No, because "majority" is not the same as "universal". You can't declare a unanimous verdict with 51% of the opinion, for example. And that still provides no foundation, which makes the fact that the majority find one thing bad nothing more than an ad populum.

There's no foundation for it. The only possible foundation would be a God of sorts, but the ambiguous nature of such a being means proof of a universal morality would also be hard to come by.

Clearly this phrase is deliberately designed to place subjects in a catch 22; either deny X and prove themselves of being X, or accept X and also prove themselves of X. It is a false dichotomy, and a huge presupposition on the part of the question that both choices lead to the same outcome, one that has not been proven sufficiently.

Would love to hear an argument for its truth though.

Some of them do, some of them don't. I'm not afraid to call it luck that we have a universe we can survive in.

Fuck me, an "outstanding case with infallible logic"? Give me a break...

Because I can't be bothered to backtrack all your arguments, and because I haven't debated religion in a while, give me your best argument for the existence of a Christian God please. I can assure you that just like any argument for anything, it is not infallible, as I will hope to prove.

As far as I'm concerned, the majority of languages are perfect. If we take perfect to mean:

The most efficient possible at fulfilling a task/role

Then what can't English, French or whatever do efficiently? There is a word for everything imaginable, and a grammatical structure to go with it; that is perfect from a linguistic view.

I've never bothered to look up the details, but that just seems ridiculous. Call it an argument from incredulity, but the creation of a global disease that kills millions every year by a national government for "killing minorities"?

I call bullshit.

Also, in regards to the two above me, we can't have such an aggressive definition. The probability of the existence of a God is irrelevant when defining it, all that matters is the nature of its existence.

An entity that exists personally in order to give someone's life a higher purpose or meaning.

Or;

A supernatural being that personally interacts with humanity.

I prefer the first one, it includes more abstract concepts like Chakra and whatnot.

Querection, I like it .

By the way, my fiendish grammatical nuances appear to be influencing you as well .

Muahahahaha .

Oh yea .

Come on, call me a whore again .

Tell me what a bad little grammar rebel I've been .

Are you gonna need to spank me to teach me a lesson ;)

Brother I've known that since before you were on the site, but I do it that way because it's seductive .

And yes, I did it then when I didn't even need to. Come at me .