I find that many theists believe in God because of some personal fear or weakness that has caused them to grasp desperately at any source of stability and comfort. Fear of death, or the need for comfort following the death of a loved one, seems to be a major motivation. I notice a lot of criminals and people with addiction problems tend to turn to religion in order to give their chaotic lives some structure. I also notice that people who grow up feeling unloved may grasp at the imaginary love of God as a substitute. Thaservant77, I'd really like to hear about the terrible circumstances that caused you to abandon reason and embrace delusion. But if you don't want to talk about it, I understand.

Do you feel patronized? Good. Now you know how atheists feel when theists suggest that our beliefs are based on some emotional trauma instead of reasoned reflection. 

I already added a variation of the below post to the "Kelly / Sapient Appreciation" thread, but after coming upon this one and seeing that the topic of "explaining the universe independently of God" has come up repeatedly, I feel it may be worth repeating myself.

My comment in the "Kelly / Sapient Appreciation" thread was that because theists believe it's incomprehensible that the Universe can be explained independently of God, a review of the scientific no-supernatural-necessary explanation might have been helpful to make the case for atheism. And that although a thorough answer is better suited for a science classroom than a live debate, here's a high-level overview that I think might have worked:

PRE-BIG BANG: Because the evidence from physics informs us that neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed (both can only be changed), this suggests that the universe's mass & energy ("mass-energy" ) must have always existed.

THE BIG BANG: Some 13.7 billion years ago, the universe was made up of pure energy—photons and other massless or nearly massless particles, such as neutrinos—and was unimaginably dense and hot. With what we call the Big Bang, the universe began its current expansion (whether this was the universe's first expansion, or whether it has expanded and collapsed zillions of times, or whether we exist in just one of many universes, we don't know). As the universe expanded it became less dense and cool enough for electrons & protons & neutrons to hold together to form hydrogen atoms. While the universe was still fairly dense, some of the hydrogen fused into helium and trace amounts of other light elements. 

THE GALAXIES, SOLAR SYSTEMS, & PLANETS: As the universe continued to expand, matter was distributed unevenly, and heat & gravitational attraction caused hydrogen and helium gas to clump together, and the clumps formed stars and galaxies. Stars are "on fire" because the temperature and pressure in a star's core causes internal nuclear reactions as hydrogen is fused into helium. Once a star's hydrogen is used up, the helium begins fusing, and the subsequent fusions create the heavier elements, such as carbon, iron, nickel, silicon, and zinc. Once the star exhausts its fuel supply, it collapses upon itself and explodes, and the explosion itself produces additional heavy elements. The clouds of gas and dust dispersed by the exploding star eventually turn into other stars and planets.  

(Our particular star, the Sun, was formed about five billion years ago, and has about another five billion years to go before it burns out of fuel. Our planet is about four and half billion years old.) 

If anyone spots any errors, please let me know!!

Thanks,

Todd Allen Gates, author of Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer (guest on RRS's 02-Jun-2007 show)

Oh but more to the point.

This whole thread about pre-big bang and the origin of the universe is really interesting.  I think that it is important to remember, especially on the side of the theists, that even if a non-theist granted that science may never tell us conclusively what happened 13.5 billion years ago... that does not leave room for a personal God simply by default.  I'm sure this has come up hundreds of times.  The God that many people in the US profess to believe in is a God that is deeply angered by their sex lives, private thoughts, white lies, and personal feelings.  Does anyone have the latest numbers for evangelists in this country... or simply the number of people who believe in a personal God?  I think R. Dawkins mentions it in the Root of all Evil, but I only remember that it was surprisingy high.  I'll google for a minute.

PS- Has anyone actually watched the Way of the Master show?  It will blow your mind.  My favorite was the episode where they confront gay people in San Francisco.  Their claims that they do those things with sensitivity and purely from a place of "love" is such raging bullshit.   

Hahaha oh man that made my afternoon.

I love that kid.  What kind of God makes kids think when they aren't even in school?  Indeed. 

Great post, Todd. Here's some notes:

First, a broad comment: theists will dodge all your points about animals on the grounds that animals don't count because they don't have souls and represent a lower order of consciousness. My advice would be to avoid this basket of red herrings by restricting your examples to human suffering.

Argument #1: Christians will argue that because of Original Sin, we are all wrong-doers and have coming to us whatever God decides to dish out. In fact, it is only because of his infinite mercy that we are not tortured for all time for our heinousness. 

Your response to this can be that if that is the way it is, then God made it that way. He made the rules, then he made us so that we would break them.

They will retort with the Free Will argument...

#2:  You're right, this one simply begs the question. Since the theist is making the positive claim that there is some balancing side benefit to all suffering, they bear the burden of proof to show that it is the case. It shouldn't be difficult for you to point out dozens of examples, like the early deaths of children, where they can't present a countervailing good that actually results from the suffering itself.

