It Should Be Easy, Right?



And so on.

It takes thought, research, and more thought.


If we really believe, why do we believe?



The proof…

The evidence?



Prove me and Peter are wrong on that concept.



Evidence. Proof. It should be easy!


31 thoughts on “It Should Be Easy, Right?

  1. With all the scientific and technological advances of the 20th and now the 21st centuries and we’re still expressing these sheepherder genes! Comforting myths do not remain comfortable long, once thought about.


  2. Evidence that is “replicable by anyone, with the same (consistent) results” doesn’t exist for your own birth. Most things we accept as true are not accompanied by irrefutable evidence.


    • I would accept that as a straw man argument. As for accepting most things without irrefutable evidence as true, that just might be our fatal flaw.

      But that’s just me.


      • How do you define a straw man argument?
        Accepting things without irrefutable evidence isn’t a flaw. It’s an essential aspect of acquiring knowledge. Demanding empirical evidence for every belief brings learning to a grinding halt.


        • I believe I use the usual definition! 😉 Okay, without the snark: “Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.” The events of my arrival in life have nothing to do with the proposition in my post.

          Oh, and I fell into your trap by reusing your terminology “irrefutable”. I did not use that word in my post. So, go back and re-read my post. That’s my answer.


          • “The events of my arrival in life have nothing to do with the proposition in my post.”
            I would humbly suggest that were in not for your arrival in life, there would be no post.

            From you post: “If I were to respect some god, there would have to be valid reasons! That god would have to be undeniable, and physically so!”

            What physical evidence for God would be acceptable to you?

            Liked by 1 person

            • I just looked you up. Some kind of comedic celebrity, eh?

              Anyway, humility doesn’t compensate for an irrational argument. To that (your humble argument) I reply, “Duh!!!” It still has nothing to do with my posted proposition. Straw man.

              What physical evidence?

              Any, verifiable. It’s gotta tie directly to this god. Nothing based on feelings. For example, if I touch something I leave behind fingerprints. They tie directly back to me, unmistakably and uniquely.


              • I read the documentation of your excommunication from the LDS church. I applaud your thorough research. I sympathize with your position. It must be enormously frustrating to have people you care about refusing to face the facts about their religious beliefs.
                I would never suggest that feelings are trustworthy indicators of truth. Certainly feelings about God are not compelling evidence for His existence any more than sentimental memories are evidence of my days in high school.
                But if the universe has a creator, you’ll need to think about what kind of fingerprints that creator would leave behind. What unmistakable evidence ties uniquely to the being that conjured reality?
                If there is no creator, you should still ponder where you came from and why you were born at all. I don’t think you really believe there is no purpose in the universe. If you did, you wouldn’t bother trying to teach your family the truth.

                Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s