Ok I was not sure where to put this but I recently got back on facebook and it seems to me every time i read a post i see people thanking god for being healthy, or for healing a sick child or for rescuing miners.

1. What about being pleased with your self for working out, eating right, your parents for giving you good values and eating habits?

2. How about thanking the medical doctors who did the surgery or gave you the medication, or herbalist who helped you?

3. How about thanking the many people who worked on rescuing the miners and the technology that was used?

4. How come no one blamed god for killing the 20 china miners the week after?

Sorry just a rant. I was going to put it on facebook as well but will more then likely alienate most of anyone i know there I just saw way to many of these notices this week and it got to me.

Of all the God arguments being put forth by theistic philosophers, the ontological argument stands out to me as being the most fascinating. The argument is unique and salient among its class insofar that its existential conclusion, i.e., God has real existence, is inferred without recourse to empirical observation. For many, such an a priori argument is a paradigm example of sophistry and chicanery. After all, how can we acquire new knowledge about the cosmos without first examining its state of affairs? This basic conviction has led many people to not take the argument seriously. At the same time, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where the argument goes wrong, since, without further justification, the proposition that knowledge can only come from experience seems to be a case of simple prejudice, or more specifically, an exemplary case of question begging. Evidently, refuting the argument requires more than just a mere hand wave; it requires the practice of some good philosophy.

I am always amazed at how many incredibly smart scientist can be so bold in their non-belief in a creator.

Reminds me a bit of the battle between reason and religion. But who has what?

I'd like to pose a question simply out of curiosity. Do you believe in the existence of your soul? Is there something more to you than your physical life? Or do you believe there is nothing more to life other than what you can see or touch?

Please give a brief explanation behind your thought process.

For the purpose of this discussion please define the soul as:

"part of a living being, commonly held to be separable in existence from the body--the metaphysical part as distinct from the physical part"

1. Soul or no soul?

2. If you do have a soul do you believe it to have a longer life span than your physical life.

Thanks guys. Have a good weekend!!!

Free Will = something we have with or without a god of any sort.

Sin = Bad things people may do (as dictated by society in general) with or with out any sort of god.

Original sin = indoctrinating children into any religion.

Faith = believing something without real evidence for which no god is actually required.

Every term like this in the bible is related to something that exists with or without a god.

If you are representing a particular religion my question is:

Why are you representing that religion, and not another?

  Please, give me your best reason, what exact logic have you used that has led you to represent a certain religion and not another.   Why are you Christian and not Hindu, or Muslim, or a Scientologist for that matter, are you as versed in the religions you haven't chosen to represent as you are in the one you have chosen to represent?

Assume: 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent
2. God gave us free will

Result: 1. God knows how everyone will act
2. God knows which ones will be saved and which ones wont
--> Assume: Those who wont be saved are lost cases that under no circumstances would be saved. As dubious as this claim is, let's grant it to the Theists and say that God would not let someone willing to be saved go astray, or else salvation would be as much based on the person as the circumstances of their lives
3. The removal of people who wont be saved wont interfere in any way with the free will or salvation of those who will, or vice-versa
4. God could have created a world without people who wont be saved
Additional Steps 5. God, knowing the result of Earth's test, could have avoided creating this world and put everyone in Heaven
6. This world is unnecessary, redundant, and, given how many people wont be saved, perplexing with the proposition of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and benevolent God.

Fundie friend= my actual friend

fundie friend of fundie frind is of course just some random friend of his.

This is real. I had to rant because his little comment popped up on my wall and it irritated me as he knew it would. He speaks of jesus and used to text me and had "jesus loves you" as a default when he texted me.

Fundie friend: Just wanted everyone to know that God broke the mold when he made my wife. She's absolutley the best of best friends and a person im glad im sharing my life with....FOREVER

Me: Just hope one of you doesn't end up in hell...lol

Fundie friend: My Father wouldnt let that happen...what about urs (my name)?

Fundie friend of my fundie friend: I am happy to be the spectator while watching God put pieces of my life in all the right places. So happy to know that God has given you such a wonderful wife and family

Me: Yea, because people themselves are so pathetic and helpless without their sky daddy.

Fundie friend of my fundie friend: You are correct (my name), we are humans, we sin and make mistakes. We ARE pathetic compared to God. That is why God sent his ONLY son to die on the cross for OUR sins, so we can have everlasting life.

Me: Well thats good, sounds like a real nice fellow, sending his son to die and all for something I didn't even do.

Deriving the Morality Dilemma from the Euthyphro Dilemma
Consider the following: Is what is commanded by God good because it is good, or because it is commanded by God?

The Morality Dilemma

From here, we can infer that either: 1. God is not omnipotent, and must adhere to morals or 2. that for God and morals to be compatible, God must be an inferior being or 3. God has no basis for his actions and thus cannot act rationally and objective morality does not exist. This is the heart of the Morality Dilemma. How we reach these two conclusions can be seen in the following parts of this thread.

Implication #1
If the former, then God must be, in some aspects, subservient to morality. This means that God's sovereignty is compromised--morals are superior, at least in some regard, to his Will and power, and God's goodness depends on some independent standards, something that is unalterable. Clearly, this is a problem for those who consider God to be the most superior being, as even He is subject to something outside himself. If this is true, God cannot be omnipotent and all-sovereign.

Implication #2