This is curious the last visitor made the statement of (I am quoting) "Please understand.  I am NOT dealing in probabilities.  I am making the claim that the Christian GOD does absolutely exist and that it can be LOGICALLY proven by the impossibility of the contrary"

  I think he left before he even begun. A shame, I wanted to hear what he was going to offer.

 >How would this massive revolt affect the ominpotence of the god or one of the other omni-aspects mentioned here ?

 Thanks to the Bible, there a biography to examine (NOT failing to mention in passing the profound syncretism which is only shed light upon by examining neighboring cultures' 'type' gods), by what is written in the texts. Are there other examples that could be considered utterly irreconcilable, if not alarming ? I always found it interesting to wonder about the Angels, described in the texts, it used to be perplexing to me, when I was much younger. I am honestly curious about what others think, Christians included. According to the Bible, the last book (that should have never been included) it states in Rev. 12 one third of the stars in the sky were cast to the earth, by the Dragon's tail. This has be interpreted all over to mean, an entire one third of the angelic hosts sided with the Devil in an insurrection against the Holy God! I am suggesting regarding this comment, it is hard to understand what it would be like to be "All-knowing", the back drop of the War in the Heavens ..is not suggesting you have to be a big fan of what goes on, by any means. Supposedly, An attempt to establish another authority by the act of revolt and rebellion. Oh, this is meaning countless angels gave G-d the two fingered salute, said effectively F***-you, we reject You, they made clear. And I aint working for you anymore !!  A thornier issue is Ominscience. Why suggest this ? If the god were Omnipresence but in no way Ominscient. Then this War in Heaven could take place. If He knew everything in advance in a unlimited pure Ominscient way, the War would not need to take place at all. You see, it merely would end up a costumed farce. Why bother, at all ?  Note I could remind any, Hell was originally set up for the Devil and his angels as it very explicit in at least 3-4 locations in the New Testament, two Gospel references, and in other writings. The insurrectionists  were out numbered  by what two to one?  Just cast the whole lott (of them) the insurrectionists into the bowels of Hell to remain for whatever length of time they are there. Rebels defeated, they all go home. Order finally restored. Btw, In completely human terms, If I were a leader and such a large number of subjects having revolted, my natural inclination would be to course correct. Learn from my errors, being sure to best as I could avoid similar mistakes, so the past mistakes weren't repeated, setting the stage for this happening all over again. Best case. Then free will would be central to the argument as to which of the legs were a bit longer than the other two. Rob's link. It still doesnt speak well of the whole idea of Ominscient ALMIGHTY, to keep this whole drama in place and the need for a War in the Heavens, and all according to the pages of the sacred book(s). (?) Although, It ultimately comes down to "why" choose not to act, (or not act "immediately")?. You cannot be sure it is logically impossible. Only if, Sometimes a fatal error is committed in defining things into an indescribable abstraction. It becomes completely unrelatable to a disgustingly nth degree.

 How would this massive revolt affect the ominpotence of the god or one of the other omni-aspects mentioned here ? In fairness, Are there any limiting factors to take into consideration, or no ?

F i n

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

<Caposkia, I honestly do not recall your views on evolution. So I begin with just a straight forward summary of the chapter.>

Many millions of people do not know about evolution. They don't understand how it works, and they don't truly know the facts and mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. Many don't understand the scientific definition of theory, but go with a detective story definition of "guess." And not even an informed guess as presented in most detective stories.

Over and over again, there is substantial evidence for evolution, from many different branches of science - zoology, biology, botany, microbiology, paleontology, genetics, to name some. You may find a few scientists who are creationists, a few more who are theistic evolutionists, but they are a miniscule number compared to those scientists who have no disconfirming evidence and so know that evolution is as real as any other theory.

There are many religious leaders who claim that the theory of evolution is bad - not just inaccurate, but actively harmful to your "immortal soul." God/s/dess will be very angry with you if you actually study evolution and discover the scientific facts behind the theory.

