The Anti-theist Thread

[Wayfarer]

I think I managed less than 10000 keystrokes in those last two messages. That's a personal best for conciseness.

[mirrille]

Yes, Wayfarer the Insufferable. You really earn your moniker. I like it.

To everyone else, I think I also remember reading about those experiments. Typical science. Not more answers, but more questions. Gotta love this stuff. It keeps you guessing, doesn't it?

[Cirdan]

A second point to notice is that God is continuously causing every event in the universe.

OR

God is good, not because evil is beyond his power but because it is outside his character. You seem to understand this, but you still confuse the issue.

As you said, the issue is not benevolence. Simple benevolence involves acting a certain way most of the time, He is omni-benevolent, which means he acts benevolently 100% of the time.

If god is causing every event then this includes events that are not benelovent.

What god created is the potential for evil-and also the potential for good.

Why isn't creating the potential for evil an evil act? Evil is unnecessary for free will with regards to the acceptance or rejection of god. A benign or non-choice due to unawareness of the concept of god is not an act of evil.

The creation of the potential for evil and the creation of an angel capable of evil (could it be... SATAN?) is self defeating for an omnibenevolent god. If man is supposed to choose god by free will why introduce an element designed to influence the individual to make the wrong choice?

I believe that religion and science are both searches for truth. Science has taken it's rightful place in dealing with everyday things. But it cannot learn the truth about the ultimate origin and purpose of the universe. For this we must turn elsewhere.

Science may discover the most likely theory of the origin of the universe as there is no reasoning to the contrary. Religion is not a search for the truth; religion is a claim to knowledge of the truth base on faith not fact.

There is enough evidence to make belief in God reasonable. That's all that's needed.

That is all we asked for throughout this thread. The evidence. This would be something other than conjecture.

The brain chemistry thing is an iteresting idea but it will be a while before a non-subjective anaylsis could be constructed. I read some of the author's other work. He is a ghostbuster. Something about geophysical magnetism causing people to see ghosts. Ummmm.... ok. I am sure there is a biochemical state of mind that is functionally unique to heightened religious awareness. Is it a cause of the experience or a symptom of a particular thought process? the personality of one's DNA and the life experience work in unison to respond in a unique neural confirguration to produce a unique response.

FINALLY
If god is truely omnibenevolent and omniscience then even if I feel I can't believe; when I die he will be understanding, having given me free will and I having exercised it, will be a good sport, forgive me, and lauching me to heaven provided that I have done my best to be a decent person (is there an entrance exam? does god grade on a curve?). This has the added benefit of allowing me to sleep in on Sundays. I'm not sure what I would do for eternity in heaven; after the first billion or so years I could see it becoming a bit tedious, unless Tolkien is still cranking out new material.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan


Science may discover the most likely theory of the origin of the universe as there is no reasoning to the contrary. Religion is not a search for the truth; religion is a claim to knowledge of the truth base on faith not fact.

I agree with you 100% here. If it wasn't for science we'd still think the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat. Science forced religion to change their beliefs (after many excommunications, jailings and executions for heresy)

Originally posted by Cirdan

FINALLY
If god is truely omnibenevolent and omniscience then even if I feel I can't believe; when I die he will be understanding, having given me free will and I having exercised it, will be a good sport, forgive me, and lauching me to heaven provided that I have done my best to be a decent person (is there an entrance exam? does god grade on a curve?). This has the added benefit of allowing me to sleep in on Sundays. I'm not sure what I would do for eternity in heaven; after the first billion or so years I could see it becoming a bit tedious, unless Tolkien is still cranking out new material.

I always felt the same way. Why do people seem to put more credence in going to church than just being a good person. Isn't it more important to treat people with respect and understanding than to spend all your time praying? It's also funny when I hear people say that Atheist can't be good people because they don't believe in god. I've met a lot of people that believce in god and are terrible people. So if there is a heaven and a god - I think I have a better chance of getting in than they do.

[Andúril]

I will respond to Wayfarer's post shortly, but before doing so I just want to mention something briefly.

