POLL: Is there a God ??

[ukdesi]

Macro evolution is a theory that is under great distress right now. It’s not testable. And there are many problems with the “theory.” Problems acknowledged within the scientific community.

Abiogenesis is as a “scientific theory” without any testable scientific affirmation.

It appears there is a double standard.

You're right that abiogenesis is still a hypothesis — it's an open question, and science is honest about that. But calling macroevolution “under great distress” just doesn’t reflect the consensus among scientists. Evolutionary theory is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence: genetics, fossil records, observable instances of speciation, and more. It may evolve over time, but it's far from collapsing.

The double standard you're seeing isn’t about playing favorites — it’s about the difference between ideas being tested vs. being asserted. Scientific theories — even the ones still in development — invite critique, revision, and falsification. That’s not a weakness; that’s the strength of the method.

By contrast, Intelligent Design asserts a conclusion first (namely, a designer) and then fits evidence to match. It assumes intent where science asks, “What can we actually observe, test, and model?”

One relies on method. The other relies on belief. That’s the core distinction — not who’s open-minded or not.

 

[ukdesi]

Design theory is solely based upon observable scientific facts. More so than abiogenesis. Abiogenesis was an accepted theory that worked from the theory backwards.

Intelligent Design doesn’t offer a model that can be tested and potentially disproven. It stops at “this looks designed,” without explaining the mechanism or process.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is still a developing hypothesis — and the scientific community is open about that. It’s not “accepted” in the way evolution is, but it's being explored through models, lab experiments, and chemical simulations. That’s science: proposing a hypothesis and testing it through observable, repeatable means.

 

[Beatle Bum]

You're right that abiogenesis is still a hypothesis — it's an open question, and science is honest about that. But calling macroevolution “under great distress” just doesn’t reflect the consensus among scientists. Evolutionary theory is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence: genetics, fossil records, observable instances of speciation, and more. It may evolve over time, but it's far from collapsing.

The double standard you're seeing isn’t about playing favorites — it’s about the difference between ideas being tested vs. being asserted. Scientific theories — even the ones still in development — invite critique, revision, and falsification. That’s not a weakness; that’s the strength of the method.

By contrast, Intelligent Design asserts a conclusion first (namely, a designer) and then fits evidence to match. It assumes intent where science asks, “What can we actually observe, test, and model?”

One relies on method. The other relies on belief. That’s the core distinction — not who’s open-minded or not.

It is not about testing. That is a historical fabrication. Abiogenesis or the primordial soup theory has been taught in schools for the past 50 years. It has never been affirmed by testing. And the theory evolved with science in an attempt to make it seem viable. But, it ain’t science.

Macro evolution is in a tough spot, as admitted by many within the very discipline.

In the way macro evolution can be “tested”, so can design. There is a double standard that is pushed by the atheists in the scientific community.

 

[Beatle Bum]

By the way, mathematics is an accepted scientific discipline. Design theory is not just “hey, that looks designed.”

 

[SDC888]

When I talk about "scientific faith," I don’t mean belief that God doesn’t exist — just as there’s no belief that a purple unicorn creator doesn’t exist either. It’s not faith in a conclusion; it’s faith in a method — the idea that the best way to understand the universe is through observation, testing, and revision.

Science can’t disprove every imaginable thing — but just because something can’t be disproven doesn’t make it reasonable to believe. Science doesn’t affirm any supernatural claims without evidence — and that standard applies equally to all of them.

Otherwise, we’d be stuck taking every myth seriously just because it can't be ruled out.

This is a hasty generalization logical fallacy. Richard Dawkins makes this same "argument" in his (remarkably stupid) book, The God Deulsion. He compares Science's inability to disprove a flying tea pot in space to that of the Creator's existence; since we cannot disprove the former, the latter must be equally as ridiculous as we can't scientifically disprove it either.

It's just a straw man, and again, banal and regurgitated. If all the reasons for the atheist position to be sustained are so easily demonstrably poorly reasoned, then just how reasonable is it?

 

[ukdesi]

It is not about testing. That is a historical fabrication. Abiogenesis or the primordial soup theory has been taught in schools for the past 50 years. It has never been affirmed by testing. And the theory evolved with science in an attempt to make it seem viable. But, it ain’t science.

Macro evolution is in a tough spot, as admitted by many within the very discipline.

In the way macro evolution can be “tested”, so can design. There is a double standard that is pushed by the atheists in the scientific community.