What is the cause of this persistent idea that evolution is evil? It might be based, in part, on the now vilified eugenics movement of the 1920s and 30s. That idea was truly evil. And we now know that it is false and cruel. Harrison says rejecting evolution because some people use it to justify racism is like rejecting gravity because someone dropped rocks from a building on someone else. Or condemning all religions because some have been used to justify crimes. See the Philip Dick quote.

Some people claim that accepting evolution makes you more likely to commit crimes. After all, you are just an animal and have an animal's instincts. So raping, robbing, murdering, etc., is normal and natural. Nonsense. Do scientists who support the theory evolution commit more crimes? No. Evolution does not give anyone a green light to hurt other people.

Evolution does not address how life began, it only explains how life changed over time. If you understand how natural selection works, how genetic mutations happen, how long life has had to evolve, why does this automatically make you a bad person? Many people believe in both evolution and religion and they are not bad people.

References

Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 2001. Outstanding book on evolution by a great scientist.

Zimmer, Carl. The Triumph of an Idea. New York: Harper Collins, 2001. This is the companion book to the PBS series of the same name. This book is the perfect read for anyone who has doubts about evolution or just wants to to understand it more. Includes the chapter "What about God?" which addresses the evolution-creationism controversy.

----------------------

The above comments on the references are the author's, not mine. I have read and recommend Mayr's book. Easy to read and very informative.

There are three chapters on evolution, this is only the first. If responding to this post, let's try to stick to this one aspect of the controversy - that the theory of evolution is somehow bad and will lead people to doing bad things.

I don't have much to say on this particular topic as I find the argument ludicrous. Mr. Harrison has said everything that I could think of to say. I will post more extensively when we get to the other two chapters on evolution.

The title of this chapter is a direct quote from an interview the author had with Apollo astronaut Gene Cernan. And of course, there are the many beautiful and impressive photographs taken of the Earth from space by many of the astronauts. "Earthrise" taken in 1968 is the classic. <Photos are from wiki, and are not in the book.>

Or, "The Big Blue Marble" taken in 1972 is the most famous:

There are many believers who say that these photos (and others) demonstrate a beauty and wonder that must have been created for how could it have happened by chance?

Well, sure the Earth is beautiful from a distance, but close up? Harrison then reprises the (well-worn) arguments of it is not so pretty here on Earth and free will is a cop out. God/s/dess knew (omniscient?) how people would turn out. Knew that Adam would be led astray by Eve, knew that people would perpetuate genocides (after all, the OT god ordered genocide) and that people would starve, abuse, rape and enslave children - children who have no free will. God/s/dess could have made other choices when creating humans, but obviously chose not. (Assuming you believe in creation by a deity.)

People can be beautiful and can create beautiful objects. The Earth and the creatures living on it can be beautiful. They can also be disgusting, ugly, dangerous, and cruel. The image of the lion cubs devouring an antelope while it was still alive was an evocative image. You can say predators and prey evolved together to be preyed upon and to prey on. Or you can say god designed this cruelty - which calls into question any benevolence - and is harder for the author to understand.

Surely there are alternatives to the mass killing and starvation that happen in the world. Surely we could think of alternatives to feeding all life and controlling populations that results in a much more beautiful world than the one we currently live upon.

References

"Causes of Poverty: Poverty Facts and Stats." Global Issues, 2007. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp.

Leach, Susan Llewelyn. "Slavery Is Not Dead, Just Less Recognizable." Christian Science Monitor, September 1, 2004.

"Military: World Wide Military Expenditures." Global Security.org, 2007. http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

State of the World's Children 2008. UNICEF report, January 2008. http://www.unicef.org.

"Water Sanitation and Health: Health through Safe Drinking Water and Basic Sanitation." World Health Organization (WHO). http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/mdg1/en/index.html

The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.

