The Blue Cross,

"I fear Yuyutsu will blow a gasket if he reads your link"

Boring old stuff! Who in their right mind would attempt to prove the existence of God?

Firstly, God is not an object (see my reply to AJ Phillips), and therefore not subject to the rules of logic, but more importantly, any god whose existence can be proven is not God!

So why bother? With much effort, one may perhaps prove the existence of some demi-god, or semi-god, or demi-semi-god, but why go about looking for idols?

Even in the fantastic event that some guy (no gender bias) were to be found to have created this universe, then while that guy would be materially far stronger and intelligent than us and live much longer than us, spiritually speaking, such a guy would be equal to us and is not to be worshipped.

On the 9/11 case that you mentioned, to be a true Christian it is not enough to be willing to lay down one's life in the service of an IDEA of God, nor in the service of some idol (even a provable one, even if he created this universe). One must be willing to lay down whatever is required in the service of God, none other. The likely motives of the 9/11 bombers were hate, fear and lust for 72 virgins in heaven, but given that none of us knows what truly went on in the heart-of-hearts of those 9/11 bombers, perhaps they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they were in fact driven by love of God and their fellow beings, perhaps they were after all, as much as their minds would revolt by this term, true Christians...

Philip Tang,

Your analogy doesn’t work because atheists haven’t assumed a silly story like that of the police in your analogy, they simply acknowledge that they don’t know how the universe began (if it began at all); which is far more honest than just making something up.

<<Similarly, that there is life and complex creatures on earth would prompt one to ask: who was responsible for them?>>

Simplicity is one of the main goals of design, so why would a supposedly all-powerful being need to create life so complex? Is he a sloppy designer?

And why does it have to be a “who”? That’s a pretty big assumption and an irrational way of going about finding answers considering you’ve already narrowed to scope of investigation without good reason.

<<Theist believes that the cause of it is intelligent design, the atheist says it came to life by chance.>>

Which atheist is this? Most atheists I know of say they don’t know.

<<The atheist view is both irrational and unbelievable ... because something do not come from nothing.>>

Who says something came from nothing? You’re asserting that god (something that has never been demonstrated) was just always there. So why can’t I assert that matter (something that is demonstrable) was just always there?

All I’ve done is skip a step, and in turn, avoided violating Occam’s razor.

So I fail to see where you get off saying...

<<...it takes plenty of (irrational) faith to be an atheist in your make-believe unscientific world.>>

Nope, as I’ve just demonstrated, atheism takes zero faith because there is nothing within atheism to have faith about. And how is god scientific anyway?

<<If this universe were from eternity and having no life it will always remain that way.>>

In another dimension where the laws of physics, chemistry and biology didn’t exist, yes, that’s true.

<<Prove to me that God does not exist.>>

The onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence. Most atheists simply reject a claim for which they don’t believe there is sufficient evidence.

Prove to me that fairies don’t exist.

Two can play at that game, Yuyutsu...

<<I love God...>>

Ah, but to love god is to place a limitation on god by suggesting that one is able to love him.

<<I adore God...>>

Ah, but to adore god is to place a limitation on god by suggesting that one is able to adore him.

<<I worship God...>>

Ah, but to worship god is to place a limitation on god by suggesting that one is able to worship him.

In fact, you can’t even use the term “god” or refer to him as a “Him”. That would be limiting him with a label.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You dodge and weave what others say by rejecting everything everyone says, while still affording yourself the luxury of being able to apply your own labels to your god as well as your own assertions as to what he is and what he is not.

It’s deceitful.

<<If God were an object, then surely it is just a matter of time before you could build a telescope (or microscope) strong enough to detect him. Then what would you do? bow down to his image? Ridiculous! Being an object would have reduced God to the status of a mere idol!>>

Well then here’s a simple solution - that an omnipotent being would surely think of - that gets around the fallacy of your false dilemma:

Be invisible.

So my question as to what usefulness the ability to not manifest in reality would serve remains valid and unanswered.

Speaking of unanswered questions...

<<God is not "something" (a common error!), and no-"thing" is beyond existence.>>

I never said that god was a “thing”. You are simply using this bit of pedanticism as a means of dodging my question.

I used the words “something” and “thing” for lack of a better word. Insert whatever word you want in there or simply imagine a concept in place of those words as though it were like the unverbalisable symbol that Prince has changed his name to.

My point remains.

Continued...

...Continued

Anyway, to be fair to myself and others, and in the interests of useful discussion, you need to abide by the same rules of your own word game that you expect others to abide by, and so from this point onwards, how about you communicate your ideas about your version of god without referring to him with any labels of any sort - nothing. Not even with gestures, if that were at all possible on a forum.

After all, according to your logic, that would be putting a limitation on god.

Over to you...

AJP... sorry, I've just discovered that I am God, so I think that puts an end to everyone's discussion on this matter.

I heard a voice, as I came out of the garage, shouting 'I suppose you think you're God do you?'

At first I thought it was my warring fundie neighbours, bashing each other up again, but no, it was a passing cloud bellowing down at me.

The Archangel Gabriel approached, gave me his card, and said he'd been looking for me for eons.

I start back at my old job next week, once I've cleaned up a little.

I'll be quite pleased to give up my career, as a watchmaker, because my eyesight's getting a bit dodgy these days.

Funny really, it was that last string of posts from Yuyutsu, OUG and runner that must have done it, oh yes, and AGIR.

I began to think clearly for the first time in my life, Earth life that is of course, and it must have set off a GPS type device that Gabriel carries.

Funny world, eh?

One minute a blind watchmaker, next thing, won the Lotto!

Well, it's been good posting with you all.

Must dash, I've got plagues to spread, illness to spread about a bit, and greedy people to elevate beyond their capacity, as a test of their beliefs.

Then I'm booked in to the USA evangelical crews, to make sure there's a few good sex scandals coming up in 2011.

I'm hoping to get the Israel-Palestinian bonfire going too, time my chosen people took over the whole area.

Must really dash now.

By the way, the Pope's a dud and does not represent me at all.

I can do that myself very well.

That's fascinating, TBC.

I'm not sure you're insecure enough to be a god though. I just can't see you demanding to be worshipped like some petulant little child.

But please, do concern yourself with what we do with our genitals, won't you. What more could an all-powerful supreme being possibly be concerned with?

Oh, and one more thing... Since you're offering infinite punishment for finite crimes, make sure you obscure yourself with natural explanations for everything you do to. There's only so much room in heaven and I get claustrophobic.

Amen.