Abiogenesis is still speculative, yes, but researchers are trying to test pieces of it. It's slow progress, but it's transparent and revisable — hallmarks of science.

Design theory, as it's typically framed, doesn't propose testable mechanisms. It often points to complexity and says, “therefore, a designer,” without describing how, when, or by what process the design occurred — or how to falsify that claim. That’s not the same as a scientific theory.

Macro evolution is testable — not in a lab over millions of years, of course, but through fossil records, genomics, observed speciation events, and more.

The bottom line isn’t bias — it’s method. If Design theory can produce falsifiable predictions and testable mechanisms, the scientific community would evaluate it just like anything else. But claims that avoid that scrutiny don’t get a free pass just because they feel intuitive.

This is a hasty generalization logical fallacy. Richard Dawkins makes this same "argument" in his (remarkably stupid) book, The God Deulsion. He compares Science's inability to disprove a flying tea pot in space to that of the Creator's existence; since we cannot disprove the former, the latter must be equally as ridiculous as we can't scientifically disprove it either.

It's just a straw man, and again, banal and regurgitated. If all the reasons for the atheist position to be sustained are so easily demonstrably poorly reasoned, then just how reasonable is it?

Nah, it’s not a straw man. The point isn’t “God is a teapot” — it’s about how belief works. If someone claims there’s a tiny invisible teapot in space, I don’t need to disprove it. I just don’t have any reason to believe it without evidence. Same goes for any supernatural claim.

It’s not saying all beliefs are equally ridiculous — it’s saying: why believe one unprovable story over all the others? Without evidence, you could justify anything. That’s why science uses a method — observe, test, revise. Not perfect, but it holds beliefs to a standard.

So it’s not about mocking faith — it’s about keeping belief in check with reason.

 

[SDC888]

Abiogenesis is still speculative, yes, but researchers are trying to test pieces of it. It's slow progress, but it's transparent and revisable — hallmarks of science.

Design theory, as it's typically framed, doesn't propose testable mechanisms. It often points to complexity and says, “therefore, a designer,” without describing how, when, or by what process the design occurred — or how to falsify that claim. That’s not the same as a scientific theory.

Macro evolution is testable — not in a lab over millions of years, of course, but through fossil records, genomics, observed speciation events, and more.

The bottom line isn’t bias — it’s method. If Design theory can produce falsifiable predictions and testable mechanisms, the scientific community would evaluate it just like anything else. But claims that avoid that scrutiny don’t get a free pass just because they feel intuitive.

Nah, it’s not a straw man. The point isn’t “God is a teapot” — it’s about how belief works. If someone claims there’s a tiny invisible teapot in space, I don’t need to disprove it. I just don’t have any reason to believe it without evidence. Same goes for any supernatural claim.

It’s not saying all beliefs are equally ridiculous — it’s saying: why believe one unprovable story over all the others? Without evidence, you could justify anything. That’s why science uses a method — observe, test, revise. Not perfect, but it holds beliefs to a standard.

So it’s not about mocking faith — it’s about keeping belief in check with reason.

Which is also fallaciously reasoned.

You know scientific proof is impossible, yet you demand it in order to Believe. Since you have no scientific proof, you cannot believe. The "reasoning" is circular.

 

[SDC888]

And it's most certainly a straw man.

It's just as disingenuous as it is poor reasoning. Equal parts.

 

[ukdesi]

And it's most certainly a straw man.

It's just as disingenuous as it is poor reasoning. Equal parts.

If it’s a straw man, show where it misrepresents the argument. The teapot analogy isn’t about equating God with something silly — it’s about the structure of belief: that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That’s not disingenuous — that’s basic logic.

No one’s saying all beliefs are equally absurd — we’re asking why this one deserves belief over others that also can’t be disproven. Without evidence, you're just choosing a story you prefer. That’s fine — just call it what it is.

 

[SDC888]

If it’s a straw man, show where it misrepresents the argument. The teapot analogy isn’t about equating God with something silly — it’s about the structure of belief: that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That’s not disingenuous — that’s basic logic.

No one’s saying all beliefs are equally absurd — we’re asking why this one deserves belief over others that also can’t be disproven. Without evidence, you're just choosing a story you prefer. That’s fine — just call it what it is.

Or it could be something else.

 

[Beatle Bum]

We learn in this thread that abiogenesis, just a theory, is science because people have for decades tried to prove it. But, math is definitely not science enough.

 

[ukdesi]

Which is also fallaciously reasoned.