If God is omnibenevolent, he acts benevolently 100% of the time.

Take "His" judgement. If we pass the requirements (whatever the bible claims they are...), we enter Heaven. If we fail, we enter Hell.

Now here is the important part: Is the "banishment" to hell, a benevolent action? I submit No.

Is the action just? According to Christianity, yes it is.

But, is a just action equatable with a benevolent action? A just action is a neutral action, in my opinion; it is the action performed resulting from the position of the subject in accordance with the law. If someone commits a crime, that person is held to the law, as punishable. This punishment is in just accordance with the crimes commited - the person will get what he/she deserves.

So we can see that a just action, is on neither side of the fence, neither lenient, nor overly harsh.

Thus, if God sends someone to Hell, for not meeting the requirements, according to scripture that is a just action. Once again, it is neither lenient, nor overly harsh (by Christian theology).

But now lets come back to the omnibenevolence of God. God acts in a benevolent manner 100% of the time. Is the action of sending people to Hell, benevolent. Of course not!! It is probably the most evil thing to do, and the most evil punishment to receive!

What are the possibilites? If God was trully omnibenevolent, he would HAVE to act benevolently to everyone, all the time. He would not be able to send anyone to Hell, at all, because that very action is non-benevolent.

And what does this all tell us? It brings us to the conclusion that God is either just (non-omnibenevolent), or he is omnibenevolent, in that he cannot perform a just punishment/reward.

[Andúril]

Wayfarer (1)

Choice:

Since God (presumbly) has a determinate character, the issue of choice is somewhat odd. Being without change, he will presumably always choose the same thing in a given situation.

I'm not really sure what you mean by without change. This is such an abstract term, I don't know if it is useful in any meaningful discussion. But I will try to make sense of it.

Are you alluding to the nature of God? His attributes, such as omnipotence, cease to change, but he is an entity that does exhibit change in certain ways, such as 1) thought and 2) actions?

We have read many instances in the bible, where God does (a), then he does (b), then (c), and so on. None of these actions are eternal. And when looking at his thoughts, once again the bible is a clear indication of these (God being angry, then God being jealous, then God being pleased (by the smell of burnt flesh)). Once again, none of these emotions (and his thoughts) are eternal; they all have limited time-spans. So God, when describing his thoughts and actions, is definitely not changeless.

Perhaps you might be able to show how God can make an eternal choice, regarding for example, killing a person, or not killing that person. I don't think you can do it.

Besides all this, there are still problems when it comes to his omniscience - he already knows, therefore no choice is necessary...

Ahh, omniscience, a wonderful subject. Remind me one day to reconcile this divine attribute with some of God's actions, depicted in the bible, alright? Fascinating reading, that will be...

Time:

What you say is pretty reasonable. But there is a problem: You assume that an entity must reduce itself to the level of that which it is affecting-even though I can write on a (relatively) two dimensional sheet of paper without becoming two dimesnional myself.

The problem is, that the paper, even though you accept it, is in fact three-dimensional. You, a three-dimensional object, are interacting with the paper, another three-dimensional object. Perhaps you might have chosen a better analogy.

But there is still a problem here: how is it even coherent to think of a time-dimension as a spatial-dimension? Because that is what the Flatland analogy is all about. The only way it can get its point accross is by demonstrating the interaction between entities of differing amounts of spatial-dimensions. But a time-dimension is, as you already know, is directly related to all three spatial-dimensions. If there is spatial change, there is time. You can't demonstrate a theory regarding a non-visible plain, by showing a visible plain. It just makes no sense.

A second point to notice is that God is continuously causing every event in the universe. He created it in our past, and will destroy it in our future, but in relation to himself both those events happen simultaneously.

Go to Genesis. God created plant life on one of the days during the week of creation. Did God create plant life the day before? No. Did God create plant life the day after? No.

It seems that if you want to stick with the concept of an entity that is outside of time, it becomes neccesary to label him as changeless, as eternal. This is, in my opinion, the only reason why you keep going back to your points about God being in a state of constant causation. Because clearly, from the bible, we can see that it is not the case.