They will counter with the We Can't Understand argument...

#3: If we need to have free will, it is because God wanted the universe to work that way. To deny this statement is to deny God's omnipotent power to create the universe any way he wanted with any set of rules that he wanted. So God chose, out of a literally infinite number of options, to create a universe where free will was necessary and would inevitably lead to tremendous suffering. God is perfectly responsible for all suffering that has ever occured.

They will counter with the Limited God argument...

#4: Since we can't understand an omnipotent God, why do all religions pretend to? We are told that God is this and that, but not this and not that. We are told God wants various things. We are told that God has told us to worship, live our lives a certain way and give lots of money to churches. How can we know any of this if God is so perfectly inscrutable? Theists who claim that God cannot be understood are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They need to embrace that conclusion and apply it consistently across their notion of God. What are we left with? No reason to worship and no reason to act as if God exists at all.

They will counter with the assertion that we must accept the revealed Word of God out of faith. At which point you ask them why they don't accept the revealed Word of Zeus out of faith. Then brace for circularity, dodging, reassertion of already refuted points and a variety of other cheap tricks as they desperately try to avoid looking irrational, which they are if they hold beliefs based on faith.

#5:  Similar to #4, if they really think this, why don't they really embrace it and apply it in their daily life? Take a lighter out of your pocket and ask them if they would like to hold their hand in the flame for a while. When they decline, sympathize with them and note that no one, not even the proponent of the illusion argument, can actually live according to its tenets. In fact, if we really rejected materialism, we would soon die of starvation. Unless God wants us to die (in which case he's no friend), he must want us to embrace materialism to some extent. Since there is no more basic experience of the material universe than pain, we arrive at the conclusion that God must want us to experience pain as a material fact.

They might counter with the God Is Not All Good argument, though I've never actually seen a Christian willing to go there...

#6: A limited God is not the God of any of the Judeo-Christian traditions. So we are now reinventing God to try to make him make sense. If we needed any more proof that God is a man-made entity and not an actual separate being, here it is. However, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that we are actually attempting to discover something here rather than making it up as we go along.

What are the parameters of this new, limited God? What is he made of, where does he live, why does he hide from us? Why, since this being is no longer the ultimate, eternal, omnipresent moral force behind the creation of the universe, should we trust him or believe in him or worship him at all? Our parents created us and we don't worship them. If God is limited don't we have a right to ask questions and demand answers of him?

What use is a God that doesn't answer the smallest prayer here in the real world? And don't talk about the afterlife in the context of a limited God...there is no scientific theory that can describe heaven or provide a mechanism for its existence.

#7: I've never heard a Christian try this one and it certainly flies directly in the face of everything that has ever been said about God in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Very simple counter: if God is no better or worse than us, morally, why would we worship him? We can find people on earth that are almost perfectly moral, who never hurt anyone and devote their lives to helping others. Why not worship one of them?  

Hi,

Great Job, Rational Responders:

I was really pleased at how the crowd, who sat in stern silence while Comfort stumbled through his pathetic apologetics routine, responded with applause intermittently to Sapient and Kelly. I was blown away by how incredibly stupid Comfort and Cameron are.

My one criticism is regarding the coke-can analogy. This argument is beneath response. That having been said, Sapient and Kelly handled it quite well, but I feel it would have been preferable to ignore it altogether - or, perhaps, to have referred to it in passing as 'totally idiotic' and 'not worth replying to', and the like. I'm getting irritated just typing about it.

Finally, I'd like to point out that, by referring to the bible, these two slack-jawed bible-thumping retards forfeited the debate. If that's the best the theists can do, I actually pity them a bit (and then I remember the 16+ centuries of carnage and brutality they've presided over).

In reviewing various explanatory myths for the existence of suffering & evil, the tale of Adam & Eve is just not a particularly coherent one: God's All-Knowing, but gets explosive angry when He "finds out" about the disobedience; God's All-Loving, but doles out a punishment WAY out of proportion to the crime from two youngsters who didn't even know right from wrong until after the snack. The story simply doesn't hang together well ... the Greek myth of Pandora could be criticized for being equally misogynistic (after all, it too blames women for the world's woes), but at least it's coherent story-telling. (A one-sentence review for those unfamiliar with the story:  Prometheus steals fire from the gods and gives it to humans; Zeus gets pissed and arranges for Prometheus's torture; Zeus also wants revenge on man for accepting the stolen goods; Zeus summons all the other gods to create "woman" [starting with Pandora] to torture men; Zeus sends a box with all the world's evils in it to Pandora's household with a "Do Not Open" sign on it; Pandora's curiosity gets the better of her.) Anyway . . . the Pandora story doesn't contain all the logical contradictions of the Adam & Eve story: Zeus had at least a somewhat better reason to get angry (theft), and Zeus was typically explosive over petty matters and never claims to be all-loving or have ANY particular fondness for humans---his sadistic overreaction was 100% true to character.

