These are my favorite kinds of arguments.


Although I can see your overall point and follow the logic, here's where the argument breaks down:

• "Since these laws are conceptual, and concepts reside in minds, and since these laws transcend our minds, they must exist in a mind that transcends our own."
  
  Transcend: to rise above or go beyond
  Mind: the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges
  Conceptual: existing in the mind
  
  If we can agree on these defitions, and I think we can, we can point at a significant flaw in the logic: these laws are not 'conceptual.' That is to say - they exist regardless of the mind. The true part of this statement is that the laws do transcend our minds. However, there is no logical bridge from the statement "since these laws transcend our minds" to "they must exist in a mind that transcends our own." If universal laws exist independently of minds (as previously stated), there is no need for a higher mind in order for them to exist. Therefore, that 'higher mind' may or may not exist.
  
  
• "absolute rules cannot exist without an absolute ruler who decreed these rules"
  
  There is an absolute difference between made-up rules and forces and limitations that exist due to environment.  For example, for humans to survive as a species, a good rule is "do not murder." This is an example of a made-up rule that doesn't exist unless humans exist. A law/force that exists regardless of whether humans exist (what you say transcends the human mind) is, for example, gravity. This isn't a "rule" that anyone "decreed"; It's a force that we discovered to be constant in the environment that we're in and called a "law" or "rule." Once our environment changes (a different planet), we know that gravity changes or when we are between planets (space), there is no gravity. Since these laws exist regardless of whether humans exist, they exist regardless of "minds" and language for them. Therefore, just calling an environmental force a 'rule' does not equate it to man-made laws. So unless you update your statement to 'absolute laws cannot exist without an absolute ruler who decreed these laws' (which would make it false), it makes no sense.
  
  Consider the famous question: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
  
  While you might immediately say "of course it would," the question requires a bit more consideration. The word 'sound' is a man-made word to describe vibrations being interpreted by the auditory sense. Thus, without that auditory sense to interpret those vibrations, they remain vibrations. Just think about a deaf person standing next to the tree -- they might feel the earth shutter beneath them, but they wouldn't perceive any 'sounds.' With no one in the radius of the vibrations, the vibrations would exist regardless of perception or the lack thereof. They would also exist without anyone to declare that they exist.
  
  This parallels my first point: the laws of the universe would exist without anyone to declare that they exist.
  
  

If we can agree on these definitions, and I think we can, we can point at a significant flaw in the logic: these laws are not 'conceptual.' That is to say - they exist regardless of the mind. The true part of this statement is that the laws do transcend our minds. However, there is no logical bridge from the statement "since these laws transcend our minds" to "they must exist in a mind that transcends our own." If universal laws exist independently of minds (as previously stated), there is no need for a higher mind in order for them to exist. Therefore, that 'higher mind' may or may not exist.
I disagree that these laws are not conceptual. These laws exist independently of OUR minds, but they are still conceptual in nature, meaning that they describe patterns in thought rather than describing physical properties or relations between physical properties. Because they show patterns in thought, they point to someone thinking them, yet because they transcend our minds, they must point to a Someone bigger than us.
There is an absolute difference between made-up rules and forces and limitations that exist due to environment.  For example, for humans to survive as a species, a good rule is "do not murder." This is an example of a made-up rule that doesn't exist unless humans exist. A law/force that exists regardless of whether humans exist (what you say transcends the human mind) is, for example, gravity. This isn't a "rule" that anyone "decreed"; It's a force that we discovered to be constant in the environment that we're in and called a "law" or "rule." Once our environment changes (a different planet), we know that gravity changes or when we are between planets (space), there is no gravity. Since these laws exist regardless of whether humans exist, they exist regardless of "minds" and language for them. Therefore, just calling an environmental force a 'rule' does not equate it to man-made laws. So unless you update your statement to 'absolute laws cannot exist without an absolute ruler who decreed these laws' (which would make it false), it makes no sense.
Again, I disagree that rules do not exist without a ruler who proclaimed them to be rules. Unfortunately, I cannot prove that God decreed gravity to exist. I do not follow the rest of your logic. Please explain again, if possible.
This parallels my first point: the laws of the universe would exist without anyone to declare that they exist.
This reminds me, I wonder if you have read "Mere Christianity"? Do you believe murder is inherently wrong? Or is it wrong because society says it is wrong? Was it wrong of our American society to impose our views on the German society of the 1940s? I'm so curious to see your answers.
Please let me know if I have missed something that you wanted me to address.

As far as proofs for Messiah figures, are you talking about Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra, etc.?
Let me know if these are the ones you're talking about and I'll do some research on it.
Yes, these are the ones. Were any of these born in Bethlehem?

OK, setting aside the fact that I have prayed to the Christian God hundreds of times, let's assume that I feel like Shiva gives me a response. Would you recommend I follow Shiva?
You know I would believe that the response you're getting is a demonic response, but how am I to prove that I'm right? That's why I'm praying on your behalf--in hopes you don't get (what I consider) misled. But if Shiva gives you a response, keep praying to her (right? or is it him?) and keep that inquisitive, critical spirit. I have faith you'll find the truth, assuming (and hoping and praying) that that's what God wants.

