gistfile1.txt

As the video says, I think your position on the matter is intellectually dishonest. The very origins of the word
 atheism makes a positive assertion "without gods". Does Hitchens follow your line of reasoning? From what I know 
of his book, its not a single sentence (or more) requesting proof.

Like I've stated, the burden of proof in this case are on both parties because both an atheist and a christian 
are making claims. Trivial wordings aside. We should set this proof thing aside. I think we agree in theory 
that if you assert you have a burden of proof requirement.

Here a few more comments:

"What you believe in your own mind is obviously up to you... But what right do
you have to spread your beliefs as truths? ... and to create laws based on 
your beliefs?"

Response: I have as much right as you do. Are you not trying to spread your own truths? Laws are based on 
common thinking. We put into law what the majority wants. I don't think this is such a bad system. The 
majority, I believe does have a right to choose what rules... the majority of the time.

"Yet he claims that we can take no such position on God, simply because many
people believe in God."

Response: That is not what he claims. That's an obvious fallacy. His point is not that anyone should 
believe because the majority does. The context of his statements are not in regard response to the existence of a God.
His point was that its reasonable to require some proof when dealing 
with situations that are not black and white. The claim of no fairies is fairly black and white. 
The existence of a God is not. That is his point, I've heard him make it several times.

"Do you have proof for God? I mean scientific proof - not some dream you had -
and not something about God saving a relative who would have surely died...
for such an occurrence could be attributed to any number of medical phenomenon.
I mean, do _you_ have proof?"

Response: Truth, just like in a court of law, is not decided purely on scientific facts. What about 
circumstantial evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence)? Or, is proof only 
acceptable to you in the form of scientific facts? We reason to what we believe to be true all the 
time with out scientific proof. Also, I've made no subjective claims myself I'm not sure why you 
are bringing up dreams.

@james, you stated at one point "My opinion is that there is insufficient proof either way". and also state, "no PROOF that the God of the bible exists"

This is confusing. Which is it? Or, am I not understanding these two quotes from you?

The fundamental problem from the beginning of this entire conversation is your inability to understand that saying "No proof that the god of the bible exists" and "I have proof that god does not exist" are two totally different claims. And for your snarkiness, even though it's purely for snarkiness: the two quotes are in no way contradictory or mutually exclusive. "No proof" falls very comfortably in the subset of "insufficient." In fact it's probably the most qualified amount of 'insufficient' you could have. If you want to round out things that James has said that are very clear, that you aren't understanding, he also said "there is no proof that God does not exist" - he would say that, and this is totally just an opinion, because maybe, like he has reiterated over and over again, he is not trying to say that God does not exist. You are telling him what he's saying, which frankly, I still can't fathom how that doesn't seem weird/wrong to you.

@alex - I don't think am being snarky here, and if that is what is coming across that is not my intention. I am confused by the statements and require clarification. Please point to the snarky part of my words. As I stated I am confused by the two statements. They do seem to be in conflict to me. "Insufficient proof" and "no proof" are two different things.

I'm not rounding anything out. Those are the statements made. I would like to understand if he thinks if the proof is insufficient, or simply that there is no proof at all. I think this is a reasonable inquiry.

I answered the question: No proof falls very comfortably in the category of insufficient. It's a logical subset, and the most qualifying subset, to boot.

@james. What if we removed the word proof here and used the word evidence. Would you still assert that there is no evidence for God?

@alex - I don't agree .... no proof to me communicates that there is nothing for me to consider because there is no proof to be considered. Insufficient proof communicates that there is proof and the proof has been found to be insufficient. Two very different things.

If you had no memory on your computer, and you tried to run a process that uses memory, regardless of whether you have some memory left, or not a single byte, the exception will be an "insufficient memory" error.

Since you like dictionary definitions:

Insufficient: of a quantity not able to fulfill a need or requirement; "insufficient funds"

Specifically "Insufficient" is a comparative measure. It is logically equal to "< sufficient".

"insufficient < enough"

Note that it isn't "0 < insufficient < enough"

In fact, if you had a negative balance in your bank account, you'd still get an 'insufficient funds' message. So it's not capped at even zero.

Once again, you're trying to twist words, that, in this case have no ambiguity to try to tell James that he's arguing something that he's not.

There is in fact no definition of 'insufficient' anywhere, nor any context that I can put it in that shares your understanding of the word.

