[Bored chemist]

How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I am happy for people to die.

Well, you don't seem at all upset about it.

In what way do I glorify it.

I don't know. But my guess is that you get up on Sunday + go to church to worship the biggest mass murderer we have ever known.

At any rate, you don't say we should despise Him for His actions.

[duffyd]

Duffyd: Nice to get back on topic. Please state the observables that can only be ascribed to your god. If your god is not the omnipotent, omniscient and anthropic creator of the universe (i.e. the familiar Judaeo-Christian-Islamic deity), please define its functionality.

Look to the sun.

I can't see it, because it's overcast.
Does that mean God ceased to be?

When it is nighttime? During an eclipse? If it gets cold?

[duffyd]

How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I am happy for people to die.

Well, you don't seem at all upset about it.

In what way do I glorify it.

I don't know. But my guess is that you get up on Sunday + go to church to worship the biggest mass murderer we have ever known.

At any rate, you don't say we should despise Him for His actions.

Can you cite examples when your god kills with malice aforethought?

[duffyd]

Why hasn't science been able to prove the existence of God? I was A2A on a question about turning into an atheist at 13 years of age. It bothered me deeply and I came to question my own beliefs. I'm at a crossroad. Help me through logical answers.

Science proves God exists to some people. Others find Him through childlike certainty. Some find Him at the end of a long painful journey into hell. Some cannot be convinced. Some ask Him directly if He is and become believers through the response they receive.

[CliveG]

One needs to know the attributes of God if we are to give a scientific probability as to his existence.

And there's the problem. Every time a believer lists the attributes of his deity, some skeptic (call him a scientist) points out the contradictions and contradictory evidence.

I completely agree. Which is why I have challenged people to do that with the deity and the hypothesis I have put forward. Where are the contradictions?

I also say that my hypothesis can be applied to most religions without trashing them, They can accept some of the principles and continue within the teachings. Some of the principles of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism and Shamanism have to be seen as outdated and as having served their purpose. The "inerrancy" of the texts is not really a teaching but an opinion of religious leaders as an answer to people who point out contradictions.

Religions should also distinguish between religious rituals and religious laws that conflated civil, criminal and medical "guidelines" for a healthy well-functioning society. The "stories" that seem to show God as favoring one racial over another should be abandoned. Other "stories" can be interpreted as a fable to teach people right from wrong. Most religions are based on doing "right" and doing "good", and recognizing that evil exists.

My hypothesis allows people to be more spiritual and work within spirit to achieve good - and allow good people to see those that worship evil. It allows people to know what is probable and thus know when they are being deceived - such as anyone claiming to do psychic surgery.

I have taken each religion and written about the needed changes, pointing out why they are needed.

[duffyd]

Non sequitur. 
The existence of the sun is not evidence of my existence, let alone that of an invisible fairy.

It is relevant. I don't believe it is accurate to say it is non sequitur.

Absolutely. Never intended to use it as evidence for an invisible fairy.

[alancalverd]

Can you cite examples when your god kills with malice aforethought?

Not having a god, I can't answer directly, but it is inconceivable that any omniscient and/or omnipotent deity would kill without forethought. Malice is a human judgement, but the imposition of anything from Job's plague of boils to the slow strangulation of cystic fibrosis or motor neurone disease would count as malicious in a court of law.

[alancalverd]

Non sequitur. 
The existence of the sun is not evidence of my existence, let alone that of an invisible fairy.

It is relevant. I don't believe it is accurate to say it is non sequitur.

Absolutely. Never intended to use it as evidence for an invisible fairy.

Always a pleasure to cross swords with a fellow pedant! OK, the existence of the sun is not evidence for the existence of anything else.

[duffyd]

Can you cite examples when your god kills with malice aforethought?

Not having a god, I can't answer directly, but it is inconceivable that any omniscient and/or omnipotent deity would kill without forethought. Malice is a human judgement, but the imposition of anything from Job's plague of boils to the slow strangulation of cystic fibrosis or motor neurone disease would count as malicious in a court of law.

Not at all. Just the opposite. "Malice" is a legal term and God is not guilty of murder based on its definition. Whether you acknowledge God is or isn't has nothing to do with His status as your God.

[CliveG]

How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I am happy for people to die.

Well, you don't seem at all upset about it.

In what way do I glorify it.

I don't know. But my guess is that you get up on Sunday + go to church to worship the biggest mass murderer we have ever known.

At any rate, you don't say we should despise Him for His actions.

You are quite right I do not get upset about it. Why should I? If God exists, then he is good, and not only that but he has incredible power. Getting angry is the wrong emotion.

I do not go to church on Sundays. I went to Sunday school as a child because my parents made me but I found it thoroughly enjoyable. Singing and listening to stories of wonder. It was a place of love and healing. Since then, I have attended different religious services in recent years to attend to funerals and weddings but also to get a new look at what they teach and how.

