Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

If I understand you correctly you prefer a God who is not personal
and a God who is vague.

Consider the possibility of God being a Person like you are a person.

Genesis 1:27 "God created man in His own image, in the image of God
He created them."

If you want to know what God is like, go into your bathroom and look in
the mirror at yourself, and you will see and know what God is like. You
were created in God's image.

{ I obviously do NOT mean your physical image or your physical appearance. }

I interpret the "image of God" in Genesis 1:27 to be as follows:

These are the 3 major areas that demonstrate the image of God in human beings

(1) God has an Intellect --- man has an Intellect.

(2) God has a Free Will (volition) --- man has a Free Will

(3) God has Emotions --- man has Emotions.

__________________


Further breakdown of the 3 major areas.

(4) God is Creative --- man is Creative.

(5) God can Love --- man can Love.

(6) God can Cry ("Jesus wept") --- man can Cry.

(7) God can be Jealous --- man can be Jealous.

( 8 ) God can experience Joy --- man can experience Joy.
`
(9) God can have Patience --- man can have Patience.

(10) God can express Kindness --- man can express Kindness.

(11) God can express Gentleness --- man can express Gentleness.
`
(12) God can express Wrath --- man can express Wrath.

(13) God creates Magnificent Art Works (in nature) --- man
creates Magnificent Art Works (eg. cathedrals)

(14) God Writes Books (the Bible) --- man Writes Books.

(15) God feels Empathy --- man feels Empathy.

(16) God feels Sympathy --- man feels Sympathy.

(17) God makes Long-Term Plans --- man makes Long-Term Plans.

(18 ) God can Speak --- man can Speak


`

 

So they can be consistent with their own principle.
See below.

But the same ought to be true.
See below.

With the following KEPT FIRM in mind:
You may ask, "How can atheists blame the God of the Bible for evil
when atheists do not believe that God exists?
Answer: They postulate that "if God does exist" then He is evil
because the Bible presents God as being Omnipotent {all powerful}
and therefore He could have created a world without any evil if He had
wanted to do that. He did not want to do that, therefore He is evil.

So?
So . .
If {11} is not true.
Then {12} is not true
But if {11} and {12} are true, then {14} is ALSO true.

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross.

So?

So since {14} is ALSO true, to be consistent with their principle, they ought
to ALSO list the good thing s that God has caused.

God either causes all things, or He does not cause all things.
`
If He causes all things, then God:

■ caused all the charities in the world to come to exist

■ caused the Center For Disease Control to come to exist

■ caused the World Health Organization to come to exist

■ caused all the Super Walmart Stores and Sam's Clubs to come to exist

■ caused your automobiles to be made and to become yours

■ caused all the money you have, or will ever have, to become yours

■ caused all your clothes to be made and to become yours

■ caused all your medicines to be made and to come to be inside your medicine cabinet

■ caused General Motors to come to exist

■ caused your cell phone to be made and to become yours

■ caused all the books in the world that you enjoy to be written

■ caused all the movies you enjoy to be made

■ caused all the music you enjoy to be made

■ caused all the warm sandy beaches you enjoy to come to exist

■ caused all the schools and universities to come to exist

■ caused the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra to come to exist

■ caused all the nursing homes to come to exist

■ caused all the retirement centers to come to exist


`

 

No.

As you point out, your primise concerning what your "some atheists say" is a hypothetical - NOT an actual belief.

Besides, your "many atheists" claim does not establishe what atheists believe.

As a preson of religion, you shouldn't be using argument styles that are at their root GOSS misrepresentation of other people's beliefs.

The reason I said something about Fry is that it is ANOTHER example of you pushing this kind of false logic.

Don't do that. It reflects realy badly on you. You should be looking toward the truth.

 

The only way a theist can honestly explain why the existence of evil is if they are a deist.

Deists believe that God exists outside of the universe in either does not or cannot interfere in the universe.

Most theists believe in an all-powerful knowing everpresent, completely benevolent God. This means that evil cannot exist. Such a God would naturally prevent evil from coming into existence. Evil cannot exist with an all-powerful God, unless that God is evil themselves and chooses to allow it to exist.

