25 Reasons We Don’t Live in a World with a God (Part 2)

Why think that we live in a world with a god when there are so many reasons to reject that idea? For those who want to convince us that God exists, let’s continue our list of things that they need to show us don’t exist (part 1 here).

The next clue that we live in a godless world:

3. Because God needs praise and worship

Is it obnoxious to see Donald Trump bask in effusive praise, as if he were Kim Il Sung, Stalin, or some other dictator? Why then would we expect God to want that kind of praise?

There’s a progression of wisdom from sociopath, to average person, to wise person, to sage. As we move along this spectrum, base personality traits such as the desire for adulation fall away, but the opposite is true for the Christian god. Not only do we hear this from Christianity itself (“Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever,” according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism), we read it in the Bible (“At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth”).

What’s the point of praise? Obviously, God already understands his position relative to us. We’re informing him of nothing new when we squeal, “Golly, you’re so fantastic!”

Imagine a human equivalent where you have an ant farm, and the ants are aware that you’re the Creator and Destroyer. It would be petty to revel in the ants’ worshipping you and telling you how great you are. Just how insecure would you need to be?

This sycophantic praise makes sense for a narcissistic and insecure king, but can God really want or need to hear this? We respect no human leader who demands this. Christianity would have us believe that the personality of a perfect being is that of a spoiled child.

Praise makes sense when you’re praising something surprising, but God mindlessly goes from one perfect act to another. Sure, he did a perfect thing, but that can’t be surprising. He’s like water that flows downhill. It could do nothing else!

Another opportunity for praise is when an act came at some expense, like giving food to a needy person or risking your safety to help someone. This too doesn’t apply to God, who is limited by no finite resource and who can’t be injured.

Praise is particularly odd when you consider how unpraiseworthy God is. He’s the guy who demanded genocide and sanctioned slavery in the Old Testament and created hell in the New.

God should be a magnification of good human qualities and an elimination of the bad ones. But the petty, praise-demanding, vindictive, and intolerant God of the Bible is simply a Bronze Age caricature, a magnification of all human inclinations, good and bad.

4. Because there’s a map of world religions

There is no map of world science, with the geocentrists in the green region and the heliocentrists in the blue, where the Creationists are over here and the evolutionists are over there. There are disagreements over unresolved questions in science, but they’re rarely regionally based. And when those disagreements get resolved, (1) the process will have taken years or (at most) decades, (2) the resolution will have come due to new and better evidence, and (3) the new consensus view will be adopted peacefully and quickly by scientists worldwide.

Contrast that with religion. (1) Disagreements between religions don’t get resolved. Will Muslims ever accept Christianity’s idea of the Trinity? Will Christians ever accept Hinduism’s idea of reincarnation? Will Protestants and Catholics set aside their differences? After many church councils, some Christian questions have been answered (with the losing side declared a heresy), but there is no objective Christianity. Christianity continues to fragment at a rate of two new denominations per day.

(2) Evidence may be the currency of science, but in religion, it’s power. Disputed points of dogma are resolved and became the consensus view, not because a plain reading of the Bible show them there but because those are the views that happen to win. While arguments are made for the various positions, in the end, it’s a popularity contest.

(3) Consensus within Christianity is sometimes imposed. The conclusions of ecumenical Christian councils (there have been 21 since the first one in Nicaea in 325) are imposed on Roman Catholics by the Vatican.

It’s not always peaceful. The Cathars were a Christian Gnostic sect whose members were exterminated in thirteenth-century France for not being Catholic. Catholic vs. Protestant wars have killed millions.

This bloodshed has done nothing to consolidate supernatural belief worldwide. There is not even consensus on the number of god(s), let alone their names or what is required to placate them. When believers have gotten their story straight, they can let us know.

If this were God World, we’d expect to see a single understanding of God worldwide.

Continued in part 3.

(1) If we live in a world with a God,
then there wouldn’t be any apologists.
(2) There are apologists.
(3) Therefore, we live in a world without a God.
— commenter Tommy

Image via Red Junasun, CC license

 

"Hey, Otto - You are right there are stupid arguments, it didn't read as well ..."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."
"Yes, I am sure this is true and I refer to those people as busy ..."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."
"Look dude, you're being a disengenuous ass. There is virtually no one who is not ..."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • RichardSRussell

    So long, Billy Graham. Your damage here is done at last. No loss to the rest of us.

    • epicurus

      It’s unfortunate his son is an exclusivist jerk and who I assume will or has taken over as pastor to the presidents.

      • Jim Jones

        > pastor to the presidents.

        There are competing offers to be that. But Trump has no interest in them, unless he’s seen on TV doing something like touching a ball.,

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8642296b4b5b4abb1e4564436c8269d9580e2f9bee5f404ee84eef5c32b24fab.jpg

        • epicurus

          Hah!

      • Greg G.

        Beat me to it.

      • Kevin K

        His daughter is no better.

        • epicurus

          I saw some ignorant crazy video rant by her last year, can’t remember if it was posted here or one of the other blogs I regularly read. I’ll at least give Graham senior some credit for being willing to work to some degree with others who don’t entirely agree with him, the same doesn’t appear to hold true for his children.

        • epicurus

          Getting way off topic here but also interesting how so many of these ministries are family businesses, where the son just by default takes over, and of course the wealth gets passed down as well.

        • RichardSRussell

          This particular one doubled down on that whole “stealing the birthright” thing from Jacob and Esau. Franklin Graham, in his younger days, was a bit of a wastrel, and it appeared to one and all that it was gonna be Billy’s dotter Anne (look her up on Wikipedia for a scary photo) who took over the family business. But then Franklin saw what a good thing he’d have going for him if he claimed to have found the light, so he combed his hair neatly, took a few Tic-Tacs, hopped on board the train, and was promptly handed the engineer’s position (prodigal son and all that, you know), and Anne (a mere female, after all) was relegated to shoveling coal again.

        • Lark62

          Graham senior was transparent about his salary and finances. Graham junior registered the “Billy Graham Evangelical Association” as a church to preclude all financial reporting.

    • Lark62

      Billy probably really believed what he taught. He opposed segregation and tried to be ecumenical and bipartisan. He also reportedly treated housekeepers and waiters with the same respect as the rich and powerful. Current evangelicals could learn something. I don’t agree with what he taught.

      Frankie and Annie are greedy, hypocritical, callous pieces of shit.

      • RichardSRussell

        You’re more generous than I would be toward the elder Graham, but you’re right about his sincerity, and I think you’ve got his unholy spawn pegged to a T!

      • Glad2BGodless

        You shall know a tree by its fruits.

        • Lark62

          Yes. Billy might have believed his nonsense, but Frankie and Annie are proof that his beliefs were, at their core, vile and beyond useless.

    • Lerk!

      His damage isn’t done. He left Franklin behind.

  • Bob Jase

    “Christianity continues to fragment at a rate of two new denominations per day.”

    Hail Hydra!

  • RichardSRussell

    Imagine a human equivalent where you have an ant farm, and the ants are aware that you’re the Creator and Destroyer. It would be petty to revel in the ants’ worshipping you and telling you how great you are. Just how insecure would you need to be?

