There is no assumption at all. Life exists, we can see it all around us. Further, there is no reason why evolution should present a theory of abiogenesis when it is outside the scope of inquiry of the theory. In your opinion, should evolution also explain the formation of stars? Must a theory explain everything before it can be said to explain anything? 

Abioigenesis very likely wasn't about luck any more than evolution is about randomness. Abiogenesis would have happened in response to a very specific set of circumstances, proceeding in a highly predictable way given all the variables involved. Just because we don't know all about it doesn't make it luck.

Life has the purpose that life assigns to it. Without life, there is no purpose. Does a rock have purpose and meaning by itself? Of course not. If you want to claim otherwise, you have to point to a source of purpose and meaning outside our minds, and you can't do that without making up fairy tales.  

Thanks for stringing me along trying to get my knowledge of evolution out of me. I know what I was taught in school about evolution, I already told you that. I assume you went to school too, so I'm sure you could decifer about how much that is. I'm glad that you finally admitted too that you don't know where life came from, the point I was trying to get at. So why then isn't it ok to form an answer which includes God, to tell how life began? I am not ok with leaving a question mark to life's greatest question. I want to know that answer, because the answer to that question forms the basis for everything we do. Does life have a purpose? Is life meaningless? What happens when I die? Those are all questions that hinge off of, "where did life begin?" So I'm not just going to wait around and wait for scientists to explain what they will probably never know. I believe that life does have a purpose, and probably to your chagrine, I'm not affraid to tell others about it.

ps. Since you don't know how life began, maybe you should change your stance to agnostic, since you don't know 

Well, the problem is twofold. First, you've accepted an answer that has no corroboration. Remember, the answer cannot corroborate itself. So basically, what you've accepted is the word of a whole bunch of people who themselves have no outside corroboration. In effect, you're basically accepting the assertions of a bunch of dissidents from 1900 years ago who told people 'trust us, we can't prove anything.'

Now, you might say 'but doesn't science, ultimately, say the same thing: Trust us, we can't prove it, just show it's possible?' Well,  not quite. Science does search for corroboration, for evidence to show whether an idea is plausible. But not only that, science searches for evidence that the idea is wrong, and if we can find it, we discard the idea. And that's the second part of the problem with theistic 'answers': The 'god did it' answer tends to amount to 'shut up, stop asking questions'. As soon as 'god' is invoked, then you're abdicating the possible search for a better understanding of the process.

Personally, I think it's great that you're not content to leave the question unanswered. But at the same time, you seem to be content to have an answer that doesn't tell you anything.

Is that an answer, or is it 'you're not big enough to understand, now shut up and go back to the kiddie table'?

Many theists, including you to an extent, maintain that God is knowable through his creation, through everything around us. If that's the case, then why is that threatened by continuing to probe the deepest secrets of it? 

Except that once again, you're accepting an answer that's untestable, unquestionable, and unprovable. In effect, the answer you're accepting remains 'this is the answer, shut up', and if you really want to know the truth, then why accept an answer that tells you not to seek it for yourself?

But the answer you're accepting is, in fact, "Nobody knows, and if they do, they won't tell you".

Psst. Agnosticism is atheism. Atheism is a lack of active belief in a god. Agnostics say 'I don't know', and not knowing is a lack of active belief. 

I think the first two questions are ones that cannot be answered by any external agency, not science, not religion, not nothing. What's the purpose of life? All of it? If we can't wrap our heads around the number of insect species in existence (and trust me, you can't. It's got too many zeros), then why should we think we can wrap our heads around what all of it's for? Start closer to home: what is the purpose of my life? Is my life meaningless?

And in the end, religion can't give you those answers any more than science can. All it can do is tell you what someone else thinks the answer should be. Ultimately, we each have to answer those questions for ourselves. And my answer won't tell you why you have to exist, only why I must live.

The third question depends a lot on developing a far better understanding of consciousness than we currently have. We're only beginning to scratch the surface, and part of the problem is that consciousness only seems to exist in the movement through time, and frankly, we really don't have a clear concept of what the hell 'time' is other than as a mathematical construct.

Science doesn't claim life is an accident. In fact, a lot of the trend right now is that under the right conditions, life is an inevitability. It's just a question of what those conditions are.

Science doesn't make claims without evidence. Scientific theories, in order to be taken seriously at all, must fit the observable data. If there is no evidence to support an idea, it remains a hypothesis only. And a hypothesis is not a claim, it's a 'hey, we have this idea. Keep your eyes out for anything to support or disprove it, will you?'

And yet, the central claims of the Bible cannot be validated by any material means. That's part of the package.

And disproven others, such as the Noah account.

Yeah, it would've made things easier. And sure, no problem. We're better off engaging in discussion than simply browbeating one another.

Dominick_777 said:

1) How do you determine what a reasonable, or good, explanation is? For example, I am wearing a shirt because:

a) I put it on

b)Unicorns knit it on me every morning.

Do you have a specific and reliable way to determine which explanation is better? I do.

2)Yes, assuming your explanations are better. Coming up with an explanation (see b), is not necessarily convincing. A GOOD answer is more convincing.

3)These all seem to be real questions that the non-religious have. The Religious often want us to see the "truth" of their belief, but they seem to avoid answering many of these questions, or, give poor answers.

4)I'm glad you ask. I would suggest the following (from Peter Carruthers):


Accuracy - predicting all or most of the data to be explained and explaining away the rest - i.e. showing where there may be errors of data collection or interpretation.

Consistency - that there are no contradictions within the theory or model.

Coherence - with surrounding beliefs and theories which are not to be superseded by the new, or at least consistency with them.

Simplicity - being expressible as economically as possible, with the fewest commitments to distinct kinds of fact and process.

Fecundity - making new predictions and suggesting new lines of enquiry.

Scope - unifying a diverse range of data.

If you feel you have a better method of determing a Good Explanation, please offer it up and answer a question using your criteria.