Zimmer, Carl. Parasite Rex: Inside the Bizarre World of Nature's Dangerous Creatures. New York: Free Press, 2000. Required reading for all those who think nature is nothing more than sweet-smelling flowers and pretty waterfalls.

-------------------------

Researching the references:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats has an update of poverty figures as of January 2013.

The slavery article is available online: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0901/p16s01-wogi.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm has figures updated to 2011.

The entire report on the 2013 state of the world's children by UNICEF can be found here: http://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/files/SWCR2013_ENG_Lo_res_24_Apr_2013.pdf  Links to other languages and formats can be found here: http://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/

Whether or not you agree with WHO's position on many topics, I believe clean water and decent sanitation is essential for all people. The number of critters that live in water that cause disease is amazing - and it is expensive to clean them out. (Yes, chlorine kills a lot of them and it is not expensive, but there are some that chlorine will not kill and require filtering which is very expensive for a municipality to implement. There are outbreaks of water borne diseases even in the U.S every summer.) The given link is still active and updated.

The World Factbook is active and updated as of July 2013. I do not know if it is accessible from other countries.

And I have read Parasite Rex. It is a really neat book with lots of truly gross pictures. Never, never, never drink water where it is untreated. Really. Unless, you have a problem with auto-immune disorders and then you may want to deliberately infest yourself. Am I serious? Yes. Apparently, if your immune system does not have enough to do, it will attack you. So giving yourself a nice, low impact, long term parasite may correct your problem. Ewww......

That last is an example of "what was your deity thinking?" Let's create critters so that the critters they predate on have to develop immune systems so reactive that the immune system will attack it's own body if it doesn't have any other critters to attack. Huh? This is a great plan? This is "beautiful?" Strange. "You can't know the mind of god." Damn straight and at that point, I don't think I want to even try to know a mind so short sighted and twisted.

Evolutionary biologists call predator-prey relationships an "arms race." The prey evolves to elude the predator so the predator evolves to catch the prey in a never ending cycle. With the result that the prey is pretty impressive in one fashion or another and the predator is really impressively creepy. Moths and butterflies cope with predating wasps by cranking out impressive numbers of eggs so there are equally impressive numbers of caterpillars. Antelopes cope with lions by becoming ever faster and ever more alert to their environment. Humans have responded to their predators by breeding large numbers of children who become more and more immune and by wiping out the predators through technology. No plan is necessary to explain this, just simple survival. And it isn't "beautiful" by any stretch of the imagination.

P.S. I have seen that glitter that was in the lion cubs eyes as they pulled apart a living antelope in my dog's eyes after she gutted a rat on my deck. Good girl. Please don't ever look at me that way.

True Christians have no issue with evolution as is.  Where the issue lies is origins, which as your article said, is not evolution.  I'll add its' Darwinism.  I have no issue with evolution as science describes it and I'll quote from your post; "Evolution does not address how life began, it only explains how life changed over time."  None of the mounds of evidence science has on evolution goes against anything scripture says.  

I'll add, just in case origins is viewed strictly as the start of all life.  I cannot accept interspecieal evolution or that one species evolved into another.  Too many gaps in science to support it with any species claimed to have evolved from another.  

Most non-believers I've come across confuse evolution with Darwinism and try to tie it in with origins.  This i think is where Dana might be confused on my stance.  

To start, the view that all life has a purpose is considered old-fashioned. It was common when people - scientists included - attempted to view the world as created by their god/s/dess. There must be a purpose if this entity (ies) bothered to create them, otherwise why bother?

Very few biologists, zoologists, botanists, etc now talk about purpose. Instead, they talk about ecological balance from the perspective of what is happening in a particular ecosphere, microclimate, or trophic level.