    Done by George R. R. Martin in his novelet “Sandkings”, which was also the 1st episode in the 1995 relaunch of Outer Limits; it starred Beau Bridges as the scientist who thot being worshipped and being able to fuck with his creations was pretty cool. He was not a benevolent deity.

    • Bob Jase

      Of course he wasn’t a benevolent deity, he was made in the image of biblegod.

    • Kevin K

      There was a Twilight Zone episode like that … the astronaut found himself on a world where he was many times the size of the humanoid alien life forms. He starts messing with them, just because he can. In the end, he’s left on that world by his astronaut partner … and then the aliens rise up and kill him.

    • al kimeea

      the show didn’t do the story justice

      • RichardSRussell

        Pretty good for middling-budget TV, tho. Did you ever see the dreadful movie they made of Nightflyers? And then there’s the amazingly good Game of Thrones, which I’d nominate in a heartbeat as the best TV series of all time!

        • al kimeea

          No, haven’t seen either of those. I wanted to see Wo & Shade…

    • JustAnotherAtheist2
  • Rational Human

    I’ve been wanting to use this argument with a Christian, have not had the opportunity:

    If god cannot sin and is good simply because it is his nature, why do we worship him for simply acting in accordance with his nature, he has no choice.

    Conversely, humans after Adam were cursed by god to be born with a sin nature. Why then are we punished for acting on our nature that we did not choose?

    • Jim Jones

      Religion offers social inclusion – like a gang.

      It offers the opportunity to bully others – like a gang.

      It offers a veneer of superiority to others – like a gang.

      And you fear not praising the boss enough – like a gang.

    • eric

      Playing devil’s advocate here for a moment….could be just the mind-blowing aesthetics? I don’t worship a tiger, but I am pretty darn awed at watching videos of them hunt. A thing doesn’t have to act ‘against its nature’ to be impressive. If there’s some spiritual being out there that’s like tiger-turned-up-to-eleven, I could see being pretty awed by it. Not worshipping it per se, but still very, very impressed.

      • Rational Human

        I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying it is illogical for humans to worship a god that acts according to his nature, and condemn humans for acting according to our own nature, especially since we didn’t choose our nature, it was given to us by that same God (according to Christian doctrine).

      • Michael Neville

        Awe is not the same as worship. I’m in awe of the universe but not only do I not worship it but I know worshiping a non-sentient thing is useless for both it and me. On the other hand, the Christian god demands worship and, according to certain interpretations of the propaganda, gets quite irate with non-worshipers.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and the denial that non-believers can grasp any such distinction, runs from nuance-free inability to even engage with the concepts (usually clumsily equating fear, respect and obedience) on the fundagelical end, to the faux nuance of Catholic “veneration”.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Does the tiger command you to worship it?

      • TheMountainHumanist

        But the question is…did the tiger create its stripes for your awe and pleasure or is it that humans evolved to view certain things with a measure of respect due to evolution?

        But yeah…tigers are cool. But a panther even more so. Question: Why are their no superheroes based on tigers? And Tony does not count.

        • Kodie

          It’s a pretty common school mascot.

      • Kodie

        I think you have to worship the tiger. I look up worship in the dictionary and it passes me off to reverence, which seems like a healthy amount of awe and respect for the power of something to kill you. The thing about the tiger is you can’t wave a white flag or kneel or anything, it’s still going to kill you.

        We might have a bad approach to the term “worship” is what I’m saying. We tend to think the word is a choice, of whom or what we choose to love and admire, and spite objects that demand to be worshiped, like the abusive character god. If it existed, a lot of us would say it doesn’t deserve “worship”. It’s apparently not about deserving it. If it’s going to ultimately judge you and sort you here or there, you don’t really have a choice. There goes free will, anyway, but tigers are real, and if you are around one, you have to worship it, i.e. revere its power and its nature.

        • TheNuszAbides

          yeah, i wouldn’t be surprised if the historically common manifestation of “worship” was more like “avoid pissing off the priest class” than any attitude they consciously adopt towards a supposed entity. (and ritual being about reinforcement through props rather than imaginary supernatural significance.)

    • Lark62

      We were born with a sin nature. It was present at birth.
      And we must be punished with eternal torture because we chose to sin.

      Do christians ever notice all the inconsistencies?

      • Greg G.

        Believing something because you have evidence is easy. Believing something without evidence requires faith and is admired in religious circles. Believing something despite evidence to the contrary requires extraordinary faith and is admired even more. Believing the absurd it the ultimate goal.

      • jamesparson

        I am not sure that you are right.

        Don’t zygotes, embryos, and fetuses (fetae?) sin? Aren’t the stillborn condemned to hell?

        • Bob Jase

          Of course they are as they already have sinful natures. At least the Calvinist ones do.

        • jamesparson

          Damn Calvinist Zygotes. Always f’ing things up.

        • TheNuszAbides

          fetuses.
          tangentially, i used to refer to people who use “irregardless” nonironically as “ignorami”, but it’s actually ignoramuses.

        • I presume you’ve seen this one. Your observation is at the end of this video.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4hvh5e8-nw

        • TheNuszAbides

          i hadn’t, thanks!

        • TheNuszAbides

          i hadn’t, thanks!

        • TheNuszAbides

          Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope, though
          not the certainty, that these infants may attain heaven instead of the
          supposed state of Limbo.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Limbo_of_Infants

      • RichardSRussell

        At the end of the very 1st chapter of the very 1st book of the New Testament, describing the birth of Jesus, we get the prophecy “and they shall call his name EMMANUEL”. Then, only 2 verses later, Matthew shows how it was fulfilled with “and he called his name JESUS”. This gets read from every pulpit in Christendom during December every year, and they don’t even notice that, so you think they’re going to pick up on something as subtle as the nature of sin?

        • Greg G.

          Isaiah 7:14 about Immanuel
          καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ

          Luke 1:13 about john the Baptist
          καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννην

          Luke 1:31 about Jesus
          καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν

          Matthew 1:21 about Jesus
          καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν

          Matthew 1:23 about Immanuel
          καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ

          Each of those verses has the same verbatim Greek up to the name in the LXX and the mGNT, except Matthew’s quote of Isaiah.

        • I believe “Immanuel” was his middle name, with “Christ” as his last name.

          Hold on–that can’t be, because it’s Jesus H. Christ. Never mind.

        • Otto

          The ‘H’ is silent maybe?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          An ‘H’ is just a drunken ‘I’ (with serifs) that’s fallen down

          😉

    • Good question. I’ve made the same argument, but have yet to receive a meaningful reply.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Succinct and seemingly impervious to refutation. The first point would likely be brushed aside as mere admiration, but the First Commandment deflects this rebuttal.

      I hope you get the chance to use it, it’s a good’n!

  • axially/tilted

    (sycophantic praise) “We respect no human leader who demands this.” ‘
    ‘WE may not, but I’m not so sure about these folks. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73766413be715619c3e15819726c0f833b01d23973c5d76d23c7d7cf1fac9bdc.jpg

  • Halbe

    Predictable theist responses:
    – No, God does not require praise at all. Praising God just becomes a natural part of your being as soon as you have understood how awesome He is!
    – Everybody deep down knows in his heart of hearts that my God is the one true God. The problem is that this innate knowledge is actively suppressed in large parts of the world. People are not indoctrinated into my favourite religion, they are indoctrinated out of it.

