I don’t care if it’s dumb to be optimistic. Obama isn’t a singular savior and of course he’s going to need help, but I think we need to start believing that together we can move towards positive, lasting change. If we have even a lingering shred of reverence for the ideals of real democracy, of the American dream, then I don’t think we have any other choice.

Well said–I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for the comment!

Best,
Hannah

I opted for the antiglare screen on my MacBook Pro when I got it a year and a half ago, because that’s what my PowerBook had. My notebook has, for a decade, been my “main” computer, so I figured I’d probably be better off sticking with what I’ve had. And while I haven’t had any glare issues with my iMac, there have been a few instances with my MacBook Pro when I thought ‘gee, I’m glad I didn’t get the glossy screen’.

I don’t think it would be a show stopper for me, but I can tell you there are going to be a lot of Mac users who feel exactly like you do. I just hope Apple listens and restores the antiglare option.

I don’t know, Burr, something about your linked article rubs me wrong. The tone is factual, but based on the lack of any cited source material, it would appear to be merely opinion, if not supposition and conjecture on your part. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with opinionated people, being one myself, but surely you have some basis or authority for your assertions, no?

Well, you nailed the dilemma. They do make the best chicken sandwich — bar none! Uhgh! And you know, it’s not that I find it overtly offensive, it just strikes me as “hinkey”, I guess. You know, like when you meet someone and there’s just something “off” about the person — nothing you can really put your finger on but you can tell that something’s just not right, and you know right away that you’ll be keeping your distance…

Thanks for the comment!

Note: When your balls itch, you should probably replace the “ahhhh” with “amen”. Your balls seem to ‘have a thing’ about everyone saying “amen” after a good scratch.

Thanks again for your comment(s).

I repeat: T H A N K S   A G A I N   F O R   Y O U R   C O M M E N T (S).

P.S. If you truly are “sorry” that I have to “struggle”, then try to understand that you — YOU — are the only thing I’m struggling with. Now off you go. And – FWIW – you should still stick with the story I detailed in my last comment – everyone’s already heard the one about the “poor lost soul” that you “just couldn’t reach”…

And I was serious that you seemed close to finding an incredible source of strength and direction. I was wrong, obviously, but I make mistakes frequently so there’s nothing new there. However, during your response I encountered this: “it’s the “belief” part that I try to avoid.” “Belief”, or in the context of god(s), “faith” is colloquially defined as the belief in something for which there is no evidence. This is fundamentally contrary to how I try to live my life.”

Well, if that’s what faith was, then I too would avoid it. But that isn’t what faith is, at not as a Christian understands faith. Point two, it is obvious that not only I but you as well, live by the real meaning of faith. We both have some evidence pointing toward our chosen conclusion and we take the rest on faith. Contrary to what you say, there is no refutation of we can have a beginning without a cause; none whatsoever. Perhaps you think that positing a challenge is a the same as a refutation but in that case you would be mistaken. Now, if you have come up with a way that we CAN have a beginning without a cause you’re welcome to lay it out before me here. I’ll even invite you to refer me to any site anywhere where you believe that they’ve explained away causeless beginnings, and while you’re at it, you should let Stephen Hawking and the like know about that site because they’re working their butts off trying to find a way to avoid a universe with a beginning.

Again, I thought, because most atheists present as people who are eager and open to new information, that would apply to you as well. I was wrong and I apologise.

Then I came across the following: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I said that I agree. But again, I said, and perhaps it was too confrontational in tone, but my quest was genuine, How can atheists make these extraordinary claims but offer not only no extraordinary evidence but no evidence whatsoever? I mean, doesn’t that seem odd to you? One might expect it from a Christian but an atheist? In response? I get no response. You skip over those issues completely leading me to believe, against your vigorous protests I might add, that you’re just another one of “those” atheists.

My biggest mistake was missing “Thanks again for your comment.” which was apparently you attempt at closure. I skipped right over that and again, I’m sorry. However, since that is long behind us, I next encountered: “I am simply stating that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim of those asserting that there is a god.”