(As an aside, a trophic level is "A position in a food chain or Ecological Pyramid occupied by a group of organisms with similar feeding mode. For example, the primary producers are photosynthetic plants occupying the first trophic level. A group of organisms feeding on them is called herbivores, which form the second trophic level. Organisms feeding on the herbivores, called carnivores, occupy the next trophic level." Most ecospheres have three trophic levels, there may be a fourth with predators preying on predators. Or, you can count the soil bacteria as a separate level. There is a limit to the number of possible trophic levels depending on the available resources. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Trophic_level )

Back to purpose. Each organism contributes to the balance of an ecosphere. But if a particular organism becomes extinct, the particular ecosphere may experience collapse for awhile, but it will recover as organism(s) evolve to fill the new niche opened by the extinction. After all, it is estimated that over 95% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. Yet we have an amazing biodiversity existing today. All is not lost if a species dies out.

And the ecosphere is not perfectly balanced at all times. For example, predator-prey relationships often go through cycles. There are a lot of mice, the wolves get fat and have lots of cubs, the cubs eat lots of mice, there aren't enough mice, there are fewer cubs, then more mice, more wolves, fewer mice, fewer wolves, etc, in an endless loop.

(Yes, wolves eat mice.)

Evolution does not "work." It does not "preserve itself." It is mindless. Directionless. Not random, but not with a purpose. New species evolve - see nylon eating bacteria. They didn't exist before humans created nylon. But nylon created a whole new resource to exploit in that particular ecosphere and it was inevitable - according to some evolutionary biologists - that such a species of bacteria would evolve.

Parasites evolved to take advantage of a resource - humans in some cases. And dogs, fir trees, insects, other parasites and so on in other cases. The only "purpose" is to be able to take in enough energy to be able to reproduce.

Mind you, I am not blaming god/s/dess for creating anything - good, evil or indifferent, since as far as I am concerned said entity (ies) does not exist. I'm saying (and I believe it is what Harrison is saying as well) is that if some entities created this earth, it isn't perfect, it is not necessarily beautiful, and they did a very sloppy job.

How did evolution start? With the first replicating molecule.

The introductory quotes both resonate with me.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. - Charles Darwin

<Funny that quote by Darwin. It is now called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Verified in a number of experiments.>

When contemplating any inspiring/beautiful sight, saying "my god did it," may be "a simple, convenient, and reassuring" explanation for many people. Nice, but no evidence for if a god was involved, or which god it may have been. Just because no one knows, or because understanding only comes with years of study, does not necessarily imply some god/s/dess did it. Ignorance is not evidence.

The Big Bang theory is reiterated and discussed. Shortly - there was nothing, no time, no matter, no space, not even a void. And then in an instant, there is matter, time, space and it is rapidly expanding. More rapidly than anything has ever moved since, and the universe expands for billions of years until it is as we observe it today.

This sounds incredible. It sounds made up. It is based on evidence. Many scientists resisted the theory at first. Almost all have since come to believe that is what the evidence we have shows as what happened. There are huge gaps in our understanding and knowledge. Admittedly. We don't know what triggered the event. We don't know how it was triggered. We don't know.

This doesn't mean that "goddidit." It doesn't mean aliens or some god/s/dess (maybe not yours) did it. It doesn't mean or indicate anything other than we don't know at this time. And if the theory is proved incorrect at a later date, scientists will change their belief. It is a scientific theory - which means it is not cast in stone. Disconfirming evidence means everyone stops believing in that particular theory - unlike a religion.

First cause - if everything must have a cause then so must god/s/dess. If god/s/dess can exist without cause, then so can the universe. You don't get to have it both ways.

The Big Bang neither proves nor disproves god/s/dess.

References

Leeming, David, with Margaret Leeming. A Dictionary of Creation Myths. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Seife, Charles. Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe. New York: Penguin Books, 2003.

Weinberg, Steven. Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

-----------------

I have not read any of the references.

This is my take on the KCA and related arguments.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed. (Physics 101)

E=Mc^2   (Einstein)

Therefore, matter is energy and energy is matter. Get enough energy in one spot and you have will matter moving really fast. QED

Disclaimer: I am no physicist and I am likely blowing smoke. But it sounds just as good and maybe better than "goddidit."