    • Kevin K

      FFS: The First Commandment — COMMANDMENT — is about worshiping it.

      38 Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. 39 Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies.

      2 Kings 17:38-39.

      • Tommy

        The Old Testament doesn’t count, except went it does.

        • Kevin K

          Ha! True that. Which is like “teh gey is icky” and pretty much nothing else … right?

      • Halbe

        That is a typical primitive atheist reductionist close-minded literal reading of the commandments in the Holy Bible. In full context, the First Commandment (and also 2, 3 and 4) are about how to tell the difference between True Christians™ and others. True Christians™ would never ever break these so-called commandments since we are naturally filled with awe for God. Deep down you atheists also yearn for this feeling of awe and reverence, and if you would read the Bible with an open mind you would also find it.

        (This is fun! And I am doing a far better job at apologetics than (most) Christian trolls here if I may say so myself.)

        • Lark62

          You even remembered to threaten eternal damnation when you ran low on arguments. Well done.

    • There’s a bit in Revelation about the creatures covered with eyes that say, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.” Forever.

      Yeah–I want that job. Heaven is cool.

      • Halbe

        Revelation gives us a glimpse of things to come, and even some understanding of the afterlife, both Heaven and Hell. You appear to have read it with a closed mind, having already chosen hell over heaven. Do not be surprised when God actually respects your choice on Judgment Day.

        • Kevin K

          I’ve often thought we need a Christian corollary to Godwin’s Law…

          Godwin’s Law is stated as “the longer an internet conversation lasts, the more likely it is that Hitler will be invoked.”

          Perhaps Halbe’s Corollary would be something like “in internet conversations with nonbelievers, Christians will invoke hell after three or fewer comments”.

        • Ficino

          is there a law about how long an internet conversation will last before cheeseburgers are invoked?

        • Bob Jase

          If there is there must be an exemption for posts about cats.

        • Greg G.

          What about cat burgers?

        • Kevin K

          Now that’s just gross.

        • Bob Jase

          Let’s leave the mayors of German towns out of this.

        • Michael Neville

          Being aware of internet memes:

          https://i.chzbgr.com/full/875511040/h8EB4D6E9/

        • Otto

          It’s ‘the other white meat’

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          /Alf

          “HERE, Kitty, kitty…”

        • Kevin K

          Depends on whether it’s lunchtime or not.

        • Michael Neville

          More often bacon is invoked than cheeseburgers.

        • Bob Jase

          Only in more sophisticated theological discussions.

        • eric

          Bacon is not invoked. It simply makes its awesome presence known in our minds.

        • JP415
        • Tommy

          I choose neither Heaven or Hell. I’m not going to either place after I die. Who’s going to make me?

          . . .

          Hello, you’re still there?

          Why do you hate Jesus so much?

          Ugh. . .

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      LOL

  • Kevin K

    To your first point: Of course, we’re talking the “omni” god of the Christians and Muslims with these two examples. A deist god doesn’t demand worship. A trickster god might; but only in the opposite — the more you worship, the worse your after-death fate becomes.

    To your second: This is why I’m sticking with my “bacon cheeseburger” test. Unless and until all religions agree on the status of the components of the bacon cheeseburger, they should leave the rest of us alone.

    • Tommy

      Does the bacon cheeseburger have tomatoes, onions, pickles?

      • You’re thinking about the ontologically perfect cheeseburger? Good thinking.

        • Max Doubt

          “You’re thinking about the ontologically perfect cheeseburger? Good thinking.”

          But has anyone figured out what they put in that special sauce?

        • RichardSRussell

          I’m still working on what’s in the remaining 56/100% of Ivory Soap.

        • Greg G.

          It’s the same stuff they put in jet contrails that makes us all so docile.

        • Otto

          What does the fluoride do again?

        • Michael Neville

          It raises the octane level of gasoline. Or am I thinking of tetraethyl lead?

        • Maybe scarier stuff than you think. Here’s a glimpse at the rules for food:

          “in whole ginger, the FDA allows up to three milligrams or more of mammalian excreta (i.e. mouse poop) per pound. In peanut butter, the agency allows an average of fewer than 30 insect fragments per 100 grams—about a quarter of your average jar. And you thought you were buying smooth, not extra chunky.”

          http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/06/09/maggots-rat-hair-mouse-poop-and-more-gross-things-fda-allows-in-food.html

        • Greg G.

          I have always wondered what they do with the worms when they make applesauce.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          56 / 1000ths, to be precise

          😉

        • Greg G.

          It would be 56/100% or, in fractional form, 56/10000, or fifty-six ten-thousandths.

        • RichardSRussell

          According to Ivory’s own publicity, it’s “99 and 44/100% pure”, leaving 56/100% unaccounted for.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “People should not know how laws and sausages are made” — Otto von Bismarck

          (that goes DOUBLE for what’s in the sauce…. 😉 )

        • jamesparson

          I could imagine a burger with even more toppings

        • TheNuszAbides

          let’s not make this a Maximally Great Burger contest … wait, what am I saying?

        • Illithid

          As we observe cheeseburgers, we see that some are more perfect, and some less so. Logically, there must be a cheeseburger greater than which no cheeseburger can be conceived. And this we call God.

        • We’re off to a better start than the ontological argument for God since cheeseburgers actually exist!

        • Greg G.

          It is possible that a maximally great bacon cheeseburger exists in some possible world.
          Being maximally great means that it must exist in all possible worlds.
          Therefore it exists in this world.

          It is my quest to eat it.

        • It is my quest to eat it.

          I was going to suggest the Grail, if you had some spare time, but sure, whatever keeps you off the street.

        • TheNuszAbides

          The Holy Grail Burger would have to involve rabbit (which isn’t bad [outside the Judaic paradigm]).

        • Greg G.

          The HGB would have to be a lamburger with no cheese. Somebody posted a video of representatives of all the world’s religions having lunch. The Hindu god with an elephant trunk couldn’t eat beef. Mohammed couldn’t eat pork. Moses couldn’t have pork or a cheeseburger. Even Jesus and L. Ron Hubbard were at the luncheon. It turned out to be an ad for Australian Lamb, the meat we can all eat.

        • Keith Schoen

          Also there is no such thing as a “10”, somewhere out there is a more beautiful woman.

      • Illithid

        I like mine with lettuce and tomato,
        Heinz 57 and french-fried potatoes.
        Big kosher pickle and a cold draft beer…

        “Cheeseburger in Paradise”, Jimmy Buffett.

  • Tommy

    Checkmate, theists!

    • DoorknobHead

      PLAYING CHESS WITH A BABY
      Somehow I don’t think this statement applies to theists [often]. It is like playing chess with a baby. Theists are [often] too busy playing with their toes and pooping in their diapers; chess is just way outside their domain. Maybe try tickling and cooing instead. This message brought to you by the Hard-And-Crusty-Ad-Hominem-Exterior-With-A-Soft-Kernal-Of-Truth-On-The-Inside people. 🙂

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    I’m not convinced human reaction to a potential god is a great test for its existence (unless it would have asked us to stop wasting our time?), but the first point is a thoroughly convincing argument for the irrationality of the Abrahamic faiths. I’ve seen this point made before, but never so comprehensively. Well done.