Insufficient memory and insufficient funds all assume that there is memory and or funds to begin with. If the message was No funds and No memory I believe this carries with it some new meaning. That is my point. To say that there is no proof carries with it an assertion that proof = none. I think a more balanced/rational statement and thought would be to use the word insufficient (not "No"). As at least with this word you not asserting absolutely no memory, funds, proof, evidence but instead suggesting the the evidence that is provided is not sufficient.

My question still stands.

@james - If you are saying that there is no factual proof, then I agree. If you are saying there is "No" proof (proof is evidence and arguments) then I still disagree. Proof/evidence/arguments are avaliable. If you say they are not sufficient we could then at least discuss these points out and reason how sufficient the proof is. However if you are saying that there is no proof/evidience/arguments avaliable then we can't move forward until you acknowledge that there is in fact proof.

@alex - no body is trying to play any tricks here or twist words. I have no intentions other than fair conversation. I am only trying to communicate. Communicate my thoughts and opinions. You seem to be very critical of not only my thoughts but how go about communicating. I'm sorry this does not meet with your standards. I'm doing the best I can to communicate my thinking here. I don't believe my words have been as maligned as you seem to suggest. My points might not be logical to you or to James but I believe I am free to express them. And I believe I am allowed to voice these thoughts. Your consistent suggestions of trickery, snarkiness, and attempts at being dishonest with my arguments is not apart of my intentions. And since they are my intentions I think I get first crack at telling anybody what they are. I have legitimate thoughts (and feelings) I think it's ok for me to voice these without you consistently telling me I'm trying to do something backhanded or negative.

I'm sick of fighting over semantics. So here is where I'll draw some lines.

• A person has the right to believe whatever they want about anything. This is an obvious right, yet some people often forget it.
• If you have come to the conclusion that God exists, from a rational basis, then that's absolutely fine. You should afford others the same luxury though, instead of shoving it down their throats.
• In other words, a person that believes in a God should not get to make their children believe in the same God via indoctrination. Let your children come to the same conclusion as you did, without all the rhetoric, fear, and endless parade of ceremony.
• If your beliefs, on the other hand, are simply a result of religious indoctrination, then why would you put others through the same experience? Let people come to the conclusion themselves, through rational thought.

You may have spotted that I don't actually care about the God assertion, because, as I've stated, continually, there is no way to prove nor disprove any God, or any being that exists beyond our level of understanding and our realm of existence.

I do have a massive problem with religion though -- and many of the man-made religious Gods. YES! This is my assertion! Right here!

• Religion convinces people that they can do terrible things as long as its in the name of their God.
• Religion scares children into doing the right thing, instead of educating them and giving them a real moral foundation.
• Religion speaks against contraception, choice, freedom and equality.

Christianity is only ever so slightly behind Islam on the inequality scale. Your bible offers enough "proof" for this.

James... I agree with many of these points. And thank you, I was getting tired of the semantics game as well. I am more interested in what you actually think. Call it what you like proof/evidence/arguments these things are avaliable to support a worldview containing God. I thought you were asserting that none of these existed. Obviously none of these things are factual, but relevant for consideration none the less.

1. Yes, we all have free will and we all should have the right to exercise this free will. I believe this to be part of God's system. I believe it so much, that I would never take free will away from anyone. God gives it, why would I ever think I would have the right to take it.
2. I'm going to assume that the statement about shoving is a generalization and not targeted at anyone. I know of many people, and also believe, and will implement into my family, this notion of choice. I will educated my children how to think not what to think. I will explain my worldview, give what I believe is a reasonable case for this view, and then request that each of my children arrive at there own decision based on the ability to think and not based on what my family culture or any culture tells them too think. I am aware of Christians who have this same view. So, I hope I am not getting lumped into this indoctrination/shoving down your throat group.
3. Rational thought is always the goal. The fallacy is to presume that rational thought excludes a god.
4. Religion...I'm not sure what to say here that I have not already said. Religion and the bible and two different things in my book. I think I actually have more disgust for religion than you do. Christianity does not equal religion. Could be some semantics here, but in general....man does not need God to do terrible things. I agree religion twists people into accepting what to think instead of being instructed how to think. As for this statement..."Religion speaks against contraception, choice, freedom and equality". Religion I make no excuses for. However I would like to say that historically, Christ did more to make people equal than any other teacher in history. Christ, from what I can tell...unlike any other figure in history spoke of free will (choice) and equality. You seem very concerned with how man handles the bible but not concerned at all with what the bible actually says. If all you point is that religion is twisted and wrong..then well, I agree. I hate religion as much as you do.