 

False.
You do not understand that to which you are replying.

False.
Your posts are examples of false logic.

False.
It does not.
Rather it reflects very badly on you to make unfounded
absurd accusations when you have zero understanding
of my Opening Post and zero understanding of what I have
posted in this thread.

One more point: I made one last attempt to explain my
Opening Post to you and it failed. I will never again do
that. Henceforth I am not going to give serious consideration
to anything you post in this thread.

 

Several people have accepted the idea of an omnipotent god being responsible for everything good as well as everything bad though. You still have the problem with your request in that you don't accept the idea because you say that God isn't responsible for anything bad due to free will.

That's a telling confession. When I suggested you had an ulterior motive, you got all defensive about the "ad hominem" and flatly denied that you wanted anything other than empty answers to your OP request. It seems my suspicion was entirely justified and you just weren't willing to admit it. So good luck with that.

 

Really? If that's true . . .
Then maybe we will soon see some atheists here starting threads with
titles like "Here Are Some Good Things That The God-That-Does-Not-Exist
Has Done."
You yourself "Honest" Joe will no doubt be starting threads like that real soon.
Isn't that true?
In fact "Honest" Joe, you can write me a post right here in this thread and
you can give thanks to God for all the good things that He has done for you.
Are you going to do that, "Honest" Joe? Sure you are!

I don't have a problem.
The problem exist in your mind.
But not in my mind.
I've been on the Internet long enough to know that
atheists and Christians basically ignore each other's posts
and "post past each other" on their way to composing their
next post.
I announced up-front my view on Free Will and even put my
views on Free Will in a separate thread. My views are reasonable.
Free Will is a secular concept. Every court of law in the world
operates on the foundation that human beings are to be held
responsible for their Free Will choices and are to be punished
if lawfully convicted of a crime. Why? Because of their Free Will.

Miscellaneous Points:
{1} Its only a "telling confession" in your mind.
{2} You did in fact use ad hominem in your posts, "Honest" Joe.
{3} You did in fact accuse me of being dishonest, "Honest" Joe.
{4} I announced up-front that I was a Christian.
{5} It is reasonable to expect Christians to have Evangelistic
motives underlying their posts.
{6} I never at any time tried to hide my Christianity, "Honest" Joe.
{7} I have no idea what you mean by "empty answers."
{8} I do not want to know -- let it forever remain a mystery.
{9} I have no interest in your "suspicions"
{10} You are my ideological enemy.
{11} My view is that you will always look for anything you
can find in what I write that can be twisted or spun to your
advantage. Why is that? Because . . .
{12} We are enemies. Ideological enemies. Do you understand
this concept:
Patton vs. Rommel
Superman vs. Lex Luthor
Batman vs. The Joker
Democrats vs. Republicans.
Liberals vs. Conservatives.
ENEMIES. ALL.
So? So there is no point in pretending otherwise.
You, being my ideological ENEMY, are never going to give
anything I write a charitable reading.

And all this blather in threads on the Internet At Large
about "honest debate" taking place between atheists
and Christians, is mostly absurd nonsense -- in the vast
majority of instances both sides merely 'glance" at the
other's post and then proceed to try to "damage" their
opponent -- or make their opponent "look bad" in any
even remotely credible way they possibly can. You can go
over there to my thread titled:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...otes-from-an-atheist-fred-hoyle.573774/page-4
and read atheist's insults and mockery and ridicule and
and personal attacks and "cartoon arguments" to get
some examples of "honest debate" and a charitable
reading of posts --- and all that hatred because I believe
that the Universe is fine-tuned and that this fine-tuned
Universe demands an Intelligent Designer -- and in the
Hoyle thread I even made it clear that I was NOT
against evolution and made it clear that I allowed for
Theistic Evolution and made it clear that I did NOT
want my views taught in the public schools --- but all
that made no difference to the little band of angry
frustrated atheists who still proceeded to insult and
mock and ridicule --
So?
So . . . ENEMIES:
And you, being my ideological enemy wrote this:

 

No, for the same reason you're not going to list all the bad things God is responsible for. Of course, I've never created any posts saying God is responsible for evil things either so I've no double-standards to worry about.