You know scientific proof is impossible, yet you demand it in order to Believe. Since you have no scientific proof, you cannot believe. The "reasoning" is circular.

Scientific proof isn’t the standard — scientific evidence is. That’s a crucial difference. Nothing in science is “proven” in the absolute sense; instead, theories are supported by repeatable evidence and revised when new data comes along.


The issue isn’t that I demand certainty to believe — it’s that I proportion belief to evidence. I don’t need 100% proof to accept evolution or gravity, just enough converging evidence to make them reasonable conclusions. In contrast, many design claims rely on certainty without evidence — that’s where the double standard actually is.


So it's not circular reasoning — it's just a higher bar for belief than intuition or tradition alone.

 

[SDC888]

Scientific proof isn’t the standard — scientific evidence is. That’s a crucial difference. Nothing in science is “proven” in the absolute sense; instead, theories are supported by repeatable evidence and revised when new data comes along.


The issue isn’t that I demand certainty to believe — it’s that I proportion belief to evidence. I don’t need 100% proof to accept evolution or gravity, just enough converging evidence to make them reasonable conclusions. In contrast, many design claims rely on certainty without evidence — that’s where the double standard actually is.


So it's not circular reasoning — it's just a higher bar for belief than intuition or tradition alone.

Ok, then replace proof with evidence and the reasoning is circular.

I'm not saying/implying anything is "proven" in the absolute sense by Science. My assertion still stands: it is a straw man argument and you are using circular reasoning to substantiate it. The "reasoning" you are using to form "your" worldview is critically flawed. Find the thread to unravel it.

 

[ukdesi]

Ok, then replace proof with evidence and the reasoning is circular.

I'm not saying/implying anything is "proven" in the absolute sense by Science. My assertion still stands: it is a straw man argument and you are using circular reasoning to substantiate it. The "reasoning" you are using to form "your" worldview is critically flawed. Find the thread to unravel it.

Circular reasoning would be something like: “Science is true because science says so.” That’s not what I’m doing.

We use science because it’s shown itself to work — it makes predictions, yields technology, helps us understand disease, the cosmos, DNA, etc. That success is the reason we trust the method — not just because we like it, but because it earns that trust through real-world results.

My worldview isn’t based on certainty — it’s based on evidence, updated as needed. That’s the opposite of circular reasoning. It’s provisional, not dogmatic.

If someone can propose a better method for understanding reality — one that’s testable, falsifiable, and reliably predictive — I’m all ears.

 

[SDC888]

Circular reasoning would be something like: “Science is true because science says so.” That’s not what I’m doing.

What you are doing is a form of circular reasoning, yes. It's begging the question.

 

[SDC888]

And I don't need your explanation of what science is.

I know what science is, what it's for, adn why it's so important.

 

[ukdesi]

And I don't need your explanation of what science is.

I know what science is, what it's for, adn why it's so important.

I’m not trying to condescend. The point isn’t to explain science to you, but to clarify that proportioning belief to evidence isn’t circular reasoning. It's just a commitment to follow the evidence where it leads, and to revise if it leads somewhere else. That’s not a flaw — that’s the strength of it.

 

[SDC888]

I know why you laugh.

Do you? Ask yourself, be honest with yourself.

I’m not trying to condescend. The point isn’t to explain science to you, but to clarify that proportioning belief to evidence isn’t circular reasoning. It's just a commitment to follow the evidence where it leads, and to revise if it leads somewhere else. That’s not a flaw — that’s the strength of it.

That's not what I am saying is circular. You demand sufficient scientific evidence to proportion a belief in a Creator, yet you already know ahead of making that demand such evidence doesn't exist. Additionally, that's not why a Believer believes. He does not do so because he ran a reproducible scientific experiment.

Where is the thread that unravels all the bad reasoning? It's there... find it.

 

[SDC888]

But I have also said I can't make a clever argument, or devise some experiment, and prove His existence to you. I would win a nobel prize if I could.

The reality is, God doesn't make Himself known like that. I don't find it remarkable that you atheists deny Him, and then you never see Him, only see "evidence" against Him. That's what I would expect

 

[ukdesi]

I know why you laugh.

Do you? Ask yourself, be honest with yourself.



That's not what I am saying is circular. You demand sufficient scientific evidence to proportion a belief in a Creator, yet you already know ahead of making that demand such evidence doesn't exist. Additionally, that's not why a Believer believes. He does not do so because he ran a reproducible scientific experiment.

Where is the thread that unravels all the bad reasoning? It's there... find it.