I'm going to assume that the statement about shoving is a generalization and not targeted at anyone. I know of many people, and also believe, and will implement into my family, this notion of choice. I will educated my children how to think not what to think. I will explain my worldview, give what I believe is a reasonable case for this view, and then request that each of my children arrive at there own decision based on the ability to think and not based on what my family culture or any culture tells them too think.

If you're being serious, and you do honestly implement what you say here then I most certainly have no issues with you, as an individual. As evident from my ramblings, I do tend to lump christians into a single stereotype, and it seems you are the exception to that -- as is Alex, most certainly. I am sorry for doing this.

The fallacy is to presume that rational thought excludes a god.

God is what we stick in the voids that are beyond our understanding -- this is where I have issues with theism -- your beliefs, I feel, have not been reached from an entirely rational thought process.

I think we are all searching for meaning, purpose and knowledge. This is nothing but human... Much of the crappy stuff that's ever happened in the world can be attributed to the greedy pursuit of absolute knowledge. As long as humans spare themselves from extinction, there will always be stuff we don't know. It is better to accept the not-knowing than to attribute it all to magic.

Mark me down for magic! However, I prefer the term anaturalist. I'm not saying that magic exists or doesn't exist. I'm just saying I believe in anaturalism. And I'll award both Cody and James an honorary gold medal in semantical gymnastics. Wow. I'm still dizzy from watching all that spinning and twisting. Alright! Problem solved! Sweet. Now let's go have some cheese burgers or something. Maybe we can talk about the remarkable intelligence of Sarah Palin. Better yet, let's make some potato salad milk shakes and chase it down with a bottle of ipecac!! Then we can go jump on my trampoline. YEE-HAW!!!!!

Seriously, I've enjoyed the debate. And I'll give all present credit for keeping this conversation above board and civil. That's rare.

Great conversation, guys. I’m sorry I’m late to the game, but I thought I’d try my hand at casting some clarity on what I perceive to be the issues here.

First, you guys have figured out that there are two different forms of “proof” being discussed: Alex's Type B and Type A. One – the one advocated by James and Alex - is a logical proof, which I understand to be the logical form of a valid argument. For example, assume that P(1) is the true proposition that “Browne is an Idahoan”, and F(1) is the fact “All Idahoans are Americans.” Let our conclusion for which we are arguing be “Browne is an American”, represented by C(1). From this, we get the logical proof “If P(1), and F(1), then C(1).” This is the logical representation of the valid argument “If Browne is an Idahoan, and all Idahoans are Americans, then Browne is an American.” This is a valid and sound argument, for which if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. This is the kind of “proof” for or against the existence of God demanded by some.

Of course, I think we can all agree here that there is no such logical proof for the existence of God (or His non-existence, for that matter.) The most gifted philosophers have been working on this question for millennia, and while some have gotten close (Anselm’s ontological argument, for example), none have succeeded. For what it is worth, my own belief system is compatible with this notion: the Christian God has always required faith from His followers; were a logical proof discovered for His existence, faith would no longer be required. I personally believe He designed the world with this in mind, but I digress.

Of course, Cody has been using “proof” in a different context. I think you guys made real headway in this conversation when he supplied “evidence” as a synonym for “proof.” Cody is talking about, in the absence of a logical proof, weighing the evidence in order to make a sound judgment one way or another. This shouldn’t upset anyone. We do this all the time. No one can provide for me a logical proof showing that cars in oncoming traffic will stop at any given intersection when my traffic light is green; yet, from all the evidence available to me, I deem it is safe for me to travel through the intersection and believe that opposing traffic will yield to me. It has worked out for me so far. I approach belief in the Christian God the same way: having weighed all the evidence available to me, I judge that belief system to be the most viable of any I’ve encountered to date.