"Science doesn't claim life is an accident. In fact, a lot of the trend right now is that under the right conditions, life is an inevitability. It's just a question of what those conditions are."

You are right it is not the science that claim that. It is humans making theories basaed on some scientific suspicions.

Whatever scientist can claim should be based on empirical assumptions. It has to be based on our perceptions.

Anything that can't be perceived and measured is out of the scope of science. So radio waves were out of the scope of science before 1865. After they were discovered they become a scientific fact.

So science has inborn limitations. One eye of the science is destined to be blind. Science is a constant search for better explanation of material world. Science is never satisfied with any explanation. Also science is not loyal to any claims it can make.

Whenever you get a new evidence then you wave goodbye to the old assumptions without any hard feelings.

So science in this respect is nothing more than a suspisious look to everything. However certain things are getting less suspicious if you have supporting evidence. But nothing is an absolute fact.

Thus scientific fact is a knowledge  which is less likelihood of being false. But definately is not the end of the discussion...

So then how come a concept which can't be measured and perceived can be disproven by science? How you are going to apply the null hypothesis to the concept of God?

You can't. Then those who claim their disbelief in God is based on scientific facts is baseless.

The scinetific hypotheses regarding the driving force behind the Big Bang and creation of the Universe and life can't be more than baseless claims. And sorry not scientific...

Peace!

Believeing in God is a normal human emotion. Not everybody gets to feel it. And those who do do it without forcing themselves. Comes naturally. Why?

Because it seems it is not in our hands. Our brain seems to be hardwired for religion. Thus we as a single point on the Bell curve respond to religion according to our place in the variation for ability to believe in God. The atheist can't help it too. Because he/she doesn't feel it. Then how do you expect me to argue about the existance of God. I can't make you experience my emotions. Can you? I feel it, but you don't.

Recently I watched a BBC documentary on "God on the brain". Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7991385426492181792&q=god+on+the+brain&total=1675&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=...

It is regarding scientific experiments on religion. At the end of that movie it is concluded that scientific evidence points out the probability for the existance of special brain centers involved in producing religous beliefs. Those seem to be  hardwired since our birth. One guy called them "the anntennas of God". Some of us get better reception than others. Normal Bell curve distibution.

Thus I find normal both the reaction of the atheists and the theists. Is there any possible resolution on this dispute? No, never. Since the early beginning of human history some of us believed and some of us didn't. Only once we die we will get to  know the right answer. Till then those two views are equally valid. And by the way those two are systems of belief. Non-beliving of God is nothing more than assumption, thus in that sense includes significant portion of belief. Thus we are belivers of opposite views.

Once a human being starts feeling the presence of God only then the logical reasoning regarding the concept of God is supposed to come into the picture. A person has to choose the most reasonable religion to satisfy that need. But here again we see the Bell curve distribution. I can claim my religion is the best but people no matter what would choose the one which is more accessable to them. The one that has well established places of worship. Because a believer needs to satisfy his need of belief by worshiping.

My religion is Islam. Thus the most of the questions addressing theists don't apply to me. They are mostly attacking  the Christian religion.

For my religion I can say that it is based on strong reason, free from the contradictions of Christianity. However everybody got to choose the best that suits them.

Peace.

The Muslim from above says: I can't judge you according to my understanding of the reality. Reality is a subjective term. Quantum choice rings a bell?

There are no absolute sciencific facts. They are relative agreements regarding certain perceptions. Yet it is the subject who is supposed to put all of those facts into a his/her own concept of reality.

Thus my reality is different than yours. No matter how much scientific knowledge we do

share.

How are you supposed to judge subjective realities?

All of us we are part of one human population. We differ in every aspect. Yet we form a nice spectrum of qualities depicted in the Bell curve of distribution. No man is similar to another.

This is the only reality. We are dfferent. Each of us is unique. Each of us is a separate universe. Some people's IQ scores might be the same but their experiences are totally different, unique. Who is there to hold authority to judge my way of seeing things?

Only me. If I can feel the presence of God who is there to tell me I don't feel it? And do I have to explain myself?

Who is there to claim ability "to fix" the belief in God? I can't make anybody belief in something no matter how much I want him to. Why would somebody want to fix my feelings? Who's business is that?

Who is irratoinal ?

I am only asking...

First of all, let me say that I am an ex-Christian.  I was raised Southern Baptist and my father was a Sunday school teacher and later became a preacher.  So, I was immersed in Christianity and lived as a Christian for many years.  However, I have not been a Christian for many years - for many of the reasons cited in this very list of questions for theists (and, many others too numerous to mention).  I do not in any way subscribe to the notions of an Abrahamic God.

But, neither am I an atheist.  Atheism, agnosticism, and theism all imply belief, with respect to the existence of God.  I understand that the existence of God has nothing to do with belief, but everything to do with the tenability of the definition of "God" and the choice to embrace the construct - period.  This renders all of those labels inapplicable to myself.  I do not "believe" in God; but, I have a use for a construct of God - so, I contrived one that does not require belief or faith and is self-evident and cannot, by definition, be false.

But, I feel my experiences with and exposure to Christianity qualify me to address some of the issues raised for theists.  My goal, here, is not to convince anyone of the validity of any particular religion or religious beliefs, but rather to point out the fallacious reasoning being presented by atheists against theism.  It was through logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof that I extricated myself from Christianity by coming to see the fallacies in the religion.  And, it is through that same process that I see fallacies being presented from the other side.  So, where I am pointing out a fallacy, take it as an opportunity to sharpen your own logical and philosophical skills, rather than an outright defense of the opposing position.

Sometimes, I will employ the Abrahamic definition of God in response to the question, sometimes, I will employ my own personal definition of God as All that is True in the Universe in response to the question.  But, I will try to be clear about the definition to which I am referring.

That having been said, I will begin answering the first of several questions posed by atheists to theists:
 

As I referenced, above, the existence of God is dependent on the definition of God, and whether, or not, that definition of God is tenable.  If you employ my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe, that necessarily includes everything in the Universe, including you, me, and everyone else as Parts of God in Partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe.  The knowledge that we all possess is all a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God.  And, since we have emotions, God also has emotions; because, we are a PART of God.  That is how God can be both omniscient, in that God as All that is True in the Universe encompasses all knowledge in the Universe, and also have emotions.