Todd Allen Gates, author of Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer

Sorry if I sound like a self-promoting bore here . . . but I just wanted to point out that if you buy my book on Amazon via the link on www.rationalresponders.com (you'll see my book on the sidebar to the left, under the title "Last Week . . ." ), Amazon kicks back some of their profit to the Rational Response Squad.

- Todd

Thanks. I can never get started because I'm terrified of the work involved.

I think we can agree that there is no empirical data we can point to before the Big Bang (BB) event. All we can do is invoke logic, speculation, and/or faith. I claim God is the cause. Atheists want to entertain the idea that the BB might have been the result of some kind of natural cause yet unknown to us. I'll refer to this as "The Machine." (M) theory. Now, I have a few things for you to think about. First, it is important for you to know that all proposed models set forth by scientists as an explanation for a natural cause (M) before the BB event itself, have been rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Steven Hawkings has stated this himself. In other words, they do not believe  "The Machine" is a possible hypothesis. Therefore, the best evidence we have right now, points to the BB as the actual creation event. Here is an illustration for those who want to assert the "M" theory: M (Machine) = BB = Universe As stated above, the majority of scientists reject the "M" theory. Most of them believe the BB actually represents the beginning of all things. This is a very important point.Now, I have a few questions for those who want to entertain the "M" theory/ natural cause theory:1. Since there was no time or space prior to the BB (the BB produced time and space) how can "M" exist in spaceless timelesness?2. The cause of the BB whatever it might be must transcend space and time because no space or time existed yet.3. The cause of the BB must be non-temporal, changeless and immaterial since there was no time or space to be materialized in.4. It must be unchanging, unbelievably powerful, and personal ( intelligent). The only entities we know of that are immaterial and timeless are minds and abstract objects such as numbers. But numbers do not stand in causal relations. The cause must have a transcendent mind. The cause must be timeless. "M"/nature cannot exist in those conditions. The only logical/plausible solution to this question is that God is the cause, because He has a mind (which can exist in immaterial timelessness). He possess the intelligence to create such an event, and He possesses the care for His creation in that He fine tuned the universe for life. God chose to create without any antecedent determining conditions. Now, I have establised 5 points which demonstrate the cause of the BB to be:1. Alive (containing mind and intelligence) since only mind can exist in a non-temporal, spaceless and timeless form of existance.2. This cause is changeless (because change only occurs in time/space)3. This cause is all powerful.4. The cause freely chose to create without any antecedent determining conditions.5. The cause is concerned for the universe in that He created the necessary conditions for lifeWhen we add these numbers up, it points directly to God.Now, I know that no amount of evidence will pursuade most atheists simply because they don't want to believe. I don't believe in atheists. I don't believe people disbelieve in God. I believe atheism is a cop out and rebellion against the Creator because they don't want to live in a universe governed by moral laws. That's really what is boils down to. So many millions of people in history have experienced God and the transcendent. God does not exist to the atheist, but that does not mean He doesn't exist to other people and is not an objective reality. Only human arrogance would assert that what is true for them, must be true for others. People don't decide what is true. Truth is objective and does not need human approval.

No, you are not understanding the Big Bang. The Big Bang produced energy, empty space, time and matter. There was no space for energy to exist in until the Big Bang. If you are going to assert that energy existed prior to the Big Bang, please produce evidence. The majority of scientists today believe the Big Bang was the actual creation event of all things.

 That was alot of energy in that it is now expanded all over the universe. So my question to you is: where did that energy come from? Why does the universe even exist at all? Why is it fine-tuned for life? Where did consciousness come from? The universe didn't come with any explanation.

 The statement "it [life] evolved", is not scientifically observable. You are invoking faith. And you didn't answer my question.  Where did consciousness come from? I understand the theory. But I'm looking for empiricle data.

Hi Apotheon: First, thanks for registering---welcome!

Second, allow me to review an area in which the two of us are in agreement:

Agreed---truth is independent of what humans want the truth to be, and we are certainly not the center of the universe. Relative to the rest of the known universe, we exist on a pale blue dot (to borrow Carl Sagan's phrase) of an unimaginably insignificant size. And as much as we may think---and indeed, we used to---that the earth stood still as the sun & the rest of universe revolved around us, it simply is not true and never was.

Third---a minor disagreement:

If I may rephrase you, it sounds like you're saying "Atheists KNOW somewhere deep in their hearts that they're wrong, but they rebel against God because they don't want to obey moral laws. So their childish solution is to pretend---lying to others AND themselves---that God doesn't exist.

Now, I can only speak as an atheist, not "for" atheists . . . but I can tell you that if deep in my heart---or via logic / reason / evidence or any other means---I KNEW there was a God, and one who wanted me to behave according to His instructions, I would definitely obey whatever His commands were. Not to do so would make me a total idiot (and maybe I'm an idiot in some respects, but I'd like to think I'm not a TOTAL idiot).