On a less strict note, I am thinking that those who wrote Genesis actually were not as intellectually adept as we are today, where they would not have known the implications of the being they were describing. A being that creates a universe, would the authors have known that that being would have to necessarily exist at least partially outside of the time-dimension of that universe? I don't think so at all. Just a (very) loose and unsubstantiated thought...

[Andúril]

Wayfarer (2)

Good:

First, you must understand that god did not create evil. Since evil is (by definition) contrary to his will, it would be self contradictory for him to create it. You might want to expand on that, but I'll just leave it as is.

Unfortunately I do not have any of my three bibles(!) with me at the moment, so I can't quote the passage right now. But I will. It said clearly that God created evil. Nothing about the potential of evil.

But, even if God did create the potential of evil, why? The scale of morallity has good on one side, neutrality in the middle, and evil on the other side? My question would be, why did God structure it in such a way? Why does the scale go any further (negatively) than neutral?

One could say that evil is necessary, but I submit that that assertion (while in my opinion incorrect) is only applicable because we inhabit a universe where "evil" is part of the realm of possibility. It is incorrect because for the quality of "goodness" to be shown, comparison with a different quality, "neutrality" is adequate to show the separate nature of the two.

Also, one could say that if there was no possible evil, that would be hindering one's free-will. But again, that is only applicable if God created beings with the possibility of performing evil actions, and if the existence of evil is possible. If there is zero possibility for evil to exist, or any evil actions to be performed, then "evil" is a non-concept in the light of free-will. I might need to explain myself further, but I hope you see my point.

Now, behaviors are habit forming. The entirity of human culture throughout history has gotten in the habit of evil-to the point we can't consistently do otherwise.

This is only possible if evil exists. Remember the "first sin" (Adam and Eve)? Is that how evil entered the world? I say no. Look at Satan. He was evil before the universe was created, according to scripture.

How could Adam and Eve have been "perfect" if they did not adhere to God's will perfectly? They must not have been created perfectly.

How could Satan have been created by a "perfect" being? That is one incredibly imperfect creation, if you ask me...

(Omni)benevolence;

God is good, not because evil is beyond his power but because it is outside his character. You seem to understand this, but you still confuse the issue.

As you said, the issue is not benevolence. Simple benevolence involves acting a certain way most of the time, He is omni-benovelent, which means he acts benovenently 100% of the time.

This does not mean that he cannot be omnipotent. By definition, omnipotence would allow a being to prefrom mutually contradictory actions. The next letter I type can be one of 26 english characters or a number of others. but it does not follow that because I can type any of these characters that I will. Indeed, once I have typed one character, I can no longer type another in that same instance. God is like that.

Confusing the issue? Let me see if I can clear my thoughts a little.

Does the possibility of an evil act performed by an omnibenevolent being, exist? No.

Is an evil act a logical action? Yes.

Can an omnipotent being perform any logical action? Yes

One being cannot be both, it is logically impossible.

Saying that evil "is outside his character", is basically stipulating the limits of one of his defining attributes, omnibenevolence. He has an omnibenevolent character, the bible claims. But what is the "boundary" there for? It is the extent of the definition. If definitions had no boundaries or limits, every concept would have the same meaning as every other concept, which would be everything (if that is even possible). Likewise, a concept cannot be defined with two contradictory ideas (only good actions + only bad actions).

What I am saying is that it is obvious that evil is not beyond the power of an omnipotent being. But, if that being is also omnibenevolent, it can't exist. Or if I put it another way, a being with those two attributes cannot exist.

[Andúril]

Wayfarer (3)

Perfection:

Perfection is not a measure of what God can do, it is a measure of what he does do. If God were to perform an imperfect action, he would cease top be perfect. But since god is Omnipotent, he has the ability to perform all acts perfectly (as opposed to humans, who can only reach different levels of imperfection).and thus he has no reason to do otherwise.

