bushbassher,
Your are right, my comparison of the understanding of what could be meant by Jesus‘ “bodily resurrection“ with an understanding of algebra was clumsy. However, you yourself can easily provide many examples of concepts, findings, hypotheses, theories and their conclusion from e.g. physics, that laymen accept on their face value without much thinking about them, and if challenged to explain will present a very naive, often erroneous, version as compared to how a professional physicist would understand them. That is all I wanted to say.

Also, I never claimed I was “worth listening to”. You need a critical understanding only of something you want to criticise or deride, not of something you just do not believe in, do not understand or just do not care about. I know, there are atheists who presume one could persuade them (by providing “evidence“) into becoming believers, and maybe subconsciously even yearn for it. However, this is not how it works. Yes, there are conversions but those people have been “persuaded“ by a special life experience, not by some rational argument “worth listening to”.

oliver,
Thanks for your speculations but it is not up to I or you to decide what happens with Hitler or Dawkins, whether God would consider e.g the former insane and the latter falsely informed or whether they will be given an opportunity to “convert“ during the process of dying. We do not know much about mental processes going on during dying, and whether what for an outside observer (electrodes attached to the brain?) would seem a few seconds, would not be experienced by the dying person as a very long period of “purgatory” or even “eternity”.

You see, here I go, although I promised not to get involved into speculations about these matters. Let me just add that e.g. the Catholic Church names some people (namely the Saints) that a Catholic has to believe have been saved, “are in heaven”, but we do not have to believe about any concrete person - not even Judas, Nero or Hitler - that he/she was condemned, “is in hell“.

Grim,
>> if an imaginary line is drawn from the south pole through the north pole, and continuing forever...<<
You are leaving the globe into the surrounding space, which in case of our universe would mean an additional dimension for time, which is not considered even in superstring theories (they postulate only additional spatial dimensions). I think we should stay with Hawkins, who should know better.

As for Sagan‘s imagination of “our universe being just a closed electron” (see some discussion on that e.g. here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=138692) I think Fractelle is right, this is poetry, not cosmology: from what we know, elementary particles behave differently, obey different physical laws, than stars or galaxies.

On the other hand the multiverse, other universes with possibly different physical laws, are postulated as an explanation of the fine tuned “initial conditions” of our universe. These are still speculations, not (yet?) supported by anything that you could call scientific evidence. These speculations are built around comprehensive mathematical models - at least that is how I understand them, the most extreme speculation might be that of Max Tegmark - hence are more than just fantasy, poetry.

>>A personal God to whom we are accountable either exists or does not<<
This is just a tautology stating either A is true or nonA is true.

>>It's probably impossible to prove one way or another<<
Not probably but certainly: you prove something only starting with something else accepted as obvious by everybody, and then derive logically the existence (or non-existence) of God, a concept that anyhow you first would have to define, again in a way understood by both sides. Descartes tried something like this starting with his “cogito ergo sum”, but could not arrive at a conclusion that would persuade everybody.

You list arguments that make it easier for you to accept that God does not exist, others have arguments that make it easier for them to accept His existence. In both cases this acceptance depends on one‘s mental image of what one calls God, psychological state of mind, social context, cultural background, etc.

Oliver,
Thanks for your interesting take.

Not all Christians go for the ‘one size fits all’ style punishment. If you look at Jesus’ teaching in Luke chapter 12: 47, 48

“The servant will be severely punished, for although he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.”

This implies degrees of punishment. Though I suppose that any punishment from God would be pretty depressing considering how willing he seems to want to forgive and bless. (Here I am referring to Jesus’ actions on the cross.)

As for your reference to Peter Sellick, there are many who wonder which team he bats for. (Sells probably wouldn’t mind me saying that as he knows he often gets under the skin of other Christians).

Q&A,
I don’t follow your question. You quote me with the phrase “natural causes”. I never said this. I said two other phrases, ‘natural processes’ and ‘natural course’. So I’m finding your question difficult to understand.

Maybe you’re suggesting that I’m saying that the brain alone is incapable of emotion. I don’t know. Maybe you could rephrase your question.

I’m not talking about emotions. I’m talking about our moral judgements and why and when we should be making them. We sense many injustices in this world. I’m asking Grim, from an atheist’s perspective; on what do you base your moral judgements?

George, I agree. In an earlier post, Dan S. said something about a blurry line between science and speculation. When Murray Gell-Man speculates on string theory, he bases his ideas on hard math.
My example was merely a flight of fancy.
What makes it appealing, is the allusion to a fractal universe; something laymen such as myself find intuitively appealing, as fractals can be observed all around us.
Pretty much all the arguments here -and probably everywhere- are largely about how we as individuals define the words we use to communicate with each other.
Before we can have a useful discussion about God, for instance, we must agree on what 'God' is. I have no problem with an evolved God at all.
But this, like infinite regressions, cannot explain initial creation.
If we define 'fractal' as being a fraction 'of something', does not a supreme being -or supreme state- become statistically inevitable?
Of course, this view also implies not only a God, but whole hierarchies of Gods, demi gods and spirits.
This would suggest (not altogether surprisingly) that Jewish monotheism is rather more primitive, not less, than the Greek panoply.
As to the 'north' business, I suggest nothing so esoteric. By my definition, Polaris is north of the north pole.

everyone here..['A-thiest'or'thiest'alike]..knows embarisment[at some stage of our lives]..feels like a kick in the guts..[its not physical,but feels just as bad or worse than a real kick]

..here is the kicker..[to you who claim gods authority,you are the servants of god]YET..you who know god not..DONT HAVE ANY CLUE,..how can you dare to speak...on that you dont know..[and never sought to know..its plainly absurd]

as you chose to speak..[you asume the role and purpose of a servant],thus get the''real-kick/in the gut..feeling,when you authoritivly decieved god not real,..in ignorance..believe me it is the hugest kick in the guts..[but not physiclly]

god is all loving..[knows'you'were'decieved'..,as those who decieved you,..were themselves decieved..[it gets a long line of decieved decieving..[but it needs to end somewhere],..so many forgiven decievers..PUNISHING THEMSELVES...lol

be a servant of love..[god is love]..[ONT be wrong about god..[IF..he is the'wrathfull/retard'..like many of you..not thiests claim i will take his wrath with the love i expected from him]

DONT CLAIM ABOUT HIM YOU DISCLAIM,..your ignorant claims only add to that kick_in the-gut..those claiming to be'his'servents set themselves up for,

better you and them believed not at all ..THAN that you decieve yourself...[or worse]decieved others,..god is love[anything else is deception]..so if you disbelieve because you think he loves suffereing[you are wrong]

god SUSTAIN's you to live[his hand moves you the puppet[he feels every bit of your pain,first hand,he lives your life,..just as you live because he lives..[you the puppet him the pup-peteer]

that you[we]did to the least WE DID TO HIM[get it?]

think of god being the ONLY reality..[him dreaming us/but the reality only him dreaming..[we the dream/he the dreamer]..see your pain is his pain..[for he feels all pain]..it isnt my pain..[its gods pain,he is allowing me to share it,..his/dream is our/reality,

but feel free to believe as you chose[just be carefull taking the little faith others have]..you thus fall into the full self/guilt thing..when the curtain comes-down and you see'all'..the pain your ignorant fear/words have made worse

if you dont know the real living loving god/good..dont lie about your delusional/fears..[about some''wrathfull/judge''..some retard made you afraid off..[HOW CAN YOU FEAR LOVE?]

Grim wrote: "By my definition, Polaris is north of the north pole."

Dear Grim,

How do you define east and west in space?