I mean, I don't even disregard the instructions I receive from my boss at work, and the consequences of disobedience from him are WAY less severe than what I imagine disobedience from the Creator of the Universe might bring.

So my disbelief is not based "not wanting" God, any more than your disbelief in the Hindu directions on the necessity of obeying caste rules is about "not wanting" to obey Purusha & Kali and the like.

Would you say your dismissal of Hinduism is a "copout"? Or do you disbelieve simply because all the evidence points to the conclusion that Hinduism is a cultural phenomenon: something totally man-made?

From here on, your posts discuss three separate subjects: the Big Bang, the first spark of life on earth, and hell. To keep this post a readable length, I'll limit my response to the Big Bang.

THE CRUX OF THE DISAGREEMENT:
The Theist: Where did the energy that was already present at the time of the Big Bang come from? Since "something" can't come out of "nothing," the only logical conclusion is that a Cause OUTSIDE of space & time must have started it all. The supernatural is the only logical conclusion.

The Non-Theist: the universe began its current expansion some 13.7 billion years ago---that is, the universe as we observe it today did indeed begin with the Big Bang. But whether this was the universe's first expansion, or whether it has expanded and collapsed zillions of times, or whether we exist in just one of many universes, we simply don't know. What we know from physics, however, is that neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed (although both can be changed to different forms of mass & energy, and energy can be converted to mass, and mass to energy). Therefore, this suggests that the universe's mass & energy must have always existed.


THE NO-WIN DEADLOCK:
The Theist: the belief that mass-energy could have "always existed" is mind-boggling to the point of being nonsensical. Common-sense everyday observations tells us that everything that exists (from Paley's watch to Ray Comfort's Coke can) had a start, and a Cause to that start. Again, a Supernatural Start is the only logical conclusion.

The Non-Theist: the idea that the Big Bang's mass-energy had "always existed" is indeed mind-boggling!

But which is more plausible: that something as simple as energy could exist without a Cause, or that something as infinitely complex as a Creative Deity could exist without a cause? By positing God as a First Cause, you're only amplifying the mystery.

The power of the non-supernatural explanation is that it explains how simple matter can change to the complex universe we currently observe. With the universe's expansion, the unimaginably dense energy could begin to convert to hydrogen. Hydrogen can fuse into helium. Hydrogen & helium (+ heat and gravitational attraction) can form stars & galaxies. Stars produce denser elements, and exploding stars create other stars and planets---including the raw material for life to begin on those planets. And given billions of years, life can evolve from simple bacteria to the wonders (& horrors) that surround us today.

* * *

But I call this a "no-win deadlock" because I don't believe either side will ever be persuaded by the other. Non-theists' minds may indeed be boggled by how mass-energy could just "always exist," but see it as much much much more mind-boggling that an infinitely complex Deity could just "always exist." Theists rarely have a problem with the idea that an infinitely complex Deity could "always exist."

I don't see either side ever budging. This is why when I debate theists, I prefer to take the approach of saying "Okay, let's SAY an infinitely complex Deity was indeed behind the creation of the universe's mass-energy, and started the first spark of life. Now let's explore the reasons why you believe this Architect of the Universe and the Author of your Holy Book (be it the Bible, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, etc.) are one-in-the-same." But that's another post.

Todd Allen Gates, author of Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer

 Even if the universe and energy has always existed, it presents no problem for us. There is a school of thought championed among certain Greek Church writers that the universe is God. This is not Spinoza's concept however or pagan pantheism. They would argue that the universe and everything we know of God is a manifestation of his energies, not His essence. His essence will always be hidden from us. If the universe is eternal, then it must be a part of God because only God is eternal.

As for the complexity argument, it also presents no problem for us. The argument states that only that which begins to exist requires a cause. God did not begin to exist. Therefore, He does not need a cause.

By the way, there are still people who believe in the geocentric theory (that the Sun revolves around the earth). There is a Catholic theologian named Robert Sungenis who is willing to pay like 10,000 dollars or something for anyone who can prove heliocentrism. Apparently everyone has failed so far.

I was just stopping by to see how the conversation was going, looks like nothing new.

Todd Gates arguments are quite laughable to me about the state of animals before and after the fall, before the fall we were in heaven, not on earth, hence the fall.

It is also humerous to me how he tries to interpret the bible literally on every word, thats just rediculous, the bible is full of anologic meaning, such as in isaiah which is what he is talking about.

Despite the detesteble ingorance of God I see on this site, I do approve of your attemps to be moral through reason and I would gladly throw it down with any so called christian who condemned you to hell for eternity, as even their own book the bible apporives of your actions as it is written.

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Even though your leader really should rethink about how it is normal to be a liar (when in fact it is normal to use discretion, not to be a liar), I do not condemn him, his own words condemn him as a liar. God does not approve of your disbelief but he certainly does approve of your yearning to be moral, and remember the bible teaches that you will only eat the fruit of your own deeds, as also is taught in the Quran.

