Why I am Not a Christian

[Daisy]

My religious views are complicated but one of my main problems with Christianity is the continued existence of the book of revelation and the belief in Armageddon. One of the main reasons why I am bothered by the prophesied end times is because It makes people feel like humanity has no control of its own destiny, or that there is nothing to aspire to or work towards something greater.

I refuse to believe that humanity is destined to die on earth, I want humanity to thrive and reach for the stars.

Put it simply, heaven has no appeal to me.

I'm with you...my desire is to live right here on earth forever, as God originally purposed for mankind to do...I believe it will happen...

 

[TrueScotsman]

You don't own the thread, bud...:roll:

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling - To bait someone in a general sense is to make a comment with a purposeful intent to coerce some form of response from the individual. In some cases this device can be a useful tool of debate, eliciting responses to highlight a point or reveal an underlying truth concerning someone’s argument. However, in other cases the intent of the bait is less focused on debating. “Flamebaiting” is making statements intended to cause an angry or emotional response/flame from the person. Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”. This is deliberate act of making statements with an aim of diverting the topic of a thread significantly from its main focus. These negative forms of baiting constitute a rules violation that can potentially lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

"Originally, flame meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently flame has come to refer to "any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."[google] In a forum with sensitive topics such as this, derogatory flaming is bound to happen. Common sense will prevail, yet this is not an invitation to flame. e.g. "You stupid *****ing moron," is completely unacceptable and could lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

Trolling is a diversionary tactic of those who “deliberately exploit tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people” or those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions. [Wikipedia]. Ignorance, bias, and genuine dissent are not trolling, though at times they may appear similar due to the disingenuous nature of some trolls. Trolling is not allowed and can potentially lead to the suspension of posting privileges.

4. Don't Be A Jerk (DBAJ) - This simply means what it sounds like.

Have anything on topic to add? Thanks for the bumps! t

 

[Daisy]

Elvira does not do discussion.

Correction...Elvira does not argue...

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I'm with you...my desire is to live right here on earth forever, as God originally purposed for mankind to do...I believe it will happen...

I think humanity’s future is in space and colonization of planets capable of sustaining human life

 

[TrueScotsman]

My religious views are complicated but one of my main problems with Christianity is the continued existence of the book of revelation and the belief in Armageddon. One of the main reasons why I am bothered by the prophesied end times is because It makes people feel like humanity has no control of its own destiny, or that there is nothing to aspire to or work towards something greater.

I refuse to believe that humanity is destined to die on earth, I want humanity to thrive and reach for the stars.

It was almost not included in the Bible. There is plenty of other apocalyptic content in the Bible, Old and New for people to work with on creating hysterical eschatologies. I think humanity is destined to one day perish or become something else, but I think we'll have a good show of it.

Put it simply, heaven has no appeal to me.

I find the majority of end times worldviews now to be totally repugnant now, even when I was a Christian I was annoyed by people's fixations on this issue. That's what most of the Israel stuff is about, Paul claimed they would come back before the end, so the Zionist Christian view is all the rage right now. How can one make rational decisions about this life, when they think its end is imminent?

 

[Daisy]

I think humanity’s future is in space and colonization of planets capable of sustaining human life

Could be in the future, who knows, but the Bible says the earth was given to man and God did not create it simply for nothing, but to be inhabited...it also says the earth will stand forever...

 

[TrueScotsman]

I think humanity’s future is in space and colonization of planets capable of sustaining human life

What if being outside of our atmosphere is too destructive to DNA for reproduction to safely occur and sustain populations?

 

[TrueScotsman]

I'm with you...my desire is to live right here on earth forever, as God originally purposed for mankind to do...I believe it will happen...

After everything has been destroyed, including a majority of the people. Doesn't sound so good when you complete the picture.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It was almost not included in the Bible. There is plenty of other apocalyptic content in the Bible, Old and New for people to work with on creating hysterical eschatologies. I think humanity is destined to one day perish or become something else, but I think we'll have a good show of it.


I find the majority of end times worldviews now to be totally repugnant now, even when I was a Christian I was annoyed by people's fixations on this issue. That's what most of the Israel stuff is about, Paul claimed they would come back before the end, so the Zionist Christian view is all the rage right now. How can one make rational decisions about this life, when they think its end is imminent?

Why would people believe that their life has no potential? Why would I believe in something that has essentially given up on human potential?

