""yes yes God is love. if u believe in him you will be saved. God died for ur sin. u just believe in it. You know hitler.mosulini everybody were believers. they all will go to haven. u just believe in him. he will save u. God is love God is love. God is love.""

Very sorry for multi-posting, but it just didn't all fit in one post :-)

You reject the idea that God is the Universe, because then we might as well call it Universe. This is true, if you really consider them to be identical. And I can almost use the two words synonymously. But when you say Universe and I say God, we are not talking about the same condition, though the object is essentially the same. The difference is one of emphasis, and therefore the word God is entirely justified.

As I said earlier, I will not argue that your perspective is wrong. I would merely say it is incomplete. As long as your world view remains the same, your arguments will remain conclusive. I believe you still conceive God in an overly anthropomorphic sense, even though you are aware that this sort of God concept is flawed. As an atheist, you rightly ask for coherence. Ironically, spiritual experience is, at its most abstract level, a profound experience of the worlds coherence.

To understand what is meant by the word God, you are very preoccupied in finding the agent to which attributes are being applied, an entity. Although I don't find this notion entirely absurd, it is dangerous, in the sense that the more you concretize your God concept, the more you are liable to anthropomorphize it. Doubly so for a materialist as yourself, or for anyone who finds himself estranged from spiritualism.

So in the first instance (at least for me it was the first instance, and I came from a intellectual background to yours, albeit less refined), finding God, to say it dramatically, is a question of looking at the same world in a different way. It is somewhat like seeing the Gestalt from its components. From hereon, it is possible to also experience spirituality in a more concrete sense, i.e. through symbols and organized religion. But I will emphasize that these practices are second to the more abstract experience.

You say that in order to claim there is something besides physicalism, one must provide a positive ontology for what that is. I disagree. Even an inanimate object is not only defined by its physical form, but also by its relationship with the world in space and time (its function, history, emotional qualities). This relationship cannot be defined by a positive ontology, and is in fact almost a shopping list of attributes. Yet you shouldn't deny it exists. You can, but doing so is reductionistic. It is this relationship that many spiritual people call energy, and it is this energy that, when experienced globally, many refer to as a spiritual being.

You are correct to criticize the lack of coherency in theist arguments, and it is quite understandable, especially from the viewpoint of an atheist (for argument sake, yes, you are an atheist :-)), to require a clear ontology in order to confidently assert your position. However, you use several terms that I feel are ill fit in this context, and I would like to reply to some of your points.

Hi,

I very much enjoyed your videos and I would like to share some thoughts with you.

Let me start off by saying that your logic is sound to me, and I won't try to look for any errors in thought. Another thing I won't do is try to make positivist arguments, because besides the fact it doesn't help one much on this topic, I also doubt I could tell you anything you haven't heard before. The only possible problem I see with your view is, although you seem convinced otherwise, one of imagination. I purposefully avoid saying "lack of imagination", because you certainly seem imaginative enough. As thus, I won't argue with your world view, rather with your rejection of other equally valid views.

Eightfootmanchild, I need you to make another video because I'm going into withdrawal.

Have mercy, sir.

You have provided rectally extracted naked assertions trussed up in quasi-syllogistic language.

"8foot would not supply any atheistic answers to questions such as these below"

I've answered those questions many, many times in situations where I knew an actual conversation would take place. This is not one of those situations. Consequently, I have zero interest in continuing this exchange. Get the fuck off my channel.

I have provided numerous clear proof and answers in truth and in logic. Atheists hate the truth

Do you believe the Laws of Logic are fixed?

Do you believe in certain truth?

Do you believe in immutable moral law?