Well, up to that point I was failing miserably in understanding what a truly unique individual you are. Because I’ve got to tell you, if there were sufficient explanations to explain away my suppositions, I would want to know. I mistakenly thought that you too would want to know, as it appeared that your problem was a simple lack of information. Once again, when I provided information for your perusal, it seems to have been ignored.

And then you out and out ASKED ME for information. “Well, why didn’t you say so? And, more importantly, why haven’t you shared it with the rest of the world? Don’t you feel compelled to share this “extraordinary and compelling proof”? I mean, isn’t it in fact a moral imperative? All you have to do is share it with the rest of the world, and this thread is over! Excellent!”

I know you were being sarcastic but even so, it was a request. So, even though 90 + % of the people in the world intuitively know that we aren’t here by accident, you flat out asked me for the evidence that I claim to have so I laid out some of it. I even offered to give you more in a format that your mathematical background might make for easier understanding. And what do I get? I get chastised for giving you what you wanted.

What exactly is it that you are so afraid of? This doesn’t need to be an argument. It could have been a friendly sharing of ideas. The issues that I presented are important. They lead to important conclusions. I don’t mind you disagreeing with me. I’m just interested in why. What are your arguments for saying things like, our universe has existed forever? How do you reconcile that claim with what science tells us about infinity, and so on? I don’t claim to have all the answers. However, the one’s that I do have point me in a certain direction. If I’m wrong, I was asking you to show me where and how.

You can’t convince a believer of anything; their belief is not based on evidence but a deep-seated need to believe.

You keep looking, and you’ll find someone to argue with — keep your chin up, ok? Or, better yet, just look around on the web. There are plenty of websites (atheist and otherwise) — far too numerous for me to list here — where you’ll find all the answers to your “novel points” (where by “novel” I mean “well-settled”). Oh wait, that’s right — you’re not looking for answers — you’re looking for an argument. What was your response to my offer to “refer you to several sources” that have already answered your points?

If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.

(i.e., “No, no, wait!!! I want you to answer…”)

Well, I don’t believe in reinventing the wheel, and I don’t believe in engaging a “true believer” in tired, old debates that have long been settled — you probably need to look for a discussion board, where the likelihood of finding someone to argue with you would be greater.

And why do I say you just want to argue? Well, not that your methodology isn’t clever and subtle [/sarcasm], but come on! “Atheism of the gaps”?!? That’s laughable, although I bet it really kills at those pot-luck suppers at your church, eh? I’ll bet people just go on and on about your ingenuity and wisdom. But then, they probably don’t recognize (or maybe they do) that you’re merely taking the arguments of your perceived opponents, scrambling the words a little and then spitting them back out as original thought. Case in point: “god of the gaps” — this is a well-know criticism of the approach taken by Creationists/IDers in trying to prove Creationism by attempting to disprove evolution (as though it were an “either - or” proposition). So, you take “god of the gaps” — something we obviously agree is a compelling criticism — and change it around a little bit and come up with “atheism of the gaps,” and you think “Voila! I’ve done it!” And when you tell the other members of your congregation about this new, original thinking and critical analysis on your part, they just love it! Of course, this is just the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” tactic. You know, my kids used to do the same thing when they were just a little older than your child, only they used the shorthand version: “Nun-uh, you are!”

To paraphrase Howard Cosell: if ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic!

Look, if it makes you feel better, please feel free to walk away believing that you just completely stumped “stoopid little ‘ole me” (sounds better when you use a cartoon voice — try it — no really, give it a try, it’s hilarious!). I’m sure you’ll knock ‘em out at the next church social with stories about the horrible atheist who was making “all kinds of noise on the web” until you stepped in and shut him up with “the power of god’s word” — they’ll absolutely love it (and you…).