    Edit: the ant comment made me think of this great Phil Helenes video

    https://youtu.be/LFQwsP0xdz8

  • J.B.

    The post weighs “clues” on both sides, pro-God World and anti-God World, It concludes in each paragraph: “If this were a God World, “we’d expect to see such and such and we don’t – –

    After careful consideration of my conversations with atheists as posted in the first part of this post and Bob, I am tending to believe Bob is correct in the expectation he espouses here. But, the problem is how the atheist evaluates the “clues” he finds in the World. May I recommend that in these matters of faith and to properly process the data offered by the Creator in the World, one must use less logic and more blind faith – process both material and abstract “clues” and, to put it simply, let the evidence guide you to the one true conclusion – God exists. (and be honest…you’ll be fine…)

    • Greg G.

      one must use less logic and more blind faith

      In what field has that ever been better?

      process both material and abstract “clues” and, to put it simply, let the evidence guide you to the one true conclusion

      How can you follow the evidence with your eyes closed by blind faith? You are turning off logic and smuggling in fallacious wishful thinking. If you do that, you will end up in a silly religion.

      • J.B.

        “In what field has that ever been better?”

        Quantum Physics.

        • Greg G.

          Quantum physics has a higher degree of precision than any other field of physics. That did not come from blind faith. It comes from intense observation. Try another guess.

        • J.B.

          Reread Einstein on this, Greg G, I believe you will realize, that as you are right, quantum physics did come from intense observation, you are also wrong, very, very wrong, that it came more from a type of blind faith and imagination then it did rational thinking….

        • Greg G.

          Science goes up a lot of alleys to see which ones are blind. Hypotheses are produced with predictions that follow from the hypothesis of something that has never been seen before which can distinguish it from other hypotheses. If the prediction can be tested, it is either supported or proven wrong. If the prediction holds, the area is further investigated and progress is made. There is no blind faith in it. It’s just coming up with possible explanations and eliminating those that can be proved wrong.

          Einstein’s theory predicted that light would be affected by gravity. Astronomers realized that a certain star would be behind the sun during a solar eclipse but if Einstein was correct, the star should be visible. Astronomers from all over the world traveled the path of the eclipse, spreading out so that at least some would have clear skies. The star was not only seen, it was precisely where the equations predicted it would be.

          By blind faith, theists have proposed the existence of a being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If unnecessary suffering exists, then there is either no omnipotence or there is no omnibenevolence. For suffering to be necessary, it must do something that nothing else can do. But if suffering can do that something, then it is logically possible to do it. The weakest definition of omnipotence is the ability to do everything that is logically possible which means suffering is not the only way to accomplish that something. If omnipotence exists, so then it could achieve that something with or without suffering, then all suffering is unnecessary. If omnipotence and suffering exist, then the omnipotence cannot be called omnibenevolent.

          So we have eliminated the hypothesis that there is a god that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          FUCK your ‘re-read Einstein’.

          Provide a citation or retract your stupid-assed assertion.

        • Kevin K

          One thing is for certain — he’s no physicist.

        • Halbe

          It came more from a type of blind faithanalyzing puzzling observations and imagination then it didand a lot of rational thinking.

          FIFY

          ETA: Einstein must be spinning in his grave because of all of the stupid Christards that mangle his work as imaginary support for their favourite fantasies. (And no, I don’t mean “spinning in his grave” literally, before you latch onto that.)

        • Glad2BGodless

          You have never read Einstein in your life. Show some honesty.

        • Glad2BGodless

          “Quantum physics” = “J.B.’s Get Out of Jail Free Card.”

        • If he mentions “quantum vibrations,” he’ll be channeling Depak Chopra.

        • Halbe

          That’s just stupid. Quantum physics is very firmly rooted in evidence, faith has nothing to do with it. If Bolzman, Planck, Bohr, Einstein and others had followed their “faith” instead of the evidence we would still (only) be dabbling in Newtonian physics now.

        • J.B.

          Wrong… Einstein admitted that Quantum Physics did not flow logically from conventional Physics…try again…

        • epeeist

          Einstein admitted that Quantum Physics did not flow logically from conventional Physics

          Citation required.

          As it is you are wrong, if you set Planck’s constant to zero then what you get is the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of classical mechanics.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Einstein had an axe to grind. He didn’t like quantum physics, even though mathematically it worked, because it conflicted with HIS discovery.

        • Halbe

          Reading comprehension… where did I say that “quantum physics flows logically from conventional physics”? That’s right, I didn’t, because that would be stupid. Quantum physics came about because of mounting evidence (observations) that could not be explained with classic physics. So, what did these scientists (including Einstein) do? Did they apply “blind faith” and then came up with quantum physics? Hell no! They applied logic and math and devised new theories to explain the observations. Scientific theories with testable predictions. And then they did the tests (you know, experiments and stuff that yield real evidence). Using quantum physics as an example of the virtues of blind faith is about as stupid as it gets. Try again.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          Quantum physics works by FIRST WORKING OUT THE MATH, NO MATTER HOW UNINTUITIVE IT MAY BE, then finding a way to analogize it for the rest of us.

    • Michael Neville

      one must use less logic and more blind faith

      I see, ignore reality and hope that your wishful thinking is true and you’ll find a god. That doesn’t sound rational to me.

      • J.B.

        Right, I need you to become more like the great thinkers, Einstein, for instance… he would never have discovered the theory of relativity.. thinking rationally…

        • Greg G.

          But Einstein did think rationally. He thought about how light would appear as one approached light speed and worked it out to its logical conclusion. Then showed it mathematically.

        • Zeta

          J.B. – “Einstein, for instance… he would never have discovered the theory of relativity.. thinking rationally…

          When developing his two Theories of Relativity, where and when did Einstein stop to think rationally? Which of his papers show irrational thinking? Are you a physicist?

        • Greg G.

          Are you a physicist?

          Of course, he is. He puts the “anal” in analysis.

        • TheMountainHumanist

          I know a guy..I think his name’s Dr. Funke…he is an analyst and a therapist…the world’s first ever analrapist.

        • Expand on this. How did not-rational thinking lead Einstein to Relativity. Out-of-the-box thinking, sure, but I would’ve thought it was all based on rationality.

        • Phil

          Schrodinger’s thinking was definitely ‘inside the box’! In fact Einstein was also thinking “Inside the box” when contemplating acceleration inside a lift.

        • Greg G.

          I see what you did there. Excellent!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          First, shame on you for coopting Einstein.

          Second, there’s a big difference between imagining what would happen in the world if certain constants were different, then testing the results, and asserting sui generis that some supernatural nonsense with zero evidence actually has an existence outside your group grope fantasy.

        • TheMountainHumanist

          “I need you to become more like the great thinkers, Einstein” An agnostic? Done.

        • Kevin K

          What? You think relativity is irrational?

          What about this is irrational? Please demonstrate. We’d all LOVE to know.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4232e23797ac80170aea8291835f145da3609a62490cfa455d00cd5cf0f19930.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Einstein considered the 1887 Michaelson-Morley experiment which showed that the velocity of the Earth around the Sun (more than 100,000 kph) had no effect on the speed of light. He asked himself why. He realized that the concepts of space and time needed a fundamental revision. The result was special relativity theory, based on the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference* and the principle of relativity**.