There is of course a mountain of evidence on both sides of this debate. Cody has provided some of the evidence for his side; to it, I would add a few of my own favorite bits of evidence, starting with an empty tomb. Obviously, if anyone at any point in human history could produce a body belonging to Jesus the Nazarene, all this talk of resurrections and ascensions would come to an abrupt halt. Of course, my opponents might argue that the body could have been stolen. Fair enough, but then we would have to deal with the gaggles of eye witnesses who saw a living, breathing, talking Jesus only days after having witnessed His death and burial. My opponents might argue that these people were all liars. Again, fair enough, there is no shortage of liars in the world. According to my opponents, we would then be left with a bunch of lying grave robbers. However, many of these people, along with their followers, were then put to death in the most gruesome of fashion – crucified upside down, flayed alive, et al. - by temporal authorities, simply on the grounds that they would not renounce their eye witness testimonies. I think we can all agree that it would be rare indeed for so many people to suffer so on account of a bunch of lying grave robbers. I could continue, but I think you all see my point.

I really appreciated many of James’ points. It is important for people to be educated regarding their belief system, and for them to be able to choose which way they should go when they are adults. I don’t think anyone here would argue otherwise.

However, I do take exception with the way James is characterizing religion in general, and Christianity in particular. People can wield just about any ideology in order to justify their own behavior. To hang bad human behavior solely on Christianity – or even religion generally – is bad form. If you think that people can’t be cruel and evil in the absence of religion, I present to you Kim Jong Ill and Mao’s Great Leap Forward as evidence to the contrary. I’m quite sure I could use the theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest to justify walking up to you, punching you in the face, and stealing all that you own. Does that mean these ideas in and of themselves are bad, or just that I perverted them to meet my own ends?

Anyway, thanks again for the debate. I really enjoyed going back and reading it. It is refreshing to see people with differing worldviews exchanging their ideas freely and respectfully.

@browneshark

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

I approach belief in the Christian God the same way: having weighed all the evidence available to me, I judge that belief system to be the most viable of any I’ve encountered to date.

You make it sound as though you've been searching for a "belief system" for some time, and you've yet to find one that seems more plausible (?) than Christianity? And what do you mean by "belief system" -- is this the name given to the various explanations for supernatural phenomena (assuming such things occur), or is it simply any "belief system" (e.g. I believe the cars will stop at the traffic lights)?

all this talk of resurrections and ascensions would come to an abrupt halt.

The premise of whether Jesus existed or not is, I'm afraid to say, not important to me (and I dare say, other Atheists) because even if he did exist, that doesn't prove that what he did is accurately detailed in the bible, nor does it necessarily imply that God, as described by the bible, exists. The existence of a man that, it is claimed, taught people about morality and performed miracles, does not provide proof for anything other than itself.

I think we can all agree that it would be rare indeed for so many people to suffer so on account of a bunch of lying grave robbers. I could continue, but I think you all see my point.

I don't... And I don't see how your comments about Jesus provide any new ground for us to cover on the topic of the existence of a God.

It is important for people to be educated regarding their belief system.

Again, could you clarify what you mean by belief system? Do you think that an atheistic viewpoint is a belief system?

To hang bad human behavior solely on Christianity

I didn't do this. Christianity, and religion in general, has been used as an excuse to do some pretty horrific things, as I'm sure you'll agree. I never said that all bad things that have ever been done by mankind should be attributed to religion, let alone one single religion.

I’m quite sure I could use the theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest to justify walking up to you, punching you in the face, and stealing all that you own. Does that mean these ideas in and of themselves are bad, or just that I perverted them to meet my own ends?

It means neither. You can come up and punch me in the face, or even kill me. If it is, for example, to ensure your survival, then that doesn't prove anything. I would judge the action as immoral, but that still doesn't invalidate the probable cause. If you came up to punch me for some non survival-related reason and then used survival as an excuse then that's mere dishonesty. I really don't get what conclusion you're trying to draw from this...

Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?

Clarice Starling: He kills women...

Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?

Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir...

Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.

Clarice Starling: No. We just...

Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body,
Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?

"You make it sound as though you've been searching for a "belief system" for some time, and you've yet to find one that seems more >plausible (?) than Christianity?"

That's right. I might only add "more plausible to me."

And what do you mean by "belief system"...?

Belief systems have very little to do with supernatural phenomena. Any honest epistemologist knows that if we relegate "knowledge" to the realm of what can be established with a logical proof, then epistemically speaking we know next to nothing. Once we set Descartes' Evil Genius loose on the world, I can "prove" very little outside of my present existence (Si fallor, sum.) Everything, then, which we think about the world that falls outside the pail of "knowledge" is what I consider part of a person's belief system. I have one. You have one. We all have one.