Of course, we’ll both know that that the “horrible atheist” in the story was really just trying to express, on his small blog, his personal experiences in dealing with his sick and dying mother, and we’ll both know that what appeared to start out as warm, genuine well-wishing on your part, with a little well-intentioned, though clearly misplaced, evangelism thrown in

“Anyhow, I’m glad that you get to enjoy the life of your mother for awhile longer. God bless and I hope to see you there.”

was merely a ruse (I won’t use the word “lie”, because of the obvious implication of sin ) and has quickly degenerated into what was intended by you all along: an obvious and transparent attempt at atheist baiting; only I’m not taking the bait. But don’t be upset, and don’t be worried — I won’t tell a soul, and so you’ll still get to be the ‘hero of the pot-luck’ with the killer story!

Have a good one.

Again, we move in circles (where by “we” I do, of course, mean “you”). What a waste of time! Please see my previous reply. You need to read it again carefully–you aren’t “getting it”.

I’m not sure who you’re arguing with here or who you’re mad at, but it’s not me. And, don’t be mad that I don’t immediately subscribe to your belief system. It’s okay for us to have different world-views. Really.

You want to argue with someone–that much is clear… good luck with that.

Really! I thought it was a pretty good “visual.” Of course, I had no idea that I was speaking to someone with a “mathematical background.” I’ll remember that. However, now that I know about your mathematical background, I am curious what those kind of odds mean to you. If you aren’t impressed, are there any odds that would impress you enough to think that perhaps we aren’t here by chance? Maybe it’s because there were supposed to be 1240 zeros. I thought 1200 were enough to make the point, but perhaps not.
=====

“You see, I have no problem with you holding opinions that differ from mine. I am not threatened by anyone holding different opinions than me. Are you?”

As a matter of fact, I have a great deal of difficulty with people who (I’m not saying you) on the one hand, claim scientific evidence as their main criteria for upholding their atheist beliefs and who then (I’m not saying you) on the other hand ignore current scientific evidence that points directly toward Creator God. It is especially irritating to me because it is these same people, (I’m not saying you) who lay claim to reasonableness and logical thinking.
=====

“As for atheists being “ignorant” on matters of faith, this is a fallacy. I can’t do gymnastics, but I can tell a good gymnast from a bad one. That argument might work on the playground, but it doesn’t cut it in the big boy world.”

Then your seeming inability to understand “faith” is just an act?
=====

“I would suggest that it’s exactly how you live your life.”

I can only go by the evidence that you give me. If you believe differently then don’t say one thing but actually mean another.
=====

We have extraordinary and compelling proof for the existence of God”

“Well, why didn’t you say so? And, more importantly, why haven’t you shared it with the rest of the world? Don’t you feel compelled to share this “extraordinary and compelling proof”?”

Well, science has already provided the proof. The conclusion to these findings is so obvious and so disturbing to atheist science that it (I’m not saying you) goes on and on and on in a desperate attempt to find away around the obvious conclusion.

Up to this point, my mistake has been that I have lumped you into the rest of the atheist scientific community. Again, I apologise. Because of that, I give you the following.

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:
. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:
. The universe began to exist.

Because those premises are true and coherent we can know that the following conclusion is also true:
The universe has a cause.

If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.
====

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot precede themselves or preexist themselves either physically or chronologically

. The reason that no event can precede itself is because “Coming Into Being” is an essential and objective feature of time. Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence we know that:
. Matter and energy do not have the ability to create themselves or bring themselves into existence from nothing or ex nihilo

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot exist from infinity past.
. Whatever brought matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics into existence had to have existed outside of these entities.

If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.
====

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence we know that:
. Anything that exists has an explanation of it’s existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is transcendent to nature. That is because: Existing outside of time, the Cause is infinite or Eternal, Existing outside of matter, the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,
Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
The cause cannot be “scientific” because neither matter nor the laws of physics existed prior to the Singularity. Therefore the cause is not scientific but Personal.
The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind. It’s omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. That Cause, at least in the West is described as God.

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence we know that:
. The universe exists.
. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The explanation of the existence of the universe is God

If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.
====

. If atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. This in fact is what atheists would have us believe as literally over a dozen theories have come and gone in a vain attempt to rule out God as the Cause of a beginning universe.