I'm not trying to "sell" any particular flavor of "God."  I'm just pointing out how having emotions and being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent are not mutually exclusive; which is the fallacy being employed by the atheist, here. 

Now, employing a philosophical construct of God:

As to the "divine plan," what would be the point of going through the process of Creating the Universe, if you already knew the ultimate outcome?  If God wanted to already know the outcome, why would He have Created time?  This implies a deliberate intent on God's part to consciously avoid knowing the ultimate outcome in advance, in favor of discovering it over time, instead.

Now, this in no way renders God not omniscient - only the body of that which can be known would be a quantity that grows over time, instead of being known all at once (which isn't a condition of omniscience).  That which has not yet happened does not qualify as "knowledge."  Therefore, you cannot expect an omniscient being to know about it.

This perspective allows for God to both know all there is to know (be omniscient) and allows God to proceed through a Process of Discovery that makes the Creation of the Universe a worthwhile endeavor by maintaining the adventure and FUN of Creating the Universe.  And, if you're God, why bother Creating a Universe, unless you ENJOY it?  And, where's the fun in knowing how it will all turn out in advance?  So, wouldn't you employ time to accomplish your goals?

1 - If something has not yet happened, it does not qualify as "knowledge."  Therefore, you cannot expect an omniscient being to know about it.  "Knowing" all there is to know does not include that which has not happened.  I see atheists commit this fallacious reasoning regularly in their criticisms of theists.

2 - Here is an exegesis of the story of Adam and Eve I wrote that will further explain the real message:

So, let's look at the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and see if we can figure out the REAL message that is being presented by its author.

To accurately interpret the message, you need to try to put yourself into the story.  More specifically, you need to put yourself in God's place in the story.

Imagine that you are God, and you have the power to do anything and everything you might ever choose to do in the  Universe.  Indeed, there is nothing else except you in the entire Universe.  Just you and all this power - and, of course, all the knowledge needed to go along with all that power.

And, of course, you have Free Will.  That is, there is nothing to stop you from doing anything you would ever choose to do.  You have both the power and the knowledge to do anything you would ever choose to do - and the freedom to do it.

Yet, despite the fact that you have all of this power, and all of this knowledge, and the free will to do with it as you would choose, there is nothing else besides you in the Universe - and, therefore, no way to truly understand what it means to BE God and no way to truly appreciate what it means to have all of that power and all of that knowledge, and the freedom to do with it as you would choose.  There is still something missing - something that keeps you from being complete, something that prevents your existence from having any meaning.

"What is this something that keeps my existence from having meaning?," you ask yourself.  Of course, since you are God, and all powerful, and all knowledgeable, you quite quickly arrive at the answer to your query - the lack of EXPERIENCE is what is keeping your existence from having any real meaning.

So, in that moment, you decide to DO something about this lack of experience that gives your omnipotence and omniscience meaning.  But, what to do?

Surely, the simple exercise of omnipotence and omniscience would be, at best, a perfunctory endeavor, would it not?  Where is the CHALLENGE in merely exercising omnipotence and omniscience?  Where is the FUN in knowing that you will always succeed?  Where is the JOY in knowing the outcome of everything?

You quickly reason that the CHALLENGE and the FUN and the JOY is in the Process of Discovery - and not in the exercise of that which you have already discovered.

So, that makes your choice clear:  You must exercise your omnipotence and omniscience; but, you must do so in a way that has meaning, that has challenge, that is fun, and that brings you joy.

Of course, all there is in the Universe is YOU, God, the Great I AM, the Alpha and the Omega.  So, HOW do you proceed?  Being God, you quickly realize that, in order for you to embark on a True Process of Discovery, and in order for your existence to truly have meaning, and in order for you to Truly appreciate what it is to BE God, you must somehow figure a way to NOT know yourself as God, so that you can rediscover yourself as God, and in so doing, know what it is Truly like to BE God.

But, HOW? How does God go about making Himself into something LESS than God, so that He can truly understand what it is like to BE God?  All there IS is God!  But, being God, you quickly reason that, if you were to DIVIDE yourself into an infinite number of PIECES, the pieces would necessarily be LESS than the whole - yet there would still be nothing else but God in the Universe!  PERFECT!  It's the perfect solution!

So, you divide yourself, Creating a Here and a There, and also the Space in between Here and There.  You are now both the Thing and the NOthing, the Physical and the Metaphysical.  And, you are the Very Process of Creation.  And, you still have all power, and all knowledge - only now, it is divided into an infinite number of pieces.

Now, we have a basis, a reason, for God Creating the Universe.  And, this is important in understanding the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  That is why I spent so much time on this seemingly unrelated tangent.

Anyway, back to the story of Adam and Eve.  God Created Adam and Eve in His image.  That is to say, they were made Creators, just as God is THE Creator.  And, God gave them dominion over all they surveyed.  And, as much as God gave Adam and Eve the power to Create, just as God has the power to Create, He also gave them the Free Will to do as they would choose to do.

Remember, God, in His omniscience and omnipotence, can choose to do whatever He would choose to do through the exercise of His free will.  And, everything God chooses to do is OF God.  So, everything that Adam and Eve would choose to do that God would choose to do would also be OF God.  But, in order for free will to truly exist, there also had to be at least one choice that was NOT of God.  There had to be at least one choice that God would never make.  And, there would have to be a reason why He would not make it.

At this point, it is important to take notice of the conditions under which Adam and Eve lived.  All around them was at Peace.  All was in Harmony with everything else.  And, God had told them that they were in dominion over all of the earth.

Now, in the midst of the Garden, God had placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and told Adam and Eve not to partake of its fruit.  Let's look at that for a moment, shall we?

Why was it the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that was proscribed?

