So, since God is Spirit or power (Spirit is really another term for Spiritual energy or power)--and He is also light, each of us are part of His power and light! But He's also love--God is love! So God is love and power and light! It's like an equation: If on the one side God equals power and light, and on the other He equals love--then love equals power and light!

So love is power and light: Love is the power and light of God! Love is God and His power and His light! so when you give love to someone, real love, God's love, when you really love someone spiritually, that's like showing them His Light in your spiritual love for them. And when you manifest it physically, the light of His love has power!

Bring in Sam Harris.

I spent most of my life as an agnostic but the more I thought about the origin of the universe and of man, the more I came to believe that we are not here by chance. My job is not to convince you that there is The God or even a god, but to lead you investigate the probability that this universe of ours could occur purely by chance.
Current cosmological theory states that the universe was created during the Big Bang. Before that time and space did not exist. Therefore, there must be a first cause to our creation that is outside our universe. The Bible states that God created the universe out of nothing. Scientists used to believe that the universe always existed in its present form and would continue to exist. But now we know that is false. In fact, the biblical account of creation of the universe out of nothing is a more accurate account of creation than the scientific view of just 50 years ago. It so happens that in theoretical physics, a singularity is nothing - its contents cannot be defined.
It is also a fact that as science learns more about the intial expansion of the universe in the first picoseconds after the Big Bang, the forces of expansion and contraction are so finally balanced that the odds of this occuring by chance is greater than one over a number that is greater than all the atoms in the universe. John Pockinghorne, former professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge states it would be like taking aim at a target the size of a nickel on the other side of the universe and hitting its center. That is the degree of precision that was necessary to create the type of universe we are in. It simply could not have occured by chance.
There is no reason that the universe had to be in the current form. Without the balance of forces, the universe could have just ended up as a soup of sub atomic particles without any organization into recognizable matter.
Thirdly, not only are the forces of universe balanced to allow the creation of atoms but they are set so that the forces allow the creation of atoms up carbon - the atom critical to organic matter. There is no reason why the subatomic and atomic forces are arranged to allow the carbon atom to be formed. Those forces could have been arranged so that any atom greater than helium was unstable.
Finally we get to life itself. Life needs at minimum three components all of which have to be present simultaneuosly. It must have the equivalent of a cell wall to separate itself from what is outside. It needs a coding system to replicate itself (DNA). It needs mitochondria or something analogous to provide the energy for reproduction and cell integrity. The problem is that we do not have a thoery as to how all three could occur simultaneously. A wall cannot exist without energy and encoding. Encoding cannot rreproduce without a wall and energy. A source of energy cannot reproduce itself or separate itself from what is not self without encoding and a wall. Thsi is before we solve the probelm of how all three of these entities just happen to have a common source of enzymes and proteins that just happen to be compatible with each other. I just don't see how it can happen by chance.
So the question for me and for you to answer is whether it is more likely that all of these things indeed did occur by chance or is it more likely that there is a god or even The God.
This is even before we get the philosophical issues of good and evil, the purpose of our lives and our ultimate destiny. For me, I have chosen to believe in The God. I find it much more likely that He exists than the universe and I occured by pure chance.

Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998
"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.
Please check you facts before you post, I would hate for anyone to be mislead.
Also, how did God come into being?
Either God and the universe need a cause, or neither need one. Saying anything else without evidence is special pleading.
A cell wall or membrane is not necessary for life, neither is DNA, neither is Mitochondria. In fact, many bacteria don't have DNA or Mitrochondria and do just fine.
Yes carbon is great, yes the universe appears fine tuned, but does it really matter? If it wasn't, we wouldn't be hear. If it is (it is by the way) then its how we need it to be. I believe its called the Anthropic principle, its an extraordinary occurrence, but we know it happened because we're hear.
Postulating of another extraordinary being does not explain anything.
There is no evidence for God, nor one logical argument for his existence to the best of my knowledge that has not been refuted.

i believe quantum mechanics (which is the currently accepted standard model) says that there are infinitely many universes. what's to say that things happened to work out in this universe and we're here to know that, but that there aren't other universes too? there may be millions of universes that have nothing because things just weren't right, and millions of others where things happened differently, but life still occurred, and they're debating the same things we are. it's an interesting debate i don't foresee being decided for a very long time.

Reply to Atheist,
Your reference is from a letter that was written to Nature Magazine in response to the article that showed that little had changed in a RANDOM survey of scientists that replicated the original 1914 survey.
As you are well away, the NAS is not a random collection of scientists but a self-selected group. It is a prestigious group to be sure, but the fact that one is elected to the NAS allows for prejudice against the election of a scientist based on his/her religious beliefs; to wit, a belief in a personal god could be seen to be a de facto reason for non selection to the NAS.
I stand by my statement that a random survey that replicated the original survey showed little substantive change in a belief in god amonst those scientists who were surveyed.
I do not and will not intentionally post material that I think is false. To do so is to lose credibility and is counter productive to my goal of seeking the truth. When I am wrong, I will admit it but in this case, I do not think what I posted was or is incorrect. I will extend you the same courtesy. The facts you posted are correct, but they do not change the validity of my post. They are the result of a different survey of a specific non random, although prestigeous, group of scientists.

I haven't found any believers that could give me a satisfying answer to these 3 questions together. Even better would be 2 believers that came up with the same answers.
1. If God originally designed humans to live forever, why don't our teeth have any ability to repair themselves? Rodents teeth do.
2. Archeology clearly shows that "modern" humans have been around for 100,000 to 200,000 years before the story of Adam and Eve. Without the story of Adam being the first man, there's no original sin, and therefore no need for a saviour. How can you justify Christianity?
3. Humans die of old age, genetic defects, organ failure, and accidents. Was this not sufficient for God's purposes of punishing us for inherited sin? Why did he also create viruses, bacterial infections, tape worms, and parasites such as malaria?

Reply to Question for Believers:
You asked, "I haven't found any believers that could give me a satisfying answer to these 3 questions together. Even better would be 2 believers that came up with the same answers.
1. If God originally designed humans to live forever, why don't our teeth have any ability to repair themselves? Rodents teeth do.
2. Archeology clearly shows that "modern" humans have been around for 100,000 to 200,000 years before the story of Adam and Eve. Without the story of Adam being the first man, there's no original sin, and therefore no need for a savior. How can you justify Christianity?
3. Humans die of old age, genetic defects, organ failure, and accidents. Was this not sufficient for God's purposes of punishing us for inherited sin? Why did he also create viruses, bacterial infections, tape worms, and parasites such as malaria? "
I think these are valid questions.
First let me say that I am not a Christian apologist. I know that I do not have all the answers. I also know that if I did answer these to your satisfaction, you would have even more questions.
Before I answer your questions, I need to ask you a question. What level of "proof" do you need to believe? At some point you must make a leap of faith. You will not find certainty from me.
Allow me to reply to questions 1 and 3 together. It seems to me that God could have created at an infinite variety of worlds for us. One is a perfect world that has no disease, where we have perfect bodies, and where we live forever. In fact, that is what the Bible says was the original creation.
The second is a world in which no bad things happen, where there is not disease, none of the things you mention in question 3.
Or he could have created the world that we have - with good and evil, health and disease, a limited life with bad teeth and all. A world in which he gave us free choice - where we are given the ability to do evil, to become drug addicted. For good to exists, evil must also exists.
As to your question about original sin, I ask you look into yourself and into your own human nature and desire. You do not need to look to Adam to find the truth. Look to yourself. See if man’s own propensity for evil does not provide the need for forgiveness and salvation without having to go to Adam. The answer lies in your mirror.
I don't know why God created this world for us. But I also know that for me, that is not important. It is not even in the top questions I would ask. More important are the questions I asked about the meaning of life. What is most important for me is that I am forgiven. Once you accept forgiveness and everlasting life, what exists in this life is temporary and transient and ultimately unimportant.
Non-Christians ask about this life because they believe our current existence is all there is to life. Once you accept Christ and forgiveness, our current life is unimportant. What is important is our final destiny. I can see how this is a difficult concept for you, as it was for me when I was an agnostic. I truly understand your doubt because I was where you are for over 50 years of my life.
Now on to question 2, which is the apparent "disconnect" between what non-Christians and even Christians believe Genesis says about the creation and the age of Man. If one interprets the Bible literally (Gn 1:1 - Gn 2:3), man and the universe are less than 20,000 years old which is contrary to what the fossil record indicates and what science believes.
I happen to believe that the earth is millions of years old. Genesis speaks of "day" and if we assume that it means the length of a day to us, I believe we would be wrong. If you can tell me how long a day is to God, I will tell you how old the universe is and how old earth is.
Genesis was written for His people, the children of Abraham. To be understood, God had to use language that they understood during that era. During that era, the early Jews did not understand or even have words for objects that did not have a function. So the term “day” in Genesis refers to God creating the function that is described in Genesis. For example, the separation of light from darkness is the function of time to the early Jews. There is an excellent lecture on this very subject by Professor John Walton, professor of Old Testament and Hebrew Studies at Wheaton College, who is an eminent Old Testament scholar. It is titled, "Why God Didn't Call the Light, Light".
For this discussion, the pertinent part of his sermon occurs near the end where Professor Walton says, "Once these seven days are seen as days dealing with functions, the whole controversy about the age of the earth gets put where it belongs. This text doesn’t say anything about the age of the material, physical things. Because it’s not about the making of those. Again, there is no doubt that God did them, but that’s not this story."
You can look at it here but I recommend that you download and listening to it.
[url]http://www.minorthoughts.com/on-creation/[/url]
There are two possibilities regarding the Bible and the age of the earth. The first is that science and the Bible disagree. The second is that you have misunderstood what the Bible has said and that science and the Bible agree. When you listen to Professor Walton, he brings science and the Biblical account into congruence.
My belief is that a slow miracle is just as impressive as a fast miracle. If God created the universe and man over millions or even billion of human years, is it no less miraculous? Time means nothing to God. To us time is important because it is the measure of the events in our lives but to God, it has no meaning because He is timeless.
I know that I cannot convince you. It is not up to me. It is up to you to seek the Truth and The Way for yourself. If you really keep an open mind, there will be answers for you.
There is a simple act that you can take. Seek the truth earnestly. If you really are open to a change in your belief, say this simple prayer: "God, if You are Who You say You are, reveal Yourself to me." If you do this one simple prayer and do it in all sincerity, He will reveal Himself. This is not a prayer for Christianity. If Christianity is The Way, He will reveal that to you also.
I sincerely hope that you find the answers to your questions. But more than that, I hope you realize that it is more important to ask the right questions and than it is to get answers to the wrong questions. Examine your existence and ask the right questions.

That was a nice response. And a decent effort too. It's not so much "proof" that I look for. It's more of a consistent explanation that can satisfy many questions at the same time without theorizing one way to tackle the first question, then contradicting the first explanation to answer the next.

What I took away from your post is the postulation that:
1. God created an imperfect world with disease and challenges for us over a very long period of time, and we were never designed to live forever as humans.
2. The story of Genesis is not literal as to the use of "day", and probably not literal in the story of Adam and of the first sin.
3. Christianity may not be correct.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to locate a consistent answer that fits. And, of course, you are right; there are always more questions.

So far the above 3 postulations could consistently answer all 3 of my questions. Would you be willing to answer a few more if I were willing to read them?

Believer: Thanks again for a nice post. I also read the sermon "Why God Didn't Call the Light, Light" and I really liked it. While I don't believe it could be used to support a view of whether Genesis is God's word, or just man's imagination, it was an excellent insight into the ancient language and worldview. Translating the word "light" as "period of light", and in most cases, translating the word "create" into "organize" led to a more consistent and clearer meaning.

Allow me to muse for a moment. You may not agree with me, but "organizing" matter instead of "creating" it out of nothing makes a whole lot more sense. Thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one to the other. Perhaps there is room for postulating that both God AND matter have co-existed for eternity, and God merely reorganized it into the universe that we are familiar with. This would solve my serious problem with the "watchmaker" argument and all of its variations. . . e.g. "If you found a beautifully crafted watch on a beach, would you assume it came into existence by accident, or would you agree that someone 'made'/'created' it." I've always HATED this argument. Watchmakers don't "create" watches out of nothing. They form or organize existing materials into a watch. The energy requirement to make a few atoms of any physical material is enormous. If God only had his own energy to convert into matter, the creation of all the matter in the universe would surely have drained him/her/it extensively (unless you believe he not only is infinite in time (timeless), but also posesses infinite energy, which makes absolutely no sense to me.)

I'm definitely not ready to say a prayer. On one hand, you agreed that it's possible that Christianity is not correct, but on the other hand you said you believe that accepting Christ and the resurrection is needed to be saved. That is inconsistent to me.

To update the postulations, I came up with the following:
1. God created an imperfect world with disease and challenges for us over a very long period of time, and we were never designed to live forever as humans.
2. The story of Genesis is not literal as to the use of "day", and probably not literal in the story of Adam and of the first sin, but mankind did something, at some time, to separate him from God.
3. Christianity may not be correct, but if it is, then it may have been "provided"/"organized" as a way to reconnect with God.

With that said, here's a new question:
a.) If all things were in harmony with God before the separation (being man's fault), why did countless innocent creatures (e.g. dinosaurs) go extinct before the separation? In different words, why would God create/("organize") creatures and allow them to die off even before there was a conflict?

As far as "hell" goes, I've never believed in a fiery torture forever and ever. It wasn't going to be my next question. The valley of Gehenna was a physical place near Jerusalem where they burned their garbage and corpses. Sulfur was added to keep the trash burning. I'm sure the literary usage and visual image of their enemies burning there created a strong feeling of justifiable revenge for the repressed readers of Revelation. Today, that area is a garden. Many people have visited "hell" and have come back to say it's a very nice place.

I look forward to seeing another post from you.
John

John M,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm off on weekends.
Your question about God and whether there was matter that he rearranged is contrary to current scientific "belief" about how our universe came into existence. One major criticism of religion by the nonreligious is that many believers do not accept what has been well established by science. I think they do God an injustice because clearly if God created the universe, He also created the laws of how the universe works; and all His creation is worthy of study. My belief is that science will eventually show that it is more likely that God exists than He does not exist. We may not understand all of it since we are human and He is God, but what we understand, should be consistent with God.
Having said that, how is your theory that God merely rearranged matter consistent with the current theory of the universe that it was formed from a singularity? Would you not criticize me if I postulated that God merely rearranged matter much like a chef baking a cake from pre-existing ingredients?
In response to your second question, quite frankly, I do not understand how it is important to the question of whether there is or is not the God. I do not have knowledge of His plan in the creation. For example – do you think God has a sense of humor or do you think everything that God does has an ultimate purpose? I don’t know. I’m human and He is God. If I understood everything that God understands would that not give me omniscience? It seems to me that you seek omniscience before you will believe.
Here’s another way to think of this. Suppose before the fossil fuel age, a cave man had the intelligence to ask what was the purpose of the single and multi celled flora and fauna that became extinct. He would have no answer. We now know that those extinct species are what gave us coal and oil. They had a purpose after all! Do I think every extinct species has a purpose that we don’t yet know about - I don’t know and I don’t care. What I care about is the big picture – what is the meaning of my life, not the life of a dinosaur, dodo bird, passenger pigeon or any number of extinctions.
Ask the big questions, John. Do not let the little questions act as stumbling block to the pursuit of what is really important.

In this post I want to discuss the fundamental logic behind the Atheism and Theism. I refer you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SeoP) for the definition of atheism, which is the negation of god.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
Chang Yuon was quite correct in his criticism of atheism as internally flawed. The statement God exists can never be proved because it contains within it the seeds of its own destruction.
A fundamental law of logic is the law of noncontradiction. For a statement to be true it must not contain within itself a contradictory statement. For that statement to be proved true, one would need infinite knowledge, which is the very thing that the statement denies the existence of. Theism, which is the statement that God exists, is internally consistent. It may be difficult to prove but it is not impossible to prove.
Examine the following reference on the law of non-contradiction to see if the atheistic position does violate this law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Because of the law of noncontradiction, many atheists take on the cloak of agnosticism. They actually believe that God does not exist, but they realize the fatal flaw in this position.
Read further on in the SEoP about the fine tuning of the universe, to which I referred in earlier discussions about as evidence for God. “Not only is the range of suitable variation very small in the case of individual pairs of constants, but this is so for many such pairs, and so the a priori probability of a universe like ours is (to speak loosely) almost infinitesimal.”
Philosophical arguments aside, one of the greatest, if not the greatest cosmologists of our time, Stephen Hawking, in this book, “A Brief History of Time”, states about the big bang theory, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” (pg 127, ISBN 0-553-34614-8)
Stephen Hawking is not a theist so he seeks a way out of the theistic corner that the big bang has painted science into. He then goes into alternative theories of the creation, some of which are expansionist, or string theories, or theories of an infinite universe containing infinite regions of different physical laws, and so on. The problem with this approach is that each new theory creates new problems that must be then explained, such that these alternative theories become more and more complex, much like a house of cards in which the loss of a single card makes the entire structure self destruct. String theory, for example, has 9 or 10 dimensions, and each additional dimension creates the problem that for them to exist, the mass and energy of the universe must expand exponentially.
Such complexities violate Occam’s Razor, which is the scientific principle that when confronted with multiple explanations for the same phenomena, the one with the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be true. So applying Occam’s Razor to the theories of the creation of the universe, the Big Bang is the simplest explanation. Unfortunately for atheists, this contains within it the overwhelming odds that God exists and so they search for alternative increasingly complex theories violating Occam’s Razor.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
I believe the theories of the creation of the universe make the likelihood that God exists probable rather than improbable. At the minimum, you need to take the position of Stephen Hawking who states in the final paragraph of his Conclusion to “A Brief History of Time”:
“However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exists. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.”
However small the probability that Hawking places on the possibility of God, I believe he rightfully acknowledges that there is a chance of His existence.
It is at this point that one can apply Pascal’s Wager:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
Blaise Pascal who was the greatest mathematician of his time proposed that one should choose God because it is costs nothing to do so. In essence he said that if I choose God and I am wrong, I am no worse off ultimately than an atheist who did not choose God. I still lived my life in the manner that I wanted. However, if I am right, then I have gained eternity and the atheist has lost eternity. This is a simplification of course so I urge you to read the SeoP to see where you stand on Pascal’s Wager.
I believe that an atheist or an agnostic who states that there is no evidence for God has chosen to ignore the evidence that is all around us. There is wealth of evidence both scientific, philosophical, and historical for God. The choice not to choose, in essence, to be an agnostic, is in itself a choice. It is an either/or decision matrix. Either God exists or He does not. I submit that eventually one must choose. To stay in the center is a guarantee that you will always be wrong.

Hi Godlessgeek,
To state that it is up to theists to prove God exists and that atheism is the default position is simply wrong. It is a circular argument. That statement assumes that God does not exist as a presupposition for your conclusion. It is analogous to the faulty opposite argument that only God could create a universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists. The correct assumption is that we don’t know if God exists. That is the starting point for both of us.
To state that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy position was written by a theists is an ad hominem argument. It is easier to argue against the unknown person than the position taken. That line of logic is essentially to state that you are an atheist, you do not agree with the SeoP, therefore, the SeoP author must be a theist. That line of argument is totally without validity. I believe the SeoP present both atheist and theist position accurately as it does for Pascal's Wager.
An example of the atheist position would be analogous to stating that there is no such thing as a time machine. To prove that statement you would need knowledge of everything in existence inside and outside this universe – you would need to be omnipotent. The opposite position would be that there is a time machine. To prove that, you do not need to be omnipotent but have only the knowledge of at least one time machine somewhere. Now substitute God for time machine and it becomes obvious that the atheistic statement self-destructs and the theist position does not.
To state that no one know the odds of the a priori probability that this universe could occur by chance is at odds with current scientific knowledge about the degree of precision of the scientific constants that are required for our universe to allow the existence of our species. Your argument is not with me – it is with no less a scientific mind than Stephen Hawking. Because you do not like a scientific fact does not make that fact invalid. You cannot simply choose what scientific and logical precepts you will accept or not accept as valid. You need to give me a scientific valid reason why they are not valid. You have not done so.
When you ask, "What created this God?” you are arguing basically against the concept of a God, who is a being whose reason for existence lies in Himself. The definition of a God is that He is uncaused, so your question is illogical. If you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a God, then there is no point in further discussion between us. For us to have a meaningful discussion you must allow for the possibility that there is a God, and I must allow for the possibility that there is no God. Otherwise we have no common point from which to start. Can we at least agree on that?
I have not argued that the Big Bang needs a God as its cause. What I said was that for the Big Band to result in a universe with the conditions of our universe, probability theory makes a God statistically likely. No less an authority than Stephen Hawking makes that statement as does the SeoP. Occam’s Razor indicates that the explanation with fewest assumptions is most often the correct explanation. It just so happens that Occam’s Razor supports the Big Bang because it has the fewest assumptions and is the simplest explanation.
Inflationary theory contains within it additional assumptions and conditions that are unnecessary to the explanation of how the universe came to be. I believe that if the Big Bang Theory did not contain within in the implication of statistical impossibility for our universe without a “designer”, there would be little scientific search for alternative theories that fail the test of Occam’s Razor.
You make a number of statements about Pascal’s Wager that I believe are not correct or misleading. For example, Pascal never stated that his wager proved God. So that is a straw man argument. We both agree that the Pascal’s Wager is not proof of God. Nor does it need theism and atheism to be of equal likelihood. Again that is a straw man position. Although Pascal used the example of equal probability for and against God, all that is required for Pascal’s Wager to apply is for the probability of God to be above zero, eg, that there be doubt about God’s existence. You have not shown that Pascal’s wager is not valid at a lesser probability. To quote from the SeoP, “Pascal's guiding insight is that the argument from expectation goes through equally well whatever your probability for God's existence is, provided that it is non-zero and finite (non-infinitesimal) — ‘a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss’.”
What Pascal’s wager says is that if you have doubt as to whether God exists or not, the wisest choice is to choose God. As the SeoP states, many atheistic critics of Pascal’s Wager have nevertheless accepted it as logically valid. “A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid — e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action.”
The SeoP then follows with an argument as to why Pascal’s Wage is not valid. “However, Duff 1986 and Hájek 2003 argue that the argument is in fact invalid.” I suggest a complete reading and that each person decide whether the wager is valid or not. I happen to think that it is.
You state, “The simple fact is that there's not a single bit of reliable evidence for any god (and certainly not for Yahweh), or even for the historical existence of Jesus.” I believe this statement to be completely false. There is ample historical evidence that Jesus existed and that he was crucified. You may argue about His divine nature but the historical record is pretty clear that Jesus existed. I refer you to Lee Strobel’s book, The Case For Christ. Lee Strobel was the legal editor for the Chicago Tribune and an atheist who set out to write about the myth of Christ. As he interviewed and cross-examined historians, Strobel came to the conclusion that Jesus existed and that He was the Christ. His quest to disprove Jesus led to his own conversion. He goes through the analysis of first century documents written about Jesus by nonbelievers. He examines the evidence that the documents are valid. He examines the corroborating evidence, the archeological evidence, etc.
I think you do your argument harm by taking the extreme position that ”there’s not a single bit of reliable evidence …for the historical existence of Jesus.” The facts are just the opposite of what you have written. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Jesus existed.
I wish we could discuss the following in person because I am going to make some statements that are very difficult for me to make in public but I have no choice.
I have gone to the web site http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm and I find in it verbatim much of what you have written about the big bang, about Pascal’s Wager, and virtually everything else you have posted without quotations. I don’t know how to say this gently so I’ll just say it. One should always use quotations when taking pieces of whole cloth from a source.
From reading that site and your post I find very little substantive that you have composed. I suggest that others compare what you have posted against what is written on that site. I also note the Copyright © 2007 Mark W. Thomas indicating that Mr. Thomas should be given credit for your post. I find it highly interesting that Mr. Thomas exhorts you to be an independent thinker, and yet virtually your entire post is taken verbatim from someone else’s thoughts.
I prefer to believe Stephen Hawking’s view of the Big Bang and it implications rather than Mark Thomas’, the author of your reference. I would believe as more acccurate the SeoP discussion of atheism vs theism, and Pascal’s Wager than Mr. Thomas’. The SeoP is unbiased. It is interesting that one of your major digs against the SeoP is that it must have been written by a believer, and that it is flat wrong. But then you present the whole cloth posting from an atheistic site that you do not attribute in quotations, leading the casual reader to assume that this is your personal unbiased composition.
If you read the conditions under which posts are to be made, it states, ”By posting a comment, you attest that the material is not copyrighted.” I don’t what to say other than I am extremely disappointed and dismayed. Is nothing sacred, not even personal ethics?
Both Mr. Thomas and I can agree that it is important that each person think independently that is to study both sides of the argument for and against God. I’ve studied and lived the atheistic/agnostic side for over 50 years of my life, and I found it deeply unfulfilling. Now that you have studied atheism, I suggest that you study the evidence for God before making a choice.
The grace of God be with you, and I really mean that. I truly wish you all the best in this life and hopefully, the next.

Hi John,
First let me say that it is good to meet you, and I am relieved that your work was not plagiarized.
You said:
“You seem to want to define Atheism out of existence, and your god into existence. Defining a god into existence is one type of the Ontological Argument. It is just confusion between the existence of ideas and the existence of real things.
The SeoP definition of Atheism is a classic way that theists attempt to discredit Atheism, by making it untenable. It was thus logical to conclude that the definition was probably written by a theist. For many (including me), Atheism is the simple conclusion that no god exists, based on logic and evidence from the real world.”
Atheism can be traced back to it’s origin in Greek with theos meaning god and by adding the “a”, the word atheos meaning no god. The Greek words theos and atheos are the origin of the English words theism and atheism. Atheism is a denial that god exist and NOT just a disbelief in god. It is clear that the original Greek meaning of the word is that god does not exist – it is a positive affirmation of a negative. That is the basis of the logical fallacy that atheism finds itself in.
Current dictionaries agree with this definition:
Oxford English Dictionary
theism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
atheism: (from Greek atheos, "godless, not believing in the existence of gods) 1a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity 2: godlessness esp. in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness.
It is NOT theists that have tried to redefine atheism, BUT rather atheists. In fact, by objecting to the original definition, you demonstrate that the definition of atheism is logically invalid.
The following passages reference the original source material and are paraphrased from http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm
Etymology is study of the origin of words. Etymological dictionaries give the origin or words. The origin of atheism is defined as follows:
Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology(1966) – “Atheism: a + theos, denying god.”
Etymological Dictionary of English Language(1958) – “Atheism: all are coined words from the Greek atheos, denying the gods, a word introduced into the Latin by Cicero in the form; atheos, a-, negative, prefix, and theos, a god.”
What do the philosophical dictionaries say?
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy(1995)states that, “Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one
Oxford Companion to Philosophy(1995). “Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.”
Dictionary of Philosophy(1996). “Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God.”
It seems to me that it is you who is trying to redefine atheism as a logically valid proposition. It seems to me that it is you who is trying to make logical what is illogical on its face – to believe in something that can never be proved because the very definition self destructs. It is ironic that you say your conclusion is based on logic, “Atheism is the simple conclusion that no god exists, based on logic” when that conclusion itself defies logic.
In fact, by that statement of yours, “that no god exists”, YOU HAVE VERIFIED THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF ATHEISM IS THAT NO GOD EXISTS. It is ironic that, while objecting to the classical definition of atheism, you use that same definition, word for word. That definition, as I have demonstrated in previous posts is logically invalid because it implies absolute knowledge, which must be present to verify the positive affirmation of a negative. That absolute knowledge then verifies the god, whom you are trying to disprove.
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that there is no evidence for god, and that is completely different than saying there is absolutely no god. It is obvious that a god can exists and that there can be no evidence for his existence that you have yet observed. There are many things that are now known to exist for which we had no evidence in the past. This is the logical conundrum of a position that seeks to affirm a negative, especially a negative for which you need the attribute (omnipotence) of the thing (god), which you are trying to disprove.
Isaac Asimov put it this way. “I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumes knowledge that one didn’t have….I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I strongly suspect that he doesn’t.”
Regarding the rest of your post, you seem to believe that one needs to believe in a specific god. In fact there are religions, which are polytheistic and one major religion is atheistic. If you review my previous posts, I think that one needs to decide first whether a god exists or does not exist. That is the initial decision point, for if one decides not to believe, then there is no reason to go any further.
You have not refuted my argument that the most accepted cosmological theory for the origin of the universe, the Big Bang Theory, virtually assures that our universe did not occur by chance. You have not countered except to say that another theory (inflation) exists, but you have not stated the implications of that theory as to the existence of god, nor have to answered my criticism that the application of Occam’s Razor makes the Big Bang most likely. It is on this basis that I believe that god is not only possible but likely. Since atheism is the position that god does not exist, it would seem to me that the Big Bang theory is your biggest obstacle.
You state, “I don't think that Stephen Hawking (or any reputable physicist or cosmologist) has ever given explicit odds on our universe existing. The most logical (albeit obviously post hoc) value is 1.0 -- because it does exist.” Again you revert to the straw man fallacy. You state an objection to something that I did not say as if that refutes my position.
This is what I actually said: Stephen Hawking, in this book, “A Brief History of Time”, states about the big bang theory, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” (pg 127, ISBN 0-553-34614-8). How does your reply refute Hawking’s statement? Note that Hawking uses the capital “G” for God and not the small “g”. In other sections he has used god with a small “g”. Therefore, I submit that by his use of the capital “G” Hawking is referring to a “GOD who MEANT TO CREATE creatures like US”. Contrary to your statement, Hawking specifically states that the Big Bang implies a God with a capital G.
In a previous post you said,” As for Stephen Hawking's quote, he's an Atheist and uses “God” as a metaphor for the laws of the universe (as did Albert Einstein).” Actually this is also incorrect. The leading authority on Einstein and his beliefs is Max Jammer who wrote “Einstein and Religion” (Princeton University Press, 1999). In it he quotes Einstein, who said, “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.” Einstein specifically disavows atheism and pantheism.