If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.
=====

. If there IS an explanation of the universe’s existence, then atheism is not true.
. Most atheists would admit that the universe does indeed have a beginning.
. Hence, most atheists are implicitly committed to God being the explanation of why the universe exists.
====

Some may deny that the universe began to exist, but in reality the universe cannot be infinite. That is because: The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the possibility of the universe existing from infinity past. As well, because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence we know that:
. It is physically impossible to have an Actual Infinite Number of Things or Events preceding our today.
. A beginningless Series of events in time entails an actual infinite number of things.
. Therefore, a beginningless Series of events in time that leads to the beginning of our universe cannot exist.
If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.
====
. Neither can we get to our point in time by forming an actual infinite Collection of things by adding one member after another.
. A series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another
. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be an actual infinite.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: A collection of events in time cannot be actually infinite - therefore the universe cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe had to have a beginning and a Cause.

If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.

Reality is, the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely of an idea.
====

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence we know that:
The universe exists as we observe it because, and ONLY because of exquisitely finely tuned constants and quantities. You haven’t told me that, besides a mathematical background you’re also a scientist, so please forgive me if you already know that “Fine Tuning” is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the virtually infinite range of possible values. So:
. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
. It is not due to physical necessity (there is no reason whatsoever that any given universe would be so finely tuned or had to exist at all) nor is this fine tuning due to chance (the fine tuning of our universe is so exquisite that an infinitesimal change in any one of the necessary constants and quantities would mean that neither we nor any life would happen).
. True claim: If observers who have evolved within a universe observe its constants and quantities, it is highly PROBABLE that they will observe them to be fine-tuned for their existence.
. True claim: It is highly and extraordinarily IMPROBABLE that a universe exists which is finely tuned for the evolution of observers within it.
Some might think that if the constants and quantities of our universe were different, then other life forms would have evolved. This is simply not true. “Life” means the ability to take in food and use its energy, to grow and adapt and reproduce. Without the fine tuning that we observe, not even atomic matter would exist, not to mention planets where life might evolve. Among other things the universe would have either recollapsed or expanded beyond any ability to congeal. Again, there is no reason to expect that a universe as finely tuned as is our universe should exist by chance, nor is there any need or physical necessity for such a universe to exist anywhere except for the sole purpose of life. Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.

If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.
====

Because you haven’t told me that besides having a mathematical background, you’re also a philosopher forgive me if you already know the following:
. If God does not exist, objective morals, values and duties do not exist. But objective morals, values and duties DO exist.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: God exists.
Physical laws are fully realised in the physical world. Objective moral laws are fully realised in Jesus and Father God. Our daily interactions with others shows we believe that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
Fact: Objective moral Goodness and Duty are based on God’s character. Since our moral duties are grounded in the Divine commands, they are not independent of God. Neither are God’s commands arbitrary, for they are the necessary expression of His just and loving nature.
. Mercy is required of me if and only if a just and loving God commands me to be merciful. Meanness is forbidden of me if and only if a just and loving God commands me to not be mean. Mercy or meanness are permitted or denied for me if and only if a just and loving God commands me to / not to commit acts of mercy or meanness. God is merciful therefore He commands us to be merciful. God is not mean therefore He commands us to not be mean. God is Just therefore He commands us to act Justly. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive. This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective or relative to the situation or to the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity.

Again, because you haven’t told me that you have a background in philosophy, forgive me if you’re already familiar with the following philosophical and metaphysical evidence.

Virtually all philosophers agree that if there is the slightest chance of God existing, then He does in fact exist. Therefore, we can ask ourselves, “What is the greatest conceivable being?” Our answer goes past me and you and the Dali Lama and any other “great” human being we can think of and we come to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being that we commonly call “God” We can call it a Mind or something else but it amounts to the same thing ie. The Greatest Conceivable Being That Can Possibly Exist.
Therefore we can know that God exists because:
. It is in fact metaphysically possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists.
. Because it’s possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists, a Greatest Conceivable Being does exist in some possible reality.
. Because of the very nature of a Greatest Conceivable Being, if a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in SOME possible reality, it exists in EVERY possible reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in every possible reality, then it exists in actual reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in the actual reality, then a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in our reality.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, it stands to reason that the conclusion is also true: A Greatest Conceivable Being or God exists.