It has been demonstrated in a number of psychological experiments that those who do not know, are the ones who profess the most knowledge. Experts know enough to know they don't know everything - or even really very much of anything. Even (maybe especially) in their field of expertise. This was first demonstrated by Dunning and Kruger near 40 years ago now. And there have since been many experiments that support this.

So when someone starts telling me "it is just common sense," I am pretty certain this person doesn't know doodly about the subject at hand. Non-physicists pontificating about the Big Bang are prime candidates for doodly status.

I just lost a much larger explanation that included how I never denied empiricism... I had said how empiricsim is defined philisophically that all knowledge is derived by sense of experience.  

I also went on to discuss how through empiricism, we are aware of dark matter, but we have no sense of its existence.  We use its affects on those things we can sense to deduce that it exists.  I do the same with God, however with God I can also sense His presence.  So can millions of people around the world.  There's no way I can prove that to you or anyone else for that matter, but we do sense Him.  Therefore by the philisophical definition of empiricism, God can be empirically defined.  God affects those things we can sense and thus we know through those effects that He is at work.  Sure we can come up with 1000 different reasons why X happened the way it did, but when compiled and studied, the affects are the same and can be tied into a particular entity like dark matter can.  

As I said, i had a much more detailed explanation i lost, but if you want me to expand on any of this, please let me know.  I just don't feel like going through it again right now.

No, "purpose" is not the same as filling an ecological niche. Purpose implies that there was raison d'etre, filling an ecological niche does not. There are many examples of an organism taking advantage of a resource that would ordinarily be less than healthy or even fatal for that organism.

During famine seasons, people have been known to eat poisonous plants in desperation. If you lived, fine, you maybe could find nonpoisonous food later and recover your health. People are not the only organisms that have been observed consuming something that ordinarily was avoided if circumstances were dire enough. If the organism's "purpose" is to consume a particular resource, then why attempt to survive by consuming what is usually poisonous to that organism. Organisms are very versatile - they have to be given the uncertainty of obtaining preferred resources.

If you must assign a purpose - having grandchildren is the most likely. An organism's goal is to have children that are capable of having children given the resources available to that organism.

"Stochastic process" - sometimes called random process - from Wiki - "in a stochastic or random process there is some indeterminacy: even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are several (often infinitely many) directions in which the process may evolve."

We are all familiar with stochastic processes as they occur all around us - the math to describe them can be hairy, but the concept is pretty straight forward. Turn on the sink faucet. Watch the water fall into the sink. Will the water spray all over the room? Only if the faucet or other plumbing break. The water will fall in a consistent pattern but it would be difficult if not impossible to predict or trace the exact path of a single water molecule. We know where the water is coming from, we know that it is under pressure, we know that gravity works on water just like any other substance. So we can make a prediction about the system - the water will fall into the sink and go down the drain - without knowing where every single molecule of water is at every given instance of time.

Evolution is the same - random events in the genetic code (deletions, duplications, insertions, inversions, translocations, errors in the molecular structure of any nucleotide base) may or may not have an impact on how well the organism functions in a particular ecological niche. But the random events that cause mutations have limitations - like the water coming out of your faucet. There are a limited number of molecular changes possible - Argon will not suddenly appear in a strand of DNA for example. Argon is a "noble" gas and does not form molecular bonds under normal (within an organism) conditions. So it has limits and constraints. Random, but not completely so.

You throw a standard six-sided die - and seven pips appear! Dude, you could make a case for a miracle at that point. When you throw a six-sided die you get 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 pips, not seven. Chemistry is the same way - and the process of DNA replication has limitations from the known properties of the molecule and cell nucleus.