          *An inertial frame of reference describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. Shorthand: space is the same everywhere at all times.

          **The principle of relativity says the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all frames of reference. Shorthand: equations work everywhere and at all times.

          Einstein used LOGIC to come up with relativity. He didn’t guess, he didn’t pray for inspiration nor was he led by blind faith. He asked questions and came up with logical answers.

        • Glad2BGodless

          I dunno, I think if he applies himself, he can be even wronger.

    • Halbe

      This must be one of the most honestly desperate comments I have seen so far from a theist. I almost feel sorry for you. However, you are free to perform a virtual lobotomy on yourself in order to preserve the comfort of your precious faith, but I will just continue to follow the evidence wherever it leads. So far, that is to atheism.

      ETA: Your comment amounts to: blind faith will lead you to (my favourite) god. Well, duh.

      • J.B.

        Now, but wait, is it that you are following the evidence, or that you are interpreting the evidence wrongly….remember, less logic….and bias…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I have yet to see you provide ANY reputable evidence.

          Let’s get down to concrete examples, not airy theorizing.

        • BlackMamba44

          What evidence?

        • Halbe

          Your desperate pleas for us to “just have faith” and to apply “less logic” would be slightly more convincing if you could just provide us with at least some evidence to work with.

          And I love it when a self-confessed “blind faith” Christian comes in here and accuses us of “bias”. Projection much?

        • Kodie

          I have a very strong bias against superstitious nonsense. Do you have anything else?

    • Doubting Thomas

      This is a wonderful description of the path that leads to theism, I’m just confused as to why anyone would take that path.

    • May I recommend that in these matters of faith and to properly process the data offered by the Creator in the World, one must use less logic and more blind faith

      If your goal is to accept Christianity, sure, that would make sense. My goal is quite different: to find the truth. I can’t conceive of someone outside Christianity, who had no emotional need to become a Christian, wanting to follow your advice.

      process both material and abstract “clues”

      You have an argument for God? Present it. I’ve seen very little evidence.

      let the evidence guide you to the one true conclusion – God exists.

      So you start with the conclusion and then pretend that you’re driven to it by the evidence? That’s worse than hiding the Easter eggs yourself and then being surprised when you find one.

      (and be honest…you’ll be fine…)

      Huh? “Just be like me. It’s not so bad.”

      I have higher goals, but thanks.

      • Greg G.

        I am the world champion at finding Easter eggs I have hidden.

        • I don’t know what it is, but it’s just somehow easy for me. Perhaps we both have the Gift.

    • Kevin K

      material and abstract “clues”

      Whatcha got, stud? You do realize that atheists have been asking this question forever, right? And every single “answer” provided has been wholly and completely inadequate to the task.

      I’m especially interested in the “material” clues you speak of. Because when I look around, and when I look through the eyes of a thousand thousand scientists who have looked around before me, what I find is an all-natural universe that corresponds to all-natural (empirically accessible and uniform) behaviors. With never a variance outside those limits. The only conclusion I can reach is that the universe is all-natural and has been since the universe was the size of a Planck sphere in the Planck epoch. Prior to that, we don’t have enough information to make a firm conclusion — but the smart money’s on “all-natural” as well.

      If there is a “Creator of the World”, it’s smaller than that. FWIW: A Planck sphere is 0.00000000000000000000000000000162 m. And the Planck Epoch occurred at 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second after the BB.

      • J.B.

        Well, but isn’t interesting that, in the last two posts, Bob appears to be conceding there does exist “material” clues for the existence of a God World, but there also exists clues for a Non-God World (for which he’s very upset), but the fact remains he’s already admitted there are some…

        • Kevin K

          Such as?

          What “material” clues are there that there is a “God World”?

          Please be specific.

        • Bob Jase

          The Creator’s signature at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

          Unfortunately it reads ‘Cthulhu’.

        • Greg G.

          The signature is authentic. It was written with Cthulhu’s own appendage.

        • Bob Jase

          Which is surprsingly noodly.

        • Glad2BGodless

          Sauce be upon Him!

        • … aaaand it looks like you beat me to it. Great minds think alike, I guess.

          (And, just to be clear, I wasn’t including JB in that set.)

        • J.B.

          “Such as?

          What “material” clues are there that there is a “God World”?

          Please be specific.”

          Sperm.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Demonstrate how ‘sperm’ requires supernatural intervention.

          Show your work.

        • Greg G.

          J.B. says, “can sperm be made by Man?” http://disq.us/p/1qgxnju

          He seems to be a Poe. Nobody is that stupid, are they?

        • Max Doubt

          “He seems to be a Poe. Nobody is that stupid, are they?”

          I hate to disappoint you, but as I sit here entertaining myself with some vintage episodes of The Atheist Experience on YouTube, I am being continuously reminded that yes, some people are that stupid.

        • Greg G.

          some people are that stupid.

          It raises the conundrum of whether they became theists because they are that stupid or they became that stupid because they are theists.

        • Max Doubt

          “It raises the conundrum of whether they became theists because they are that stupid or they became that stupid because they are theists.”

          There is something that has always puzzled me,
          And perhaps you an tell me this…
          Are all fishermen liars, or do only liars fish?

        • Greg G.

          I do not know the answer but I have noticed that the gospel accounts of the New Testament are said to come from fishermen.

        • Tete Rouge

          Is this an instance where the answer ‘god did it’ may actually be true?

        • Bob Jase

          Creationists are.

        • Glad2BGodless

          A few years ago, I visited Glen Rose, Texas, to see the dinosaur tracks preserved in the bed of the Paluxy River. I recommend it. The best time to go is July, when the river is down.

          While I was in town I visited the world-famous Creation Evidence Museum of Texas.

          http://www.creationevidence.org/about_us

          I showed up on a day the museum was closed. Happily, Carl Baugh was expecting a delivery or something, and he arrived just in time to give me a private tour of his museum.

          He was a very pleasant man, although clearly a little nutty. His museum has as much in common with roadside attractions hawking giant balls of twine or aluminum as it does with a research institute.

        • Zizzer-Zazzer-Zuzz

          “He was a very pleasant man, although clearly a little nutty.”

          A little nutty? Squirrel poop is a little nutty. He is completely insane.

        • Glad2BGodless

          Ha! He’s functional enough to run an organization that takes in a respectable dime, and he achieved his life aim, so I can’t say he’s completely insane. When I was talking to him, though, it was pretty clear that the cup was a little cracked.

        • Pofarmer

          I think yes, some people are that stupid, or that good at hiding conflicting data from themselves.

        • Greg G.

          You have just demonstrated that “one must use less logic and more blind faith – process both material and abstract “clues” and, to put it simply, let the evidence guide you to the one true conclusion” is just mental masturbation.

        • Kevin K

          Nope. All natural. Is that really your best shot? Sperm?

          You understand that I’m asking you a direct question that, if you were able to answer it to my satisfaction, would demonstrate the existence of your god? And that if you were able to demonstrate the existence of your god would make me abandon my atheism? Meaning, I would be open to converting to whatever religion could demonstrate that its god was the one and only True God™?