 

[TrueScotsman]

Could be in the future, who knows, but the Bible says the earth was given to man and God did not create it simply for nothing, but to be inhabited...it also says the earth will stand forever...

We've been here like 200,000 years out of the 4.54 billion year history of the planet. But its ours.

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

 

[Unitedwestand13]

What if being outside of our atmosphere is too destructive to DNA for reproduction to safely occur and sustain populations?

It’s a gamble that we may have to take.

 

[TrueScotsman]

Why would people believe that their life has no potential? Why would I believe in something that has essentially given up on human potential?

Why do people need to be INFINITELY significant? If you show up and love your children, you are SIGNIFICANT. If you care for the sick, you are SIGNIFICANT. Why do we regard these things as significant, because negligence towards a child is horrific and the lack of care for the ill could kill you. Why should we ask the universe if that matters, when we have each other and ourselves. In the 13.8 billion years of existence, we are perhaps the first advanced intelligent beings (UFOS?), and I think that is something to marvel in. To experience culture, sex, art, music, love, parenting, success, hardship, that is available to all and a life of fullness is something you can leave as your legacy. But this story of life is not about us in terms of biologically speaking, or cosmically speaking. Humans will pass away, but probably not for a very long time (I hope) such that it would be significant enough to bother us now in the present to learn it.

Rant over.

 

[TrueScotsman]

It’s a gamble that we may have to take.

I think its too far off, we have to focus protecting the ability for the Earth to sustain life. I think there are weird corporate-government interests to make $$ involved with a lot of the current musings in interplanetary colonization, such as from Elon Musk. I don't trust Musk at all in fact.

 

[zyzygy]

This I know, people have gotten on my case for not being nice to her about it.

She does her share of insulting.

 

[zyzygy]

I think humanity’s future is in space and colonization of planets capable of sustaining human life

On Earth forever? She doesn't seem to know that one day the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth.

 

[NWO_Spook]

My Transition from Christianity to atheism began with the discrepancies between the texts and modern science. We know some of these tales are incorrect (e.g. Creation and the Noah myth) and while I acknowledge that many Christians no longer hold these myths up as the truth, there are still many who do. Evolution is not just some hypothesis without foundation and physics concomitant with celestial observation have revealed many truths about cosmology. Early in my life, this realisation led me down a path of learning where I continued to deviate from the religious world view.

With my studies in Ancient History and the Classics, a whole new world opened up regarding belief systems in a former time without our vast wealth of accumulated knowledge. Religion was born out of several factors, but primarily I feel it began as a method of explaining the inexplicable at the time. Individuals then used this in order to create a priestly class, which often became a civilisation's aristocracy, and it transformed into a method of government and control. Religions borrowed from each other and one can trace many literary devices and cultural influences throughout the texts. Indeed, religion demonstrates a pattern of evolution within itself, starting with fertility cults and anthropomorphic deities, later becoming pantheistic and ultimately, monotheistic. Christianity borrows from traditions that preceded it including Akhenaten's monotheism (note the similarities between the Hymn to Aten and the Bible's Psalm 104), and the Epic of Gilgamesh for example, but one can also detect the influence of Hellenistic and Roman concepts throughout the texts. Furthermore, in Roman times, the concept of individual's ascending into heaven was popularised among the early Caesars, and is it merely a coincidence that a roaming holy man in Judea ascends into heaven? The virgin birth has precedents and parallels in earlier Assyrian, Zoroastrian and Egyptian mythology, and had become a literary device similar to finding children floating downstream in baskets.

Many have tried to argue that religion is required in order to maintain social order and personal morality, but this belief too is specious. For I feel that fear of retribution from a god or gods is a poor foundation for one to adhere to a socially acceptable code of conduct. Should it not be borne of a genuine wish to do the right thing? Is that not conceptually more highly developed than the primitive concept of punishment?

I also found the dualistic nature of religious dogma to be rather simplistic and unrealistic. That is, the world is comprised of good vs. evil, however, we know that true evil is rare, and although many despicable acts have been perpetrated by individuals throughout history, many believed they were doing the right thing, and as the example in the OP demonstrates, religious fervour has been employed to justify the most heinous of acts - acts that openly contradict many of a dogma's basic tenets. Religious dogma is often based upon this overly simplistic world view of good vs. evil and most tales are representative of this perceived struggle.