If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.

Another reason to believe in a Greatest Conceivable Being - God - is because (you’ll already know this because of your mathematical background) -
. Abstract objects, such as numbers and propositions, are either independently existing realities or else they are concepts that find their grounding in and from some Mind.
. Abstract objects are not independently existing realities. Yet we intuitively know that they exist. Our problem is that when we become aware of the sheer volume of potential abstract objects we know for certain that the mind which causes them to exist and find their being and grounding could never be any human mind.
. If abstract objects are concepts in some Mind, then an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists. That is, only in an omniscient intelligence or mind can we find the grounding or cause for abstract objects.
. Because some of these concepts exist necessarily they cannot find their grounding in contingent beings, namely us.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the conclusion must also be true: An omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists. That Being is what we call God.

If you disagree I’d like to hear your explanation. I don’t want to be referred to someone else’s post etc. or else I’ll just be tempted again to not interact with you as an individual.
====

. Because the cosmological argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of reality as we know it, and
. Because the teleological argument shows more than just the appearance of design, and
. Because the moral argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of all objective morals, values, duties and Truth, and
. Because the conceptualist argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the necessary intelligence for the grounding of abstract objects,
I believe that an extraordinary amount of evidence exists for the proposition that Creator God exists.
====
When an intelligent person (I’m not saying you) willfully abandons reason and begins to posit finite infinities, causeless beginnings and beginningless beginnings, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.

When an intelligent person (I’m not saying you) willfully abandons classical historical scholarship and begins to deny known and knowable facts of history, but only as they apply to the person of Jesus, I know that I’m dealing with someone who is confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.

When an intelligent person (I’m not saying you) willfully and falsely claims to follow whatever ethical standard is currently in vogue and calls that a reasonable way to live, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate, fearful attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.

When an intelligent person (I’m not saying you) goes in search of ever more complicated solutions, abandoning one after another, after another, after another, not because of new evidence but because of a need to avoid current evidence, and when that person never returns to a simple solution that coincides with current knowledge and common sense, I know that I’ve encountered an individual who has been confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.

That is sad and that is why I’m not an atheist.
=====

“As for the rest of your rant (and for crying out loud–take a chill pill! You keep getting your blood pressure that high and you’ll be meeting your god sooner than you’d like, or sooner than your kids would like)”

Hmm, I guess you didn’t read all the way to the bottom of my. None of that reply, nor any of this reply is written in a tone of anger or frustration. I’m leaning as far back in my chair as I can get, I’m listening to my three year old play beside me and I even - now - have a slight smile on my face. If you’d like all of this information in a mathematical format I’d be happy to send it to you.

We’re starting to repeat a troubling pathology here, eh? I write a truthful statement of my position. You ignore my clear statements and then tell me what “all atheists” believe, the implication being that I am “all atheists.” This is getting us nowhere.

Now, I tried to be respectful in my prior reply in hopes that you would do likewise. I have to tell you, however, that writing a reply containing 1200 zeroes is rather disrespectful (and very pointless), and not only to my mathematical background.

That being said, let me point out that your most recent reply is completely irrelevant, because it is based upon a flawed premise.

“Atheists have no answer for how the universe started. In order to exclude God“

That’s the problem. I’m not affirmatively claiming that there is no god (truthfully, if I were it wouldn’t change anything, but to continue in that vein, I’d need to know that you were familiar with deduction and induction, and even then, It’d be much easier just to refer you to several sources who have already resolved that issue). As I made perfectly clear in my previous reply, I am simply weighing the evidence of those making the affirmative claim that there is a god. If you want to talk about what is “fundamentally and literally wrong”, look at your own premise.