The premise of whether Jesus existed or not is... not important to me ... because even if he did exist, that doesn't prove that what he >did is accurately detailed in the bible, nor does it necessarily imply that God, as described by the bible, exists.

Your ability to equivocate between "proof" and "evidence" is mind-boggling. It is important that we use exact language here. I said several times that I wasn't setting out to "prove" anything; I am merely only providing evidence upon which people make judgments.

The fact that a historical Jesus did in fact live in 1st century Palestine is indubitable, unless you also question the existence of Pericles, Caesar, Augustus, and Constantine. The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is at least as well documented as these men. Now, whether he did what the Gospel writers claimed he did is open to debate. Regardless, I did not provide any of the following as "proof" if you mean anything more than "evidence." All of the information I cited is simply evidence that I would expect an honest person to want to examine more closely. If you aren't interested in a historical person who evidently was crucified and buried, and then appeared later to hundreds as a walking, talking, breathing person, then you and I probably don't have much to talk about.

The existence of a man that, it is claimed, taught people about morality and performed miracles, does not provide proof for anything >other than itself.

This is fascinating. Let me provide you with a hypothetical. Say a man, ethnically a Native American, suddenly appears on the South Dakotan prairie wearing only 16th century Lakota dress. He doesn't speak one bit of English, but speaks the 16th century Lakotan dialect perfectly. He has no traces of modern civilization on him: no Blackberry, no iPad, not even a watch. We wonder at this phenomena, so we round up a Lakota-speaking translator to find out what this man is all about. He then tells us, in his perfect 16th century Lakotan dialect, about his tribe, hidden deep in the Black Hills of South Dakota. He tells of tribal chief, his family, and friends, their community, all untouched and undiscovered for the past three hundred years, carefully eluding the rest of civilization by hiding in the Black Hills.

So, are you telling me, your position is that our long-lost Lakotan warrior would not be evidence of anything more than his own existence? We could not infer from the particulars of his existence that there might be a long-lost Lakota tribe hiding in the Black Hills of South Dakota? Again, do not equivocate between "proof" and "evidence." I grant you that the Lakota warrior's existence does not "prove" anything; however, I submit that he does provide pretty convincing "evidence" for more. Jesus of Nazareth is the much the same. My position is not that His existence in and of itself proves much; however, the particulars of His existence provide pretty convincing evidence that He was more than an average 1st century Hebrew carpenter.

You can come up and punch me in the face, or even kill me... If you came up to punch me for some non survival-related reason and >then used survival as an excuse then that's mere dishonesty.

This is excellent. You actually did a better job of arguing my position than I did. My position, of course, is simply that human nature is such that dishonest men and women do evil in the name of all kinds of theories and ideologies all the time, much like me killing you and stealing all that you have simply because I am able and then attributing it to survival of the fittest. It is a non sequitur to make a value judgment of a theory or ideology based on what a dishonest person may or may not do in its name, which is what I perceive you to be doing: "People do bad things in the name of religion; ergo, religion is bad." That is textbook fallacy.

John Locke: If it's not real, then what are you doing here, Jack?... Why did you come back? ...

John Locke: ... Why do you find it so hard to believe?

Jack Shepard: Why do you find it so easy?

John Locke: It's never been easy!

My position is not that His existence in and of itself proves much; however, the particulars of His existence provide pretty convincing evidence that He was more than an average 1st century Hebrew carpenter.

Of that I have little doubt, but I still don't see how this is significant to the argument over God's existence. It's a nice analogy that you offered but I wasn't actually talking generically when I said that Jesus' existence doesn't prove anything apart from just that -- his existence.

This is excellent. You actually did a better job of arguing my position than I did. My position, of course, is simply that human nature is such that dishonest men and women do evil in the name of all kinds of theories and ideologies all the time, much like me killing you and stealing all that you have simply because I am able and then attributing it to survival of the fittest. It is a non sequitur to make a value judgment of a theory or ideology based on what a dishonest person may or may not do in its name, which is what I perceive you to be doing: "People do bad things in the name of religion; ergo, religion is bad." That is textbook fallacy.

I'm still puzzled because you seem to be detaching an ideology from things done in its name and that, I feel, is wrong, because sometimes, things done in the name of an ideology would not have occurred if not for that ideology. One such ideology might be a religion, perhaps one which is built on ideas of inequality, slavery, oppression and other freedom-eroding ideas. Those things are hardly morally justified in the first place -- we don't even need a person to commit an action in the name of that religion to assert such a thing.