We, as a species have trouble putting away these childish concepts and we cling to them out of fear: fear of our own mortality and insignificance within the universe. We pray to a god and hope that this god will listen to us and do our bidding. We console ourselves when loved ones pass with a belief that they still exist, or will exist again despite the physical world demonstrating otherwise. We place faith in that which we cannot see, touch or hear, while we treat each other appallingly - often using this belief as a justification.

So, in summary, I feel that advances in science, the specious nature of the texts and the simplistic sources of morality have all contributed to my ever growing scepticism, as well as the irrational nature of the belief systems themselves. The more I learned, the more atheistic I became.

It is impossible to prove the existence of a god or gods, and I am astounded that we still cling to these ancient and primitive superstitions and belief systems knowing what we know in this day and age.

I am an atheist simply because there is no valid reason for me to believe in the existence of a god or gods. I cannot prove there are no god or gods, so I cannot state that they don't exist, however, I do view the belief as being a fantasy based upon a dearth of evidence, and I reject it as such.

 

[TrueScotsman]

My Transition from Christianity to atheism began with the discrepancies between the texts and modern science. We know some of these tales are incorrect (e.g. Creation and the Noah myth) and while I acknowledge that many Christians no longer hold these myths up as the truth, there are still many who do. Evolution is not just some hypothesis without foundation and physics concomitant with celestial observation have revealed many truths about cosmology. Early in my life, this realisation led me down a path of learning where I continued to deviate from the religious world view.

With my studies in Ancient History and the Classics, a whole new world opened up regarding belief systems in a former time without our vast wealth of accumulated knowledge. Religion was born out of several factors, but primarily I feel it began as a method of explaining the inexplicable at the time. Individuals then used this in order to create a priestly class, which often became a civilisation's aristocracy, and it transformed into a method of government and control. Religions borrowed from each other and one can trace many literary devices and cultural influences throughout the texts. Indeed, religion demonstrates a pattern of evolution within itself, starting with fertility cults and anthropomorphic deities, later becoming pantheistic and ultimately, monotheistic. Christianity borrows from traditions that preceded it including Akhenaten's monotheism (note the similarities between the Hymn to Aten and the Bible's Psalm 104), and the Epic of Gilgamesh for example, but one can also detect the influence of Hellenistic and Roman concepts throughout the texts. Furthermore, in Roman times, the concept of individual's ascending into heaven was popularised among the early Caesars, and is it merely a coincidence that a roaming holy man in Judea ascends into heaven? The virgin birth has precedents and parallels in earlier Assyrian, Zoroastrian and Egyptian mythology, and had become a literary device similar to finding children floating downstream in baskets.

Many have tried to argue that religion is required in order to maintain social order and personal morality, but this belief too is specious. For I feel that fear of retribution from a god or gods is a poor foundation for one to adhere to a socially acceptable code of conduct. Should it not be borne of a genuine wish to do the right thing? Is that not conceptually more highly developed than the primitive concept of punishment?

I also found the dualistic nature of religious dogma to be rather simplistic and unrealistic. That is, the world is comprised of good vs. evil, however, we know that true evil is rare, and although many despicable acts have been perpetrated by individuals throughout history, many believed they were doing the right thing, and as the example in the OP demonstrates, religious fervour has been employed to justify the most heinous of acts - acts that openly contradict many of a dogma's basic tenets. Religious dogma is often based upon this overly simplistic world view of good vs. evil and most tales are representative of this perceived struggle.

We, as a species have trouble putting away these childish concepts and we cling to them out of fear: fear of our own mortality and insignificance within the universe. We pray to a god and hope that this god will listen to us and do our bidding. We console ourselves when loved ones pass with a belief that they still exist, or will exist again despite the physical world demonstrating otherwise. We place faith in that which we cannot see, touch or hear, while we treat each other appallingly - often using this belief as a justification.

So, in summary, I feel that advances in science, the specious nature of the texts and the simplistic sources of morality have all contributed to my ever growing scepticism, as well as the irrational nature of the belief systems themselves. The more I learned, the more atheistic I became.

It is impossible to prove the existence of a god or gods, and I am astounded that we still cling to these ancient and primitive superstitions and belief systems knowing what we know in this day and age.

I am an atheist simply because there is no valid reason for me to believe in the existence of a god or gods. I cannot prove there are no god or gods, so I cannot state that they don't exist, however, I do view the belief as being a fantasy based upon a dearth of evidence, and I reject it as such.

Good post, I will try to respond when I have time.

 

[Logicman]

My argument will be structured as follows.