As far as desires- I would say that your argument is hardly relevent. Don't we all desire to perform actions perfectly?

Looking at your first paragraph, I don't see any problems, except for minor ones, such as:

1) Perfection is a measure of both what God can and does do. They should by definition both be exactly the same.

2) Its seems that you are overlooking parts of the entire bouquet of possible acts that a omnipotent being can perform. Once again, an omnipotent being can perform an action that is not necessarily perfect. If an omnipotent being cannot perform any actions of varying imperfection, it is not omnipotent, because then there are some logically sound actions which this being cannot perform, which is contradictory to an omnipotent being's nature. You are saying that out of all logically possible acts, some of those acts would not be performed (ie imperfect actions), and I am saying that such actions cannot be performed. It is contradictory to a perfect being's nature to behave imperfectly.

3) I am one person who does not desire to perform all actions with perfection, thus not all people desire to perform perfect actions. Additionally, the concepts of Christian perfection and perfection in general are subjectively different.

Humans, as a rule, die.
Once dead, a human attains what they desire in life-either communion with god or seperation from him.
So, humans who die sooner get what they want sooner.
Are humans who die sooner better or worse off than those who die later?

A baby dies during childbirth. What was it exactly that that baby desired in life? Similarly, an elderly person loses his/her mental faculties. What is it that that person wants, at this point in his/her life?

Harming Ones Self:

In the instance you cited, you would in fact be worse off than someone who had consistently sought God all their life. They would not have had the benefits throughout thier life. However, they would still be vastly better off than someone who never believed.

Do you have any evidence of this? Speculation. Additionally, if Christianity is not the true religion, there exists the possibility that Christians, as well as non-theists, would proceed to the "Hell" equivalent of the true religion (if one existed). As you can see, it's a whole lot of speculation...

[Andúril]

Wayfarer (4)

There is enough evidence to make belief in God reasonable. That's all that's needed.

Such as? Religious experiences? Miracles?

Actually, while there are numerous examples of God choosing someone, and them refusing to do his will. Even the first generation hebrews, who had seen god's power directly, were awfully rebellious.

Well, if God is omnipotent, then he didn't really want those people to do his will. If he did, he is not omnipotent, because he couldn't bend them to his will.

The fact is, if God chose someone to carry out instructions, and perform actions, there is absolutely zero possibility for that person to choose otherwise, if God really desired it. If God has a desire, and he is omnipotent, that desire will be achieved.

Now, if the bible says that God chose people, and they did not do his bidding, what does that tell you about his omnipotence? Or the truthfulness and accuracy of the bible?

Honestly, the whole "choosen one" concept is ridiculous. Enter omniscience. God knows before a being is created whether or not that being would adhere to his will, or would not. So why go through with it? What is the point of going from point (a), the knowledge, to point (b), the actuality. God, through his divine knowledge, would know the outcome of any human's life (saved/damned). Why go any further than that? An example:

I have a thought in my mind, involving a coin flipping.

I wonder which side the coin will land on.

I already know with zero doubt, what the outcome will be.

So why actualise the event? Why flip the coin, and act surprised, or angry, when it doesn't land on the side I want? It is just incredibly silly, I'm sorry to say...

But it cannot learn the truth about the ultimate origin and purpose of the universe. For this we must turn elsewhere.

You have assumed that "the truth" can in fact be learnt.

I can simply note that the grat majority of those people who are great examples of faith seem to have had very little in the way of religious experiences. Indeed, most of them seem to be exactly the opposite.

What is your criteria for a "great example"?

[afro-elf]

you might wanna check this out


http://www.reasoned.org/

[Wayfarer]

Mirrelle: Thanks. ]: )


Cirdan:

God is the ultimate cause of events, but there are others which he chooses not to excercise complete control over. Like Humans.

Evil is nescessary for free will. It is not your choice to do good if you could not do anything else.

The rejection of God is in itself an evil act, and the basis of all subsequent evil acts. If God had made us without the choice to reject him, they would have likewise been unable to serve of our own free will. And that's what he's wanted all along.