In order to understand that choice, we must understand a little about the concepts of good and evil.  Obviously, good and evil are subjective concepts; but, it would be fair to say, in the context of a discussion about God, that "good" represents the choices that we make that are OF God, that is to say choices that God would make.  And, it would be fair to say that "evil" represents choices that we make that are NOT of God, or choices that God would not make.

Clearly, that would make anything that God would ever choose to do "good." And, it would make everything God would not choose to do "evil."  And, obviously, anything we do that is like what God would do is "good," and anything we do that is not like what God would do is "evil."

Now, let's look at the fact that Adam and Eve were given only one commandment - not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  They were not told not to do anything else - period.  Obviously, partaking of the Fruit of the Tree is the ONE choice that God would never make.  It represents the one choice that is NOT of God that is necessary for Free Will to truly exist.

So, what is the Fruit of that Tree?  I find it rather amusing that there has been discussion about the fruit of the Tree being an apple, or a fig, or some other kind of actual fruit.  It is quite obvious what the Fruit of the Tree is - it is JUDGEMENT of things as being either Good or Evil.  For, you cannot know whether something is Good or Evil, unless you JUDGE it as such.  So, the Fruit of the Tree is JUDGEMENT.  And, the story in Genesis makes it clear that partaking of that fruit is the one choice that is NOT of God.

So, why might God have not wanted Adam and Eve to partake of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?  You would think that knowing what was "good" and what was "evil" would be of benefit, wouldn't you?  But, is it really?

What happens whenever you judge the actions of someone as being "wrong" or "evil?"  Do you not find yourself in conflict with that person?  Do you not also find yourself forming other negative emotions and impressions of that person?  Are you in harmony with those who you have judged as "evil?"  Can you ever reconcile or find harmony with those who you have judged as "evil?"

Let's look at this concept from the opposite angle:  What happens when you judge someone as "good?"  Do you not also find yourself forming other positive emotions and impressions of that person?  Are you in harmony with those you have judged as "good?"

But, is the person you have judged as "evil" all evil?  Or, are there only certain things they have done that are "evil?"  What if they have also done things that are "good?"

And, is the person you have judged as "good" all good?  Or, are there only certain things they have done that are "good?"  What if they have also done things that are "evil?"

This brings up the point that both the concepts of "good" and "evil" are illusory in nature.  We are all capable of doing both "good" things and "evil" things.  Yet, when we choose to judge people as "evil" we are blinded to the "good" things they do; and, when we choose to judge people as "good" we are blinded to the "evil" things they do.

And, who gets to decide what is "good" and what is "evil," and for whom?  What happens when our ideas about what is "good" and what is "evil" are at variance?  Do we not find ourselves in conflict with those who disagree with our subjective ideas about "good" and "evil?"  How can we ever resolve conflict with those who judge "good" and "evil" differently than we judge "good" and "evil?"

So, God knew, in His infinite wisdom, that the knowledge of Good and Evil would bring us confict - that would remain with us all of the days of our lives, as long as we continue to partake of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,

From the moment Adam and Eve partook of the Fruit of the Tree, there existed what had not existed before - conflict.  God was in perfect harmony with Himself - and all of His Pieces.  Never before had anything ever been judged as either "good" or "evil," and therefore, there had never been any conflict.

Now, all of a sudden, Adam and Eve realized they were naked, and covered their nakedness.  They judged their naked bodies as "evil," and placed themselves in conflict with themselves - just as they judged their actions as "evil" by partaking of the Fruit of the Tree, which placed them in conflict with God.  Not because, God judged them for their actions, but because they had judged themselves for their actions - they now "knew" the difference between "good" and "evil" - even though it was a choice that was not of God.

Now, according to the story, God was not pleased about Adam and Eve partaking of the Fruit of the Tree.  But, it was not because He was angry with them for disobeying.  It was because He knew the conflict that would ensue and plague mankind forever more - until mankind could learn how to stop partaking of the Fruit of the Tree.

This message about the problems with judgement are echoed through the teachings of Jesus Christ, as well.  Indeed, when we examine the message of Unconditional Love, we discover that Unconditional Love does not judge.  For, what is judgement, if not a condition we have placed on Love?  We will never Love someone as long as we judge them as "evil."

In taking upon ourselves the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we have erected a barrier to Love.  We have erected a barrier to God.

The good news, or dare I say "Gospel," is that there is a simple way to tear down the barrier.  And, that is to simply stop partaking of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil by refusing to engage in the illusions of "Good" and "Evil."  The reality is that neither Good, nor Evil, exist.  There only exists actions, feelings, and thoughts which serve us, both individually and collectively, and actions, feelings, and thoughts which do not serve us, both individually and collectively.  We need not judge things as either good or evil to discern what serves us both individually and collectively, and what does not.

This is a powerful message.  It is a profound message, and one that strikes at the heart of the problems facing the world today.  It represents the difference between assessing things as they are, while making objective decisions based on logic, reason, and rationality for the benefit of us all, and assessing things as we judge them to be, while making subjective, emotional decisions based on our determinations about "good" and "evil."

Understanding the problems of judging things as either "good" or "evil" is absolutely essential to understanding the nature of Unconditional Love and how to achieve it.

Interestingly enough, it does not matter whether one believes in God, or not, for this message to be valid.  Of course, the best messages in the Universe are like that.

Thanks, for the drive-by proselytizing!  Buh bye, now!

Don't let the doorknob hit you where the good Lord split ya!

You believe God created people who's only fate is to be tortured for eternity?  What kind of monster is he?

I'd like to entertain you all with a story that explains this problem.

You have two children. You say to yourself about one, "he is going to do everything I expect and even if he fails in that, he will always ask for my forgiveness. To him I will give him all my riches and love.  The other, who I have sent to the orphanage, will claim to not know me and will insult me. I will hunt him down and stick red hot pokers in his eyes until he is dead."

Now, since you are human, you can claim you know this for sure and you may or may not be right. However, if it just happens to work out the way you imagine, then you have experienced omniscience (at least with regard to these items).