And you're right -- some people are dishonest and will commit an act for one reason and claim its for another, but that isn't always the case. Some people are very honest when attributing their crimes to certain ideologies.

At the end of the day, I maintain that there is no proof for the existence or non-existence of God, and as such I feel it is best to suspend judgement on the matter.

@james - What rational can you offer to allow me to make sense of this non-pragmatic, no proof, no judgment line you are walking? Do you take this line in all things that you have no proof of? I suppose I could swallow this if you simply choose to suspend judgment on all matters that do not provide the proof (logical proof/meaning you are using) you require. If you don't walk the same line in all matters then can you tell me how you decide which matters get this "no proof"... "suspend judgment"... treatment? After all, the macro and micro decisions/conclusions that are made on a daily bases, some of which we stake our very life on, obviously fail to live up to this standard of "no proof" that you are placing on religion. Can you help me make sense of this?

Dear Wormwood,

... You will find that a good many Christian-political writers think that Christianity began going wrong, and departing from the doctrine of its Founder, at a very early state. Now, this idea must be used by us to encourage once again the conception of a "historical Jesus" to be found by clearing away later "accretions and perversions" and then to be contrasted with the whole Christian tradition... We thus distract men’s minds from Who He is, and what He did. ...

Your Affectionate Uncle

SCREWTAPE

@cody, how exactly is my position that requires proof a "no proof" position?

At the end of the day, you can say all you want about how you came to the decision about God -- but you're kidding yourself if you say you weren't indoctrinated -- brain-washed into believing man-made stories of a God that you wish existed, simply because the void of knowledge is something you deem less sufficient than an erroneous assertion of God.

I try so hard to be civil in these conversations but you've continually missed the points that I've tried to put across -- and very little that Alex has said has registered with you. I don't know I'm right, but I do know that making up stories and trying to prove them through the "you can't prove otherwise" technique is intellectually, logically and humanely erroneous and dishonest.

And I have no idea what Matt is doing. Is that an attempt at trolling?

"And I have no idea what Matt is doing. Is that an attempt at trolling?"

You're exceptionally bright James; that's difficult for me to believe. I've never been a fan of dogpiling in public forums but I apologize if it just seems like I'm throwing mud over the fence. You've been a prince throughout this conversation and I don't want to lose that. I promise to give you some of my own assertions after you have exhausted your conversation with Cody and others. Until then, I'll restate my brother's question: You use circumstantial evidence everyday to make choices; choices if poorly decided could be your demise. Why are you not suspending judgement in these instances?

You use circumstantial evidence everyday to make choices; choices if poorly decided could be your demise. Why are you not suspending judgement in these instances?

I don't know. I'd say it's down to me experiencing things and determining truths from those experiences. Certain truths have been instilled into me by previous generations, thanks to education and parental care etc. (and I have no doubt that I was taught many things incorrectly) but generally, what provides truth (even if an agnostic's pseudo-truth) for me is simply my experiences -- my sensory perceptions of my surroundings, nothing more.

I realise that me saying that probably gave you plenty of ammo to fire at me, but if we recall, I did mention that the God assertion doesn't really interest me -- what does interest me, or rather challenge me, is religion. A Christian's assertion that their God exists, and all the other religions are wrong, simply baffles me! Along with all of freedom-eroding qualities I mentioned earlier. The God assertion is only significant because it is directly related to religion.

I see it like this -- if God really does exist, and I mean an all-knowing, all-powerful and ever-present God, then I find it utterly ridiculous that this God would create a universe with billions of galaxies and stars, and then give a damn about you, or me, or our marital/sexual status and whether or not we attend a building to worship this God. It really baffles me that such a God would care. I can only conclude that the God sold through various religions is man-made, for his imperfections are as obvious as mine or yours.

So if I ever fall on the side of "there is a God", then I know with what certainty I can muster that it will not be the God sold by man -- it'll just be my little invented God -- one that I find perfect in every way. But, I will not let this invention rule me, -- that's my mind's job, and nor will I sell my God as the one true God, for that is an assertion that I cannot prove. Actually, I won't even tell anyone about it, unless they ask! :)

Sorry to leave you hanging here James. I've had a crazy week. Actually, I'm surprised no one responded after leaving yourself wide open. Ah, I won't take a cheap shot. So, let's move on. I'm leaving on the Snake River for the next few days but I thought I'd leave you something to chew on. There's only about 20 questions I'd like to explore with your right now but I'll only leave you with one. It's in response to your statement: "I see it like this -- if God really does exist, and I mean an all-knowing, all-powerful and ever-present God, then I find it utterly ridiculous that this God would create a universe with billions of galaxies and stars, and then give a damn about you, or me, or our marital/sexual status and whether or not we attend a building to worship this God. It really baffles me that such a God would care. I can only conclude that the God sold through various religions is man-made, for his imperfections are as obvious as mine or yours."