You did and the position on free will directly contradicts the idea that an omnipotent god is responsible for everything, good or evil. Trying to push both ideas at the same time is logically contradictory. Free will would mean their can't be any omnipotent god. That is the point of all the statements about an omnipotent god being responsible for evil are intended t get across (however incompetently the arguments are often made).

You also announced that your only purpose for starting the thread was to have atheists admit that an omnipotent god would be responsible for good things. You explicitly said you have no other motive and you've now admitted that was a complete lie. The fact it isn't a surprise doesn't make it any better.

You're not my enemy, you're just another random person on the internet. I'm not challenging your posts because you're a Christian, I'm challenging them because I think they're misleading and dishonest.

Maybe that is the case for you, especially if you're approaching this as nothing more than a tool for evangelism. I've had plenty of reasonable discussions and debates with Christians and other theists, on this forum and beyond. There is certainly lots of trash too, from all sides, which can either be ignored or highlighted as appropriate.

You give as good (bad) as you get and the idea that you created the thread as a tool to attack "atheists" rather than any attempt to discuss scientific theories seems justified. Why would you even post it under "Religion and Philosophy" rather than "Science" or make such a big thing about Hoyle being atheist? You'll note that I chose not to weigh in to that thread because of the predictable and inevitable mess you created with it.

 

False.
I will list all the bad things that atheists claim the God-That-Does-Not-Exist
has done. I have quoted that vile Richard Dawkins quote about the God
of the Old Testament several times. I am not shy about listing any of that
atheist garbage.

False.
My view is that your posts make false statements.

False.
I clearly stated that I did not hold the same view of Omnipotence that
atheists hold.

False.
Not contradictory as i have explained several times in this thread.

False.
An absurd ridiculous statement.

You are no qualified judge of what is, or is not, incompetent.

I don't know that I did.
But even if I did, I have the perfect right to "revise and extend" my remarks.
And I have no interest in your views on that. Zero interest.

. . .REVISE AND EXTEND my remarks.

i don't know that I said that.
But even if I did, I have the perfect right to "revise and extend" my motives.
And I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in "Honest" Joe's views on that.

. . . REVISE AND EXTEND my motives.

If I decide to EXPAND my reasons for writing this Opening Post and creating
this thread, I will do that, and I have zero interest in your personal opinions
regarding my right to EXPAND my motives and my reasons.

. . . EXPAND my motives and my reasons .

False.
Your posts reek of falsehoods.
Are you not ashamed to posts falsehoods.
Does not posting falsehoods violate "Honest" Joe's atheistic moral code?

False.
You are my ideological enemy and my view is that you will twist and spin
whatever I write to your own personal advantage.
My view is that your posts are dishonest.

You saying it, does not make it so.
i have zero reasons to believe you write honest posts.

i think your posts are misleading and dishonest.

I can have SEVERAL motives for my Opening Post and for this
thread.
You don't know what ALL my motives are.
And I have no obligation to keep you informed on the latest
up-dates regarding what my motives are.

I seriously doubt that.

False.
I did not.

That is where I wanted to put it.

I did not make "such a big thing" about Hoyle being an atheist.
That is merely your personal opinion, "Honest" Joe.

Your posts would fit right in. By the way, more angry tantrum
hissy fit frustrated hate-filled mocking ridiculing atheist posts
would not be remarkable -- some go into a hissy fit frenzy over
even Theistic Evolution-Intelligent Design

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ign-quotes-from-an-atheist-fred-hoyle.573774/
That thread stands as an example of atheistic posts filled
with mockery, ridicule, insults, "cartoon arguments" and
childish behavior. You should be proud of your atheistic
community, "Honest" Joe , in that thread.
Also, why would you think that I care even 0.00000 about
your views regarding that thread?




`

 

It might be helpful for you to identify what you are actually hoping to convince people of.

