like Newtonian physics was. Now we know Newtonian physics is an approximation of relativity.

Do you see where I am going?

I strongly suggest checking out some of the writings of Nagarjuna. He basically said, there is no way to prove that anything exists but right NOW, and that is only provable, to oneself, through one's own direct experience. Everything else requires an assumption of some kind. To be able to do otherwise would require the ability to step outside the bounds of existence and find a truth that is beyond the boundaries of the Universe(s), and this is clearly impossible. It suggests also an absolute point of view, which is forbidden by general relativity. I know I am repeating myself, but I can't say it enough ways - all things "provable" rest on at least one assumption which is never provable, and it is therefore not arguable.

Because of this, it's a waste of my time to tell someone God does not exist, because I can't share the same direct experience as another. There are a lot of people in the world who see all sorts of things as "proof" God exists. Their assumptions are just very different from those who don't believe in God. There will be as many sets of operating assumptions about the world as there are people.

My conclusion from all of this is that it is also pointless to judge someone who believes differently from oneself. All of this is why I'm an apatheist. It just does not matter in my direct experience, if there is a God or there is not a God in someone else's direct experience.

mmm...frozen grapes are yummy... you want one?