          Honestly and truly, I don’t know why theists make these claims if they’re not prepared to back them up. The question was genuine. Your answer was bullshit.

          You lose. Forever. Fuck off. Forever.

        • J.B.

          Of course, you want to close the dialogue, Kevin K. but, answer me this before you dismiss my serious response, (honest and intelligent) so quickly, can sperm be made by Man? Nope. I win.

        • Max Doubt

          “Of course, you want to close the dialogue, Kevin K. but, answer me this before you dismiss my serious response, (honest and intelligent) so quickly, can sperm be made by Man?”

          Your ignorance and incredulity are only evidence that you are incredulous and ignorant.

        • Glad2BGodless

          Omg, how does anyone here have the patience to even attempt to talk to him? The stupid is so intense it hurts my eyes.

        • Greg G.

          Yes. I am a man and I can produce sperm. Making sperm is the job of males throughout the animal kingdom.

        • Kevin K

          You’re a man, you make sperm by the gallons. And so do I. Sperm is all-natural, the product of about 4 billion years of evolutionary history. You’re invoking a notion of sperm (or other biological things) as having something that separates them from non-living things. Aristotle called it “quintessence”. Thing is … it doesn’t exist. Aristotle was wrong.

          Almost all living animals, from worms to insects to humans, possess a gene known as Boule, which functions solely in sperm production. The presence of this gene in sea anemones—very primitive life-forms—suggests that the ability to produce sperm evolved only once, roughly 600 million years ago. Although the gene’s function is highly conserved among animals, it has diverged to give rise to a distinct form for each species.

          The fact that humans can’t make a “sperm” (although hold the phone, we’re actually pretty close to doing so in the lab) doesn’t mean that the answer therefore is “god did it”. Humans can’t make rocks, either. That doesn’t prove the existence of god, either.

          Your glib answer demonstrates you haven’t the slightest clue as to what you’re talking about. Why in the world are you here? What could you possibly hope to accomplish, other than out yourself as an uneducated lout? If you’re hoping to convert some of us great unwashed … you’re doing it wrong. If you’re just trolling … you should read your bible and take it to heart.

          Fuck off.

        • J.B.

          Kevin K., you know what I mean – Man can not create Sperm in a test tube, ie: there are no test tube babies – we can clone, but we can not create in a laboratory a Sperm-like substance. Kevin K., I really do respect your question, and here I am a theist ready to have a serious conversation with an atheist about this – You asked me for a specific example of a material “clue” of a “God” world – And, you have to admit I have done just that. But, you keep wanting to run away…. Why?

        • Greg G.

          You haven’t come close to showing that a god can produce sperm. You have only shown us that sperm can be created by natural chemical processes in the testicles of all kinds of animals. The fact than humans cannot do it today does not mean it requires a god any more than space travel required a god a hundred years ago.

        • J.B.

          With all due respect, Greg G., you’re, as they say, moving the goal posts – remember, all we’re asking for are “clues”…

        • Kevin K

          No. You made the claim. Now show you work or admit you’re wrong.

        • J.B.

          Sperm is living, true? Man can not create Sperm from a science experiment so sperm must be created from a living thing other than Man -I am firm in my belief that a living thing can not come from a non-living thing – that living thing that is not Man- is God. That’s my work.

        • Greg G.

          You haven’t shown that a god can produce anything living. You are doing nothing but assuming in a way that gives assuming a bad reputation.

        • Joe

          What does “man’ use to produce sperm?

        • Greg G.

          He raises a good point. Can man create sperm in a test tube?

          Hand me a test tube. I want to try something.

        • Joe

          Sure, just keep it when you’re done. I’ll get another.

        • Kevin K

          That’s not “showing your work”. You don’t even know how to begin to start, because your science education is blatantly and obviously nil.

          Fuck off.

        • Pofarmer

          Teachermom was a slacker on science, I imagine.

        • You don’t have much credibility here, but this is an opportunity for you to improve that.

          Tell us that, if and when there becomes a biological consensus on abiogenesis (life from nonlife), you will publicly renounce your Christian belief. I presume I’m not pushing you anywhere you’re not willing to go, since this seems to fall naturally from your belief that “a living thing can not come from a non-living thing – that living thing that is not Man- is God.”

        • TheNuszAbides

          I am firm in my belief that a living thing can not come from a non-living thing

          do catch up. vitalism was debunked over a century ago.

        • J.B.

          Um, you mean the debunking of Biogeneis by the theory of Evolution?
          Take a look at what I found on the internet-
          “Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.”

          Try again.

        • Bob Jase

          Is your god alive? If so, where did it come from? If not, why do you worship a corpse?

        • TheNuszAbides

          no , i mean Wohler synthesis, decades before Darwin established the basic accuracy of evolutionary biology and not in fact related to evolution beyond the basis of chemistry and physics (i.e. the same way anything else relates to anything else).

          try what “again”? I said you should catch up and you clearly haven’t yet.

        • J.B.

          You mean this Wohler?

          “As early as the 1840s, Wöhler’s supporters began to tout his discovery as the “death knell” of vitalism—and it is still usually described that way—but recent historical inquiry has shown that the situation was more complex; Wöhler’s own antivitalist claims were necessarily muted and qualified.”

          Evidence can be quite liberating.

        • TheNuszAbides

          wouldn’t know looking at your posting history.

        • epeeist

          Urea might have been the first, but the number of organic compounds that have been syntheised now numbers in the millions.

          As ever we see the creationist tactic of only concentrating on the original discovery and ignoring the developments since.

        • BlackMamba44

          You’re just giving us quotes. How about actually providing the “evidence” in the form of a link or something?

        • Pofarmer

          And his quotes come from crap sources.

        • BlackMamba44

          That they don’t provide the links makes me think they know the sources are crap.

        • Pofarmer

          Why are you quoting creation “science” bullshit. You might as well be quoting scientology.

        • Kodie

          The very basics of life are just chemical reactions. I can’t understand what’s so hard to understand about that. It’s not like, I don’t know, an invisible ghost made a man out of dirt, or something that fucking stupid.

        • Greg G.

          You took that quote from a silly creationist website. Is that why you didn’t link to your source? It’s from Walt Brown.

          RESPONDING TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN/CREATIONISM: THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
          https://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/responding-to-intelligent-designcreationism-the-law-of-biogenesis/

          An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown
          https://ncse.com/cej/9/1/examination-research-creationist-walter-brown

        • What is “Biogenesis”? You’re not thinking of spontaneous generation, are you?

          Try again.

          Trying on arrogance for a laugh? Sure, take it for a spin, but I must say, it doesn’t suit you. It only works if you’re actually, y’know, right.

        • I found your quote at the “Center for Scientific Creation.” Uh, yeah–that’s a reliable site. I can see why you gave the source as “the internet” instead of “some bullshit Creationism site.” Smart.

          http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences4.html

        • Phil Rimmer

          Read “The Vital Question” by Professor Nick Lane to understand where abiogenesis stood about four years ago. Since then quite a number of hypotheses have received boosts from a growing number of discoveries. (learning to ask the right questions was needed first.) Much of the auto-catalytic chemistry is understood. Lipid pouches (until recently the most vexing issue) have been generated from scratch and made reproductive. A remaining problem of necessary chemistries having two separate apparent locations for their natural manufacture (ocean based thermal vents and UV exposed rock pools) may well, in fact, come together in pre-tectonic-plate-earth volcanic islands, and/or the huge tidal ranges with the moon very much closer.