The burden of proof is on the party making the claim. I am making no claim. I am simply stating that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim of those asserting that there is a god. This is the fundamental distinction.

Now, I really don’t appreciate your attempts at putting words in my mouth. You didn’t find me saying anything along the lines of “you say that…”, and putting words which you had not used in your mouth, now did you? I even went to the extraordinary step on pointing out the obvious hyperbole in my reply. Again, I ask only for the same level of respect and fair-play that I showed you.

You see, I have no problem with you holding opinions that differ from mine. I am not threatened by anyone holding different opinions than me. Are you?

As for the substance (and I use that word loosely, here) of your reply, let me make a few obvious points:

“I know that’s what’s said, but it is fundamentally and literally wrong.”

This is precisely why I used the word “colloquially”? Feel free to look up any words you don’t understand (sorry, that was a cheap shot, but I couldn’t resist!) Seriously, though, you state later:

the Bible describes faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not yet seen.”

Now, not for nothing, but you are engaging in semantical “spin” if you can’t see that “the evidence of things not yet seen” is not“fundamentally” different from the colloquial definition I supplied.

As for atheists being “ignorant” on matters of faith, this is a fallacy. I can’t do gymnastics, but I can tell a good gymnast from a bad one. That argument might work on the playground, but it doesn’t cut it in the big boy world.

I would suggest that it’s exactly how you live your life.

Wow, I feel like I’m married to you! Again, despite my clear pronouncements, you know me better than I know myself, right? Balderdash!

We have extraordinary and compelling proof for the existence of God”

Well, why didn’t you say so? And, more importantly, why haven’t you shared it with the rest of the world? Don’t you feel compelled to share this “extraordinary and compelling proof”? I mean, isn’t it in fact a moral imperative? All you have to do is share it with the rest of the world, and this thread is over! Excellent!

As for the rest of your rant (and for crying out loud–take a chill pill! You keep getting your blood pressure that high and you’ll be meeting your god sooner than you’d like, or sooner than your kids would like), I’m not sure who you’re trying to argue with, but I haven’t made ANY OF THOSE CLAIMS. Again, you lump me in with “all atheists”, which is insulting. I’ll bet that you’d be the first to be offended if I lumped you in with “all Christians” or “all theists” or “all people who must be getting mad because their obvious and transparent attempts at pissing me off aren’t”. And, again, I’m not making clear pronouncements as your character or true nature (as you have mine).

Really, I simply can’t imagine where you got the idea that I had made ANY of those claims (most of which are misrepresentations of things I’ve read in scientific publications), but I haven’t. Go back and read what I actually wrote. If you continue misrepresenting what I’ve said, and attributing to me things that I have not said, this discussion is going to get nowhere! Listen, I’m not sure who you’re arguing with here or who you’re mad at, but it’s not me. And, don’t be mad that I don’t immediately subscribe to your belief system. It’s okay for us to have different world-views. Really.

Have a good one.

P.S. Next time, really, please don’t needlessly take up 17 lines of text with repetitive zeroes. If for no other reason than that it makes my spam filters want to delete your comment. You can simply write 10^1201. It’s called scientific notation.

I know that’s what’s said but it is fundamentally and literally wrong.

First, let me use this example.
Atheists have no answer for how the universe started. In order to exclude God, people such as yourself seem to willingly say that we can have a beginning without a cause. And you seem willing to say that, even though EVERYTHING that science has learned over the centuries tells us that’s impossible.

Atheists have no answer for how the first DNA/RNA loaded cell came into being. In order to exclude God, people such as yourself say that life can come from non life. And you seem willing to say that, even though EVERYTHING that science has learned over the centuries tells us that’s impossible.

Atheists have no answer for what the “I” is or what our conscience is other than to say they must be an illusion. And you seem willing to say that even though you have absolutely NO scientific evidence that would allow you to make such a claim.