That is, if I claim I will roll a six, and "know" I will roll a six, if a six is rolled, I am essentially omniscient in the way people claim God is (except he is always right about everything).

So, the Theist is like the guy with two kids: he claims that he will torture and kill one of them for something - and knows that that something will occur.

To all the Theists, you too can imagine you are God for a while: pick one kid and say "to you I will give you all my riches because you will praise me. Pick another and say, "It saddens me but I will have to torture and kill you. Sorry those are the rules that I must abide by."  Unless things work out otherwise, you can be sure in your knowledge that you are right - they will fullfill exactly as you claim.

This is the god you worship.

someone's a negative nancy

and the problem I have with your statement #1 Mitchell, I hear alot of Christians(and others) say this. But there is no argument here, the argument they try to throw out is "god is beyond our understanding, therefore he exists". Well, what if I say "Hogwarts is beyond our understanding, therefore Harry Potter is real"? You can go to England, look all around the country, and not find Hogwarts, but because it is beyond your human understanding, it exists, just like god. The argument means nothing.

Anyway, I thought I'd play devil's advocate for a minute and answer some of the questions that I think can be easily answered:

3. The "out of Africa" theory still has some problems associated with it and there are competing theories. As a result its probably best to the give benefit of a doubt.

4. I've asked this question before and gotten the answer that heaven is more or less like being super-high the entire time. Personally I think it's a bit of a con if you're forced to feel happy but hey, its an answer. If you want to argue that that's pretty lame like I did when I heard it told to me, fine, but that doesn't change the fact that this question has an answer (no matter how bullshit)

7. I've thought about this before and I think the only logical explanation is that God considers it worse for a being to never exist than to exist and suffer. This explains why A) he created Satan, B) no being is ever wiped from existence for any reason. Instead he created Hell as a punishment. God may also hold Minority Report view (best way I could think of to describe it) in that a being isn't guilty of sin until they commit it. Other possible explanation may be that God is unable to erase something from existence  or prevent something from existing though at that point he isn't omnipotent (which isn't too far fetched. Satan's rebellion implies that God is not as powerful or immortal as he claims to be).

10. Not to refute this one but a better question may add on the fact that God has never spoken directly to more than one person. Throughout the Bible it's always *one* person who claims that he has spoken with God. Today we consider such people "con men", "cult leaders", or "schizophrenic".

13. Because apparently God is cool with incest. Remember Adam and Eve's kids? Or Noah's kids? If anything God keeps trying to find ways to make people have sex with their family members. Christianity is supposed to make families stronger after all, and what could make a family closer to each other than for your mother and sister to be bearing your babies? That or God is into incest...like really into incest.

15. God's atemporality and omniscience are not at odds. Rather his atemporality explains his omniscience. If God exists in the past, present, and future all at once then it's not surprising that he is knowledge of all those things. In other words all of time is the present for God. There's some philosopher who goes into a lot more detail about this (I can't remember his name though unfortunately).

18. Christianity never explains the nature of a spirit as a result it's pointless to ask questions about it. I know, this is pretty much saying "you're not allowed to ask questions about that!" but it's not like you're ever going to get any answers and it's not like you'll ever be able to disprove it with logic since there's nothing to apply logic to.

21. Just to add to this question, what about the multitude of skyscrapers around the world? For some reason I'm willing to bet that the Taipei 101 tower is just a wee bit taller than anything an ancient civilization could have built.

26. Not really a question pertaining to the bible, but I thought I'd just throw out a joke I once heard "If America is so blessed then why did God put all the oil underneath the people that hate us?"

28. Don't forget that the diluted salinity levels in the seas and the increased salinity levels in the freshwater would have killed every aquatic lifeform.

29. Earth wouldn't get flung into outer space in such a scenario. That's just preposterous. Doesn't change the fact that the flood myth couldn't have possibly happened. For example, wouldn't 372 inches/hour be more or less a waterfall? How would Noah's boat have even stayed afloat?

31. I'm not too knowledgeable on the Bible but doesn't it say that Jesus gathers everyone around the Earth to him?

35. I think this is the third time I've seen this type of question. It's a good question (even though it can be answered easily by just saying that God feels nonexistence is worse than suffering) but there's no need to list it multiple times, especially considering how intimidating the tower of text we currently have is.

42. He still technically died. Granted it's not much of a sacrifice if you don't stay dead but apparently that's all God needed.

51. This is actually one of the bigger issues I've found with Christianity. If God is all powerful there shouldn't have ever been a rebellion in heaven or any war thereafter. Satan should have never been able to corrupt Eden. Furthermore it's extremely illogical for Satan and 1/3 of the angels to have rebelled against a being that, if His claims are true, would have been able to blink them out of existence before they even did anything, to say nothing of how it illogical it would be to rebel against an immortal being. Furthermore how could there even be fighting with heavenly beings are supposed to be immortal? The only answer that I can think of is that God is not fully omnipotent, omniscient, and possibly not even immortal (that or Satan and 1/3 of the other angels had such enormous egos or gripes with God that they would have preferred death/nonexistence over spending another second under his rule, in which case it seems God isn't a very popular fellow). Really the Bible never even says what makes Satan so evil, just that he is (maybe it's the whole "tried to kill God" thing but how does that affect anyone else but God?).

53. Mental disorders have to be abnormal behavior. Religious belief is too commonplace to be abnormal. Indeed, delusions are sometimes left undiagnosed when they fit inside a cultural context.

58. I think its pretty obvious that by "image" the Bible means a physical likeness. This is completely unsurprising when you consider that most deity worshiping religions worship a humanoid god. While the forms that such gods may take may be a bit bizarre (having the head of an eagle, having a blue body and multiple arms, etc) the base design is always that of a human. Just goes to show the psychology of religion. Humanity is to egotistical to be wiling to worship an explicitly non-human being. That or just unable to. Also, just to note, it's very possible God could have genitalia. The old testament talks about how fallen angels had intercourse with human women to produce half-angel/half-human offspring which implies that angels also have genitalia. Now since angels, as far as we know, don't have any reason to have intercourse with each other it wouldn't be too illogical to think that God would also have genitalia (considering he refers to himself as a male). Of course, "image" could mean that we only resemble God not that we're an exact duplicate.

