God is not the cause of the world.

But will probably be the cause of the end of it.

OK faithful, here is the question I asked as a 7 year old:
If God created all. From whence came God?
If God has always been...why not the universe?
If Universe cannot always be...how can God (much bigger) come first?

I find the 2000 year old textbook concept baffling. They couldn't even dress a wound in those days yet we "believe" they know about the highest truth? Something else is going on and it has little to do with God...(hint...why is *other peoples* religion so scary?)

Existentially it is better to know the Tao (way of things)
Start with "Why not Nothing?" and go from there.

For morals and ethics...start with knowing your culture add awareness of others and avoid "us and them" traps.
Religion is existential issue + morals + culture.
Culture is the one you need to be careful of as it is invisible unless inspected. Nature has given us a bias for teams, tribes.
Constant mindfulness will eventually get you there...no dogma required!

Peter often uses the claim "Belief does not rest on evidence; it is a different way of knowing.." to back his arguments.

Assuming the "belief" he is referring to is his particular brand of Christianity he would probably refer us to the Bible as the source of his faith/belief(knowledge). (please correct me if I'm wrong here Peter)

So far so good.

So we can expand his claim to "Belief does not rest on evidence; it is a different way of knowing based on the Christian Bible"

ergo, "Belief is based on the Bible"

Belief = Knowledge, ergo "Knowledge is in the Bible".

Biblical knowledge is truth, ergo "The Bible is true".

....except where it is written by people without modern scientific knowledge in which case it is allegorical....but still true....except for the bits that we all agree are not true but simply reflect the ignorance of the times.....notwithstanding the bits that are demonstrably untrue, don't actually reflect the ignorance of the times but are written for political motive...but still true........

>> that unbelievers scoff at the primitive notions of the creation stories and relegate them to the realm of quaint fairytale.

pretty strawmanish. maybe some unbelievers scoff, but many do not. i'd suggest the scoffing is not much at the works per se, nor of the people of a different era. but one can validly scoff at those who act and think as if the era hasn't changed, who *do* in fact read the stories as fairy tales. perhaps sellick does not, but many, i'd suggest the overwhelming majority of christians, do.

>> The love that exists between men and women ... is at the centre of creation.

Well, yes, in a grouply narcissistic "me and my hetero pals are at the centre of creation" sort of way. Makes millions of years of dinosaurs seem a bit extravagent.

>> This is not cosmology

o.k., we know what it's not. what isn't obvious is what it *is*.

>> The love that exists between men and women ... strikes at the heart of what it means to be human.

well, it strikes at the heart of what it means to be a caring (hetero) animal. no shortage of non-humans to which this applies.

>> Likewise the evolutionists mock [creationists] because they are plainly not scientific.

which may not be nice, but is not unfair.

>> that world of husband and wife being paramount.

not for all. you saying they're wrong? why? because it's in a dusty book? argue the damn point, or give it up.

>> One would hope that the above would disarm the critics of Christianity who use natural science as their weapon of choice.

horses for courses. anti-science nonsense gets blasted. fluffy nonsense gets "meh". fluffy nonsense hiding dubious moral axioms gets blasted.

Well said Bushbasher!

"Fluffy nonsense hiding dubious moral axioms gets blasted!"

Fluffy: lame : unsubstantiated : arbitrary.
Nonsense: Not sensible : not in accordance with senses: unreal.
Hiding: Talk, talk, talk but never accountable or repeatable.
Dubious: Dodgy: dishonest.
Moral Axioms: Ethics start with facts. Morals start with "I say..."

The less polite version:
"lame, dishonest garbage constantly blabbed on to cover moral blindness and inexcusable actions by arrogant ignoramus."

See, we are normally really are quite polite given how badly religion treats others and how unspeakably lame the "arguments" are.

Natural science is not a "weapon of choice". Nature is merely shorthand for "the real world, free from human lies".
The faithful who reject what "natural science" teaches are merely pandering to the childlike desire to ignore the parts of the world they disagree with.
Faith gives one the right to think dishonestly and to make stuff up...then kill or persecute people who don't agree.

Christians: Of the many Gods people believe in, the Atheist only believes in one less God than you do!

While the scientific arguments are strong against a literal reading of the Bible, I find the moral arguments to be more persuasive:

The idea that it is okay and desirable to transfer guilt and punishment to an innocent. (Redemption through Jesus)

The idea that responsibility for crimes can be passed on from parents to children, and that seeking knowledge should be a crime. (Original sin)

The idea that infinite punishment is just for finite crimes. (Hell)

Even if the Christian god did exist, with philosophies like these, he deserves scorn not worship.