There are also random events in the ecological niche that organism occupies. The volcano explodes, the river floods, the hill collapses, and the organisms that survive must deal with the changed environment. If they can't, they go extinct in that area. They may not go extinct in other places. Or an organism gets blown by the wind, or hitches a ride on a bird, or falls in the ocean, or sea levels rise and the organism is suddenly on an island and must adapt or go extinct. These are all random events, but are curtailed by realistic possibilities. Humans may (or may not) be having an impact on the atmosphere, but it is extremely unlikely that the atmosphere will become primarily chlorine over night. So, there is randomness with limits.

Again, evolution has no aim. There is no purpose or direction. A bacteria is not evolving to become human. It may be evolving - nylon eating bacteria, eg - but that does not constitute direction or aim. It just happens - in response to the environment, which organisms adapt to with survival strategies, which may change the environment, and so on and on. It is a never ending quest for more resources. Those best able to take advantage of the resources are the ones that will reproduce. There may or may not be competition for a particular resource - if the resource is not currently being exploited, eventually something will begin to utilize that resource and evolve to better fit in that niche.

I hope that helps.

Now, for that replicating molecule - of course no one knows for sure. But that doesn't mean we have to stick a god/s/dess in the picture. It just means we don't yet know. There are some good ideas floating around. And a lot of controversy as you get whenever scientists don't know for sure, but many have pet theories. I found this web site to be interesting if a little deep in chemistry -

http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Evolution-Of-DNA.html

Briefly, there are a number of possibilities for replicating molecules that were not - yet - RNA or DNA. Some exist in organisms today and are not used for protein production, but have other functions in the biochemistry of the organism. It's not my field, so I am not an expert. But it is kind of interesting.

   Sorting out the biblical flood arrays is to be "at sixes and sevens" .. A Flood like event, when it comes to sorting, becomes a very near miracle to sink the trilobites and hold the more dense clam-type molluscs floating in the water above them. A truly near miracle would have had to have been performed to keep the Scleractinian corals suspended while two other orders of coral settled beneath them. Also, There would be a very near miracle  performed to keep thick layers of microscopic diatoms all over the earth from their mixing with the thick layers of microscopic radiolarians that settled in the 'strata' beneath them!

  Forgive the indulgence but I found this from BBC-ONE of Madagascar's past. Madagascar -- an island country in the Indian Ocean, in isolation. Pics is of Majungasaurus   See :: Pic

:::

 p.s. -- 

 Just to add to the idea of what random means to me, just because we are unable to predict the path or process of an event does not automatically make it random.  We can say that a comment from someone was random, but the word is kind of thrown around to mean something that was unexpected vs. it's true definition.  The process of water splashing in the sink and exactly where each dropplet would go is quite unexpected to us... but there is math behind it that ultimately could figure out the liklihood of each droplet.  This would be a very long math problem be it that there are literally thousands of droplets that would need to be accounted for, but the point remains that there is a process to it.  

i know what the Stochatic Process suggests to many people, but it doesn't leave something out to complete randomness and doesn't explain how something can be aimless yet have aim.  

That is a great question and I'm glad you asked it.  It's not an easy answer either.  I can try to put it in one paragraph, but we have to admit there are a lot of unknowns about God.  The first question that comes to my mind is if God is real, what do you think He would be?  I don't mean personality wise.

I'm sure though I could take many different angles you're looking for some physical description or material explanation of God, which is limited due to the fact that God is metaphysical.  He is spirit... so lemme see what I can put in a paragraph.

God is spirit.  He is the divine almighty spirit above all other.  Creator of heavens and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen.  The Bible describes God with hair as white as snow, eyes like the flame of a fire and a light coming from within him illuminating everything around.  When God speaks, the description has been likened to thunder or the sound of many waterfalls... in other words when God speaks it is heard all around... that does not necessarily mean God is loud, because it is said that in the quietness He can be heard.  God is said to have made man in His image... which suggests then that if God had a physical form, he would look like humans.  