63. Conveniently for God Hell is completely cutoff from him (I believe that the Bible even states that the suffering in Hell is entirely comprised of being cutoff from God) which has the result that God doesn't have to look at the results of what he's done.

64. I've always been under the impression that Judaism first appeared around 5000-3000 BC with the various legends and traditions that later formed the basis for the religion existing before then. So the literacy problem wouldn't have been issue I don't think. What would have though is the fact that Hinduism is 10,000 years old, a good 5,000 more than Judaism, to say nothing of the multitude of religions that existed prior to that.

66. I suggest you read some of De Sade's works. His opinion concerning morality/religion is my favorite that I've heard thus far. Basically religion is just a way for people incapable of doing anything significant with their lives to feel empowered. Basically "I can deprive myself of my desires therefore I'm better than nature!". Hence the reason religions tend to be against sex, gluttony, and accumulation of wealth while encouraging abstinence, fasting, charity, and sacrifice.

67. Forget SIDS, what about stillborn babies? I thought God was against abortion.

84. Yet another "why does god let people who are going to hell exist?" question. Do people even read this topic anymore before submitting questions?

85. It's not. Christianity states that all sins are equal (except for blasphemy. You know, because God has feelings too).

86. How did this question even get in this topic? There's another question earlier on that even shows why this one is stupid. Fish come in three varieties: Saltwater, freshwater, and hybrids that can survive in a mix of salt and freshwater. Think about it for a second: if you flood the entire world then two things happen: 1) the oceans and seas become diluted with freshwater thus killing off all saltwater life. 2) The seas and oceans eventually flood into the freshwater areas, killing off all freshwater life (I'm assuming that the salinity levels would still be high enough to kill off freshwater life while low enough to kill off saltwater life). I don't know what would happen to the fish that can survive in both types of water but that doesn't matter because there's so few of them anyway. The greater question is how did Noah save all the sealife in the world? He would have not only needed the biggest ship ever created in human history (created in 3000 BC no less) but he would have also needed to have the most advanced aquarium ever created as well. To give you an idea of how advanced he would have not only needed water filters, large tanks, chemicals to keep nitrite and ammonia levels in check, meters to tell him when to treat the water, etc., but he also would have needed pressurized tanks in order to keep deep sea life alive. Needless to say this is completely impossible for a person living back in Noah's time.

Anyway, those are the questions that I felt had an answer. While I know some of them are a bit of a cop-out you can't really attack the cop-out since there's nothing to attack it with. I'm pretty much trying to give Christianity as much of a handicap as possible (I have writer's block now so I can't think of a better word to use) if only because it helps to shut theists up and get them focused on the problems that they can't defend without invoking the ol' "God is beyond our understanding". Also, someone really needs to trim down the original post because that thing takes forever to load.

Finally, here's a question I want to add: How do you explain the Epic of Gilgamesh? For those who don't know, the Epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient flood story that greatly predates the Biblical one. Because I don't want to type the whole thing out here's a link to wiki's entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_gilgamesh. Note that this story has been tracked by historians through various mutations up to and including the version in the Bible. And here's the kicker: the Epic of Gilgamesh isn't even the original flood myth. It was based off the Babylonian Epic of Atra-Hasis. Funny thing too: as these stories keep getting retold the new versions get more epic. At first the flood myths are modest, just a localized flood and the man and his family are on their boat by accident when the flood waters come. Then it keeps mutating until you end up a guy who gets told by his god of an impending worldwide flood.

Are all of Jesus' disciples in Hell along with everyone else who witnessed His execution and resurrection?  For how can one "believe" or "have faith" in what one knows?

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

The Jews were looking for the Messiah to come in a different form. They were waiting for a conquering king instead of a suffering servant.

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]

You can know something’s going to happen and still react to it. A parent KNOWS that their kid will move out when they reach 18 years or older, are they not sad when it finally comes? They are. They weren’t expecting their kid to live with them forever, so why are they sad? Because emotions aren’t strictly reactionary.

32. The Bible says that God is a jealous God . How is this an example of a moral absolute of which man is supposed to follow? - IG ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.
(NOte: Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is.)

First, “Love is not jealous” is a descriptive of human love. God has the right to be jealous because technically everything belongs to Him. People have no right to be jealous because nothing belongs to them. Not only that, but when God is jealous, He is jealous for you. When people are jealous, it is of someone.

37. Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?- IG

He was setting a precedent for the Sabbath.

42. Some say Jesus was the all-knowing God. Jesus would have known then that when he died he'd be in heaven in less than 3 days to rule. If Jesus is alive and ruling today, what did he sacrifice? -- Cyndy Hammond

He sacrificed His life. He was mercilessly beaten and crucified. Blood is what covers sin. Since everyone sins, everyone is guilty and earning of death. In order to not receive death, something must die in your place. That is why they sacrificed lambs in the Old Testament. Jesus was blameless, as He did not sin, which is why He is known as the perfect Lamb. He experienced death until His resurrection.

46. If God has such a tremendous problem with uncircumcised penises, why did he make man with foreskin in the first place? - IG [Note: Some say, "So God can recognize his chosen people." Recognize? Is God so stupid that he has to physically look at men's penises? If not God, do other men need to? lol.]

Circumcision was a covenant between God and man. It was a physical acknowledgment by man of his covenant with God. It wasn’t a reminder for God; it was an acknowledgment by people.

49. How did Jesus ascend to Heaven in the Flesh when Paul says that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven? (1 Cor.15:50) - IG [Note: Some say, well Paul said that and not Jesus. Yet they quote Paul when it suits there purposes.]