Hah! You're baffled and so am I! We're a fine pair. Okay, let me lay it down. Your statement about being perplexed about God/god (your choice) caring about us doesn't compute ... (within my thick skull). Why would God even make us if He didn't care? Certainly you'd grand God the ability to avoid contradicting Himself. Can God contradict Himself? I'm asking you about your God/god. Can you imagine having a child and not caring about it? (I know this happens... abortions, abandonment, neglect, etc.) But you honestly don't strike me as that kind of guy or the type of guy that would say that's okay. Why would God got through the motion of creating us and not care?

Have a good weekend.

I'll be back Tuesday. Out.

@matt, thanks for leaving food for thought :)

Well, the proposition that God would not abandon his creations is a direct corollary of the proposition that God exists, which is not provable, so I'm not totally convinced that exploring this question will actually yield any useful arguments or discoveries. That said, I will respond, just to humour the idea of a God.

I constantly hear theists attempting to personify God in order to make him/her/it more acceptable to the mind. I'm leaning to the side that -- if there was a God, it would be so stupendously unfathomable that our petty minds, that wage wars and discriminate unjustly, would literally not be capable of understanding that God's intent and perfection, let alone it's preferences and what it considers "immoral".

I can't help but think of the other religious dogma that I have to mentally lump in with each consideration I make. For example, if God created us, then I must be honest to the extent of what I know (or rather, "believe") to be true. Did God just create the universe and watch it all play out, or did he create man a few thousand years ago as the bible explains? I've got to know which God we're talking about.

If we're talking about my perception of what a God would be, then I maintain that this God would be unfathomable and would have no reason to care about us more or less than any other collection of atoms in the universe, for at the end of the day we are all simply collections of atoms (... stardust) -- and it just so happens that these atoms have formed in such a way that allows sentience.

"Well, the proposition that God would not abandon his creations is a direct corollary of the proposition that God exists, which is not provable, so I'm not totally convinced that exploring this question will actually yield any useful arguments or discoveries. That said, I will respond, just to humour the idea of a God."

Right, for the sake of continuing the conversation, we can understand that we are conversing through the lens of “if there is a god/God”. I promise no clever maneuvering, slight-of-hand or backdoor tactics here. At least on this issue. wink

"I constantly hear theists attempting to personify God in order to make him/her/it more acceptable to the mind. I'm leaning to the side that -- if there was a God, it would be so stupendously unfathomable that our petty minds, that wage wars and discriminate unjustly, would literally not be capable of understanding that God's intent and perfection, let alone it's preferences and what it considers "immoral"."

We are in agreement here, at least in part-- I too find it incomprehensible that the finite would presume to know the infinite. However, this doesn't remove the idea that god/God could have revealed some information about Himself either--since we're insisting that we really can't know-- and leaves the possibility of god/God communing with His Creation. Moreover, this leaves the possibility that man's nature is fallen, and not as god/God originally intended.

"I can't help but think of the other religious dogma that I have to mentally lump in with each consideration I make. For example, if God created us, then I must be honest to the extent of what I know (or rather, "believe") to be true. Did God just create the universe and watch it all play out, or did he create man a few thousand years ago as the bible explains? I've got to know which God we're talking about."

I'm asking you about you about your “little invented God”.

"If we're talking about my perception of what a God would be, then I maintain that this God would be unfathomable and would have no reason to care about us more or less than any other collection of atoms in the universe, for at the end of the day we are all simply collections of atoms (... stardust) -- and it just so happens that these atoms have formed in such a way that allows sentience."

You have noted that theists seem bent on personifying god/God. I've noticed that the other camp seems bent on depersonalizing god/God. Would you agree? My point being that theists and those who dare to speculate are still in the same boat since they both are ascribing divine attributes to the infinite.

Drinking Bacardi and listening to Nat King Cole. Perfect.

ML