God is good. And I do not worship that or any other entity. I am of the opinion that a belief in God is good for people, and I choose to act as if he exists. Your claim that God is a mass murderer is false. There is no malice in God as Duffyd points out in his later post. Allowing people to die cannot be seen as murder when people always die. Death is inevitable, and so are some terrible deaths.

Death in itself is not evil. It is a change where the soul is released to later reincarnate. Evil is where people throughout history (the Holocaust is but one example) deliberately and with malice aforethought cause suffering and death, whether on a large scale or just one person. Suffering is also inevitable. It is evolution. Higher species consume lower species - humans would not be where we are without that.

Why is there this emotional attachment to a debate about the science of proving God? By all means point out contradictions but to use words like "mass murderer" shows some kind of internal anger which blinds one to reason and logic. Even highly intelligent people resort to emotional mantras when they get cornered by a contradiction which may be exposed on their model about the meaning of life.

You could simple say that allowing people to die is not good and yet God does it, so how can he be good? The answer is that God allows people free will and allows the laws of physics and nature to run the world - and that death is natural. If he interfered on every "bad" thing he would be interfering all the time. Nothing bad would be allowed to happen. Is a lion killing a poor deer bad or evil?

I hate people who do evil. I see it all the time. The tower placed next to us by corrupt corporations and then allowed to stay there by corrupt politicians and corrupt judges makes me very angry. They choose selfish actions over doing the right thing. We have had one of the most corrupt regimes in the world, and there have been no consequences. It just may be that the virus "cleans out" some of the corruption.

Humankind brought this virus upon the world by greed and corruption. It is time for a change. What if God does not exist, and the virus is just part of evolution? Would you be upset at nature? Do you blame people for wanting good to come out of something that is bad?

[Bored chemist]

Science proves God exists to some people.

Do you mean in the sense that science also documents the fact that some deluded people think they are Queen Victoria?
It's true that the belief exists, but not true that they are a dead monarch.

Or are you trying to say that, to some people, science is proof of God?
Because that's just wrong.
Or are you trying to say that there is a group of people to whom science has proved the existence of God?
That's impossible.

[Bored chemist]

Evil is where people throughout history (the Holocaust is but one example) deliberately and with malice aforethought cause suffering and death,

It it evil to cause that behaviour to happen?
If so, then God is evil.
If not then, (since they didn't personally get their hands dirty) Hitler, Stalin and Pol pot were not evil.

[alancalverd]

"Malice" is a legal term and God is not guilty of murder based on its definition.

Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party.

So inflicting the plague of boils on Job, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood, and every other recorded Act of God including the 230,000 deaths in the 2004 Sumatra tsunami were unintended? If your god isn't guilty of murder, he'd certainly be convicted of manslaughter.

[duffyd]

Science proves God exists to some people.

Do you mean in the sense that science also documents the fact that some deluded people think they are Queen Victoria?
It's true that the belief exists, but not true that they are a dead monarch.

Or are you trying to say that, to some people, science is proof of God?
Because that's just wrong.
Or are you trying to say that there is a group of people to whom science has proved the existence of God?
That's impossible.

1 no
2 no
3 sure, just as you are convinced they must be deluded even though you lack substantive evidence to draw that conclusion.  Or, what scientific data do you rely upon that proves they are all deluded?

[Bored chemist]

Or, what scientific data do you rely upon that proves they are all deluded?

That's not what I said.

[duffyd]

"Malice" is a legal term and God is not guilty of murder based on its definition.

Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party.

So inflicting the plague of boils on Job, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood, and every other recorded Act of God including the 230,000 deaths in the 2004 Sumatra tsunami were unintended? If your god isn't guilty of murder, he'd certainly be convicted of manslaughter.

"Every other recorded act..." Doubtful.
"Not having a god, I can't answer directly..." Yet, direct answers were proffered.
He is sovereign. Sin is not just what is committed or omitted. It is inbred, a condition within each of us and none has escaped. Children who perish transfer from this temporary shelter to an unending untarnished kingdom. 

[Bored chemist]

Sin is not just what is committed or omitted. It is inbred, a condition within each of us

It sounds like the God is a twit.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image,

[duffyd]

Or, what scientific data do you rely upon that proves they are all deluded?

That's not what I said.

Well, that's good. We agree. Rational, perfectly sane, well adjusted people interpret and rely upon scientific evidence and many other facts revealing God.

[duffyd]

Sin is not just what is committed or omitted. It is inbred, a condition within each of us

It sounds like the God is a twit.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image,

Oh, He is pure evil to many millions. That surprises you? They hated his guts. Still do. Hate. Murderous hatred. A large, vehement crowd, including many of society's most favored, demanded his blood. And they got it. John, his cousin, got it too, for calling sin, sin.

[Bored chemist]

"Malice" is a legal term and God is not guilty of murder based on its definition.

Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party.

So inflicting the plague of boils on Job, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood, and every other recorded Act of God including the 230,000 deaths in the 2004 Sumatra tsunami were unintended? If your god isn't guilty of murder, he'd certainly be convicted of manslaughter.

"Not guilty by reason of insanity" is another possibility.