Paul is speaking about what it takes to inherit the kingdom of God. He means that there isn’t physical action that can be taken to inherit the kingdom of God. Doing things, such as good deeds, isn’t what gets you into heaven. 1 Cor. 15:53 “For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with the immortality.” People are mortal. The only way to conquer death is through the One who conquered death, Jesus. Salvation is by the spirit, not the flesh.

57. If God was Jesus' father (not Joseph), then why is Jesus' family tree traced through Joseph? -- Cyndy Hammond

Because genealogy is traced through the man’s side of the family.

58. What image of God was man made from? Couldn't have been a moral one or physical one. - IG [Note: One would suspect that an image of God would be perfect and cannot sin. Oops.]

The key is “image of God”. We are not God. Think about science-fiction movies that have robots that perform human tasks. They are made in the “image of people”, but they don’t have 100% of the same attributes of a person. The same can be said in real life for any machine that is meant to be humanlike.

68. If Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening, and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. - [email protected]

Your question is based on the assumption that Jewish time is the same as ours, which it is not.

69. Many Christians claim that hell is merely existence outside of God ?s presence (C.S. Lewis among others). If this is the case, then Jesus could not have descended into hell (being God Himself). As a result, are you sure your sins are forgiven? - Byron Bultsma

Hell is not merely the existence outside of God’s presence. Hell is an actual place.

73. Christians will tell you that if a baby dies it goes to heaven. Why then are they so against abortion? All the child is being deprived of is the opportunity to go to hell. Either that or god expects unborn fetuses to accept Jesus. - [email protected]

Anyone who is against abortion is because it’s murder. Why is killing someone in the first 9 months not murder, but killing someone after 9 months is murder? To say that abortion is not murder doesn’t make sense; otherwise there would be no point to it. The purpose is to end a life.

78. Consciousness is the result of a physical brain, how could God being metaphysical be said to be conscious or sentient without having a brain? - Mindless

This is apples and oranges. God is in the spiritual realm, we are in the physical realm. God is not bound to what He creates by what He is. It’s not like He has to sit there and be like “well I don’t have a physical brain, so I won’t give people one either.” People are different from fish that are different from birds that are different from bugs that are different from lions and elephants and dogs and cats. God is not a machine in a factory that has to spit out the same thing every time. There’s no limit on what or how He creates something.

Quoting someone saying 'of course God exists, it's so obvious!' isn't proof. Claiming 'proof is all around' isn't proof. Cite some, please.

And the people who lived in, say, what is now Ireland, during the lifetime of Abraham or Jacob? Did creation all around them point to what Jesus hadn't done, hadn't been prophecied about, etc?

"Och, Dhugal! I saw a bee on a flower. I think some bloke in palestine's gonna get hisself nailed to a tree fer me in about fifteen hundred years!"

Not for nothing, but if God's an all-powerful Creator, and he wanted to reveal himself to mankind, why waste the time breeding a chosen people? Just say 'hi, this is God. Call anyone you want to, they're having this conversation right now, too. All around the world. EVERYONE. Deny me now, bitches.'

And God proves just how little value he cares about each of us. Remember, in all of these comparisons to parenting, parents don't begin with the statement of 'trust me. Take it on faith'. They start first with demonstrations of trustworthiness: they help the baby, feed it, comfort it, shelter it. They show reason for that trust and faith to develop with concrete, undeniable interaction. Grandparents, too, have to demonstrate trustworthiness before children completely trust them (which, you know, is reasonable. Just because mom calls that person 'gramma' doesn't make her any less of a total stranger).

God doesn't. God doesn't provide any more concrete interaction than your great-great-great-great grandfather does... and he's probably dead. He doesn't interact, doesn't provide you any reason to trust him. Same thing with God. There's no interaction with God that gives a concrete, direct reason to trust... because there's no interaction with God at all.

A)If you are not subject to the punishment, you are not accountable. They are the same thing. Being accountable means that the burden of repaying the cost incurred comes from your account, not from your sugar-daddy's wallet.

B)If homosexuality is still a sin because modern christians are still subject to the Law of Moses, completely and in its entirety, then Peter and Paul had no authority to claim that the kosher laws no longer applied to followers of Christ, even gentiles. When's the last time you had pork in any form? Or meat and cheese on the same dish? Or shellfish? Mayo? When's the last time you wore a garment made from two fabrics (how about your polyester/cotton blend t-shirts?). THAT is what we mean when we say people 'pick and choose' which parts of 'the law' still apply. The prohibitions against homosexuality (which, by the way DO NOT INCLUDE F/F SEXUAL RELATIONS) come from the same Law as the prohibition against wearing garments of two fabrics.

Keep in mind that by and large, when Paul (and most of it WAS Paul) decided these things no longer applied, he was living among Gentiles, adopting their lifestyle, and all of the creature comforts that came with it. And I do mean 'all'. Want a fun exercise? Go through Paul's epistles, look up each time he's 'arrested' and see what crimes he's charged with. Saul, a well-known tax collector who worked as far north as Damascus (Note: That's not taxes for the Jewish Temple he's collecting in DAMASCUS) undoubtably had Roman contacts all over Asia Minor. Whenever he'd get tired of living the 'simple' life of being a charismatic cult leader, fleecing his flock, he'd go hook up with one of his rich Roman buddies, write off another letter bemoaning his 'arrest' and urging his latest bunch of victims to 'keep the faith'... and then conveniently 'escape' to another city.

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers.

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

He does not fit the classic jewish concept of messiah. Worshipping a man is against the 1st commandment (unless he is somehow divine as well). Ironically, in jesuses time, the question was does everyone have to convert to judaism before being christian. Now its should jews even convert to christianity at all.

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?

Apparently they found where the garden was in western iraq. At least thats what I saw on the discovery channel. The "gates" appear to be mountain passes instead of sworded gates. Obviously, there is a lot of allegory involved in the genesis account

3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel Guy

I have no extra knowledge. All I know is I gave $100 to the national geographic society with a DNA swap. And they sent a canned response that said I came from Africa.

