SOG

>> That anything is possible even though not particularly plausible. <<

Using your logic, I should not rule out the possibility of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Fairies at the bottom of my garden (I am hoping that one is plausible, because the description of the Abrahamic god, quite frankly, is appalling and fairies would be a great counter to such a egocentric piece of work).

Think I'll stick to being atheist until evidence proves me wrong. And that, SOG, is all atheism is about - no proof; no belief.

Quite right, Severin.
I don't even ask for proof, just a crumb or two of evidence would be a start!

If we're being pedantic, sonofgloin...

>>I do not want to be pedantic but the universe has an age, 13 billion years<<

...might be better stated as: "this universe has an age, 13 billion years"

SoG,

<<The science behind determining that use the same constants that apply to all the physics we exist by, measureable and constant.>>

Yes, and anyone who claims that their god transcends this, believes in a god that is indistinguishable from nothing. That aside though, how do you go from the above, to...

<<So from that premise Carl was being philosophical when he said the universe always existed.>>

Why does that mean that he was just being philosophical? As far as I’m concerned, he was also being logical and more scientific.

<<The first bit is right but to link atheism and theism as subsets is incorrect because the terms are particular to the belief in a creator, the other is knowledge on any subject including the existence of god.>>

Note that I didn’t say they were they were the only subsets.

<<Occams deems that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck.>>

That’s an oversimplification of one variation of Occam's razor. By “Occam’s razor”, I meant “entities shouldn’t be multiplied without necessity”, or “of two equivalent explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred”.

That being said, again, why don’t you think that Occam’s razor should apply here? (c.f. My Sagan quote).

<<I am saying "what" we have to look at to make a judgment is in real time, produced when the bang made all we can experience, yet the answer lies before time, a place alien to our physicality.>>

So you’re just going to call this “place alien to our physicality” “god” then, are you? What if it’s not alien to our physicality? What if the hypothesis that our universe (or the hypothesized multiverse) is just a never-ending series of expansions and collapses?

[Speaking of which, Pericles’ pedanticism made a brilliant point that I didn’t pick up on.]

Anyway, going back to what I said before, what’s the more honest approach to this problem...

1. Admit that you don’t know, and accept that you may never know, or;
2. Make something up?

Continued...

...Continued

Most of the world’s religions exist/ed because primitive people chose 2 over 1.

So for all intents and purposes, I think the chances that these ancient people actually got it right when it comes to this “place alien to our physicality”, is so immeasurably small that we can safely say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it’s zero.

<<That anything is possible even though not particularly plausible.>>

I don’t think there’s much more that I can add to what Severin has said here other than to say that I think my point - that none of the arguments for the existence of god hold - still stands.

Severin,

You are so wrong...I for one believe in Santa...His fat butt was our annual chimney clean out....lol

I also believe in the Easter Bunny... he gave me chocolates and cavities as a bonus...lol

Now I don't have fairies at the bottom of my garden but I do have bats in my belfry...lol

But back to the topic....

I suppose once you start asking questions, following the recent decision and ongoing turbulence against women in the religions, then shouldn't you think about scripture more deeply?

I suspect GOD is far more intelligent than his followers.

And I suspect he/she/it won't be all that happy with those who misinterpret and teach falsehoods.

Afterall Jesus said "A tree shall be known by it's fruit"....Matthew 7:15-20....http://tinyurl.com/32ku5qs

These verses are quite instructive. What fruits do the religions bear? And what happens to those who bear bad fruit? "THE FIRE"!

So if the religions are ruled by men and they are bearing "bad fruit" then don't women owe it to their Lord to act? Why do women accept this obvious discrimination?

If Foxy's statistics are correct is the minority ruling over, and oppressing the majority? Is this Christian?

This article is quite concerning

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/16/vatican.exorcist.devil/index.html

If as this priest alleges Satan does exist, and knowing the alleged Satan is divisive and evil, then who and what, is he effecting in the Vatican and broader Catholic Church?

If he exists, could the recent decision on the ordination of women be Satan's work? It appears divisive.

AND, if he exists in the Vatican, what mischief is he getting up to in other denominations, religions and churches?

Is the discrimination against women from GOD or Satan?

Will Christian men grow spines and stand up for women? The Bible suggest NO!

I'll let you Christians ponder on that for a while!