Fair enough — but I’m not demanding that religious belief be based on reproducible experiments. I’m just saying if someone claims their view is scientific — like with Intelligent Design — then it has to follow scientific standards: evidence, testability, falsifiability. Otherwise, it’s not anti-faith to treat it differently — it’s just recognizing that it belongs in a different category.


Belief without scientific evidence isn’t irrational in itself — it’s just not science. And that’s okay, as long as we’re clear on the difference.

 

[SDC888]

I'm not talking about the scientific validity of ID...

just the quality of "reasoning" from the people who proclaim its eminence: it's piss poor. It should compel one to think much, much, much harder than the shallow and simplistic sophistry on display.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Fair enough — but I’m not demanding that religious belief be based on reproducible experiments. I’m just saying if someone claims their view is scientific — like with Intelligent Design — then it has to follow scientific standards: evidence, testability, falsifiability. Otherwise, it’s not anti-faith to treat it differently — it’s just recognizing that it belongs in a different category.


Belief without scientific evidence isn’t irrational in itself — it’s just not science. And that’s okay, as long as we’re clear on the difference.

You deny a double standard, yet I was taught abiogenesis in public grade school over 40 years ago. It was a theory. Never proven as true. Yet, that is what I learned.

Meanwhile, much like macro evolution is a scientific theory premised upon extrapolations from observations, so is intelligent design. It is science. It is why many scientists have concluded from their research and scientific understanding that there is a God.

You can repeatedly act like the theories you accept are the product of science and the ones you do not are not. But, that is your bias, not reality.

We are not reproducing macro evolution in a lab any more than we could reproduce intelligent design, and yet both are products of scientific understanding.

 

[SDC888]

 

[ukdesi]

You deny a double standard, yet I was taught abiogenesis in public grade school over 40 years ago. It was a theory. Never proven as true. Yet, that is what I learned.

Meanwhile, much like macro evolution is a scientific theory premised upon extrapolations from observations, so is intelligent design. It is science. It is why many scientists have concluded from their research and scientific understanding that there is a God.

You can repeatedly act like the theories you accept are the product of science and the ones you do not are not. But, that is your bias, not reality.

We are not reproducing macro evolution in a lab any more than we could reproduce intelligent design, and yet both are products of scientific understanding.

I get that you were taught abiogenesis as a theory decades ago — I actually wasn’t. But one person’s classroom experience doesn’t define what qualifies as science. The real difference is how ideas are approached: abiogenesis, for all its unknowns, is treated as a working hypothesis — researchers test parts of it, model scenarios, and revise based on new findings. It’s speculative, but it’s being worked on within the scientific method.

Design theory, by contrast, often skips that process. It points to complexity and concludes “designer,” without offering testable mechanisms, timelines, or ways to falsify the claim. That’s not science being biased — it’s science holding everything to the same standard. If Design were approached with the same openness to testing and revision, it would be evaluated like any other hypothesis. But calling it science without meeting those standards is a double standard — just in reverse.

The fact that some scientists infer a designer from their research doesn’t make the theory scientific — it means those individuals are interpreting data through a metaphysical lens. That’s totally valid in personal belief, but it doesn’t make Design operate within the same scientific framework as evolutionary biology.

 

[Beatle Bum]

I get that you were taught abiogenesis as a theory decades ago — I actually wasn’t. But one person’s classroom experience doesn’t define what qualifies as science. The real difference is how ideas are approached: abiogenesis, for all its unknowns, is treated as a working hypothesis — researchers test parts of it, model scenarios, and revise based on new findings. It’s speculative, but it’s being worked on within the scientific method.

Design theory, by contrast, often skips that process. It points to complexity and concludes “designer,” without offering testable mechanisms, timelines, or ways to falsify the claim. That’s not science being biased — it’s science holding everything to the same standard. If Design were approached with the same openness to testing and revision, it would be evaluated like any other hypothesis. But calling it science without meeting those standards is a double standard — just in reverse.

The fact that some scientists infer a designer from their research doesn’t make the theory scientific — it means those individuals are interpreting data through a metaphysical lens. That’s totally valid in personal belief, but it doesn’t make Design operate within the same scientific framework as evolutionary biology.

So, someone is sitting in a lab trying to force macro evolution upon species as if that would prove macro evolution? Anthropology is not science?

Yeah, I was taught the primordial soup. No one called it abiogenesis. I even remember the video we were shown that had volcanic looking rock with steam and substances sloshing together. It was portrayed as science. And, I would bet a high percentage of atheists believe in abiogenesis, even though it has no more scientific foundation than does intelligent design. The idea that there is no double standard is bunk.

