Exactly. So prove to me why there is no God.

Happily - once you've proved to me the non-existence of the tooth-fairy

But the two are completely different. For example, we know when a child loses a tooth the parent will remove the tooth and perhaps replace it with money under the pillow in the next morning. That is of course the role of the 'tooth fairy'. However, the role of God is supposedly to maintain existence and create the universe (or whatever) but we aren't aware of who or what created that.

Actually, they're not completely different. It is all about demanding proof for the nonexistence of something which you cannot logically do. You said previously that if an atheist makes a claim that God does not exist then it is up to the atheist to prove that. You simply can't do that, any more than you or I can scientifically prove the nonexistence of the tooth-fairy.

To me a God creating the universe would make sense, it fills the gap of human knowledge that I doubt we'll ever be able to effectively explain. Until we can, I don't feel comfortable to judge whether God exists or whether he doesn't exist.

And you're right: we might be clever enough to know with a level of certainty what happened almost immediately after the big bang, but physics will never be able to determine what caused the BB to happen in the first place. And you know what? I'm comfortable with the idea that physics was playing to a completely different set of rules in that initial fraction of a millisecond. I don't need a God-figure to fill in the blanks in our knowledge.

Limited free will is not free will.

Technically yes but you can see what I'm getting at.

Yes I can, but you must accept that as an atheist you would not want God imposing himself at any level on YOUR freedom of will, but given say, a disaster you might be the first to say WHY didn't God intervene. Where do you draw the line?

OK an alternative option, why can't God make it so we never feel pain. And why can't God make it so the world is perfectly balanced and the entirety of the planet nourished with vegetation, food and water. Why can't he at least provide what are baron countries with enough food and water to at least sustain themselves.

I suppose the universe itself needs duality to define itself, if we didn't feel pain would we feel pleasure or happiness? Without the full gamut of emotion would we even be human?. We always seem to come back to free will, even scientists want a relationship beyond purely functional robotics, wanting machines that can think and make decisions for themselves. Such AI experiments may parallel our own existence and relationship with a creator.

Limited free will is not free will.

Technically yes but you can see what I'm getting at.

Yes I can, but you must accept that as an atheist you would not want God imposing himself at any level on YOUR freedom of will, but given say, a disaster you might be the first to say WHY didn't God intervene. Where do you draw the line?

OK an alternative option, why can't God make it so we never feel pain. And why can't God make it so the world is perfectly balanced and the entirety of the planet nourished with vegetation, food and water. Why can't he at least provide what are baron countries with enough food and water to at least sustain themselves.

I suppose the universe itself needs duality to define itself, if we didn't feel pain would we feel pleasure or happiness? Without the full gamut of emotion would we even be human?. We always seem to come back to free will, even scientists want a relationship beyond purely functional robotics, wanting machines that can think and make decisions for themselves. Such AI experiments may parallel our own existence and relationship with a creator.

I'm talking about physical pain. My point is though that an omnipotent being should be able to do better than this. I also don't see why he wouldn't want to put his existence beyond any doubt and just present himself.

So, yeah, ISIS...

Maybe this God debate should be moved to its own thread?

Probably worth reading my synopsis before making jokes about it.

Probably worth checking what times the posts were made before climbing onto your moral high horse right back at you!

Don't confuse jokes about your posts with jokes about the holocaust ffs!!

Limited free will is not free will.

Technically yes but you can see what I'm getting at.

Yes I can, but you must accept that as an atheist you would not want God imposing himself at any level on YOUR freedom of will, but given say, a disaster you might be the first to say WHY didn't God intervene. Where do you draw the line?

OK an alternative option, why can't God make it so we never feel pain. And why can't God make it so the world is perfectly balanced and the entirety of the planet nourished with vegetation, food and water. Why can't he at least provide what are baron countries with enough food and water to at least sustain themselves.

I suppose the universe itself needs duality to define itself, if we didn't feel pain would we feel pleasure or happiness? Without the full gamut of emotion would we even be human?. We always seem to come back to free will, even scientists want a relationship beyond purely functional robotics, wanting machines that can think and make decisions for themselves. Such AI experiments may parallel our own existence and relationship with a creator.

I'm talking about physical pain. My point is though that an omnipotent being should be able to do better than this. I also don't see why he wouldn't want to put his existence beyond any doubt and just present himself.

You may have seen this clip, but if not it makes for interesting viewing/reading:

Stephen Fry explains what he would say if he was 'confronted by God'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 15360.html

Fry says exactly what I'm trying to say only far more eloquently than I ever could. The God of the Bible is disgusting and evil and quite frankly isn't worthy of my worship.

Fry says exactly what I'm trying to say only far more eloquently than I ever could. The God of the Bible is disgusting and evil and quite frankly isn't worthy of my worship.

I'll answer this one over on the God thread if that's okay?

Fry says exactly what I'm trying to say only far more eloquently than I ever could. The God of the Bible is disgusting and evil and quite frankly isn't worthy of my worship.

I'll answer this one over on the God thread if that's okay?

Go for it