Surely your complaint about what you think "some atheists" claim that god does isn't worthy of debate. There ARE issues within religion of what god does do - a spectrum from Madison and theism to today's protestants who hold that god is constantly listening and answering prayers.

You already know that there isn't any objection to you beliving in your religion. In fact, our constitution guarantees that.

A little clarity could lead to actually resolving some issues that you care about - or at least a better understanding of what change you would like to see.

 

What about the theists who attribute the accomplishments of talented and hard-working human beings to an imaginary being?

 

The mask has entirely slipped now. There's nothing more to say.

 

False.
I have never worn a mask.
Are you not deeply ashamed to write false posts?
Are you not deeply ashamed to post dishonest remarks? "Honest" Joe.

Here is what I said about Richard Dawkins:
JAG Previously Wrote:
"I will list all the bad things that atheists claim the God-That-Does-Not-Exist
has done. I have quoted that vile Richard Dawkins quote about the God
of the Old Testament several times. I am not shy about listing any of that
atheist garbage."___JAG

What I said was about Richard Dawkins who is known far and wide
for making vile hateful attacks on Christianity. Richard Dawkins has
said so many ugly, bitter, hateful things about people of faith and
especially about Christianity that even the atheist Michael Ruse
said that Richard Dawkins' writings made him ashamed to be
an atheist.

Here is the quote from Michael Ruse and note that this source
is from the very liberal The Guardian.

"Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously.
I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to
be an atheist and I meant it." __the atheist Michael Ruse

Here is how the article ends, "Honest" Joe.

Start quote.
Today, nearly a decade after 9/11, terrified as so many still
are by the terrorist threat, the atheistic fundamentalists
are finding equally fertile soil for their equally frenetic
messages. It's all the fault of the believers, Muslims
mainly of course, but Christians also. But don't worry.
In the God Delusion, we have a message as simplistic
as in The Genesis Flood. This too will solve all of your
problems. Peace and prosperity await you in this world,
if not the next.

Forgive me if I don't sign on."___the atheist Michael Ruse
End quote.
Source for both quotes:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse

So?
So "Honest" Joe I have justifiable reasons for saying what I said about Richard Dawkins.

You accused me of wearing a mask, "Honest" Joe.
That is false.
Are you not deeply ashamed to continue to make dishonest accusations?

Here is why your accusation, of me wearing a mask, is false:

I have the perfect right to "revise and extend" my motives.

. . . REVISE AND EXTEND my motives and my reasons.

If I decide to EXPAND my reasons for writing this Opening Post and creating
this thread, I will do that, and I have zero interest in your personal opinions
regarding my right to EXPAND my motives and my reasons . .

. . .REVISE and EXTEND and EXPAND my motives and my reasons .

`

 

I will be glad to do that.
Here it is:

JAG Writes:
With the following KEPT FIRM in mind:
You may ask, "How can atheists blame the God of the Bible for evil
when atheists do not believe that God exists?
Answer: They postulate that "if God does exist" then He is evil
because the Bible presents God as being Omnipotent {all powerful}
and therefore He could have created a world without any evil if He had
wanted to do that. He did not want to do that, therefore He is evil.

So?
So . .
If {11} is not true.
Then {12} is not true
But if {11} and {12} are true, then {14} is ALSO true.

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross.

So?

So since {14} is ALSO true, to be consistent with their principle, they ought
to ALSO list the good things that God has caused.

God either causes all things, or He does not cause all things.
`
If He causes all things, then God:

■ caused all the charities in the world to come to exist

■ caused the Center For Disease Control to come to exist

■ caused the World Health Organization to come to exist

■ caused all the Super Walmart Stores and Sam's Clubs to come to exist

■ caused your automobiles to be made and to become yours

■ caused all the money you have, or will ever have, to become yours

■ caused all your clothes to be made and to become yours

■ caused all your medicines to be made and to come to be inside your medicine cabinet

■ caused General Motors to come to exist

■ caused your cell phone to be made and to become yours

■ caused all the books in the world that you enjoy to be written

■ caused all the movies you enjoy to be made

■ caused all the music you enjoy to be made

■ caused all the warm sandy beaches you enjoy to come to exist

■ caused all the schools and universities to come to exist

■ caused the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra to come to exist

■ caused all the nursing homes to come to exist

■ caused all the retirement centers to come to exist

 

I read your post - you are projecting your issues onto others.