Atheists, such as yourself take it on faith and on faith alone that these things have natural explanations. It’s atheism of the gaps

Christians take the Law of first Cause, The Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, and so on, they take scientific evidence that points to the universe having a beginning, they take scientific evidence that shows a degree of fine-tuning that even atheist scientists say rules out accident or chance. To put that into perspective for you -Atheist Stephen Hawking, has calculated that the odds of our universe coming into being by accident is 1 chance in 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.

This is just one small bit of evidence that points to a Cause beyond nature. Like atheists, we go the rest of the way on faith.

Now, the Bible describes faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not yet seen.” That is a long, long way from “the absence of any and all evidence.” It doesn’t really matter how any given atheist defines faith. Atheists are ignorant of such matters in the fullest meaning of the term. It does matter however, how those whose job it is to know about faith and the metaphysical and how they describe it.

Actually, I believe that we both utilize about the same amount of faith to reach our chosen conclusions.
=============

“This is fundamentally contrary to how I try to live my life.”
I would suggest that it’s exactly how you live your life.
=============

“There is a controlling principle to which we Skeptics adhere: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

I couldn’t agree more. Perhaps you can help me out. Certainly any extraordinary claim, be it for God or for anything else requires extraordinary proof. From my perspective of course
a) We have extraordinary and compelling proof for the existence of God, and
b) The “burden” of presenting extraordinary proof lies with those who make the following claims.

1) The universe doesn’t need to have a beginning because we come from a Finite Infinity.

1a) Even though “infinity” doesn’t exist in reality, but only as a concept or as an idea, to avoid the implications of a Cause for the Big Bang atheists propose that our universe is just the latest in an infinite number of universes. In other words, our universe was caused by a previous universe that was caused by a previous universe, that was caused by . . .

1b) While stating that the universe is infinitely old, and while being forced to admit that if that were true, “today” would never arrive, atheists simply ignore that reality, continue to propose an infinite universe and hope that no one will notice or protest too loudly.

1c) It doesn’t matter what the second law of Thermodynamics says
It doesn’t matter about the levels of background radiation
It doesn’t matter about the levels of entropy
It doesn’t matter that the expansion of the universe is speeding up rather than slowing down, atheists ignore all this and maintain that our universe has existed from infinity past.

THAT IS A HIGHLY ETRAORDINARY CLAIM!

2) Because the Big Bang carries with it the need for a Cause, atheists declare that despite ALL scientific evidence to the contrary, some beginnings, or at least this one, ie. our universe, doesn’t need a cause. “It just happened.”

THAT IS A HIGHLY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!

3) Because the Big Bang carries with it the need for a Cause, atheists declare that our universe was preceded by the universe itself, both materially and chronologically. In essence the universe brought itself into being.

THAT IS A HIGHLY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!

4) There are approximately 50 constants and quantities that are so finely tuned that if any one of them were “off” by an infinitesimally small degree, neither we nor the universe would exist. And even though Penrose and Hawking have calculated that all this coming about by chance is 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123 (which is an impossibly vast number to comprehend), atheists still maintain that everything that we see happened by chance.

THAT IS A HIGHLY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!

5) Atheists claim that there is no objective set of morals, values, and duties. They say something like, “My personal likes / dislikes, tastes, preferences and opinions will do just fine when determining the rightness or wrongness of my behaviours. On the other hand, other people’s behaviours, as they affect the quality of my life, must adhere to MY personal likes / dislikes, tastes, preferences and opinions. If they don’t, I can rightfully declare that those people are wrong.

THAT IS A HIGHLY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!

6) Atheists claim that regarding the cause of the universe and regarding the first DNA / RNA pre-loaded cell, there is nothing wrong with going in search of ever more complicated solutions, abandoning one after another, after another, after another, not because of new evidence but because of a need to avoid current evidence which points directly to Creator God. Atheists say that’s all the reason they need to disregard current scientific evidence.

THIS IS A HIGHLY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!

6a) Atheists say that there is nothing wrong with never returning to a simple solution that coincides with current knowledge and common sense, as long as that current scientific evidence points directly to Creator God. Atheists say that’s all the reason they need to disregard current scientific evidence.

THAT IS A HIGHLY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!