The same situation exists with angels. He gave them free will so that they could freely choose to serve him. Some chose otherwise. But whatever they (angels or humans) have chosen, they are intent on bringing other to the same choice.


Science, by definition*, cannot tell us about the ultimate origins of the universe. The past is outside the realm of science, in the realm of history. Likewise, science cannot tell us what the meaning of life is, that is the realm of philosophy.

*Science:

a)The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b)Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
C)Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Since the origin of the universe cannot be observed, identified, expirimented with, theoretical explainations are completely useless.

As far as a lack of evidence, you've been given plenty. You still haven't answered my challenge to explain the universe in naturalistic terms. I still say you can't.

And as far as brain chemistry: there are different brain states that accompany eating, sleeping, sex, and anything else we do. They fact that the brain states could be reproduced artificially does not change the fact that those are real things.

[BeardofPants]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wayfarer
[B]Mirrelle: Thanks. ]: )

God is the ultimate cause of events, but there are others which he chooses not to excercise complete control over. Like Humans.

Right. That explains it all. We're NOT evolving because GOD doesn't control us...

Evil is nescessary for free will. It is not your choice to do good if you could not do anything else.

Uh huh. *interested listening noises* Riiiight. I think that the pings in my brain a little more complex than that... :P

The rejection of God is in itself an evil act, and the basis of all subsequent evil acts. If God had made us without the choice to reject him, they would have likewise been unable to serve of our own free will. And that's what he's wanted all along.

It's not rejection, if you choose not to put your head in the sand. It's just "common sense". Since, God doesn't exist, and religion is just an ideological world view, then it is in fact, you, who is rejecting mine smelly feet of divinity and ruling. Now, kiss my feet. Now.

The same situation exists with angels. He gave them free will so that they could freely choose to serve him. Some chose otherwise. But whatever they (angels or humans) have chosen, they are intent on bringing other to the same choice.

People with wings can CHOOSE?! Man, I gotta get me some of them!

Science, by definition*, cannot tell us about the ultimate origins of the universe. The past is outside the realm of science, in the realm of history. Likewise, science cannot tell us what the meaning of life is, that is the realm of philosophy.

Religion by ignorance... oh wait. Whatever. Bite me.

Since the origin of the universe cannot be observed, identified, expirimented with, theoretical explainations are completely useless.

Since the origin of the universe can not be observed, identified, experimented (I can spell!) with, theological explanations are completely useless.

As far as a lack of evidence, you've been given plenty. You still haven't answered my challenge to explain the universe in naturalistic terms. I still say you can't.

Yes, we have. Mine moneys on evolution.

Naturalistic. Do you EVEN know what you are talking about?! Or have you got some outmoded literature to whap me with?

And as far as brain chemistry: there are different brain states that accompany eating, sleeping, sex, and anything else we do. They fact that the brain states could be reproduced artificially does not change the fact that those are real things.

I agree with that, monkey boy.


I'm in a GREAT mood this morning!!

[Wayfarer]

Jaydee:

You'd be surprised how much of what the catholic church believed and believess is a heresy in itself. The entire idea of the preistly heierachy is a heresy in itself. The doctrine of praying to saints is another. The scandal that's rocking the church stems in part from of the heresy that priests aren't allowed to marry. Rosaries and the (now defunct) insistance that the bible must be in latin. The church believing that it was above government.


It might interest you to know that I have less faith in the church than you do. Even in the short amount of time i've been an 'insider', I've discovered that most churchgoers, and quite a few church leaders, do not behave as christians should.

I do believe that athiests can't be good people, because of this simple provision: People can't be good people. If we could, through effort, make ourselves good, salfvation would be unnescessary and christianity would be pointless. But there is a way that we can be saved anyway.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Right. That explains it all. We're NOT evolving because GOD doesn't control us...

Humans are evolving. The genetic norm has changed and will change in the future. But humans were and will still be humans.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
People with wings can CHOOSE?! Man, I gotta get me some of them!

