Selsaral

The whole concept that the ultimate god portrayed by christians would judge us entirely on whether we even believe in his existence is absurd. Particularly when he specifically hides from us. Or, even better, he designed us to be religious, so that the vast majority of humans throughout history burn in hell for eternity simply because they were born hindus, or muslims, or druids, or whatever. That he hid his own religion underneath thousands of others, but refuses to make his 'true' religion even slightly more credible than any of the other religions.

I find it extremely suspicious that this whole system seems so incredibly silly for the god of love and happiness, but is just perfect for a religion with the aim of controlling humans and increasing the number of human adherents.

Selsaral

You seriously consider this 'real evidence'? I'm sorry, that is completely absurd. Replace the word 'god' with 'Zeus', or 'the invisible pink unicorn' and read it again. Congratulations, you have just proven that Santa Claus is the true creator of the universe. This is not evidence, this is bogus metaphysical theology.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Paraphrasing Unum:
"The things you sense have caused an effect, therefore they have energy. Power, in physics, is defined as the amount of energy transferred (or the amount of caused effect) divided by the change in time. So, not only do the things you have sense have energy, they also have power. Let's see, Cthulhu is all-powerful and the things you sense have power. In other words, the things you are sensing are actually a part of Cthulhu. Here we have one of the Old Gods who has all the power, and you are sensing something that has some power, but not all, therefore it is logical that the things that you sense are a part of Cthulhu. It is as if Cthulhu is communicating with you everytime you sense anything. The evidence of Cthulhu has been right in front of you your whole life. Cthulhu has never once hidden from anyone. Cthulhu has always been and will always be. The thing is, you aren't sensing all of Cthulhu. If you look around you can see many things, but you can't see all things. Cthulhu is all of these things, even the ones you can't see. In other words, Cthulhu in its entirety can not be seen directly. You can see parts of Cthulhu, but the entirety of Cthulhu can only be imagined.

No matter what you call it, it's still arbitrary: irrational.

Keith.

Clutch

Certainly it is possible to believe (or fail to believe) something in spite of a preponderance of evidence.

Nevertheless, it's a datum that evidence can be equivocal with respect to some propositions. The evidence can be quite even, for and against, or it can be only slightly weightier in one direction -- the difference being slight enough that rationally permissible variations in how one interprets or assesses evidence would make things look even.

What the benevolence of a god surely entails is that the evidence cannot favour atheism; further, that it cannot even be equivocal; further, that it cannot even be slightly in favour of theism. God cannot be benevolent if he would condemn someone for disbelief motivated by a sincere assessment of the evidence. Hence, the real state of affairs must be that the evidence is substantially in favour of theism (and more likely, the specific religion in question). The evidence would have to be unmistakeable, except by bad motives or self-deception.

So the question is -- where is this evidence? Why are the standard arguments rehearsed in favour of theism fodder for 1st year spot-the-howler critical thinking courses? And why do the best and brightest apologists so often argue only for the Scotch verdict, content to claim that we cannot know for sure, or merely that theism is not irrational?

The Christian must hold that the evidence is unmistakeable. The curious inability to articulate this unmistakeable evidence is therefore a bit of a head-scratcher.

Unum

A lot of the work that we do is involved in the search. Science itself, is basically a search for answers. Science hasn't found out everything, but during the search for everything, they sure have found out quite a bit.

Perfection eased into my analogy as soon as I said it. As that is the name of the office (goal) that we are all looking for.

I disagree. Having various employees write the documents allows us to analyze multiple perspectives. The more perspectives we get, the better we are able compare and study them. Also, these documents might contradict each other in certain aspects, however where it matters, they do not contradict each other at all. Once you realize that these documents are written by non-perfect humans trying to describe the same perfect being it's understandable that they would have some differences. This doesn't mean they are fraudulent, it only shows imperfections. If you feel you can write the perfect document, I'd like to see it.

When did we establish such thing? All of these documents have found evidence of the manager, as all of these documents are evidence of the manager.

Those people that sow division, discord and violence are also the same people who will be demoted and docked in pay. It doesn't matter that they speak of the manager in a good light, if they do not treat others in this same light, they will suffer. Paying lip service to the manager gets one nowhere.

The manager doesn't have to show up, because the manager has always been around us. Showing us everything we know. The manager gave us a chance by giving us life. Everything else is up to us. We already rely on the help of those that came before us, they were the ones who built the cities we live in, discovered technologies we take for granted, and left us a written record with which to study and help us learn. We rely on the people around us now, they are the ones who are discovering new technologies and the ones who are also leaving a written record so that those after us can also benefit. The best way for the manager to get the best employees it to provide the basics (water, food, etc.) and then let the employee choose exactly where they want to work. If the employee doesn't want to add much, they don't have to. However, if the employee does, they will be given every opportunity to do as much as they can. The system is the fairest system there is, as it lets the employees choose what they want. Giving something to someone who does not deserve it does nothing to increase their productivity. Still, these people will be given the basics, in hopes that they will realize they can have more, but they will have to work for it if they want it. If there is a more perfect system, I'd like to hear about it.

What do you not understand about it? If you do not know everything, you can't be certain of anything you know as the things you don't know might change your opinions on the things that you think you know now. In other words, keep an open mind as anything is possible. Don't completely write something off, as we are in no position to do so.

Is there an agreement that we can reach as to a definition of God? I've seen God being defined as singular, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-mighty. I've seen God defined as the supreme reality. I've seen God defined as the thing that just is or the eternal. Are these valid definitions for God? If they are, you have already seen this God, as anything you see would be a part of this God. If you can not define God how do you expect to do any sort of search for God.

Isaac Newton saw things falling to the earth and investigated this phenomenon, his search led him to discover gravity. People of long ago, sensed things and they investigated this phenomenon, what is it that we sense. They figured out that this thing they were sensing was singular, all-powerful, all-knowing, their supreme reality and eternal. They called this concept God or one of the many other words that mean God in other languages (YHWH, Allah, The Tao, Brahmin, etc.). You may call them idiots, I call them geniuses. They figured out fundamental features of the universe before the concept of science even existed and even the word universe existed. They didn't have the luxury of computers, universities, mass produced products, agriculture, running water, the printing press, or even books to help them as we do today. What they started was the dawn of consciousness. They were the first to investigate the things around them. They were the first to become aware and ask questions such as "What is this?", "Why is this?", and "How does it all work?" This fundamental truth that they discovered is still the same fundamental truth today. Without them discovering this, things would not have turned out the way they have. Go ahead, laugh at them and think how stupid there were to believe what they did. They are going to get the last laugh however, as you believe the same thing they did. You just don't realize it, they did.

I am also talking about the Abrahamic manager. That manager is one and same as every other manager ever mentioned in any of the worlds religions.

Go back and read what I said. If a lack of recognition leads to the employee acting in detrimental way, then that person should expect a demotion. If something leads to detrimental work, then the employee shouldn't expect a promotion they should expect a demotion. The recognition and the work that results of this recognition go hand in hand. They can not be separated. Once someone realizes that there is One and that they are a part of this One, they realize that harming this One is also detrimental to themselves. Likewise, producing smiles, harmony, and peace not only helps this One, but it also helps the one doing it as when the One benefits we all benefit.

What do you find odd about it? If I help people, I will be helped in return. If I hurt people, I will be hurt in return. It's a perfect and fair system. I literally can't imagine working anywhere else.

I am experiencing it and I am enjoying every moment of it.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

Try this for the Razor. God is the universe. The universe (God) exists.

What you fail to understand is that the concept of God has been around much longer than the concept of the universe. If they mean the same thing, which is the one that is superflurous?

Peace,

Unum

Unum

The last time I looked I didn't see "invisible pink unicorns" defined as being a singular, all-poweful, all-knowing entity. If you want to define invisible pink unicorns that way then yes, the words can be replaced. The same can be said of Zeus as Zeus is not defined as all-powerful, but one of many of the Norse Gods. He might be the chief of them, however he is not alone, therefore he is not all-powerful. I'll let you figure out what my response would be for Santa Claus as well.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

Has Cthulhu been defined as all-powerful and all-knowing? If so, then yes the name can be substituted. Like I've said before to you, I can call you many arbitrary names, but as long as when I say them that I am referring to you it doesn't matter what they are.

Peace,

Unum

Selsaral

It doesn't matter. Make up any creature, define it that way, and your 'evidence' proves the same thing for it as it does for your god. Which means your 'evidence' proves absolutely nothing.

Jamie_L

I seriously doubt that. Early man knew that he existed in a world external to himself. That was his "universe". The idea of God came second, when some clever fellow wondered to himself "where did this world/universe come from?" At that point, someone came up with the notion of a god. So, universe first. god second.

And atheism 3rd, when some other clever fellow said "God? I don't see any god."

Jamie