No, I think it was pretty clear the first time, grateful.

<<you need to elaborate.>>

Maybe we'll re-visit it when you're up to speed.

<<The Qur'an states: … The Prophet stated: …>>

And Captain Kirk stated, “What does God need with a Starship?”

Big deal.

It’s not enough to just tell me what the Qur’an says. You need to demonstrate the truth of that claim.

<<No child before "coming of age" or adolescence dies except as a believer.>>

Christians believe that too. That doesn’t mean babies actually believe, though. Indeed, the fact that they don’t is what necessitates such a claim.

<<I think what you mean is that a baby has not heard of God.>>

Yes, therefore, they cannot be a theist. Theism and atheism are a legitimate dichotomy. You are either one or the other. A baby is specifically an implicit atheist. For your benefit again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#/media/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg.

<<Victor Stenger chose to justify his position by arguing that "God exists" is a pure existential statement and so [cannot] be falsified.>>

So what?

Incidentally, “God does not exist” (strong atheism), is a claim that has strayed from the default position of disbelief.

<<In the case of God we are discussing the existence of the creator of space and time who it eternal.>>

So the claim goes, yes.

<<[Stenger] was … a materialist and atheists whose works have been cited by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, among other prominent atheists.>>

So what? Is this a fallacious appeal to authority?

<<We are not talking about something that exists in space and time, like your rock.>>

I know. My point was that it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about. No appeal to transcendence, on any level, changes my point.

<<Would you accept testimony of modern scientists?>>

I would accept the testimony of anyone who can rationally justify their position. Whether or not they are a scientist is irrelevant and fallacious.

I’m sorry your prediction failed.

That wasn’t a personal insult earlier, either. It was a legitimate observation. I note with interest, however, that you still haven’t mentioned what field it is that you’re in.

Dan,

Whether or not your god ultimately judges people for believing in him is immaterial.

If any belief at all is required to begin with (which it is, one cannot have a belief that grants salvation if they don’t have a belief in the first place), then God has an obligation to reveal himself in a way such that a belief in him could be rationally justified, if eternal damnation is the consequence for not having a salvation-granting belief. Stating that a simple belief alone is not enough doesn’t get you around this.

<<He stands to judge all people for their wrong doing, whether they claim to believe in him or not.>>

This appears to be an attempt to side-step my point. Because, what you’re not mentioning, is that a salvation-granting belief entails asking for forgiveness for one’s sins, and one would not do this unless they at least believed in the first place. Therefore, my referring to belief alone is adequate for my argument since a simple belief is an essential element for a more complex salvation-granting belief.

Appealing to a salvation-granting belief only makes my point more pertinent. My terminology is all-encompassing. When I say that a god has a moral obligation to reveal himself in a way such that a belief in him could be rationally justified (if eternal damnation (or Annihilation) is the consequence for not believing in him), the Protestant salvation-granting belief is automatically included.

You are trying to get God off on a technicality.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

May your wife continue to have difficulty growing hair on her chin.

There is no evidence that God exists. However, there are three items of evidence that have led to the empirical verification of the Big Bang, so that, even if Einstein and Lemaître had never lived, the recognition that the universe began in a hot, dense state would have been forced upon us: the observed Hubble expansion; the observation of the cosmic microwave background; and the observed agreement between the abundance of light elements-hydrogen, helium and lithium-we have measured in the universe with the amount predicted to have been produced during the first few minutes in the history of the universe.

It is pleasant to have a civil exchange with disagreement but no name-calling or put downs.

<Whether or not your god ultimately judges people for believing in him is immaterial.>

The only proof there is of a God judging people is from Holy Books. These were written by "Man." These Men insist that their writings were inspired by a God. The reason Rulers/Priests/Sharman put that bit in there is to exert control over their flock/followers.

It seems to me that a God would have to be entirely Narcissistic to create a specific Species purely for the sake of having that Species Worship/Adore Him/Her/It. That would be the worst failing of a God.

If there is a God then He/She/It is having a good laugh at Mans expense, given the amount of Confusion/Killing/Suffering there is committed in His/Her/It's name.

By the way, grateful, I have not stated a hypothesis that god does not exist.

<<…just like he will not be willing to state the conditions under which he would be prepared to discard his hypothesis that god does not exist.>>

I have already explained to you that I cannot state such conditions, which is why I’m still at the default position of atheism, it is not a case of unwillingness:

“I don’t think any atheist could answer your question. Which is likely the reason WHY they are atheists, still sitting there at the default position of disbelief.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324778)

For you to deliberately ignore or twist my words, or draw implications from what I say that are simply not there, is rather dishonest. Allah would be shaking his head. It is clear that you are becoming quite upset, and who could blame you? Sixty-one posts in and you are yet to make the slightest bit of headway.

At what point does it not become obvious that your beliefs are not justified?

I think the reason you’re having so much difficulty understanding (aside from your apparent determination to not understand, of course) is because you are only addressing one of three sub-categories of atheism. That being the one of strong atheism. This is a common retreat for theists when they need to make atheism sound as dogmatic as their theistic beliefs, or strip it of its rightful place as the default position.

They usually then mistake the weak forms of atheism (both implicit and explicit, but sometimes just explicit) as ‘agnosticism’, seemingly unaware that gnosticism and agnosticism address different questions: http://tinyurl.com/jelqsda.

For so long as you read “strong atheism” every time I say “atheism”, you will continue to be horribly confused, and churn out long, disjointed stings of posts that are largely irrelevant to what I am actually saying.

Dan,

I forgot to mention, I didn't mean to be chauvinistically presumptuous in referring to Yuyutsu as male. It appears that Yuyutsu's gender changes from discussion to discussion (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7323&page=0#225506). Perhaps it's to maintain some sort of air of mystique? I don't know.

Dear Dan,

A succinct summary of what I am saying is, please remain on the side of goodness and stay away from evil, no matter what the world is showing you.

Psalm 118:9 is usually translated into English as: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes". Literally the verse says: "It is better to take shelter in the Lord than to trust generous people".

I am not telling you what you should or should not do, I only tell you what is good and yes, "It is good to give thanks to the Lord".

Probably the best example is Job: by any normal standards, he had nothing to thank God for as he held God responsible for all his terrible losses, but still he thanked Him. Why? because it is good to do so, because this keeps you on the side of goodness and away from the side of evil.

One should obviously thank God when they are happy and successful, but one should also thank God when they lose it all and one should even continue to thank God if they lose their trust in the bible.

Princes and generous people can promise you the world and could usually be trusted to provide your material desires. Trusting God doesn't provide any of that, but it ensures that you remain on His side.

Ultimately, only God will prevail.