Peace brothers.

That's your rebuttal?  You can't even spell theist right- what makes you think anyone finds your smug arguments any more cogent than your lack of care for details in spelling?  A story about a talking snake who convinced a woman to eat evil fruit from a magic tree is not laughable?  Seriously.  Step back for a minute theist.  And do you really think that assertions such as calling something "laughable" are not easily recognizable as puerile psych tactics?  "Nothing new here"?  As if you had rebutted all the arguments in this post instead of having your ass handed to you.  I've had some great mature, intelligent conversations with intelligent theists here, but you are not one of them.  How old are you really?

sicne your own brain obviously does not work let me show you something about anologic meaning. lets look at the story of man in Genesis for example.

 Now the "talking snake" is a symbolic represenation of wisdom as the saying also goes "wise as serpents" This is becasue man as a free willed being did not want to live in a harmonous union with God the Father but forge out his own beliefs as it is represented by the "eating of the Fruit of Good and Evil". Genesis is a symbolic representation of the true ascpects of God the Father, as you can also see when he created man, he created him Male and Female, before he ever created woman. This shows a truth about the Nature of God, that he is both Male and Female principles that constitute a united Form, which is also menafested in the man and woman in the Physical Universe, as it is also written "the two shall become one flesh". Analogic and symbolic meaning is used througout the entire bible, mixed with history and poetry and other such writings, you are foolishly following the thoughts of the dogmatic hypocrites, and being led by the blind you surely will fall into the ditch.

And how did you discover that Eden was actually heaven in your former assertion?  By taking that literally from somewhere?  Was Eden an anologic story too?  I would like for you to tell us how and where God describes the method for determining what is metaphor and what is not.  Can you give us those verses please?

again you fooloshly assert that the bible contains all knoelwgde, seek and you will find, not :seek the bible and you will find"

you foolishly only use one mean to find truth, their are 2 sciences the science within and the science without

The science withis is called Con-Science.

The science without is called Emperical Science.

I am sorry and very saddened by the fact that you can not seem to use your Con-Science to find truth, for with one 1 of the sciences you will nevar find truth. Find out the analogic and symbolic meanings on your own Gato, for I can not seek for you, use the science within.

Well that's a relief.  Is it also normal for God to send "lying spirits" (1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chron. 18:22, Ezek. 14:9, 2 Thes. 2:11)?  In the words of Ray Comfort, "What does that make you [God]?"

I do not judge Gods actions, God judges my Actions, if you do not understand this it will be very hard for you to find any truth of God at all.

If I create a robot and program it to have artificial intelligence and then choose to destroy it becasue it is acting in a bad manner, that is within my power, it is my creation, same goes for God and you, Gato.

So what of the religions and cults that we now know are baseless? People worshiped the sun as a God and even prayed to it assuming they would give them bountiful crops. When their crops were fruitful, they though the sun had heard their prayers. When their crops were thin or barren, they thought they had lost favor with the sun. Yet we now know the sun is a fiery ball of hydrogen gas which makes it rather unlikely that it could have received their prayers. What truth did their "Con-Science" reveal to them?

This is only one of many examples. In fact, there have been several religions with savior stories very similar to Jesus, thousands of years before he was to have been born.

do you see that worship of the sun is a metaphor for worship of the true God, do you see that we being in the image of God reveals truths to us? The Sun is the flaming Sword that points all ways, it is the misguider, it is the false god, becasue the Sun can do nothing on its own accord, it is subservient to the True eternal God, the Regulator of all affairs on earth. do you see brother that what you say is true, that god does indeed know what he has put before us? and this is how he tries us like a man tries Gold in a fire to make it pure, god tries us in the fire of judgement to make us pure beings, beings that purify themselves for the glory of the creator, the creator that made you who you are with all of our imperfections.

If we do not try to make sense out of God's actions, then how do we know the actions we perceive are really God's? If God's is all powerful and his actions are incomprehensible, they could be indistinguishable from nature. This makes it easy to find God since you could see him anywhere and everywhere you want to.

By not judging God's actions, you simply have no basis on which to claim those actions are really from God other than you "think" they are or you "want" them to be. If you claim your intuition tells you they are from God, then how do you know you're intuition is correct? If there is one true God, human intuition has a pretty poor track record of revealing himself to us as a species.

yes i see what you are saying, but listen brother, what i am claiming is that the nature of the universe indeed reflects the nature of God, we deem this nature to be cruel or unjust when in fact it is a nature of complete balence, god is not incomprehensible, but he is only comprehensible when we give to God the truth that he deserves, ultimate glory, because without god we are nothing, any good deed that a man can commit or do has its basis in God, it is nevar on his own will that it can be accomplished, only through god can a man do Good, becasue God is the definition of good, let me explain.

if i do a certian deed and it is deemed Good, such a give a poor man some money or some other such deed.

think, where did i get all the resources to commit such a deed? my body , my life, my money is all from God therefore i did nothing. everything i do is from God.