7) Atheists say that contrary to what classical historical scholarship says, known and knowable facts of history do not actually apply to the person of Jesus. In fact, Jesus never existed.

THAT IS A HIGHLY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!

. Even though the beginning of our universe demands a Cause and
. Even though the design of our mathematically precise universe demands a Designer and
. Even though the objective moral code with which atheists demand others treat them can only come from an ultimate authority, and
. Even though the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth point to the reality of Creator God, atheists claim that none of this points to anything beyond nature itself,

Now, atheists say that they will have evidence eventually, but the promise of proof at some point in the future is the same as no proof at all. It seems to me that you are the one who is making extraordinary claims that are lacking not just extraordinary evidence but ANY evidence. What’s more, it sounds to me as though you call this way of living reasonable and logical.

Because this is in print, my words may come off as confrontational. I haven’t written any of this in that tone. I would really like to know how, on the one hand, you SAY that you live only by clear evidence, but in reality you do no such thing. Maybe you could answer some of these questions for me and help me understand what seem like huge contradictions in your life.

First and foremost, thanks for your comment and let me say that I genuinely appreciate your well-wishes.

Obviously, I can’t speak for all atheists, but speaking for myself, I can tell you that I not only “seem”, but in fact “am”, unable to believe in God. It’s not that I could only believe in a god in the “complete absence of sorrow and suffering”. No, it’s the “belief” part that I try to avoid.

“Belief”, or in the context of god(s), “faith” is colloquially defined as the belief in something for which there is no evidence. This is fundamentally contrary to how I try to live my life. Now, that’s not to say that I require absolute, conclusive proof for every proposition. But I do require evidence sufficient to justify the claim.

There is a controlling principle to which we Skeptics adhere: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’m sure lots of people through the centuries have said similar things, but I was introduced to this notion by reading the works of Carl Sagan. The unspoken corollary is that less extraordinary claims, require less extraordinary evidence.

The atheist blogger vjack explained it well when he wrote:

If I claim that I regularly walk to my mailbox to get the mail without wearing shoes, you may just take my word for it and require minimal evidence. On the other hand, you are right to ask for considerable evidence to support my claim that a supernatural being punishes sinners with hurricanes…

As for your attempts at demonstrating the good to come out of my mother’s illness, I gotta tell you, I must have been more tired than I thought last night, because my intention was to make it clear that nothing–absolutely nothing–I’ve experienced during the past two weeks was “god”. It was all basic, fundamental human emotion. Now, if your point in saying that I had the chance to acknowledge the presence of god is that “god” is nothing more than neurons firing in my brain when I stub my toe, well, then I have to agree with you. (No, I’m not saying that was your point, I’m simply employing a little hyperbole so as to be demonstrative to other readers).

As for your comment on “reality”, I couldn’t disagree more strongly. Had I acquiesced to the impulse to attribute the unexplained to a “god”, I would have been straying from reality. This is a fundamental distinction between “belief” and “reality”. If reality were dictated by my beliefs or desires, well, suffice it to say that I’m not rich as Bill Gates, nor do I possess the stunning good looks of a young Alec Baldwin, nor do I have the guitar chops of Stevie Ray Vaughan!

As for the rest, I respect your beliefs–I really do. But I need more than my personal beliefs to accept something as reality.

Thanks again for your comment.

Having said that, I don’t understand why atheists seem to only be able to believe in God if and only if there is the complete absence of sorrow and suffering. One incredibly good thing that came out of your mother’s thankfully short coma, is that you had one more chance to acknowledge the presence of Creator God in your life. You came close. You almost acquiesced to reality, but then you once again shut it down. Hopefully that wasn’t your last chance.

As to Epicurus, his bias kept him from seeing the truth:
Because God is all good, He WILL one day defeat evil
Because God is all powerful, He CAN one day defeat evil
Because there is still the presence of evil
God CAN and WILL one day erase the presence of evil

Just like we could not say, Because your mother is in a coma, she will never come out of a coma, there is no logical way that we can say that just because there is evil now,