It is only the ignorant who believe that spirits are really winged men.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Since the origin of the universe can not be observed, identified, experimented (I can spell!) with, theological explanations are completely useless.

Mine moneys on evolution.

Naturalistic. Do you EVEN know what you are talking about?! Or have you got some outmoded literature to whap me with?

First: Evolution is not a sufficient explaination of the universe. Even philosiphical (or religious) evolution does not fill the gaps.

Naturalistic: pertaining to the origin of all things from either this universe or an Omniverse containing all universes. One could say Materialism instead of naturalism, but Omniversism is rather hard on the jaw. ]: ) Anyway, what I mean by nature is simply one of the two possibilities which I've been stating all along.

Now, since none of us can come up with a system that is not reliant on a self existant entity-be that God or the Omniverse (a fact the only posters to address at all have agreed with) it seems sensible that we should try and work out how either of these might be true. I've given two examples of difficulties with an Omniverse system, and I'd like to see if we can get around them and set up a rational philosophy. Is that really so much to ask?

You may recall that most literature is made from acid based paper? Obviously outmoded books are two corroded to suffice for whapping. That's why I make do with my staff. ]: ) *bap*

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

Humans are evolving. The genetic norm has changed and will change in the future. But humans were and will still be humans.

Are you sure about that? Who knows we might call ourselves carbonbased units in a few 100 years. And after all what's in a name?

Originally posted by Wayfarer
It is only the ignorant who believe that spirits are really winged men.

Oh drat.*removes bird seed and closes window*It was too good to be true....

[Wayfarer]

Anduril:

God is Benovelent in his judgement. He has made it quite clear that no human can pass on thier own merit, and he has made it equally clear that anybody can pass if they ask ahead of time.

We can see this more clearly not by looking at it in relation to crime but to debt (btb, did you just use a metaphor? For shame! ) If bill gates decided to pay all your bills for the rest of your life, he could. But he's not going to pay them if you tell him you don't want him to. God is like that. He'll let you off the hook, and be overjoyed to do so, but only if you ask ahead of time. If you wish to be judged (or if you have convinced yourself that you will never be judged) then you will be.

Choice:

By without change means without change. If that troubles you, I'm certain you can find a definition of both words in an available dictionary.

It is not a matter of god doing a, b, and c in order. He does them all at once, but we see them in that order.

I.E. God did not 'create light on day one' he created 'light on day one'. A small distinction, to be sure, but an important one. God is not at point XYZT when he is pleased with event N, he is simply pleased that event N is happening at point XYZT.

Is that clear as mud?

I'll say that you have a point-those who wrote genesis did not look at things in the same way as we do. But it's not something that matters. They perhaps did not fully realize the implications of what they were saying. But if, let's say, they had sat down and studied and tholught about it, they could have understood them. Would that have nescessarily undermine their belief? I think not. Would they likely have stated things differently? Perhaps.

Evil:

Since evil is against god's will, then for god to have created a universe in which no creature could perform evil actions would be to force every creature in accordance to god's will. Since God wishes that we would all choose to do his will, he cannot force us, and thus he allows evil to exist.

Actually, adam, eve, and satan were perfect up to the point where they chose to defy god's will. Then they stopped being perfect.

But I must try and explain this... Satan did not become the Devil he is now because god created him to be a filthy creature, but because he was in the beginning the most powerful created thing. And the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Angels are better or worse than men, and adults are better or worse than children. The greater the stature, the more potential to do either good or evil.

Omnibenevolence:

What you seem to have is an idea rather like that which I once heard was a muslim belief: God does X simply because he can, and for some reason must fulfill all possibilities.

You realize that if you have a series of mutually exclusive possibilities, even if both are within your power, you cannot do both.

So if I do AAAAAAAAAA, I cannot do BBBBBBBBBB. if we say that A is benevolent, and B is evil, then a being that chooses A can no longer choose B. God has done A in all situations. He could have done B, but he did not.

What i am trying to say, is that evil is not beyond god's power, but he has not performed evil acts.