Argument #1 | The Problem of Evil

Argument #2 | Problems with the Bible

Argument #3 | More Complex Explanations of Reality

Argument #1 | The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil is an internal critique of theistic worldview, which states that the level of observed evil is compatible with the idea that there is a benevolent god who has personal affection for each human being. I feel that the best way to portray this argument is to tell actual stories from history. Not just of particular people's experiences, but of massive impacts from the very spread of Christianity itself.

"Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil you assume something is good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what is their question?" - Ravi Zacharias

Also, Free will. That’s another answer to the ‘why’ of evil. God created men and angels with free will, to do good or evil, so they can be free moral agents. This is for a limited time, until the final Judgment, or until God levies judgment on men or nations. God gave this free will because there is no true love without freedom to choose either God of Satan. He did this to allow men and angels to operate on their own accords – to test God’s ways, and see if their ways are better, so that in the end there can be a final comparison and determination about whose way was better. We actually see an illustration of this in the 1st and 2nd chapters of the Book of Job – God allowing Satan to challenge his ways.

So, the question to you, TrueScotsman, is this: Let's assume you are God for the time being. How would you - TrueScotsman - create man with free will and at the same time not allow him to do evil if he wants?

By the way, in Genesis chapters 1 to 3, it was God's desire and plan for mankind to know GOOD and EVIL. Whereas Genesis 1:26 states that God was to create man in His own image and likeness, Genesis 1:27 shows that man was only created in God’s “image.” It wasn’t until Genesis 3:22 when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he became “like” God, knowing good and evil. The key to all this remains, “Is acquiring a knowledge of good and evil a prerequisite to coming into the likeness and image of God? If the answer is yes, I think Adam has to eat from that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and God has to make it happen. If the answer is no, then I think you have to look back to Genesis 3:22 and reconcile that with Genesis 1:26, explaining how Adam is “like” God, but at the same time lacks a knowledge of good and evil?

Conclusion: Based on the above, the complaint that evil is a problem for Judaism and Christianity does not hold water.

 

[Logicman]

Argument #2 | Problems with the Bible

We have no idea how the vast majority of the Bible was constructed, who wrote the books, when exactly did they write them, etc. If the reports of Jesus are written by some random dudes who weren't even there, why should your eternity be destined on such an decision?

Let's take the Gospels, for example. I have researched their authorship numerous times and it's crystal clear to me who wrote the Gospels.

Here's INTERNAL and EXTERNAL evidence for Gospel authorship:

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

 

[Dick Tornado]

I choose to discuss only Point #3. That is because I consider myself a "Christian." Not because I support any particular church or sect, as having experience with several over the years I've found them either too dogmatic or too esoteric for my taste.

No; I consider myself "Christian" because I like the story of Jesus, and I admire the tenet's which have been directly attributed to him by those who are alleged to have been witnesses to his teachings. Whether he be the son of God, or the son of Man, I believe in what he was trying to lead us to think, feel, and do.

But it is this Point #3, the "Scientific" argument that I take exception with.

It simply does nothing to explain "existence," i.e. how did "everything" start? I don't mean with the "big bang" theory, but what is the nothing within which it existed AND how the "something" we call energy/matter/whatever come to be before it "blew up" and spread out?

Yes, we are using science to learn more and more about ourselves, our world, and our universe. But even our wisest scientists recognize we are only aware of a fraction of a fraction of the knowledge of existence.

We can see into one and two dimensional spheres, and exist in our own 3 dimensional sphere. Yet we also recognize the possibilities of dimensions beyond our own, and multiverses paralleling our own.

The universe we do live in is vast and we live on a single speck less significant than any single atom of our own construction.

Hell, we could be an experiment in some "greater being's" universal sized microscope much like a micro-organism studied by a human biologist or perhaps geneticist.

You've placed your "faith" in science. I share a belief that science may provide us with many answers...in time.

However, just because some people have come to believe in deity, deities, or nothing...does not mean their belief systems are any more or less valid that yours.

I am a disbeliever of any deity because of facts like our Milky Way Galaxy has billions of stars in it and it is but one of a trillion known galaxies. Each star has some form of satellite (planet) orbiting it. If you used just ONE planet per star as an example there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.

Why would you need to create such a large number of galaxies and planets if this ONE was the only planet to receive life. The billion+ stars and planets in our galaxy should have been sufficient. If you are eating alone you wouldn't cook multiple lifetimes worth of food to satisfy your hunger.

