Gemma Therese

"Uh, why would an omnipotent God need us to love and serve Him? .... Why does He need us to even acknowledge Him, to feel good about Himself? Does god have self-esteem issues?"

God needs NOTHING from us! We need everything from Him!

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

Gemma Therese

"If there were no other proof of the infinite patience of God with men, a very good one could be found in His toleration of the pictures that are panited of Him."

- Thomas Merton

Ion

No, not at all: your God is superstition; I don't need superstitions.

Automaton

You are quite welcome. I'm very glad to see you're actually staying for (albeit, limited) debate.
Please accept my apology. Yes, this was rude and presumptuous of me.
Faith can be defined in this case as believing on emotion rather than evidence, correct? Is this not the very ideal you sought to debunk in your opening post?
I'm sorry, you contradicted yourself. It cannot both mean "everything" to God, whilst we are "nothing" to him.
My question is still relevant. Why would God create an entire universe to house Children that he did not actually need? Is God's behaviour arbitrary, and if not out of need, why would a perfect being want or desire anything?
You mean Nirvana? Or the Muslim afterlife? Please elaborate, and give us reason, rather than emotion, why we should accept that such a world exists.
So my interpretation number 1 was correct? Allow me to reitterate my objection; if no human can comprehend God, then how do you propose to know anything about God at all?
Please note that I never attempted to define God, you did that, all I did was respond to your definitions.
I thought you wanted to keep this civil?
No need to get so defensive. If prayer were a valid way to effect the world, I'm saying your efforts would be better spent elsewhere. Do you care more about converting atheists than helping starving children?
Freethought is the opposite of dogmatism. You evidently believe without evidence (see above) in a truth proposition about the universe, and as such, you cannot be a freethinker. On that note, I believe theists can be freethinkers, and indeed, I have met quite a few on my travels through cyberspace.
Another flawed position: If we love God, and all real love comes from God, is God simply loving himself?

Aside: You have failed to address a very large proportion of my arguments. It is courtieous, when rebutting someone, to respond to all the points they bring up.

Regards,
Automaton

Ion

Tell Merton to discuss this with me.

The Apologist

Likewise, would not most theists assert that macro-evolution is highly improbable, and that the chances of the former are, in fact, considerably greater than those of the latter? One cannot use probability to justify atheism, as probability favors theism quite extensively.

Please explain how this applies particularly to theistic arguments.

I see no honest inquiry here - only the attempted rationalization of presuppositions or conscious denial. You have already decided that God does not exist, and you substantiate atheism with prejudiced "logical faculties." You would have us believe that you derive your conclusion of atheism from logic and reasoning, but in truth, you contrive your reasoning from the presumption that God does not exist.

Automaton

Indeed. "Faith" is a word believers use when they have no justification for their beliefs.
Another flawed position; If God is everywhere (omnipresent), how can there be aspects of existence free from God?
You still haven't answered this: Then, why did he create us?
Obviously this is not true; otherwise there would be no nonbelievers such as me in the world, who are perfectly happy with the idea that all gods are merely fictional characters in the minds of men.
Evidence of patience, maybe. Evidence of absence, much more plausable.

Automaton

Uhm, I was not making any probabilistic argument for the non-existence of God. I was simply stating that things aren't necessarily as black and white as definitely true and definitely false.

If you want to discuss the validity of evolutionary biology, we have a great forum for that here, which you are welcome to post at if you like.
How about Pascal's Wager? Epistemological "faith" justifications? The traditional design argument, and even some modern variations thereof?
High on rhetoric, very little argumentative value. It can just as easily be reversed to:

• I see no honest inquiry here - only the attempted rationalization of presuppositions or conscious denial. You have already decided that God exists, and you substantiate theism with prejudiced "logical faculties." You would have us believe that you derive your conclusion of theism from logic and reasoning, but in truth, you contrive your reasoning from the presumption that God exists.

Not very nice, is it? Consequently, how do you explain the fact that the majority of atheists on this board were previously theists? They found atheism with the presupposition that God exists.

HRG

I'd like to see an existence and uniqueness argument for the object which this sentence allegedly defines. This is probably a bad habit I picked up from studying mathematics ...

Regards,
HRG.

Gemma Therese

Tell Merton to discuss this with me.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Thomas Merton was a Trappist monk of the 20th century. He has since died.

Feel free to read any of his books, especially Contemplative Prayer, Seeds of Contemplation, or The Seven-Storey Mountain.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese