This book sounds very like a very interesting take. Good luck with it- it sounds very intriguing!
I have never seen “logic” or “rational” used correctly at the SDMB, ferpetessake. There oughta be sticky, or something. Maybe it should be part of the Doper orientation.
I’ll be honest, I don’t have a lot of time for you to tell us what they are.
Of course it’s a faith. C’mon be serious will ya?
What are the odds, then of it existing and it being worthy of worship?
Brave talk for someone who thinks that people have the onus to prove your imaginary friend *doesn’t *exist. 
Well I don’t have a lot of time to look them up, why not start with the contradictions?
I am serious. I also understand what faith means. Since your faith is important to you, maybe you could work at understanding what the word means.
You believe something with no evidence behind it. I don’t believe because there is no evidence. The two aren’t the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. To say that they are is simply wishful thinking on your part. Although, since your faith is based on wishful thinking, I see why you’re so good at it.
In all seriousness, and sincerity, you are witnessing for your strong faith.
So we won’t get all constipated over religion I’ll post to you as an atheist.
As an atheist I recognize and concede that, while I find the whole thing ridiculous, if this God exists he conceived, designed ,implemented , and ultimately governs the laws of physics.
So I must insist that miracles are indeed “physically impossible” for us, but it is equally ridiculous for me ascribe the same limitations to the *creator *that the creator has imposed on the created.
In other words, it is silly for me to say that “I can’t raise the dead, so if this God exists he can’t either.”
I mean, you’re one of the smartest guys at SDMB. Do you not see that?
Good question.
Blaise Pascal sincerely tried to answer that question, and largely in vain. (and we’ve been debating it for 350 years)
Now whether this God is worthy of our worship is a personal choice, and the answer to that I submit is the reason we’re all here.
I can afford to be brave. I’m handsome, well endowed with an effervescent smile and personality. I’ve read the bible 34 times, including 4 times backwards, once in Russian (in French), in 9 translations (correcting translating errors in the margins) and in the source language.
I’m on the internet.
This is begging the question, and it’s a tautology (if X then X). The problem is that we not only lack evidence for X, we also lack any observable necessity for it? Why posit a superfluous God?
That sounds like the somewhat more condescending twin brother of Hercules, who lectures people on proper behavior while slaying lions and hydras and so forth.
Then, based on the only recorded information we on this entity called “God”, I submit that it is not worthy of worship. It may be capable of forcing us to worship it, but that doesn’t make it worthy, does it? Now, it may be true that this “God” has reasons it does things that we are incapable of understanding, but I tend to make decisions like these on what I do understand, with the stipulation that I could change my mind if more information presents itself. That is how we humans make decisions involving every other thing in our lives, and nobody has yet given me a reason to treat religion any differently.
The sacrifice of Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of all human beings, not merely ‘the first’ human beings. And yes, I do believe this, and so do over a billion other adults.
By “first humans,” the OP was referring to the doctrine of Original Sin, and the notion that all humans somehow inherit a “sinful” nature through their DNA because the first humans ate some fruit after snake told them that God was lying when he told them it would kill them.
Might I gently suggest that you may know what you believe, but you can only guess what is in the hearts and minds of others.
So? More people don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity than do.
Never mind that the “sacrifice” was trivial. Taking a three day nap is hardly impressive, even when you do factor in that the only reason He had to do it was because He had made up the stupid rule in the first place.
Even if I answer both of those questions in my favor, it only speaks to this God’s utility, not his existence, right?
In other words, my atheism might ultimately state “I don’t know (or rather, I can’t prove) that this God exists or not, but even if he did exist, he is useless.”
Can you actually answer either of/both of these questions, or is this yet another version of “I’ve got the answers, but you’d only(fill in the blank) if I gave then to you, so I’m not gonna.”?
I’m saying that a hypothesis which lacks either observable evidence or demonstrated necessity is insufficient to negate the null hypothesis. Therefore my assumptions necessarily default to the null.
In other words. I assume gods (like leprechauns and unicorns) don’t exist unless and until I am shown either evidence or necessity.
I think you’d probably receive some variation or combination of the following arguments:
A) You’re confusing the word “evidence” with the word “proof” and treating them as interchangeable.
There are many, many discussions/ debates that argue the evidence for a creator. They don’t make a case for direct evidence for a/the creator,rather they make a case for evidence of a creator via the visible world; the [presumably] created.
From Intelligent Design to irreducible complexity, there have been many arguments for a creator on this message board alone. More importantly venues with more intellectual heft than this MB have had running debates about just this evidence. (including many highly credentialed people in relevant fields) “Proof”, they’ll point out doesn’t exist. “Observable evidence?”, will elicit a “don’t be silly.”
Lastly, just as “evidence” and “proof” are not interchangeable, you cannot say that evidence you see as less then compelling is the same as “no evidence.”…or;
**
B) You’re being disingenuous.**
After all, they’ll argue, you’ve argued the evidence many many times on this message board. The same evidence you now say just doesn’t exist. What’s up with that?, they’ll say
**
3) You have the strongest of faiths in your subjective beliefs.**
It’s only the strongest of beliefs that produces a level of moral certainty that makes evidence not just less then compelling, but invisible.
“demonstrated necessity” in another post.
That’s agnosticism, not atheism.
Yep. Just another tired version of “I could show you what you are asking for, but you’d only (fill in the blank), so I’m not gonna.” Is there a formal name for this arguing technique?