With a description of what God is, it's important to discuss what God is not.  God is not "as simplistic as we often paint God to be" (God according to God).  This book goes on to state that if we ever received a message from outerspace; "the message would be studied and analyzed for every nuance.  The Bible, if Divine in orgin, is a message from totally "outer space".  It requires careful study."

Careful study of scripture paints a good picture of what and who God is.  

I'm sure this falls way short of what you 'need' for a description of What God is, but understanding that God first and foremost is metaphysical, it really limits our ability to describe Him.  So in most cases, He is described by character and not physical traits.  

non-believers tend to villify God and use words like tyrannical, evil, selfish, murderous etc.  

Beleivers tend to elevate God and use words like good, kind, loving, caring, guiding etc.  

Both descriptions have claimed to have been based off of scripture.  So how can both be reconciled if both are true about God?  I would say both when strictly using the words they're using above are not studying scripture deep enough.  

This of course would go way beyond the paragraph you asked for here, so I'll stop here and see where it takes us.

Please dont' forget the question I asked you at the beginning becasue I am truly curious as to how you'd answer that.  It could help me figure out how to describe Him to you.  

Funny. If it wasn't about religion, you could be diagnosed as delusional. Hearing and feeling that which does not exist? If I told you I heard and felt my pink unicorn god, you would say......

I would guess - smell. People have distinct body odors. Maybe you were used to your friend and so didn't notice. Maybe to you, your body odor masks other people's. Don't know. But I can tell when my husband has been visiting and usually which friend or relative just from the difference in his odor.

Those of you cheating on your SO's, take heed.

The problem with your statement is you make a large assumption that what I feel and hear and see doesn't exist.  

Knowing what I know of you now if you told me that you heard and felt your pink unicorn god, I would say that you're trying to make a faulty comparison.  

you could guess smell, but it doesn't explain how she knew He was in her room.  His smell would likely have been all over the house be it that he spent a few hours there and only about 1 minute in her room.  Considering the process of smell, she would have been accustomed to his smell by the time she got to her room and thus would not have made a correlation that someone was specifically there simply by his smell.  She more likely would have asked who was in the house if smell was the culprit.  

Don't need to get sidetracked on this, but the point remains that a presence was sensed without actually being there.  

The analogy about the car is really discussing the design and purpose, not the aspect of it driving itself.  The cars purpose is to get someone from point A to point B.  The evolutionary purpose is the success of life.  I can see what you're talking about above, but it's one sided.  You're looking at the problems with evolution and not what has come of it.  Sure people get bad backs and knees... so do species of dog, but they're not upright.  We can blame our way of mobility on that, but what has it benefited us?  nothing?  c'mon really?  We have no greater purpose to walk upright than to get sore backs and bad knees? 

What you explained above only further shows me that evolution has a specific design/pattern not necessarily a conscious thinking process (though I know I claimed the possibility earlier)  The possibility still applies, but lets assume for a moment that it is literally just design.  The design still has a purpose and that's the success of life.  The design only goes by the information it gets and many times it doesn't get information in time and/or is too slow to adapt to the new information.  The thing is, life still exists despite the odds against it. 

Nothing that you gave as an example shows me a false pattern.  You're looking at anomalies in a pattern, but in statistics, anomalies aren't usually considered in the results.  The results show that life has changed drastically for all species over many millenia and is bound to continue to change due to the ever changing environment and living conditions.  This change is generally understood to have only benifitted life in such a way to allow it to continue.  Do I know what life would be like with whales that had feet?  no, but that doesn't mean that feet on whales would be better or worse.  Evolution just didn't go in that direction for the whales.  I'm sure if we really looked at the factors involved, there would be a reason behind it.  From what I can see today, it ultimately was not necessary for the survival of the species.  That would likely be the most logical reason why that adaptation never took off.

"I've got the joy, joy, joy down in my heart..."