          The point is there are really no truly insurmountable issues any longer and plenty of choices.

          We have lots of examples of things dancing on the edge of being living. Viruses for one. When investigating the possible intermediary of RNA World, that it is theorised possibly preceded our current DNA world, where the autocatlytic chemicals (RNA) are the “animal itself”, modelling shows that though identity is more raggedy not having a neat little lipid pouch, small and therefore high integrity “helper units” like RNA Viruses could assist a good enough stable identity in a larger RNA assembly “animal”.

          Auto catalytic chemistry makes perfect sense as the stepping stone into life. All it took was more chemistry to make chemicals called DNA out of RNA and chemicals called proteins out of DNA. All these processes are the same, generating a topical reduction in entropy (the basis of our best definition of life) by sitting in a flux of thermal and/or solar energy

        • Pofarmer

          -I am firm in my belief that a living thing can not come from a non-living thing

          Honestly who gives a fuck? What are your credentials?

        • Greg G.

          That isn’t a clue. It is a preconceived idea desperately searching for validation.

        • Greg G.

          In your original post, you said, “let the evidence guide you to the one true conclusion – God exists.” Clues are not good enough to reach a conclusion in the logical sense. If you have a valid logical structure, your conclusion is dependent on the truth of the premises. That requires clues that are true, not idle speculation.

          You have reached your God conclusion on false pretenses. Is your god a hard-ass regarding sin but wishy-washy toward justification for faith? Doesn’t that sound like something designed to be easy to achieve for lazy thinkers just to keep the weekly donations rolling in?

        • J.B.

          “Clues are not good enough to reach a conclusion in the logical sense.”

          less logic, remember?

        • BlackMamba44
        • Greg G.

          less logic, remember?

          Lazy thinking.

        • J.B.

          thinking outside the box…

        • Greg G.

          Outside the box may be solutions that will work and fantasy solutions. There is a significant difference between them. Lazy thinking will not discern the difference. Less logic will have you chasing fantasies.

        • TheNuszAbides

          if you think ‘outside the box’ characterizes being open to theism, you must misapprehend the background of the majority of those you are failing to persuade of anything whatsoever, including Greg G. We are not life-long never-believers.

        • Glad2BGodless

          If he had any logic on his side, he’d be all about the logic. If he had any facts on his side, he’d be all about the facts.

          It’s only when he has neither logic nor facts on his side that he wants to say he’s all about faith.

        • Greg G.

          That is known as “table pounding”. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table.

        • Glad2BGodless

          Morally lazy, too.

        • Glad2BGodless

          In fairness to your interlocutors, how could any of them possibly use less logic than you?

        • And the clue is, “Man can’t duplicate evolution, so therefore God.”

          That’s a stupid clue. My Magic 8 Ball makes more sense.

        • TheNuszAbides

          “Man can’t duplicate evolution …”

          so meta it’s Not Even Wrong.

        • Kevin K

          I’m not “running away”. I’m telling you to fuck off with your uneducated sophistry.

          Show me where the obligate and only answer to the “how did sperm come to exist in evolutionary history” is “God did it”.

          Show your work.

        • J.B.

          Ok, well, I can’t do that, but, I am showing you a “clue” of a God World – remember the topic was “clues” not conclusive proof…

        • Greg G.

          It is a clue that we come from biology, not a god.

        • Max Doubt

          “Ok, well, I can’t do that, but, I am showing you a “clue” of a God World – remember the topic was “clues” not conclusive proof…”

          Your “clue” doesn’t demonstrate a god world any more than it demonstrates an elm tree world or a crossword puzzle world or a ’68 Chevy Impala world, hence it is not a clue of a god world. As always, your arguments from ignorance and incredulity are not clues to anything except your ignorance and incredulity.

        • Max Doubt

          “Kevin K., you know what I mean – Man can not create Sperm in a test tube, ie: there are no test tube babies – we can clone, but we can not create in a laboratory a Sperm-like substance.”

          So? The manufacture of sperm is a complicated biological process. But even in that complexity, it has been done and is currently being done by billions of people, mostly men (… not to mention the billions upon billions of other creatures that are making sperm right this minute). The fact that we haven’t developed a method for doing it in a test tube doesn’t suggest it’s impossible, nor does it lend any credence to the notion that it requires the participation of some magical agent.

          “Kevin K., I really do respect your question, and here I am a theist ready to have a serious conversation with an atheist about this – You asked me for a specific example of a material “clue” of a “God” world – And, you have to admit I have done just that.”

          No. You pointed to something you don’t understand and suggested that’s a “clue” for the existence of a supernatural being. Your ignorance and incredulity are clues that you’re ignorant and incredulous. That’s all.

          “But, you keep wanting to run away…. Why?”

          When other people reject your unsupported assertions, that is not running away. You’re making a claim here about the existence of a god, and you’re not providing a speck of substantive evidence for your claim. You’re demanding that other people answer your questions to your satisfaction, and implying that their inability to answer or refusal to play your guessing game somehow substantiates your claim. It doesn’t. You’re being a dishonest prick.

        • Bob Jase

          No we can’t create sperm in a test tube but anyone can create a god in their mind, don’t even need paper & pencil.

        • I’m not following. Evolution made sperm, and man can’t duplicate all that evolution has produced … so therefore, there’s a god?

          You’ll have to explain that one with, y’know, evidence.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I worry that “evolution made _____” is too confusing/in-face-rubbing a formulation for creationists – then again, not all of us celebrate a minor victory in supporting a bridge from YEC to OEC (i.e. taking pains to avoid coming off as “replacing Divine Boss with Agent-Evolution”, allowing the transition from “Goddidit, therefore any reference to Evilution has to be Satan’s Liez” to “well, okay, Goddidevolution then” (a la Luke B)).

        • “OK, I’ll concede that point … but you’ll never take away my Jeebus!”

          Still, moving Christians from intransigent fundamentalist to moderate is a win for all.

        • BlackMamba44

          Why are you capitalizing the word “sperm”? That’s just weird.

        • My own approach is like this: Sperm®. It’s just that fabulous.

        • Kodie

          So, I’ve been watching the original run of Will & Grace lately, and there’s a sequence of events where Will and Grace were going to have a baby together, and Grace was at the clinic waiting to be inseminated, but the nurse says the sperm is corn chowder, no,, literally corn chowder, so Will has to run down to Barney’s to keep Jack from eating what he thought was his lunch, but find his bag has vodka, so Grace runs to her design firm and tries to trade the vodka with what turns out to be Karen had taken a bag with floor cleaner, so they run to Karen’s mansion to find Rosario mopping…. “watch out, the floors are very sticky”.

          In lieu of the video for that (which I couldn’t find), try New Shimmer.

          http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/shimmer-floor-wax/n8625?snl=1

        • “watch out, the floors are very sticky”.

          Yuck. I now retract my previous comment.

        • Kodie

          That’s how I felt when I read your previous comment.

        • J.B.

          That was 10 days ago, BlackMamba44, I can only guess that I was carried away by my own argument…

        • Kevin K

          I apologize. I was wrong.