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]

this is one of the great paradoxes as well. We will have our memories and we will know that every one is where they "want" to be. Because technically we all "want" to do our own thing and not serve God. But it is a miracle when even one person chooses to serve God. It seems to be that is would be "better" to cease to exist than be in hell but perhaps God values creation and free will too much to destroy it.

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]

Yes. God is unchanging pure being and cannot have emotions or desires or reactions. The holy spirit is somehow the part of God we can deal with that "appears" to perform actions and interact with humanity. Much of what is written about God must be teaching parable since technically God cannot interact with man in his true form. It is paradoxical that God can interact with man at all.

6. Why would God create a place such as hell to torture sinners forever when he foreknew who would disappoint him? - IG [Note: Some say you have a choice, but this misses the point. If God hates sin so much, why create Adam and Eve when he knew they'd sin? The only conclusion I can come up with, if Yaweh exists, is that he wanted sin to enter the world.]

This is another great paradox that is difficult to attempt to understand. Apparently to create human beings with free will, it has to be this way. We would eventually choose to fall, and therefore need cannot be in the presence of God in our current state. Even though Jesus is Gods "response" to mans fall. Jesus existed before the foundation of the world. Totally paradoxical.

7. "God is all merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet, since he's all-knowing, not allow them to be born at all? -

I agree but what do I know? Free will for mankind is of utmost importance for some reason.

8. Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Each prayer includes a variety of ritualism and posturing. If a muslim astronaut were to land on Mars. Prayer to Mecca would be ritualistically impossible due to the rotation of Earth and Mars. Are Muslims stuck here in Earth? IG [Note: Since this was first posted, a Muslim astronaut was faced with this very dilemma. The authoritative clergy informed him to pray as he normally would. I see this no where in the Koran. You see? Religions must change, or die out. It's interesting to note that, in the Koran, the moon is believed to be in the lowest Heaven, the level for those that barely made it to Heaven. Surah 71:15-16. One problem, no man can supposedly get to Heaven until they die. Yet, we've been to the moon. Our satellites beyond that.]

ok

9. Why haven't we seen God reattach severed heads, restore someone who was burned alive or regrow amputated limbs? Surely these would be miracles difficult to deny. - Adam Majors and IG [Note: The typical answer is that man doesn't dictate God's actions. The conundrum here however is that, if God wants us to "know" him, then surely feats such as those mentioned above would be happening all over the world. Until they do, I'll remain an atheist.]

When God does physical miracles they are very rare. Most of the miracles are of the soul/spirit. To love your enemies is a miracle for example. To believe in God and have faith is a miracle. Unfortunately, I think if there were more physical miracles we would explain them away anyway. We are accountable for all miracles we see. If we were to deny one, we would receive pretty heavy judgement on ourselves. (that sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy...it is but its the best I got)

10. Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't he do it himself? - IG [Note: Surely God would have known that not everyone would be convinced by the reality[sic] of his Bible. If God loves us so much, we are all going to Heaven. If God knew that I would be an atheist, and he doesn't like atheists, he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence. But he did. Therefore, I must be serving the will of God, for I exist. ]

God will absolutely not force us to serve him. Yet he loves us and does not "want" any of us to perish. There is no good answer as I see it. But I can picture that most of us do not want to serve God for all eternity. It is a miracle that some of us want to want to serve God at all. It is the work of the holy spirit that any of us are saved at all. It is a miracle that any of us dont perish. Though we are upset (and rightly so) that not all will "make it". The problem with that thinking is that none of us deserve to "make it" to heaven. So God has to make a way for us somehow.

11. In II Kings 2-23/24 we read about God sending 2 she-bears to attack children for calling the prophet Elisa bald, which he was, the bears killed 42 of the children. Was this a good thing to do? -- Brandon and IG[Note: I have heard some argue that the boys were a gang. So?! I didn't read anywhere in that passage where they laid a finger on the guy . Also, what kind of bears are these that can kill 42 kids? Super Bears? Surely the kids had to be running away.]

I have no idea.

12. I have often heard from many believers that even Satan has a presence in the church, which is why even in church people can still have impure thoughts. If Satan can find his way in the church, how do Christians know that Satan didn't find his way into the Bible and twist the whole book? After all, men did vote on which books would make the Holy Bible. - The Infidel Guy

People have impure thoughts because we are tempted by our own desires. All satan has to do is give us what we want. So technically he is blameless and we are to blame for our own sins. Thats a good question about the bible. I think we somewhat have to "trust" the authors received "true" divine inspiration. But ultimately you are correct. Men voted on which books were "inspired" and which were not that didnt seem to make sense. Hopefully they chose well.

I don't know how to respond to all of these at once. If somebody (who cares) has a favorite few I can try to answer those first. Its kind of hard to read this post otherwise.

Now there's alot of time on your hands, for anyone to read all this.  Why can't people just accept the fact that this gawd thing is the same as Santa Claus.  Make believe!!  Boy do people get pissed at me when I say that to them.  HEE HEE

Yes, odd isn't it. Kind of like Xians who think it is acceptable to believe the revelations of Paul but not Mohammed, or Xians who accept that Jesus walked on water but Krishna doesn't exist, or Xians who accept that Jesus was God-Man but not Joseph Smith.

Religion has a funny way of accepting one bizarre story over thousands of equally bizarre stories with no more evidence than "some guy said that some guy said..."

Why do so many Christian denominations make such a fuss over Satan when he was such a minor to non-existent character throughout most of the Bible?  He tortures Job for god's and his own amusement, and then doesn't make any significant come back until he attempts to temp Jesus.  I recall in my last read through, no mention of him made in the stories of Israel murdering, raping, pillaging and torturing all the other tribes in and on their way to the promise land.  Furthermore, how do we know that the talking snake in the mystical garden was Satan himself?

Thats true. In a way, to make a fuss over Satan is to fixate on him and give him more attention than he deserves. Satan only gives us what we want so we cant blame him for tempting us. We are tempted by our own evil desires. He's just ready to help. So its good to be wary of that.