And, science tests design theory. But, like macro evolution, the applied science is not in a lab. Your limited definition of science is not how we interpret the world. Can’t be.

 

[MidseasonTweaks]

My answer has remained unchanged. No.

 

[SDC888]

in both, there's an inference being made. In one, it's that God explains what the theory can't. in the other, it's that the theory and the continued development of it points to no God. But the former is an inference from observation, while the latter is jumping to a conclusion.

 

[SDC888]

My answer has remained unchanged. No.

Find, observe, and listen to people who changed their mind... both ways.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Debate. The two men can debate without the passive aggressive or childish dismissiveness we sometimes see:

 

[cole854]

My answer has remained unchanged. No.

That's cool, but given you can't support your stance, it's simply have a nice day and move on.

 

[MidseasonTweaks]

That's cool, but given you can't support your stance, it's simply have a nice day and move on.

Can you? Good day.

 

[megablue]

I googled "number of people who have ever lived and the gods they worshipped" and got the following AI Overview:

"It's impossible to give a precise figure for the number of people who have ever lived, but estimates place it around 108 billion. Regarding gods worshipped, anthropologists estimate at least 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and other beings have been worshipped since the beginning of the human species. This includes those worshipped for short periods and those still revered today. Furthermore, many cultures have had multiple deities, and some, like Hinduism, have literally millions of gods."

In follow-up, I googled "how many gods have existed" and got the following AI Overview:

"Pinpointing an exact number of gods that have existed throughout history is impossible, as the concept of a "god" is subjective and varies across cultures and belief systems. Additionally, many ancient religions and mythologies are lost to time, leaving incomplete records of their deities.

Estimates and insights are available:
Estimates based on recorded history and research:

• At least 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans.
• Throughout recorded history, an estimated 8,000–12,000 gods have been worshiped.
• Some estimates range from 2,500 to over 2,000 deities in ancient Egyptian mythology alone.
• Shinto mythology in Japan speaks of "8 million kami" (gods or spirits), but this is likely a figurative number.

Key Considerations:

• Definition of "god" varies significantly across religions and cultures.
• Many ancient religions and cultures are lost to time, and knowledge of their deities is incomplete.
• Over time, some deities may have merged, split, or evolved, making it difficult to track them as distinct entities.

A precise number cannot be provided, it's clear that a vast and diverse array of deities have been conceived and worshipped by humanity throughout history."
---------------------------

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...107/why-do-humans-keep-inventing-gods-worship

Interesting stuff, to say the least ...

 

[megablue]

It is interesting to note that the "Is there a God ??" poll has remained pretty constant at around a little over 75% voting YES.
It was created on March 3, 2023 and will close on May 15, 2025 ... I assume this thread will continue for more discussion.
THANKS to everyone who voted and has shown interest throughout this thread.
Lots of thoughtful and civil participation, I think ... much appreciated ... such an interesting topic.
------------
Per AI Overview:

"Yes, Pew Research Center conducts polls and studies on religious and spiritual beliefs in the U.S., including beliefs about God. They find that a large majority of Americans believe in God or a universal spirit.

Key findings from Pew Research Center's surveys:

• High Belief in God: A significant majority of Americans believe in God or a universal spirit (83%).
  
  
• Belief in a Higher Power: Even if not explicitly identifying with a specific religion, many believe in a higher power (90%).
  
  
• Soul/Spirit Belief: A high percentage believe humans have a soul or spirit (86%).
  
  
• Belief in Afterlife: Many believe in an afterlife (70%).
  
  
• Biblical God: A substantial portion (56%) believe in God as described in the Bible.
  
  
• Other Higher Powers: Others believe in another type of higher power or spiritual force (33%).
  
  
• Belief is Declining, but still High: While belief in God has been declining, it remains a significant part of American culture.

83% believe in God or a universal spirit. 79% believe there is something spiritual beyond the natural world, even if we can't see it. 70% believe in an afterlife (heaven, hell or both). Feb 26, 2025."

 

[Beatle Bum]

I googled "number of people who have ever lived and the gods they worshipped" and got the following AI Overview:

"It's impossible to give a precise figure for the number of people who have ever lived, but estimates place it around 108 billion. Regarding gods worshipped, anthropologists estimate at least 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and other beings have been worshipped since the beginning of the human species. This includes those worshipped for short periods and those still revered today. Furthermore, many cultures have had multiple deities, and some, like Hinduism, have literally millions of gods."