 

You forgot a few OT attributes - a flip flopping xenophobic genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics - to name a few - just like various human leaders.

This would be an example of man creating God in his own image - not the reverse.

And you messed up the passage in Genesis which states that Man was created in the image of the "Gods" .. Our image .. not my image - and yes the trinity explanation attempt is laughable nonsense on steroids.

 

Thanks for your comments and for your contribution to the thread.

 

You are welcome - feel free to ask further questions.

 

Indeed, it seems you make some sort of incorrect assumption about what principle they're following. They're not saying {12} because it is true (indeed, they don't believe God exists anyway), they're saying {12} because it highlights a specific argument. As I've mentioned before, there are many things that are true, 2+2=4, etc, but it does not follow that you need to state it, especially when they're trying to make a specific point to which 2+2=4 is irrelevant.

Maybe I'm nit picking here, but I don't particularly prefer those Gods, they're just the ones where I think there is good reason to believe. Besides, totems can be personal and the sun is not vague, so it's not quite that either. All I'm saying is that there are things that there are good reasons to believe, but it does not give us a lot of detail. It'd be preferable if that we could believe in was less vague, but it is not. Tough.

I certainly haven't failed to consider it, they just don't reach a level of believability, which arguably the sun or the vague concept of a creator god does.

I consider 1 to be wrong, 2 through 5 to be meaningless, 6 to be irrelevant. Point 7 onwards would have to have some acknowledgement that we're working under a theistic hypothetical (which seems misleading given 1). At the same time, you refrain from solidifying the conclusions to be drawn from this (which is the entire reason this would be relevant at all). You could eventually massage this into something that I would agree with, but it seems a bit pointless given that you're staying away from the conclusions (like the problem of evil then draws the conclusions that a such a god is not real).

 

If you can't explain it so that it is understood by more or less anyone, then it's not really meaning, just subtext. Subtext tends to be what happens when people don't understand what they're talking about, or actively hide their points, neither of which are good looks for justified beliefs.

As for study, I've had my fair share of Sunday school (well, Wednesdays) and the like. If we were truly unbiased, both you and I would have spent the same amount of time on Buddhism, Taoism etc., but as it stands, your suggestions are coming across more like propaganda.

That's not what I would call a principle, but ok. Given the description of the principle above, it is again not clear why it would be more consistent to list good things that God has supposedly done. It seems to me the principle would be to give evidence which are relevant to the problem of evil, and it would not be consistent with that principle to list other things.

 

As mentioned above, it seems to me, these atheists have not committed to any principle that demands a list of supposed good things. They have committed to a principle of presenting an argument, and providing relevant evidence, and it seems to me your list would actually contradict that principle.

Well, that seems pretty underhanded and completely unrelated to whether it is true (I think you can forgive people for wanting to believe true things). Fair, it's not much more underhanded than your average advert or for that matter, many arguments made online, but the point that it is failing to address the believability of the matter asserted. I think people are well justified in rejecting arguments that aren't actually good paths to truth.

Well, "all that really matters is what happens when you die" seems like a pretty extreme assumption that you would have to justify. It seems to me plenty of stuff that happens as we live matter too. We don't say that torture is ok just because the victim eventually gets out of it, and it doesn't really matter unless the victim dies. Again you're assuming that your conclusion is true in order to justify your conclusion, i.e. the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is a bad justification for belief.

 

This seems largely irrelevant. You brought up Fry's comments, that he made in the context of a specific line of argument. It would seem strange to then assume that he should be bringing up stuff that isn't relevant to that context.

 

Its impossible for you to logically consider {1} to be wrong, since
I am specifically listing what atheists say they believe in {1}.

Its impossible for you to logically hold {2} through {5} to
be meaningless for the same reasons.