If I created a robot, gave it artificial intelligence and it decided to misbehave, act violently or destroy things, I would be responsible for it's actions since I was the one who brought it into existence. Had I not created said robot, the entire situation wouldn't exist in the first place. While I could claim that my robot encountered some input or situation I hadn't expected, God has no such out since he not only created the "robot" but the entire universe it operates in, down to the laws of physics. And if God is omniscient, he would have known about the problem before the "robot" even rolled of the assembly line.

If we were designed by a God who deliberately created us from an infinite number of possibilities, then wasn't it God who put us in this situation in the first place?

And why wouldn't God fix us instead of destroying us? Is this somehow beyond his capacity? If you claim it's simply wasn't his will, this seems to reinforce the idea that God's actions can't be questioned because they are incompressible. However, an all powerful God with an incomprehensible will could be used to explain anything and everything that might occur. Anything.

For example, even though God promised he would never intentionally destroy the word by flood, this doesn't mean he has a duty to prevent a flood caused by nature or by some some "evil force". In fact, can you name one thing we could ever experience or observe that could not be within God's incomprehensible will or his power?

Without any kind of empirical evidence, how can know if we're living in universe created by God or a natural universe with no purpose?

you are correct when you speak of God in this manner that he did indeed put in front of us all that we see, indeed even your own disbelief is from God, and it is not far from his power to make you belive in him, but why does he do this you say? for he tries you with fire as i said before, look at all that is placed in front of you, do you not have a choice to do good or Evil? you do indeed, this is the test from God to see what you choose, and what do you choose, i have not met a man in my lifetime that did not want to do good, i only meet those that are dispositioned by god to do evil, and why is this? is it a test to our own faith and belief? is it a test of our character? I do not claim any dogmatic knowledge of heaven or hell, condemntation is for God alone, no man can condemn, for no man is god, what i do see though is that people have taken for truth about religion that which is false, Jesus who i belive is a real man, taught freedom, the law of liberty, he taught to free think and find the truth, something all of you do, but you do it without God, Why? what is so illogical about God when we exist, is it not illogical for us to exist as well? indeed it is, becasue Empirical Science can nevar answer the question of why we exist, it is fruitless to seek it with emirical science, but with conscience it is possible to know and understand why we exist, you must use this science to prove that God exists within youselves.

i came to this website with the intention of proving you people wrong, but only from coming here have i learned that i can not do that, i can only ask you to prove yourself right, for conscience is within us, it is the knowledge within, that is where God is proven to exist, not outside of ourselves.

for Jesus taught

The Kingdom of God is Inside of you.

I love all of you and would truly wash your feet as a servent to show you the truth of God.

How did these people benefit by worshiping the sun? It certainly wasn't a better harvest. Their prayers and sacrifices had no meaning. And if Jesus is the only way to heaven, these people are lost as they broke one of the 10 commandments.  

And what about children who die before or shortly after they are born. They cannot understand good or evil. They cannot be tested. If God's trial by fire has meaning or is necessary then these children are incomplete. Assuming they are allowed to enter heaven in the first place, are they separated from those who did experience God's trials on earth? Do they receive some kind of Good and Evil simulation that allows them to join the general population. If so, why can't we all simply do the same thing? Again, you're claim that God must test us doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. And if God created everything from absolutely nothing, then he explicitly chose to make a universe where we need to be tested. This would have been an arbitrary choice on his part as he is all powerful and had an infinite number of choices. He could have just as well designed us so we need to eat ice cream and cake for five days straight before we were "pure beings."

I see the worship of the sun as a physiological need for a omniscient being to watch over us.

When children are very young, they think their parents are all knowing. This has been proven in several studies. As an example, they assume that their mother would know if the contents of a cracker box was switched to cookies while she  had left the room. In other words, they think their parents are omniscient.

However, when a child gets older, they gain the ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. They realize their parents can indeed be fooled and they become mere mortals. In the process, we loose an all knowing protector that watches over us. However, we can't see God. He cannot be observed and we are told his will is incomprehensible. As such, it's impossible for God to be quantified or proven wrong. We can't find his flaws because he is undetectable. I think this is by design since if we could observe God he would become a myth like all the other Gods before him.

You would have to speak to the people worshipping the Sun to find out what they recieved from such worship, I do not worship a creation, I worship the Creator, So I do not know what they would have Gotten out of it, to them it was the Creator, It was the physical Manifestation of the Creator, A Symbol of Greatness from the Lord of the Worlds, What has changed about this fact? The Sun is a ball of burning hydrogen, but does that change the fact that it is a Symbol from God? no it does not.

