Where did God come from? A dream, A lie, And an explanation

The debate is not about proving God. We can certainly go there. Say something, Let's call it an "entity", Created the universe. This entity would have to be "outside" the universe, Right? Not "of the universe". The tools we use to "prove" things in this universe, Then, Could not be used to "prove" something outside the universe. So to have an expectation that "science" can "prove God exists" is basically starting off on the wrong foot. One can't use "science" to prove God. However, One can USE science to "Point" in the direction of God. I don't need to be a dream expert to be able to say I can distinguish dreams from reality, Which is what my point was. The fact that I'm not a dream expert has no bearing on whether or not I can say this dream is not reality. Re-read what I wrote in P5. I'm basically saying "Belief in spirits" is not the same as saying "experiences of the mind in dreams are externally originated. " What do you mean by "concrete" evidence-- do you mean physical evidence? I would say you are right-- I do not have physical evidence that something non-physical (spirits) exist. It's not logical to expect a non-physical entity like a spirit or a dream to leave behind physical evidence. Earlier in your argument you include "Sight" as one of the human sensory perceptions that come from external stimuli. But then you go on to say you "see" dreams, Which is an internal perception. Which is it? Or are you now changing what you said earlier to now say "sight" includes both external and internal stimuli? See, There you go again, Asserting as FACT that which you can't prove-- you call it a myth. How do you know it's a myth and not true? Why not call it a creation story. Calling it a story leaves out your own bias (you already think it's myth). I would agree most religions, It not all, Have creation stories. But I would say perhaps one of them is true (ie not a myth). I mean, Creation had to have happen at some point right? Or do you believe in the perpetual exist of matter without having a starting point. I would say the various religions idea of "heaven" and hell are different. WHere did science come from? I believe the physical laws of nature came into being at the creation of the universe. How would I describe science? Well, Allow me to lean on Webster for this one : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method". I would say, Yes using science man learned to do different things: invent tools, Learn to use those tools, Learn what it takes to end another's life. Most, If not all of our learning comes from our knowledge or system of knowledge covering general truths or operations of general laws. Hell, Given this definition, One can argue that learning to walk is a scientific process. Nope, I don't use intimidation (or insults or personal attacks) to argue my point about God and religion. Even so, Just because someone uses intimidation to force others to think X is true, The use of intimidation doesn't make X false. This chalice may be filled with poison. . . . The fact that I may use intimidation to make someone believe it does (or doesn't have poison) has no bearing on whether or not it does or not. Likewise, The fact that someone (a person or institutions) may use force/intimidation to get others to believe something is true has no bearing on whether ornot something is true. Now you may not care about the other questions I posed, But I believe those are critical to the God discussion. Why? Because those questions logically point to something-- the point to characteristics of something. Will it point 100%. . . Possibly not, But it might give one sufficient reason or logic to believe. Imagine you approach this object, Let's say it's an elephant. And you describe this object to me. . . . You say it's big. . . It's grey. . . It has 4 legs. . . . . Big ears. . . . It smells. . . It has a long trunk. . . . You can describe and point me to all these attributes of the "elephant". But at the end of the day, I can still choose to say "Bah! I still don't believe it's an elephant. " I might even be so bold and say something like "That's not how I would define an elephant. " At the end of the day, I could still refuse to believe it's a being that you would agree is an elephant (if you and I don't agree on what an elephant is at the start, Then chances are we may never reach an agreement). Now imagine if I don't even give you an opportunity to describe or prove these attributes-- I just start off by saying "'Elephant' doesn't exist. It's preposterous! " That's basically what you are doing when you refuse to allow someone to describe and show you, Logically, The attributes.