 

[Rickeroo]

I choose to discuss only Point #3. That is because I consider myself a "Christian." Not because I support any particular church or sect, as having experience with several over the years I've found them either too dogmatic or too esoteric for my taste.

No; I consider myself "Christian" because I like the story of Jesus, and I admire the tenet's which have been directly attributed to him by those who are alleged to have been witnesses to his teachings. Whether he be the son of God, or the son of Man, I believe in what he was trying to lead us to think, feel, and do.

But it is this Point #3, the "Scientific" argument that I take exception with.

It simply does nothing to explain "existence," i.e. how did "everything" start? I don't mean with the "big bang" theory, but what is the nothing within which it existed AND how the "something" we call energy/matter/whatever come to be before it "blew up" and spread out?

Yes, we are using science to learn more and more about ourselves, our world, and our universe. But even our wisest scientists recognize we are only aware of a fraction of a fraction of the knowledge of existence.

We can see into one and two dimensional spheres, and exist in our own 3 dimensional sphere. Yet we also recognize the possibilities of dimensions beyond our own, and multiverses paralleling our own.

The universe we do live in is vast and we live on a single speck less significant than any single atom of our own construction.

Hell, we could be an experiment in some "greater being's" universal sized microscope much like a micro-organism studied by a human biologist or perhaps geneticist.

You've placed your "faith" in science. I share a belief that science may provide us with many answers...in time.

However, just because some people have come to believe in deity, deities, or nothing...does not mean their belief systems are any more or less valid that yours.

Especially interesting is the concept of 'absolute nothing'. The assumption that matter just popped into existence is one thing, then everyone assumes that empty space automatically existed for that matter to occupy. The empty space had to come from somewhere too.

The universe has no reason to exist - it's much easier to have nothing at all, not even empty space.

 

[TrueScotsman]

"Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil you assume something is good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what is their question?" - Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias doesn't understand the Problem of Evil, there are so many questions begged. First of all, he assumes his framework of a "moral law" as a deontological framework for ethics as the only valid foundation for ethics. This is an entirely separate debate, but Ravi just scores the point in his favor in order to assert his other point. If there is some kind of deontological moral law, that requires a moral law giver. You see how we can without evidence, merely climb a ladder of words to see the most remarkable things. Logic alone is insufficient, especially with fallaciously employed.

He then wonders how the atheist, who thinks must certainly have no moral law (lets say morality) should have no objection or judgement of god because they have no vantage place to start from ethically. EVEN if there were true, which it isn't, it still doesn't understand the particular realm of the issue of the Problem of Evil, which is that it is in particular an INTERNAL CRITIQUE (as mentioned in the OP) of a Benevolent form of Theism. Which is that it kind of adopts the worldview for the sake of the argument, to evaluate if it can be coherent.

Let's take another example, there was a recent story I heard on the Unbelieveable? Podcast which told the story of this Australian doctor who claims he was raised from the dead by Jesus. Let's grant that it was a miracle, he was raised from the dead. Yet, god is also omniscient, there are billions of people who go into cardiac arrest and that people are desperately praying for who do not get this miracle. Tragically my wife's best friend who just lost a young infant 2 years ago, have another boy who is at 5 months effectively vegetative for life after experiencing SIDS. There was such an outpouring of prayer from the church community that they were apart of, to heal the brain, but it was almost completely destroyed to the brain stem. In a world full of billions and billions of stories like that, the fact that god can intervene into the "evil" of the world to save one person, must necessitate that he is also passing over many many more people. Is it because some people believe and some don't? Is it totally random? Is it for some divine plan?

Such is the incoherence of a good god with an evil world, which doesn't mean that atheism is true, it just means that the evidence stands against a benevolent god to a significant degree when one take into account the suffering of creation.

 

[TrueScotsman]

Also, Free will. That’s another answer to the ‘why’ of evil. God created men and angels with free will, to do good or evil, so they can be free moral agents. This is for a limited time, until the final Judgment, or until God levies judgment on men or nations. God gave this free will because there is no true love without freedom to choose either God of Satan. He did this to allow men and angels to operate on their own accords – to test God’s ways, and see if their ways are better, so that in the end there can be a final comparison and determination about whose way was better. We actually see an illustration of this in the 1st and 2nd chapters of the Book of Job – God allowing Satan to challenge his ways.