I'll agree with you that god could not be omnibenevolent and perform evil acts, because omnibenevolent is the state of having not done any evil acts. Since he could have done B but did A, he is omnibenevolent.

Just because I Can fail does not mean that I have Failed or even that I will fail. These are what I think you're confusing.

Force and Free will:

You continuously neglect the fact that god wants everybody to choose to do his will. If they had no choice, they would not be choosing, and would not in fact be doing his will.

faith:

A great example of faith would be Job. Satan's entire argument was that Job only had faith because he had been blessed, but we see that he believed even after all that was taken away. He didn't forget in suffering what he had learned in prosperity.

[Wayfarer]

Earniel... I think I just misspelled your name, but you're hilarious!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
God is the ultimate cause of events, but there are others which he chooses not to excercise complete control over. Like Humans.

Evil is nescessary for free will. It is not your choice to do good if you could not do anything else.

Again, there is no difference between creating the potential for evil, and creating evil. If a car stands a 50% chance of exploding on ignition, is the car just potentially hazardous? Creation of the evil potential makes god liable for evil.

Why not allow a choice between positive action and non-action with the benefit of heaven for those who are true to god and to those who exhibit benign action, simple death?

The rejection of God is in itself an evil act, and the basis of all subsequent evil acts. If God had made us without the choice to reject him, they would have likewise been unable to serve of our own free will. And that's what he's wanted all along.

The same situation exists with angels. He gave them free will so that they could freely choose to serve him. Some chose otherwise. But whatever they (angels or humans) have chosen, they are intent on bringing other to the same choice.

There is still no explaination for god to create life forms to worship him. Eternal damnation or eternal sycophancy; that is a choice? The rules of religion were written by men who knew almost nothing about the world, other than tending sheep. I doubt that even if they had talked to god that they would even understand anything beyond the very basics. The explainations that have been provided to make what they wrote fit what scientists have discovered about the universe is laughable. It changes god from what was perceived by the authors as a personal god, concerned with the day to day activities of a small region of earth and sky which was the known world at the time. To extrapilate this to a extra-universal source of all matter and action is to rewrite the bible anyway. Why not then view the bible for what it really is, a guide to a moral life and social justice, a history book of the hebrew?

Science, by definition*, cannot tell us about the ultimate origins of the universe. The past is outside the realm of science, in the realm of history. Likewise, science cannot tell us what the meaning of life is, that is the realm of philosophy.

*Science:

a)The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b)Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
C)Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Since the origin of the universe cannot be observed, identified, expirimented with, theoretical explainations are completely useless.

I hope your reading your text books more carefully than you did my post. I said "science would provide a theory". Only religions would pretend to know what happened at the beginning of the universe. And actually, the evidence for the begininng certainly exists in the time space continuum, much as the light from a long dead star billions of miles away is still visible. Quite a long shot, though.

As far as a lack of evidence, you've been given plenty. You still haven't answered my challenge to explain the universe in naturalistic terms. I still say you can't.

I don't consider heresay as valid evidence. The topic is: there is no god. If I was a cosmologist with the ability to explain the universe beyond theory and conjecture I would be collecting my Nobel prize right about now. You want immutable absolutes; fine, stick with religion. I want the truth. I still say you don't have it.

[Cirdan]

...oh, and BoP, pardon my manners. Thanks for the welcome back. I've been deep into remodeling and gardening as it is spring here and there is much work to be done. I was only able to sneak in for a quick post before I was back at it.

I'm glad to see the thread didn't get of topic. We should thank Wayfarer for his relentless proselytizing and insufferability as it seems to be the spark that prompts us to refine and better define our views. I was more of an agnostic when we started, but after all the great input, logical analysis, and research by all the posters my doubt is quailing and I'm solidly atheist. God is a concept lost in the politics of formal religions.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Earniel... I think I just misspelled your name, but you're hilarious!

You've typed it as good as it gets. When I joined the entmoot I didn't realise most people don't have an 'ä' on their keyboard. So Earniel is more than good enough, I've seen worse. Thanks for you compliment, you've just made my day.