Yeah, when I went to Foursquare Gospel, we sang that song a lot. A collection of Johnny Cash' "Cash Unearthed" has a cd, "My Mother's Hymn Book." When my husband put it on the first time, he was shocked - he and I are both atheists - and I was surprised. I knew all but one of the hymns on that album and sang along.

Harrison says this more honest and defensible than most arguments for gods. And he isn't going to directly argue against it as he wants happy people and a happy world just like most of us.

Is it a real god that is making believers happy or the act of believing that makes people happy? (Sounds to me kind of like the difference between being in love with someone or being in love with being in love.) Harrison has personally met many people of different faiths who are obviously very happy worshiping their particular god. Strangely, Buddhists may be the happiest of all - and they do not worship the Buddha as a god.

So we must turn to science for studies on what constitutes happy people. Adrian White created a "World Map of Happiness" in a study in 2006. Of the top 10 happiest countries, 8 also have some of the highest percentages of nonbelievers. One religious nation was the christian Bahamas. The other was Brunei, an Islamic nation. The least happy nations were all highly religious societies with few nonbelievers.

Deriving joy from belief in a god is not proof of that deity's existence. One can be happy without believing in a god. You can still sing "Silent Night" and decorate a tree during the winter holiday season if you want without believing in christian faith. You can participate in other religions and enjoy the company of people who enjoy those rituals as well without giving up your ability to think freely and vigorously.

References

"Buddhists 'Really Are Happier.'" BBC, May 21, 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm

Kurtz, Paul. Living without Religion: Eupraxophy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1994. An excellent book capable of calming those who are worried about life with no gods.

"Psychologist Produces the First-Ever 'World Map of Happiness.'" Science Daily, November 14, 2006. http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113093726.htm

Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns." In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. Michael Martin, 47-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

--------------------

I haven't read any of the references. I have skimmed the two given web articles and the links are still good.

My own personal experience is that religion did not make me happy. While I did not come from a coercive background - that is, I was never forced to attend church or threatened with dire consequences if I didn't - I still could not force myself to believe totally, to make that "leap of faith." There was always a little part of me saying, oh, this is bullpucky. Even when I was a child. So I really do feel happier for not trying to force myself into a mold that never fit. (See my sig.)

And years ago, I would have said, if it makes you feel good, go for it. But then - well, I had some experiences that have caused me to change my opinion. I don't believe religion makes anyone happy long term. For brief moments when you are participating in some group action, you may feel happy. But I don't believe it lasts for long, and I don't believe anyone is totally happy feeling they must strive for a golden ticket to some heavenly utopia. Or worse yet, that they are sinners and are worthless. I know, not every religious person believes they are worthless, but those that do are just pitiable.

And for those who must profess in an inerrant bible in order to remain in their congregation - the cognitive dissonance must be real hard to deal with.

Maybe that was my problem all along. I can't deal with the cognitive dissonance - it hurts!

Right.  We can go all day on the many possible purposes of any subject, but all in all, there's typically an origin purpose... e.g. the invention of the car was supposed to be a better way of getting from point A to point B period.  Beyond that of course as the product evolves there will be more purposes imposed upon it.  Evolution can be individualized and categorized, but if created, can be seen for one main purpose.  

Moving on.  

I didn't think you were... but religion in my opinion does make it a little harder to be happy if you allow it to determine your next steps.  The problem with our country is religion is politics now adays... which actually goes against the separation of  church and state.  e.g. due to religious institutions trying to play gov't they're making laws based around who can marry who and where it's ok or not ok.. which in turn has turned gay rights into a religion of itself battling against the idea to have the restrictive laws... if we followed Separation of Church and state, this would not be an issue... churches would have the right to refuse to marry gay/lesbian couples and yet those same people could find a justice of the peace... or maybe another church that would and not have to move out of state to do it.  Politically and legally if they can get married, the papers should be treated like any other marriage certificate.  

Sadly this is just one of the more obvious examples of where this separation of church and state is being broken.  It's rediculous how ignorant we are as a country to our own laws.