I simply don't buy this framework for a Christian, is one really free? Was Adam in the Garden really free to do as he pleased? Why wasn't he warned about Satan? Why was the tree there in the first place? It seems rather it was always intentioned in the divine plan for man to fall, and therefore have a SINFUL NATURE, in which they could only then be assisted by grace in some fashion to do the good thing. So mankind from birth is born alienated and an enemy of god in their conduct because of one man's alleged "free choice." Let alone the problems with Adam that then arise, I think this is not a proper analysis of what the Bible says (if one adopts the Bible wholly at least) on man's nature.

There is also the Problem of Evil not just concerning human evil, but that of nature. Consider the example of the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 which struck just off the coast on the morning of All Saints Day while the Christian population were all in worship. With the city crumbling from the 9.0 magnitude quake, a large portion of the city moved to the shores for safety. Not understanding of course, that tsunami formed by the plate subduction had just sealed their doom and wiped them out. Had they been educated on plate tectonics, they would have understood the danger, but this scenario combined their ignorance with an event of nature that caused catastrophe.

When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, And brings out the wind from His storehouses. Jeremeiah 10:13

Its not like the Bible does not also implicate god in the activities of the weather too?

So, the question to you, TrueScotsman, is this: Let's assume you are God for the time being. How would you - TrueScotsman - create man with free will and at the same time not allow him to do evil if he wants?

I'm not god, I am a man, I could not possibly think that I as a primate I could conceive of an ideal reality. Nor do I think that it is possible for those in the past to have, despite the fact that they tried. These represent perhaps maximal expressions of ideals from those cultures, which its not like doesn't have incredibly significant overlap with almost all cultures.

By the way, in Genesis chapters 1 to 3, it was God's desire and plan for mankind to know GOOD and EVIL. Whereas Genesis 1:26 states that God was to create man in His own image and likeness, Genesis 1:27 shows that man was only created in God’s “image.” It wasn’t until Genesis 3:22 when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he became “like” God, knowing good and evil.

Yes, correct. God intended mankind TO FALL, and therefore defined their nature from birth, understanding that the majority of the people of earth would reject him and not choose the "narrow path."

The key to all this remains, “Is acquiring a knowledge of good and evil a prerequisite to coming into the likeness and image of God? If the answer is yes, I think Adam has to eat from that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and God has to make it happen. If the answer is no, then I think you have to look back to Genesis 3:22 and reconcile that with Genesis 1:26, explaining how Adam is “like” God, but at the same time lacks a knowledge of good and evil?

Conclusion: Based on the above, the complaint that evil is a problem for Judaism and Christianity does not hold water.

On the contrary, I think your last example sealed its fate, well at least your response. A Calvinist would have far different responses, though with your portrayal of Adam you almost sound like an Infralapsarian.

 

[TrueScotsman]

Especially interesting is the concept of 'absolute nothing'.

Who says there was every absolute nothing? That seems like an assumption right there.

The assumption that matter just popped into existence is one thing, then everyone assumes that empty space automatically existed for that matter to occupy.

Empty space for that matter to occupy? Not sure you understand how it went, its not like there was some great big empty space just waiting there for matter to burst into. There was no fabric of space-time before Inflation, which is not to say there was NOTHING, but rather that there was no mass and therefore no gravity. You're forgetting about those tiny particles we've been Smashing at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, these particles called a hadron have a sort of structure, but also are quite like a field or wave. I think there is no reason to indicate that quantum particles were born of the "Big Bang" but much more likely preceded it in some form of quantum universe which eventually perhaps triggered the creation of MASS and therefore matter.

The universe has no reason to exist

It was likely just naturalistic causes all throughout, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that we can perhaps reach through continued searching.

it's much easier to have nothing at all, not even empty space.

This is the theistic assumption that they import over reality, I don't think that should be the default approach of scientific inquiry.

 

[TrueScotsman]

I am a disbeliever of any deity because of facts like our Milky Way Galaxy has billions of stars in it and it is but one of a trillion known galaxies. Each star has some form of satellite (planet) orbiting it. If you used just ONE planet per star as an example there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.

Why would you need to create such a large number of galaxies and planets if this ONE was the only planet to receive life. The billion+ stars and planets in our galaxy should have been sufficient. If you are eating alone you wouldn't cook multiple lifetimes worth of food to satisfy your hunger.

To show how big he is, would usually be your stock answer. I just find no reason at all to insert god into the story of those galaxies, we have a complete picture pretty much of the entire universe's formation and it all works according to natural forces. This is only not contentious in the present, because Theology has vacated the assertion that god controls celestial bodies.