Although Einstein did not believe in a specific religion, Albert Einstein read the Bible and believed in one God. He defended God in this way, “In every true searcher of Nature, there is a kind of religious reverence, for he finds it impossible to imagine that he is the first to have thought out the exceedingly delicate threads that connect his perceptions.” Instead of what you imply, that Einstein thought of the laws of the universe as a metaphor for god, he believed the laws of the universe, in the fine way they are crafted, implies a God.
You continue to use false analogies and straw men. For example, when you say, “Occam’s Razor is just a guide to what is more likely correct. It certainly is not foolproof. For any problem, saying, "Zeus did it" satisfies Occam’s Razor (because it's a very simple response), but tells us practically nothing.” Your example is not valid because Occam’s Razor cannot be applied to invalid choices that have been eliminated as untenable. You cannot create a false premise such as “Zeus did it”, and then say that Occam’s razor chooses that premise, and therefore Occam’s Razor is in error.
Regarding Pascal’s Wager, the rubber meets the road when one has decided which religion in which to believe. One can then balance whether it makes sense to apply the wager. For example if the choice is between atheism and a religion which is atheistic (for example, mainstream Buddhism), the wager would not apply, because clearly, the results are identical. To state, “Pascal's Wager fails completely if it can be shown that a god doesn't exist,” does not apply for the reason that it is a null (empty) set, this condition will never come up. But when with the choice between a forgiving god and atheism, Pascal’s Wager is a slam dunk!
You don’t know what God thinks because don’t believe in God, and therefore Pascal’s Wager does not apply. This is really a form of a circular argument. If the premise is that the person making the decision does not know what God thinks, then there is no basis for making the decision. But if the person making the decision does have knowledge of God, then the Wager is valid.
The question then is whether man can know the nature of God? I believe he can.
I have written previously that God will reveal himself to those who pray in earnest. That is the most direct way that God reveals His nature to those who sincerely seek Him. Obviously you discount this as impossible, but if we have established that god exists via the Big Bang, is it not logical to see if god is the type of God who will respond to a sincere desire to know Him.
A second method is to examine all the major religions and to see which one of them answered the 4 great questions of all humanity – origin, purpose, morality, and destiny. And then which ones could be verified historically and archeologically, which one accurately described the state of man and myself, and which one was the most experientially relevant (were the beliefs verified by my own experience). For me, it is the belief in Christ. So I went from an agnostic to a card carrying Christian. It has been a wonderful and life affirming journey.
Now might be a good time to discuss the historicity of Jesus. You disregard the New Testament (NT), which happens to be the greatest source material for the historicity of Jesus. So what you are saying is that I don’t believe Jesus existed and therefore, I’m going to ignore eyewitness testimony of his existence. Then you say, the earliest non-biblical reference is +/- 80 years after his death and this is not proximate enough to be valid.
Obviously, volumes have been written on the historicity of Jesus. Quite frankly having read some (not all) of the writings it is not something that can adequately discussed in this limited space. The subject matter is simply too large. One of the best books I have read from the Christian perspective is Lee Strobel’s, “The Case For Christ.” He has footnotes and references for his conclusions.
The earliest account of Jesus in the NT is St. Mark’s Gospel, which is thought to be about 30 years after Jesus’ death. This is early enough so that direct eyewitness testimony is included from those who knew Jesus personally. It is too early historically for legendary material to have entered the writing of Mark. Mathew and Luke were written in the 80’s CE and John in the 90’s CE. This places the writing of Josephus and Tacitus proximate to the biblical writing.
By comparison, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written over 400 years after his death in 323. These writings by Arrian and Plutarch and are considered historically accurate despite the 4 century gap. You state that an 80 year gap is too long, and yet the real truth historically is that this is a short time for chronicling a minor event (at that time) and a minor personality (at that time) of the first century CE. As you know Jesus, at the time he lived and died was not worthy of note by historians. So to say that historians did not note him is begging the question. Rather than disprove his existence, the fact that he was an unimportant person at the time, the lack of historical documents actually speaks truth of his existence because it is consistent with what we would expect for a minor, minor, minor, historical figure.
When you consider the volume of surviving manuscripts, you find just the opposite when you compare the NT with surviving manuscripts of Josephus and Tacitus. There are only 9 surviving Josephus Manuscripts and only one surviving Tacitus “The Jewish War” manuscript. Homer’s Illiad has only 650 Greek manuscripts with the earliest manuscript from the 2nd century. The Illiad was written in 800 BC so the gap is 1000 years, and yet we accept the manuscripts as accurate. In fact, when dealing with ancient manuscripts, the normal gap is hundreds of years, normally from 5 to 10 centuries form the original to the earliest surviving document.
By contrast the earliest NT writings are only a few generations from the original, and there are literally thousands of later manuscripts that can be compared to the earliest versions. The earliest NT document is from about 150 AD. There are a total of 306 manuscripts form the 3rd century and over 2800 from the 8th to 9th centuries. So to discount these as being irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus is to ignore the overwhelming majority of surviving documents.
In summary, there is overwhelming agreement between unabridged dictionaries, etymological dictionaries, and philosophical dictionaries on the meaning of atheism. You have not cited one reliable neutral source to counter this definition. Atheism is internally inconsistent by the rules of logic and admitted to by honest atheists.
Secondly, you have not countered the fact that the Big Bang Theory implies a creator of the universe. You have not explained how other theories make the balance of laws, which allows creatures like us to exist, a probable rather than a near impossibility. On this point, science supports the theistic view of how the universe came to be in its present form.
Without successfully countering these two arguments, the progression to discussing the nature of God is premature.
Contrary to what others who read this may think, I have enjoyed this discussion with you. I wish you all the best in the future and success in whatever way you choose to define it.