Like I said Gods will is not incomprehensible, When you place God in his proper position and humble yourself before Him then you will gain understanding and knowledge, without this aspect of humility you shall naver understand his will, I told you, Free willed beings can not just be "made pure" they have a free will do do Good or Evil, do not contradict yourself, if God automatically made us pure, we would have no Free will, you see?

God is certainly not undetectable, his creation and his forms are what we are and the universe the work of his hands is where we exist, to say God is undetectable is ignorant, Imagine a man who built a building and then left out solar system, would his ideas and aspects be lost becasue he left? could we not look at the building that he built to learn about what kind of man he was? was he intellligent, did the building fall down when the first sotrm came? did the buidling last 1000's of years like the pyramids? These questions we can answer about God through looking at the Work of His hands, therefore Humble yourself and experience the Kingdom of God through Con- Science.

But how do you know this to be true? Perhaps your perception that God created everything is based on how you *want* the world to be instead of how it really is? Or perhaps your perception that God is somehow in control of the universe is an unexpected side effect of man using a supernatural entity to explain things we simply do not understand.

How I "want" the world to be does not change a thing in this universe, everything that exists, exists wether I "want" it to or not, I seek the truth and the truth is what I find for I humble myself before the Creator of the Worlds. These things that you do not understand I do understand for God teaches me through Con-Science then I verify his teaching with Science in the natural World, the Natural Reflection of God.

While it's up for debate if Man was inspired by God when he wrote the Bible, I think we both agree that it was man who actually put pen to paper. As such, the Bible is a claim made by men. Nature does not explicitly point to any supernatural being as the creator of the universe. There is no "inspected by Angel #5" tag on the universe nor can we see God's number show up on caller ID. I'm simply looking for some evidence to substantiate this claim. If God does exist, why did he reveal himself to us at a time when myths were common? Why did he not clearly differentiate himself from all the other religions that man invented to understand his world? Excluding past decisions, why does God allow this ambiguity to continue over 2,000 years later?

God is not allowing it, the free willed beings who choose to do evil allow it, I know you do not Humble youself before God, for if you did you also would understand his will, God made us in his image and also allowed us to Be Good or Evil, now you say becasue humans choose Evil that God must not Exist, how does that work, it makes sense that God would hide in a dark cloud and watch from afar to see what his beings will do, see if their free will is a Will of Good or Evil, what do you choose? Also All religions are from God, as all Sins are wrought in God as Jesus taught, do you not see how the Logic of God travels through Time creating and morphing and teaching throgh all forms avaliable to his disposal, this Logic of God, that also is what Jesus was in the Flesh is what creates religionsa nd teaches eternal truths to Men.

So, you're saying you believe in God because that belief provides an answer to the question of why we exist? But you're limiting your search for truth to answers that imply there is a reason why we exist. What if there is no reason? Is this not just as possible? A universe created by all powerful God that has an incomprehensible will could be indistinguishable from a natural universe with no purpose. Nor nature does not explicitly point to a supernatural being that created us.

When did I say I belive in God becasue it gives me a reason, I am sorry that is just stupid, I belive in God becasue he is Real, in fact I would Say I know God exists through Science, Con-Science, here is the definition of Know, I know God exists

know1      /noʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, knew, known, know·ing, noun

Again, we're left with you "want" to believe that God exists or you'd "like" to think we live in a universe created with a purpose. But, these are claims that simply can't be substanicated. While I'm glad this gives you peace, it certainly isn't enough for me.

Like I said I do not belive or want God to Exist, I know he exists throgh Con-Science and Empirical Science. And you say it brings me peace? thats BS I have to see all these lost people walking around like fools , I have no Peace, only in Death will I have true Peace, when I shall be tried in the Fires of Hell and what is left after that Process, maybe their will be nothing, maybe I will remain, depending on the purity of your soul. Jesus did not Bring Peace, but a sword, for Us to Cut through the Lies of the Evil one. When you enter the kingdom of God you find peace, the it is replaced with sadness for the state of your fellow men, who are placed in a dungeon of darkness and dispair, but that is why the Logos became flesh as it is written.

Isaiah 42:6

6 “I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness;
I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the people,
a light for the nations,
7 to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
8 I am the Lord; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,

(1) Suffering is punishment for wrong-doing
(2) Suffering benefits us
(3) Suffering must exist for Greater Good of Free Will
(4) It's beyond our understanding

--- I mentioned that under the "Suffering must exist for Greater Good of Free Will" category, many Christians will say that because God gave Adam & Eve free will, and because Adam & Eve abused that free will, we now live in a "fallen Creation": the collateral damage of which includes pain & suffering even for animals.

To say that this argument is "laughable" could be taken at least two different ways:

(a)  it's laughable that I would put forth such an easily defeatable argument. If that's what you meant, my response is that I did not make this up on my own (I'm not that imaginative!)---Ray Comfort said it during the Nightline debate, Christian apologist Norman Geisler makes this argument in Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith (pages 125-126), Christian monk Thomas Merton makes this argument in his book The Seven Storey Mountain (p. 353), to name just a few. 

(b)  it's laughable that Christians use this. If that's what you meant, well, as an atheist, I won't argue! 

A unique interpretation of Genesis! And unique for good reason!! I'll say no more.

The Bible was interpreted literally for well over a thousand years---and with no reason at the time not to do so! It wasn't until science revealed solid evidence that, contrary to biblical passages:

-          the sun does not orbit the earth (Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:13)

-          the earth is not motionless (Psalm 93:1, 104:5)

 -          the moon does not shine its own light (Genesis 1:16)

-          the stars are not tiny (Revelation 12:4)

-          the earth is not flat (Daniel 4:11, Matthew 4:8 )

---that apologists were forced to seek refuge in the "Hey, God's speaking to us in metaphor!" escape hatch.

The problem with this escape hatch is that once it's open, all the other ancient scriptures / myths---which contain stories that reveal an equal cluelessness about the universe's layout---can slip through it as well.

If God's solar Holy Halting in Joshua 10:13 (so the Israelites could finish slaughtering the Gibeonites) is a "metaphor," what's to stop a Greek apologist from saying that the story of the sun god Helios pulling the sun across the sky from his fiery chariot is "Zeus speaking to us in metaphor." 

Of course, it’s possible that the non-Christian explanations are scientifically inaccurate because ignorant humans wrote them, while the Christian explanations are scientifically inaccurate because our Divine Architect chose to dictate the Bible metaphorically. 

But it seems far more plausible that the Bible’s description of nature reflects the limited knowledge of ancient humans because ancient humans were its sole authors. 

Todd Allen Gates, author of Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer

If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course.
Why would you specifically ask for "scientific" evidence for the existence of God?

 I've always liked the expression "Seek first to Understand, then to be Understood." 

So for this post I will refrain from putting forth any of my own ideas, as for the moment I only seek to understand you. 

Looking at snippets of your post:

---it seems that you recognize God not just in Christianity, but in multiple religions. So in "seeking to understand" you, I ask four questions: 

(1)  Do you believe that All religions are True?

(2)  If your answer is "NO--they're not 'all' true," on what basis can we say a religion was created by man rather than inspired by God?

(3)  If your answer is YES, do you believe that a correct interpretation of symbolism and hidden codes can reconcile what some people think are contradictions between religions? (Example: Hindus appear to say there IS a caste system, Christians & Muslims appear to say there isn't; the Aztecs seem to have said the Divine wants human sacrifice, the Jainists appear to say that all life is so sacred that even gnats aren't to be harmed, etc.)

(4)  What do you think of those who identify themselves solely as Christians? Or solely as Muslims, Hindus, etc.---that is, those who believe their religion alone is from God, and the rest are just made up by people? 

In peace & understanding,

- Todd

Sorry if you think I am being rude Todd, I am, and I apologize, I have been arguing with people here for a while and have grown a hard surface upon my being from it, ok, let me answer your questions.

1) Religions all will have truth to them, The truth is eternal and invisible to the human eye, therefore God must viel it with a physical substance or an Idea that mankind will understand, Muses, Shamans, Prophets and the like have all been inspired, it is up to us to discern the truth of these people, as it is taught in the bible.

Hebrews 5:14 (Show me Hebrews 5)
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

Hebrews 4:12 (Show me Hebrews 4)
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Romans 12:2 (Show me Romans 12)
Do not be conformed to this world,[1] but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.[2]

3) Wisdom , understanding, and knowledge can unite all peoples into a unity of goodness and free-will towards all mankind, for it is written.

9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

and we are all brothers, muslim, jew, hindu, aztec, indian, we are all brothers and should treat each other as such.

4) people who identify themselves solely as a chistian muslim or Jew are just not openminded enough to seek the truth of the universe, it takes a long time for people to overcome their bias and their ignorance, once you have created a world you understand you will do anything to keep it that way, you must break free of your own understanding and let God give you understanding for it is written.

Proverbs 2:6 (Show me Proverbs 2)
For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;

Now i use the bible alot becasue most people on this site are people who were christians and rejected it becasue of lack of understanding, I would use other holy books and explain the same precepts.

Listen everyone, you reject the knowledge of God based on the rediculous acts and interpretations of men, do not listen to me even, I am jsut here to show you one thing, to seek the truth on your own, and make yer own decision based upon a humbe heart and an open mind. For it is written.

1 John 2:27
<< 1 John 1 | 1 John 2 | 1 John 3 >>

27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Seek the annointing.

just to calify something.

for some reason I am used to including woman and men when I say men or brothers, I mean no disrespect to woman, they are included when I say men or brothers. for it is written,

Genesis 2:23 (Show me Genesis 2)
Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”[1]

Mark 10:8 (Show me Mark 10)
and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.