Andrew <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in
news:2006073110044916807-thecroft@macunlimitednet:

On 2006-07-31 09:44:51 +0100, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> said:

Andrew wrote:

On 2006-07-30 22:19:46 +0100, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:

Yes, it's another Bill M rant from the man who cannot understand
simple English

The god believers claim that god created the world and everything in
it. He is all loving, all caring and all powerful creator of man in
his image.

SOME do (OK I'm one, but unlike Bill I recognise there is a variety of
views)

Because the world is so magnificent and complex it had to have a
creator. By this same logic, god has to be even more powerful and
complex and would have to have a creator. Complexity in no way is
proof or evidence of a god creator. It is only evidence that the
Universe is very complex by our standards.

No, it's a belief. But science can but a figure on the likelihood of a
universe like ours happening by chance,

The chances are 100%.

And your evidence for this figure is?

The universe exists. Just like it is one hundred percent certain that
last weeks lottery winner did win. In fact there is no way to calculate
the probability of the universe existing or even existing the way it
does. That would imply knowledge that is currently not available.

and it is vanishingly small.

Obviously not.

To be honest I've not done the maths myself - I'm relying on the
estimate made by Roger Penrose (not a Christian, big-time cosmologist).
Do check it out "The Road To Reality" p730

Penrose is clueless if he said that (although I doubt your
interpretation) no matter what his qualifications as a mathematician.
Again tell us the probability of all the lottery winners on earth over
the last hundred years being just those people. The error you are
making is that of all the possible outcomes that could arise, some
outcome must necessarily occur and then trying to argue that it is
impossible because the chances of it are too low.

Now maybe we just lucked out - it's possible.

And it is incredibly lucky that fish live in water, otherwise they
would be dead.

Yes, I understand the anthropic principle too. But using it
uncritically can simply become a way of avoiding difficult questions.

So you think it is better to make up answers to difficult questions by
saying goddidit rather than just admitting you don't know. You are
making the same error as the primitive savage, who concluded that
thunder and lighting was caused by an angry god in the clouds. To be
precise 'argumentum ignorantium' and its' cousin 'argument from
incredulity'.

Supposedly man after he dies lives on in gods eternal heaven in
eternal happiness.

That's a Judaeo-Christian perspective. Buddhists, Hindus and Jains
would not sign up to that

If this is true, why did he create sin and punishment on Earth?

Sin is choosing to live in a way that is contrary to what Goid wants.
If I do make that choice then I create sin - not God.

Who created you?

God did - but unless I am a complete automaton it would be wrong to
attach moral responsiblity for my wrongdoing to God.

Actually no. You grew from a zygote that formed from the merging of a
gamete from each of two other humans. However if you claim that the god
created all that exists then there is no way to claim that there is
anything that the god is not responsible for, wrongdoing or otherwise.
We even see some idiots claim that their god helped them kick a goal in
a sport or some such. A pity that same god didn't give a bomb or two a
little nudge to miss blowing up a bunch of children.

Why did he create Hell? Why not create a world with men that are
motivated to be all caring and loving beings, just like him, with no
desire to be selfish, greedy and mean?

Or, indeed, no choice to be those things. Ask yourself, is that what
you would want? Would you want to be an automaton?

Who said anything about being an automaton? Is god an automaton; does
god do evil; would he ever do evil?

Religious fanatics claim that man has chosen to be evil because of
his 'free will'. This is totally specious. 'Free will' does no imply
or require evil conduct.

But it must require the ability to choose such. If it did not then
'free' does not mean anything - it just means 'free to do what I think
you should do'.

God isn't free? Jesus wasn't free?

Jesus certainly was free to choose to do wrong - he just didn't. That's
the point about that temptation in the desert stuff. As to God, I
suppose if you define 'right' as "what God wants" then God cannot
choose to do wrong. But I don't suppose you do.

If that is the case then there is no reason for an omnipotent god not
to design humans so that they would make the correct choices like the
god does itself. Especially since the god being omniscient already knew
which ones would make the correct choices then there would be no reason
to create those that would not.


Klazmon.

<SNIP>