          Sperm has been constructed in the lab. In 2015. Your argument is 3 years out of date.

          https://www.sciencealert.com/sperm-has-reportedly-been-created-in-the-lab-for-the-first-time-ever

          Fuck off.

        • J.B.

          I am sure the world would have heard about the first test-tube baby…sorry, didn’t happen…

        • MadScientist1023

          JB, you said sperm. Several times. Now you’re moving the goalpost from sperm to test-tube baby.

        • Greg G.

          I am sure the world would have heard about the first test-tube baby…sorry, didn’t happen…

          Louise Joy Brown is best known as the world’s first “test-tube baby.” Her birth by Caesarian section shortly before midnight on July 25, 1978, at Oldham General Hospital in England, made headlines around the world. https://www.biography.com/people/louise-brown-9542072

        • J.B.

          interesting, but is not the “test-tube” baby that refutes my argument..

        • Greg G.

          You have rocket powered goalposts!

        • What? You have an argument??

          Perhaps you could make it more clearly. So far, I’ve just got “science has unanswered questions, therefore God.” Which sucks.

        • TheNuszAbides

          you really think doubling down on bad-faith horseshit is the righteous path?

        • Kevin K

          I’m sure the goalposts appreciate being moved like that.

          I LITERALLY gave you a link to the announcement of man-made sperm. LITERALLY destroyed your argument. And that’s your response?

          Trolly trolls are trolly.

          Fuck off.

        • Nice one! You’ve shown that science can’t explain everything; therefore, God. I think you’re the first one to come up with this innovative argument.

          Checkmate, atheists!

        • Cool! I’m expecting a deconversion by JB any minute now.

        • Glad2BGodless

          That’s a pretty damn interesting fact.

        • Greg G.

          Or even one of the only True Gods™.

        • What now? I missed the evidence for God World that I “conceded.” Please be specific.

        • Glad2BGodless

          I lose IQ points anytime I read a comment from J.B.

    • Max Doubt

      “But, the problem is how the atheist evaluates the “clues” he finds in the World.”

      The way atheists evaluate evidence appears to be a problem for you, but it’s not a problem for atheists. Faith is not a pathway for arriving at what is true. On the issue of the alleged existence of gods, we reject your claim that your belief is a reasonable method for determining whether it is. Nope. That isn’t a problem for atheists at all.

      “May I recommend that in these matters of faith and to properly process the data offered by the Creator in the World, one must use less logic and more blind faith – process both material and abstract “clues” and, to put it simply, let the evidence guide you to the one true conclusion – God exists.”

      The problem – for you – is you are unable to objectively distinguish between what you believe is a god and anything else that exists only in your imagination. Since your god meets the criteria we’d normally use to determine that something is a figment of your imagination, and since it has no attributes or properties that make it uniquely different from a figment of your imagination, we have no reason to take your word for it when you claim it is something else.

      Objectively considered, outside you own mind the god you imagine has no effect on the universe. The test is easy. There is nothing your god can do that I can’t do, and several things I can do that it quite clearly can’t. Out here in reality land, I am more powerful than your god. I understand how that can be a problem for you, but the problem is not that I don’t rely on faith; it’s that you do.

    • BlackMamba44

      May I recommend that in these matters of faith and to properly process the data offered by the Creator in the World, one must use less logic and more blind faith – process both material and abstract “clues” and, to put it simply, let the evidence guide you to the one true conclusion – God exists. (and be honest…you’ll be fine…)

      In other words: “Don’t actually think about it, just believe”. No, I can’t do that. I need evidence. Where is this evidence? If you had evidence you wouldn’t need “blind faith”.

      EDIT: I can’t use less logic. My brain searches for logic. It wants to think and I can’t stop it from thinking. How do you do it? Is it really that easy for you to just empty your brain?

      • Max Doubt

        “It wants to think and I can’t stop it from thinking. How do you do it? Is it really that easy for you to just empty your brain?”

        I’ve even tried various distractions like weed, alcohol, sex, and nothing seems to work as an off switch for my brain. I’ll admit tequila, in dangerously large doses, gets me pretty close.

        • BlackMamba44

          The closest I’ve come to an off-switch is clonzepam. That little pill is potent.

      • Perhaps JB will give us a demonstration. I suggest he use faith to “just believe” in unicorns and report back to us how that went.

      • Greg G.

        If you had evidence you wouldn’t need “blind faith”.

        He provided Jeopardy evidence, in the form of a question: “can sperm be made by Man?”

      • J.B.

        Einstein talks about it on how he would stumble upon radial scientific theories…

        • BlackMamba44

          I doubt that he meant what you think he meant.

        • Greg G.

          He did thought experiments, not faith experiments.

      • Seems like you assume science is the only standard required to unveil truth. a HUGE leap of faith, and very arrogant. Also, why the Hell does everything need evidence in order for it to exist? Strange logic.

        Atheist: A statement is only meaningful if it is either a necessary truth of logic or can be tested empirically
        Mr. Common Sense: Umm… This statement itself is neither a necessary truth of logic, nor can it be tested empirically, so it is meaningless by its own criteria.

        • epeeist

          Also, why the Hell does everything need evidence in order for it to exist? Strange logic.

          Logic and ontology? You might want to have a read of Quine’s On What There Is. The brief answer, because if you don’t demand justification then you get a bloated ontology, full of things such as gods, invisible snowflake fairies, space ponies and unicorns.

        • why the Hell does everything need evidence in order for it to exist? Strange logic.

          Who’s talking about existence? We need evidence to know that something exists.

          Atheist: A statement is only meaningful if it is either a necessary truth of logic or can be tested empirically
          Mr. Common Sense: Umm… This statement itself is neither a necessary truth of logic, nor can it be tested empirically, so it is meaningless by its own criteria.

          You’ve got something better than science? I’m listening.

        • BlackMamba44

          Did I get the drive by this time?

          Wow, I feel so special.

          EDIT: Nope. I saw other comments. Well, damn…but the comments were on other posts? Maybe?
          Well, not going to look. Time to go home. 🙂

        • Life’s too short.

        • BlackMamba44
  • Clement Agonistes

    Bob, how do you get from “every knee will bow” to “God NEEDS worship”?

    While you’re at it, where do you get “If this were God World, we’d expect to see a single understanding of God worldwide.” from? It certainly doesn’t follow from the paragraphs leading up to it.

    This looks like you making theology on behalf of those you disagree with.

    • Then explain how worship works. Does God not need or even desire it, but he just puts up with it because humans are insistent?

      God is able to convey a single version of the truth about himself to humanity, so therefore we’d expect to see that single understanding worldwide.

      • Clement Agonistes

        1. When I read, “every knee will bow”, that says something about the relationship between humans and God. God’s nature would cause humans to be worshipful. God is worthy of worship. That is all it suggests. So, my question was how you arrived at your conclusion that God needs to be worshiped. I don’t see how you got from Point A to Point B.

        2. There is (are) missing steps on the other point, too. God is “able” – Okay – to convey a single version of the truth. That tells us about God, but not about humans’ – necessary – abilities to grasp it. I can convey lots of concepts to my dog, but that does not mean he can wrap his head around them. If God is infinite, how could finite beings grasp its entirety?