Save yourself? What do you mean by that?
What I don't get is why a loving God would allow so many billions of His children to burn in hell for all eternity, even going so far as allowing demons to lead them down the wrong path. Sounds like a God who doesn't put much effort in helping His own. Basically, a person is expected to know the right choice. Making the wrong one means eternal torture. And there's nothing to inform one of how to make this choice other than what they are told by people. This is what I have so much trouble with.

So the premise is if one is religious for the purpose of saving themselves, then they're going to hell?
I don't get it.

The root word of conceptual is 'concept' which is a notion or an idea -- ideas/notions (as we're intending them to mean here) don't exist without cognizant minds.

You say these laws exist "independently of our minds" but they "describe patterns in thought." That means if humans were to be completely wiped off the face of the planet by a super virus, concepts would still exist and exist to 'describe patterns in thought.' I honestly don't follow that logic. Where would they be if no minds existed?


What makes you think they transcend our minds? Just because things exist that we didn't think of isn't evidence of anything other than just that -- they existed regardless of us. I don't understand how that makes the giant leap to evidence of a higher mind.


Why? Without your reason, I can't follow your logic.


Sure. Imagine an earth without humans. Gravity exists but there's no name for it because there's no reason for it to have a name. This is an example of a 'law' that transcends humans because the 'law' doesn't care whether humans exist.

Now imagine that same human-less earth, where animals and insects hunt and are hunted. There's no word for 'kill' or 'murder' because there's absolutely no need for one (no language). Therefore, there's no need for a rule against it.

Bam! Humans pop into the picture. Now you have tribes attacking other tribes in the same species, the same way you'd see in the animal kingdom, but the difference is -- we have language to communicate. So we make up words like 'murder' to describe something that we do to each other. Then later on, you discover things like tornadoes, gravity and earth quakes so you name them all (in whatever language you choose). You didn't create them, but you give them names to communicate them to each other. They exist whether or not you exist.


I haven't read Mere Christianity, but I like C.S. Lewis a lot and I intend to read it at some point.

First, just to clarify, I'd like to point out that 'murder is right/wrong' isn't a universal law. It's not even universal amongst humans. For instance, 'murder' is different than 'killing' in times of war. They both mean the same thing but for different reasons (usually).

I think people in our society believe murder to be 'wrong' because numerous religions tell us to "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" (no, the golden rule isn't unique to Christianity), so because we wouldn't like to be murdered AND because we have fear of [name your poison horrible eternity], we do right by that religion. Now, is this ubiquitous? Absolutely not. Does this mean God exists? Absolutely not.

For the most part, if not all, religion was created as a way to control the masses. Without a fear of authority, people generally do whatever they want. Evidence of this type of behavior (mob mentality) can be seen during riots and things of that nature. If people don't listen to human authorities, why not create a higher authority to answer to? And -- oh yes -- if you DON'T do what [deity] says, you go to [eternal punishment place]. That kind of message goes deeper than any human law. Since religion is supposed to be your direct connection to God(s) and that deity (or those deities) is always watching, you're going to feel a sense of guilt any time you do something they directly tell you not to.

It's like, if I told you that your mom is watching you every time you have sex, sex is going to change for you. That same concept carries over into any kind of religious belief. And it's not set in stone either. It's how you interpret it from whichever book(s) your religion deems holy.


Regarding 'American society' imposing its views on the German society of the 1940's, which event(s) are you speaking about specifically? I can answer more effectively if I know specifics.

It's not about what you claim, it's about what your sect claims and as long as you align yourself with that sect and that religion, you are essentially aligning yourself with its views and when you tell people, they're going to assume certain things. You alone might not claim to hold the absolute truth but I bet your church leaders might think they do.

I'm just saying -- call yourself a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Agnostic, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever and you are essentially saying "I agree with [X]."

That means if you call yourself a Republican, you are saying that you agree with everything Republicans do (minus whatever you publicly say that you disagree with). You're grouping yourself with them for a reason: It's a shortcut to telling people what and how you believe things about the world. Instead of explaining in detail what you believe about [X] every time you want to tell someone, you just tell people you belong to [X Group] and they'll have their own preconceived notions about [X Group] (some good, some bad, some neutral).

Overall, it's a time-saver. The problem is when you have beliefs that differ from the group you belong to but there's no group that fits whatever you believe 100%. That's when people start thinking about creating their own sects or their own political parties or their own book clubs. But that's not the point. The point is that, as someone who doesn't know you, if you say "I'm a/n [X]", I'm going to assume certain things about you. If [X] is 'Christian', then I'm going to assume you're convinced you know the 'truth' and that there's no other way. Otherwise, how could you really be a Christian?

That's all I'm saying.