Its also illogical to say {6} is irrelevant because the atheists
that I am talking about DO say that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist
DOES put bone cancer in children . .{as explained below}
{By the way if they do not say that, then the OP is not addressed
to them}

So . . .

{1} through {11} below is exactly what atheists say they believe.

Atheists do NOT advocate {13} and {14} --- but they should
advocate {13} and {14} if they want to be consistent with their
{1} through {12} --and atheists DO advocate {1} through {12}
and atheists DO say {1} through {12} is what they believe.

Atheists want to escape from {13} and {14} because they want
to blame the God-That-Does-Not-Exist for all the evil in the
world while at the same time refusing to give Him the credit
for all the good things in the world. {as explained below}


JAG Writes:
With the following KEPT FIRM in mind:
You may ask, "How can atheists blame the God of the Bible for evil
when atheists do not believe that God exists?
Answer: They postulate that "if God does exist" then He is evil
because the Bible presents God as being Omnipotent {all powerful}
and therefore He could have created a world without any evil if He had
wanted to do that. He did not want to do that, therefore He is evil.

So?
So . .
If {11} is not true.
Then {12} is not true
But if {11} and {12} are true, then {14} is ALSO true.

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross.

So?

So since {14} is ALSO true, to be consistent with their principle, they ought
to ALSO list the good things that God has caused.

God either causes all things, or He does not cause all things.
`
If He causes all things, then God:

■ caused all the charities in the world to come to exist

■ caused the Center For Disease Control to come to exist

Etc etc . . .

_______________________

Swensson, that up there is sound. It is logical and it is inescapable.
The only possible way to escape it, is to make a Free Will decision that
says in effect. I do not want to believe it, therefore I am NOT going to
believe it --then follow up with logical contortions and pretzel-like
twists and spins as needed.

Swensson, my view is that any disinterested parties that read this thread are
going to know that the propositions in the Opening Posts and in my follow up
posts have been demonstrated true, and that the attempts to defeat those
propositions have failed. My view is the opposition in this thread made
a Free Will decision they did NOT like the proposition in the Opening Post and
they then locked-down their Free Will in resistance to it. My view is that
the opposition to the OP's proposition is really a ghost named:
Determined-Not-To-Be-Convinced-Regardless-Of-What-Evidence-Is-Presented.

But not to worry! The OP's proposition has been established as true and I am
convinced that any and all disinterested parties that have, or will in the
future, read this thread ---will KNOW that to be true.

Swensson, thanks for your comments and for taking the time to post a reply
to what I wrote.


`

 

I don't KNOW that.:

I can not know for certain that there is any such thing as an
atheist.

Just because some men say they lack belief in the existence
of God does not mean that they actually DO lack belief in the
existence of God. On Christian lights, God says there is no
such thing as an atheist.

Romans 1:18 says that humans "suppress the truth." Atheists are part
of humanity, so Romans 1:18 applies to them also.

Romans 1:19-20 says "since what may be known about God is plain to
them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse."

Note the particulars in Romans 1:19-20
{1) There is information that can be known about God.
{2} This information is plain to men.
{3} God Himself has made it plain to them.
{4} It has been plain to them since the creation of the world.
{5} God's eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen
{6} All this in understood from what God created.
{7} Therefore men are without excuse {for not believing in God.}

Romans 1:19-20 is the germ principle of the Teleological Argument
for the existence of God -- the argument from the Intelligent Design
of the Earth and the Universe.

Its more likely that all men at least subconsciously believe in the
existence of God. I do know this much: All the atheists that I have
encountered here inside Thread World on the Internet At Large
cannot, and do not, stop talking about the God-That-Does-Not-Exist.
Its pretty obvious that God is "written on their hearts" and atheists cannot
escape it -- all attempts to escape it --- end up once again incessantly
talking loudly about the God-That-Does-Not-Exist.

`

 

The principle they are following is quite simple.
They have a strong desire to escape {13} and {14}
But they want to keep {1} through {12}/

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross.

If {11} is not true.
Then {12} is not true
But if {11} and {12} are true, then {14} is ALSO true.




`