In follow-up, I googled "how many gods have existed" and got the following AI Overview:

"Pinpointing an exact number of gods that have existed throughout history is impossible, as the concept of a "god" is subjective and varies across cultures and belief systems. Additionally, many ancient religions and mythologies are lost to time, leaving incomplete records of their deities.

Estimates and insights are available:
Estimates based on recorded history and research:

• At least 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans.
• Throughout recorded history, an estimated 8,000–12,000 gods have been worshiped.
• Some estimates range from 2,500 to over 2,000 deities in ancient Egyptian mythology alone.
• Shinto mythology in Japan speaks of "8 million kami" (gods or spirits), but this is likely a figurative number.

Key Considerations:

• Definition of "god" varies significantly across religions and cultures.
• Many ancient religions and cultures are lost to time, and knowledge of their deities is incomplete.
• Over time, some deities may have merged, split, or evolved, making it difficult to track them as distinct entities.

A precise number cannot be provided, it's clear that a vast and diverse array of deities have been conceived and worshipped by humanity throughout history."
---------------------------

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...107/why-do-humans-keep-inventing-gods-worship

Interesting stuff, to say the least ...

If you say so. Lol

 

[cole854]

Regarding gods worshipped, anthropologists estimate at least 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and other beings have been worshipped since the beginning of the human species.

How many actually walked among man?

 

[MadaboutBlue]

Actually quite a few. The Greeks, Romans, and Norse to name just a few. The idea of a God coming to earth and becoming involved in human affairs is pretty common throughout history.

 

[MadaboutBlue]

Its seems strange beyond reasoning that if there is a Creator God out there in the Universe, that is loving and desires a personal relationship with all mankind, he would reveal himself to ALL people, instead of a relatively small band of goat herders in the Middle East. Its seems logical to assumer that there's a better way to spread his word throughout humanity than the tip of a spear or burning non believers at the stake. It would also som

If this creator is all knowing it would seem logical that his creation would be endowed with a permanent, universal understanding of his truth instead of waiting for it to evolve over time. One would also expect that if we are to experience the most cruel, inhumane torture imaginable for ALL of eternity for failing to believe, that the least the all wise creator could do is leave a clear, consistent, easy to understand instruction manual that wouldn't be cobbled together over thousands of years and depends on translating languages that are no longer spoken today.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Its seems strange beyond reasoning that if there is a Creator God out there in the Universe, that is loving and desires a personal relationship with all mankind, he would reveal himself to ALL people, instead of a relatively small band of goat herders in the Middle East. Its seems logical to assumer that there's a better way to spread his word throughout humanity than the tip of a spear or burning non believers at the stake. It would also som

If this creator is all knowing it would seem logical that his creation would be endowed with a permanent, universal understanding of his truth instead of waiting for it to evolve over time. One would also expect that if we are to experience the most cruel, inhumane torture imaginable for ALL of eternity for failing to believe, that the least the all wise creator could do is leave a clear, consistent, easy to understand instruction manual that wouldn't be cobbled together over thousands of years and depends on translating languages that are no longer spoken today.

Maddy Boo Boo wants us to know how an all knowing Creator would reveal himself to the created. It just does not make sense to this created who knows better. Gosh, I am surprised Boo Boo did not just remove free will all together. Why would a Crestor even give you the ability to have such an opinion?

 

[MadaboutBlue]

Maddy Boo Boo wants us to know how an all knowing Creator would reveal himself to the created. It just does not make sense to this created who knows better. Gosh, I am surprised Boo Boo did not just remove free will all together. Why would a Crestor even give you the ability to have such an opinion?

The problem with discussion a superstition with snarky, self indulgent a$$holes such as caveman-when they don't have a logical answer-which is almost always-they can just throw up their hands and say. "but hey-magic!" Religion is a funny business. instead of some unfortunate baby in antiquity who had to die for the sins of his fathers God could have just killed Satan. Problem solved.

 

[Beatle Bum]

The problem with discussion a superstition with snarky, self indulgent a$$holes such as caveman-when they don't have a logical answer-which is almost always-they can just throw up their hands and say. "but hey-magic!" Religion is a funny business. instead of some unfortunate baby in antiquity who had to die for the sins of his fathers God could have just killed Satan. Problem solved.

And, yet, no one did that. Instead, the atheist jumped in to tell everyone what he would do if he was God. And then, he called someone else self-indulgent.