First, I know many self-proclaimed Atheists, and most of us realize the logical difficulties is absolutely disproving all possible gods. However, we recognize the simple rational fact that there's not a single bit of reliable evidence for any god (especially Yahweh and Allah). We can also see that the typical definitions of Yahweh and Allah make them logically impossible. They are no more than idealized figments of human imagination (like most gods). And, that's good enough to rationally conclude -- based on the current reliable evidence -- that no gods exist. We also doubt that there ever will be reliable evidence; but hey, any potential god can give it a try.

Theism is the belief in god(s). Atheism is thus lack of belief in gods. It's a conclusion based on the reliable evidence.

On Pascal’s Wager: since we really have no ideas what any god actually thinks (especially if it is ineffable), the wager becomes moot. Besides, if a god is really omniscient (and demands that people believe without reliable evidence) and knows that a person believes because it's a "good bet," perhaps this god doesn't like the duplicitous thoughts. It might be that a god likes rational thinkers and not obsequious followers. Also, why would a "maker and designer of the universe" even care about what a relatively new bipedal species (on one of the trillions of planets) thinks?

On the actual existence of Jesus, you have not presented a single reliable historical account. Did you ever wonder why there's not a single description of Jesus in the Bible? Legends can grow in just a few years, especially in a semi-literate and superstitious society such as the 1st century CE. Even in our fairly literate and less superstitious society, how many people believe in all sorts of wacky, unproven ideas? Remember the Heaven's Gate Cult? David Koresh? Jonestown? How about Mormonism and Scientology?

Perhaps the authors of the books of Bible (OT & NT) knew that they were writing fiction/fantasy, perhaps they were just recounting stories that they had heard, perhaps they couldn't tell fact from fiction, or perhaps they were religious nut cases. There's no way to reliably tell. Paul (ne Saul) is about the only stated author that we're pretty sure actually existed, and he even admitted in his writings that he made it up. Of course, he didn't word it that way; he said that all his ideas came from revelation (Galatians 1:11,12). Paul also may have had epilepsy (the possible cause of his seizure and vision on the road to Damascus). Epilepsy is known to cause religious experiences. Some people can even have religious experiences induced by a magnetic field applied to their brains. Heck, almost everyone has visions every night. Most of us realize that they're just dreams, and would seriously wonder about anybody who said that God spoke to them in a dream.

The history of the creation of the Bible -- at the 1st council of Nicaea in 325 CE -- shows its less-than-divine origins as a book. Many Atheists refer to it as the "buybull" because it's so full of bull that people still buy.

Not long ago, many or even most people thought that their god caused lightning, earthquakes, diseases, the movements of the sun and stars, and almost everything else. This was largely because they didn't have a better explanation, so they said, "God did it." There has always been a common tendency to attribute anything mysterious to supernatural causes. Now we (at least most of us) know better -- largely because of science and its willingness to search for natural explanations.

Using your god as a cause of the universe, because you don't have a better explanation, is the same kind of logical error. Even if science never does completely explain the cause of the universe, that doesn't mean that your god or any god caused it. It might be that we're not smart enough, or the applied physics necessary is beyond our capabilities. However, Inflation Theory comes mighty close.

Believing in a god or saviour may be comforting and give you meaning, but it doesn't mean that they actually exist. George Bernard Shaw said it best. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."

All the best,
Mark
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm