Is God Just Pretend?

Speaking About the Unspeakable

I have never been one who cared much for political correctness, and the subjects of religion and politics are two subjects I most often like to talk about. I am sure one of the main reasons is because I am a non-conformist; I don't act in a particular manner because society says that I should. If society decides something is taboo, chances are that is the exact thing I will talk and write about. I also have several articles that are of a political nature, so if speaking about the unspeakable is something that is damaging to your delicate senses, then you should pass on anything I may write because those are going to be the subjects.

I will be writing this as an atheist for atheists who may find themselves debating people of faith and may not be as versed on all the talking points, but also for people of faith who are not afraid to look at other views without feeling threatened or offended. You should never be unwilling to look at other points of view, no matter how much you believe you already know the 'truth.' Many people of faith have never taken the time to really even investigate their beliefs, they just accepted them...after all that's why it's called faith.

My main purpose in writing this is not to cause offense, but that is almost certain to happen. I can understand why this would be; no one likes to have their beliefs called into question because it may make them appear to be foolish or stupid. This would be the main reason for people getting upset and not even wanting to discuss the matter, because deep down inside they also know it does not sound believable. By not talking about it they do not have to try and defend the indefensible. But is it better to hold onto beliefs that you may have not examined in full, or examine them and determine if they are really worth holding onto at all? This is written from an atheist's point of view, and will be critical of many things sacred to religious people. There is no way to discuss these topics without offending someone.

As a Libertarian I believe people should have the right to believe in anything they want to believe in...no matter how silly or implausible others may believe those things to be. With that being said, I would like to point out that having a right to your belief, does not void someone Else's equal right to have an opinion opposite yours and be vocal about it. You do not have a right to not have your beliefs challenged or to not be offended.

I have tried to write this in what I feel is as least offensive tone as I could, because it was important to me for atheists and theists alike to be able to read this. But please understand that I am an atheist, and as such it is hard for me to be as non-bias as some of the people reading this would like, just as it would be hard for a theist to write about atheism I am sure. But with that said, I am sure most will agree that for the most part it is non-offensive as is possible.

Atheists that will use this, or any other book, must be aware that it's not very likely they will succeed in 'convincing' a person of faith to change his or her opinion of their faith... if that is your goal. You may feel frustrated and annoyed because the person you are talking to cannot easily see what you see so clearly. Most likely this person will be as equally frustrated that you cannot fathom the greatness of their God.



What's Your Purpose?

You may or may not agree with what is presented here. I think it's important to ask yourself what you hope to get out of it? If the goal is to seek knowledge, even if it takes you places that you may find uncomfortable, then by all means continue. But if you are only interested in reading material that furthers your own self-interest of propagating a belief that you have, and there is no amount of knowledge or evidence that could sway your belief or cause you to reconsider, then stop now and save yourself a lot of time. You can continue about your day knowing that your mind has not been subjected to anything that might chip away at the safe little world you have created for yourself.

If there is no amount of evidence that could be presented that would sway your opinion or cause you to reconsider your position, then what possible reason would you have for trying to gain knowledge or further your education about this or any other subject? If you are convinced you know all there is to know already, then you should cease trying to further your education at all on any subject and just tell yourself you have reached the maximum capability and capacity of your mind and it is closed for any further progress from this point forward.

If your beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand up to challenge or the slightest scrutiny, would this really be something you would want to continue to believe in anyway? Are your senses so delicate that you are not even willing to listen to someone Else's point of view, because the mere thought that someone might disagree with you causes an immediate desire to place both hands over your ears, and close your eyes while repeating loud chanting noises as to avoid listening?

However, if knowledge and understanding are what you seek, and you are bold enough to follow this road no matter where it might lead, then read on and ask yourself what makes more sense to you.

I do not profess to have all the answers, nor the truth. I simply will lay the facts out as we know them to be and let you decide for yourself what sounds more rational and logical. I cannot force you to believe anything, nor would I try. I would hope you possess the ability to weigh the evidence and decide for yourself if there is A Case Against God.

But of course that will be up to you to decide...



Why I Am an Atheist

I was born an atheist, just as every other person, animal and life form in the universe has been and will forever be. Indeed we are all born without religious indoctrination making us all non-theists from birth. Because we are born atheists (free from all knowledge of Gods) we do not come into this world with preconceived ideas of religious dogma. These ideas are learned later in life and are usually introduced by a parent or religious institution. Without some outside influence in their life, most people would not adopt religion on their own.

For most people of faith the idea of questioning how they became the faith that they are or even how they can be sure their faith is the right one is something they have never given any thought to at all, they just accepted what they were told. They have never given any thought to the idea that their faith was simply passed down to them from someone else, most likely their parents. Most likely the reason for someone being Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim or some other religion is because their parents were also of that same faith. It is not like they actually put a lot of thought in deciding what religion to be, in fact they did not pick their religion at all, their religion picked them. For example, had the Christian been born in Iran, instead of the United States, chances are they would have most likely been a Muslim, not a Christian (but they would believe just as strongly in the Muslim faith as they do their Christian faith now). A religion picks the person it will attach itself to based on Geography in large part.

People learn of religion the same way their parents did and their parents before them, through repeating the same dogma that was handed down to them from their parents. Of course no matter which religion someone ends up inheriting either at birth or later in life, it is always taught to them to be the 'One True Religion.' Just as a person of strong Catholic belief thinks they have found the 'One True Religion,' so does the person of strong Muslim faith; they both can't be right.

Here is an interesting fact that is worth pointing out. No one has ever felt the need to identify themselves as a non-Zeusist or a non-Santa Clausist. The reason we do not have terms to describe people that do not believe in Zeus or Santa Claus is because it's obvious to most every rational person that Zeus was just a mythical creature and to anyone that is not a child that Santa Claus is just pretend.

In the logical world there would be no need for a term like 'atheism' because like Zeus and Santa Claus, most people that are capable of rational thought would already know 'God' is just pretend, so why have a term to describe someone who knows this? Atheism is nothing more than the smaller rational percent of the population asking the larger irrational percent to show evidence for their myth.

Atheists simply believe in one less 'God' than do most people.

I am an atheist for the same reason I am an Azeusist (someone who does not believe in Zeus) because there is no proof for the existence of Gods...not one, not any. Besides, if there be such a thing as a God, he must have known (since it is said that God knows all) I would be an atheist ahead of the time of my birth; and if that be the case, what right do people of faith have to question their Gods judgment anyway?



A Quest for Knowledge

Since man first crawled from the cave he has been on a quest for knowledge. Not having the ability to understand the universe early man invented Gods to explain their world. There were Gods for everything, from water and fire, to Earth and the cosmos. Thunder and lightning meant that the Gods must be angry and if it rained they were sad. This would all seem to make perfect sense for the mind of a caveman since they were not capable of conceptual and rational thought. They simply replaced one unknown for another in their world. Rain = Gods sad, Thunder and lightning = Gods angry. This 'caveman logic' explained everything they needed to know and because of their limited logic and reason worked fine for them.

Just as in the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy," when a native in the Kalahari Desert encounters technology for the first time--in the shape of a Coke bottle. I found this to be very amusing, but I also began to see parallels between his thought process, and that of the modern day Theist. Both are using caveman logic to explain their world. The native using caveman logic thinks, "bottle fall from sky, must be gift from the Gods" and the modern day theist thinks, "see that tree, that proves God." Both of them simply have replaced one unknown for another, but still have not answered where these things came from.

It is easy to understand how this method of replacing one unknown for another was passed down through the generations as a means by which to describe our world. It is also easy to see how someone of such limited capacity could accept this line of reasoning to define their world.

As mankind evolved, mans logic and reason evolved as well. This 'caveman logic' did not seem to work as well as it once did. Science and math had now replaced 'caveman logic' and we demanded proof for the things we believed in. Through using logic and reason, and applying science and math we replaced caveman logic and learned that:

Rain = 'Gods sad', was replaced with science and we learned that rain is caused by: Precipitation that forms when cloud droplets (or ice particles) in clouds grow and combine to become so large that their fall speed exceeds the updraft speed in the cloud, and they then fall out of the cloud. If these large water drops or ice particles do not re-evaporate as they fall farther below the cloud, they reach the ground as precipitation.

Thunder = 'Gods angry', was replaced and learned to be caused by: The sudden expansion of the air around a lightning bolt's path. The deep rumbling and sharp cracks of thunder are produced as the air around the lightning bolt is superheated - up to about 54,000° Fahrenheit (about 33,000° Celsius) - and rapidly expands. This rapid expansion creates an acoustic shock wave that manifests itself as thunder.

Through science and math and by using logic and reason, man had replaced 'caveman logic' and was able to explain his world in more rational and sensible ways. Man now relied on the rules of evidence to validate a claim and demanded proof for things he was willing to say he believed in...except in one area.

Where faith was concerned 'caveman logic' seemed to still be the method at which to explain our world. God was proven in the mind of a theist simply by pointing to a tree, flower or an insect. This 'caveman logic' was more than enough proof in their mind and it did not matter that all they had done was to replace one unknown for another, to them the question had been answered and it was not up for debate or challenge.

It is sad that with all of mankind's greatest achievements that we have still not crawled that far beyond the cave...and 'caveman logic.'

The quest continues...



What is an Atheist?

Atheists are amongst some of the most hated people in the world, but why? Many people misunderstand the term 'atheist' and associate it with Devil worshiping or people that sacrifice small farm animals. This of course is completely ridiculous. Theists do not have a higher moral code than do atheists. Indeed no one has ever killed in the name of 'no God,' yet many have killed in the name of a 'God.'

Theists will argue that someone like Stalin was an atheist and that he killed in the name of atheism, but this is false, Stalin killed in the name of communism. In fact, Stalin actually rejected Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In short Stalin opposed Darwin's theory in favor of Trofim Lysenko's Lamarckianism

Atheism is not a belief system, it's a rejection of theism...nothing more. Atheists do not worship Satan anymore than we would any other God or demon. Indeed an atheist rejects God and Satan as well. Because an Atheist does not believe in God, this does not mean that we do not believe in anything as some theists will claim. A belief in nothing is known as 'nihilism,' (Nihilism is a philosophy of an extreme form of skepticism: The denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth; nothingness or nonexistence). I am not a nihilist...I know I exist.

In the discussion of theism, you either are a theist or you are an atheist, there are no other options. Think of it this way, a thing is either symmetrical or it isn't. If it isn't, then we say it's asymmetrical. Adding the 'a' simply means 'not', which in turn means either you believe in god or you don't. Nudity is not just another form of clothing; it's no clothes. Not believing in a god isn't another religion; it's not believing in a god...and that's all.

Other than a non-belief in God, atheists are free to believe in whatever they choose. For example you can be, male or female, white, black or any other race , gay or straight, a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or an Anarchist, you can literally have any other philosophy you like and still be an atheist. The only thing that is required to be an atheist is the rejection of theism...period.

Atheism is not a belief, nor is it a belief in nothing. Atheists simply reject the notion of God based on the evidence, but I can say with certainty I believe in a lot of other things, even things I cannot see like air and gravity (both of which can be measured and proven)...I just require proof for those things.

Atheists do not have a special day once a week that requires they get dressed up, and then gather for meetings with their friends to compare fashion, and discuss magic, folklore, Gods, Demons and the existence of things outside the natural universe. They do not have a handbook with special rules to obey, talk to imaginary friends or worship idols...those people would be called theists.

Atheists do not disagree on atheism. Many will confuse what I just said to mean atheists do not ever disagree. Of course atheists are free to disagree on almost anything except atheism itself. As I said in the beginning, atheism is not a belief system, it's a rejection of theism...nothing more. If you disagree with atheism, then you are not an atheist period.

Now let's contrast that with theism, which is a belief system. You can be a theist and disagree on many points about theism itself and what it means to be a theist. A Catholic and a Baptist for example are both theists, but disagree on exactly what that means, which is why there are so many different sects of the same religion. With atheism that is not a problem as all atheists agree they reject theism, making our position one that is not only more definable, but agreeable as well. Just trying to define theism and what it means is hard enough, finding two theists that agree on what it actually means is next to impossible...even within the exact same sect.



Agnosticism

An agnostic is an atheist with an insurance policy...actually there is no such thing as an agnostic.

What does it mean when someone claims they are an 'agnostic?' Some claim that agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims-is unknown or unknowable.

I don't agree with this view when it relates to theism, nor do I accept that people can claim to be an agnostic as it relates to theism. You are either a theist or you are an atheist, that's the only two options. When an 'a' is placed in front of a word it means 'not' it does not mean the opposite. So if you are not a theist, it means you are an atheist. As stated above, a thing is either symmetrical or it isn't. If it isn't, then we say it's asymmetrical. Adding the 'a' simply means 'not', which in turn means either you are a theist or you are not a theist, or said another way... you are an atheist.

You may have different reasons why you are not a theist, but this does not matter, the fact is you are an atheist. You are free to be anything else, it just means you are not a theist.

It would even be possible to be a Buddhist and an atheist since all atheism means is not a theist. A lot of people also mistake theism with deism. A deist believes: In the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation. Many of the founding fathers were mistakenly thought to be theists, when they were actually deists.

So when someone says they are an agnostic they are usually unknowingly saying they are an atheist. For an "agnostic" to say I don't really know, so I am not willing to say for sure, is admitting they are not a theist (someone that does claim to know) so by default this makes them an atheist.

People who refer to themselves as agnostic do so because it sounds warm and fuzzy, and the word agnostic is not as looked down on by people of faith as is the word atheist. To most people of faith the word atheist is a vile and offensive word, so some people would rather use a less offensive term to describe their beliefs, as not to offend anyone.

Are agnostics equally open to the idea that fairies may orbit Jupiter? I mean they can't know for sure because perhaps the fairies are invisible or perhaps the fairies are too small for us to observe with the naked eye or telescopes. Do they also claim to be agnostic toward these fairies? If so what about Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, Superman, or the thousands of other fictional beings? Of course they don't tell people that they are agnostic towards these things. No they accurately label themselves as being atheistic toward the fairy hypothesis, as well as all the others because the probability that these conjured up, man-made ideas are true is very low. Just as low as the possibility that the imagined "Gods" from the old man-made Bible are real.

You can't be a little pregnant...you either are or you are not. I would say the same for theism...you either are or you are not.

We call ourselves atheists so that we can make it crystal clear that, while we're open to certain mysteries of the universe, we are not equally open to Gods as most people understand them. Atheism simply means you reject theism, but it does not limit you from any other religious or spiritual belief. For example, you could be a Buddhist and be an atheist.

Agnosticism just seems a little intellectually void to me as the term relates to theism, because the person is claiming they are having a hard time deciding if the belief of theism seems plausible or not. There is no middle ground as it relates to theism. You are either a theist or you are not a theist, and if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.



What is Faith?

Why is it considered a virtue to have faith? Faith by definition is believing in something for which there is no proof of. Would it also be considered virtuous to believe in other things without proof or is faith the only thing that lacks proof that it is considered virtuous to believe in?

If someone were to claim to have an invisible friend hiding under their bed that only they can see, would this be a virtuous belief as well or would this be considered a delusional person? What exactly is the defining factor that separates ordinary delusion, "I have an invisible man under my bed" from that of faith, "God is talking to me"???

The Webster Dictionary defines faith as:

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

So if we were to combine the meanings given in the second definition it would mean faith is: a belief and loyalty to a God, which is the traditional doctrines of a religion, and a belief in something for which there is no proof, but that you have a complete trust in.

When a theist says they have 'faith' in God, they are really saying they have a belief and complete trust in something for which there is no proof of. Faith by definition is a belief in something that cannot be proven, so when a theist claims to have complete faith in a God, they are admitting they believe in a fictional being. How then could they claim to have proof in something that is not real? Faith is just that, faith. If it was anything else it would be called something other than faith such as a truth or a law. If you are a person who has a faith in God, you are admitting that you believe in nothing.




Why People Believe

Fear of the unknown can be a frightening thing. So people believe because they want to have hope that there is something better beyond this life. No one likes to believe that this could be all there is. I will admit I would rather be wrong and the theists be right because their heaven (in some ways) certainly sounds like a nice place to be, but I cannot accept this on faith alone, I require proof.

People of faith in the past have asked me before, if I do not believe in God, then what do I think will happen to us after we die? I answer this question the same as I would answer any question that I do not have enough knowledge to answer, I say "I don't know". Of course I wait in anticipation of their reply, which is usually something like, "see you just admitted you don't know!" It is true, I don't know, but neither do they. They have fooled themselves into believing they do, and that when they die they are going to a much better place where there is no pain and suffering, a place of complete happiness...a place called heaven. Of course they do not really know what will happen to them after they die anymore than I do, they simply believe in something that they were convinced of, and to them it's a fact.

I don't know what happens after we die or what it will be like. If I had to guess though I would imagine it will be a lot like what it was before I was born, and I don't remember that either. It makes more sense though that we might go back to the same state of non-existence that we were in prior to our birth.

No, theists have no more greater knowledge of what happens after death than do atheists, we just choose not to replace one unknown for another one...or said another way, we do not make up fairy tales to make up for our lack of knowledge. There are things for which we do not know and understand, we may one day, but as for now we do not, and atheists accept this fact.



Lack of Evidence

"Philosophy gives us unanswered questions; religion gives us unquestioned answers".

Theists will tell you they have proof of God. It's usually something like pointing to a tree or an insect. Next they will ask you to consider all the delicate and complicated intricacies of these things. They will then ask how could these things have come to be without God? Of course to anyone else that actually is capable of intelligent thought, this does not prove God anymore than it might prove The Flying Spaghetti Monster created these things.

All the Theist has done is replace one unknown with another unknown. Think of God as 'X' in a mathematical equation. If you were given an equation to find out what 'X' is and you simply made up a random number as your answer, would you have solved the equation? Of course not, all you have done is replace one unknown for another. Actually their math is even worse than this example, because they are claiming 'X' equals 'Y'...okay so what is 'Y' then? They have answered the question with another question.

I do not like to use the word 'proof' because it is used in so many ways and by so many people who really have no proof at all; and for the fact that nothing can be really proven. Theists will claim they have proof of God, but of course they do not. I would say though that there is more evidence to support that there is no God. There is a lot of evidence to back this up on the website God is Imaginary but of course everyone will have their own definition of what evidence is, and people of faith will most likely dismiss all of this without even considering it...as it would destroy their beliefs if they did.

Of course there are things for which we do not know the answers to, but making up answers to fill this lack of knowledge is not an intelligent way to try and define these things. Would it not be better to just admit there are things we do not have enough knowledge to understand yet, rather than try to replace this lack of knowledge with equally unknown answers?



The Burden of Proof

In legal matters, as well as most other things in the real world, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. If someone accused you of murdering someone and you were charged with the crime of murder, during your trial it would be up to the State to 'prove' beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the murder that you have been accused of. Indeed as it should be the 'burden of proof' would be on the person or entity making the claim. It would not be up to you to prove you did not commit the murder, and this of course is how it should be.

Most things in life operate this way...except in the area known as religion. I get asked all the time to prove there is no God, and although I believe the evidence weighs heavily in my favor, I can't prove a negative. I also do not have to because the burden of proof in this lies with the one making the claim, the theist. Someone could not claim to be an atheist had there not been a theist first, so it stands to reason the theist made the claim and has the burden of proof in this matter.

If I were to make the claim that I have little green men living under my bed, and at night they come out and talk to me, most people would assume that the burden of proof lies with me to substantiate this claim. It would not be up to others to prove I do not have little green men hiding under my bed, because it would be impossible for them to do so, you can't prove a negative. I might say they only talk to me or that only I can see them making it impossible for anyone to prove that I am wrong. But since I am not able to prove my statement, most sane and rational people would discount my claim as the ramblings of a mad man.

Should we give any more credibility to someone making the claim for a God without first demanding they give proof to this claim?



The Bible

Most people are not aware of the origins of the Bible. Before the Bible there was what were known as 'Canons.' These Canons were simply manuscripts that were written by different authors (most of them anonymous) over a span of about 1600 years. There were many Canons, and not all were included in what came to be known as the 'Bible.' The method to determine what would be included, and what would not be included and left out was the system of voting.

Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered 'holy' and thus 'the word of God' and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.

Emperor Constantine, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the 'word of God' into existence, but The Church leaders didn't finish editing the 'holy' scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed.

So, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine!

Constantine ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new 'holy scriptures.' It seems with the financial element added to the picture, the Church fathers were able to overcome their differences and finally agree which 'holy' books would stay and which would go.

There are lost books of the bible, which should have been included into the canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.

One might ask themselves, had the vote gone another way, would people of faith be believing something entirely different than what they believe to be the word of God today?



The One True Religion

There are more than 730 established Religions in the world which are broken out into more the 3200 different sects. Christianity, for example is one of the major religions but has more than 200 sub sects, each with their own unique traditions and interpretations of the bible.

The actual number of religions is much higher than this even because a religion can be defined in so many different ways, so there is no way to know exactly how many religions may exist, but even with the example above, how can you be sure you have selected the 'one true religion?'

If your eternal salvation relies on you not only believing in God, but the one 'true God' how can you be sure you have made the right choice? What if the God you believe in is the wrong God. Would you suffer the same fate as the non-believer if you did believe in God, but happened to not believe in the one 'true God?'

Of course most theists believe that they were fortunate enough to select the one 'true religion' out of the many religions of the world. As I said earlier, they did not pick their religion, their religion picked them. I know many will argue this point with me by saying they went through several religions before deciding on the one 'true religion' they currently belong to now. That is not that impressive though. Moving from a baptist faith to a different Christian faith is akin to saying you once thought Breyer's Vanilla ice cream was the best, now you think Ben & Jerry's is the best.

The truth is had you been born in for example Iran, you would be most likely a Muslim, and if you would have been born in India, you most likely would be a Hindu today. But I can say with certainty that you would believe one of those to be the 'one true' religion, just as those people do, instead of the one you have now had that been the case. Of course people's arrogance will never have them admit to this, but of course it's true. Geography had more of a decision in your religion, than you did. I will say it again, you did not pick your religion, it picked you.

A Catholic believes they are saved because their God is the one 'true God,' but then so does the Muslim, the Jew and the Hindu. They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. Each one of these people of faith are convinced that they were fortunate enough to be able to determine not only what the one 'true religion' is, but also the one 'true God' as well, but it is not possible that all of them are right, so what about the ones who are wrong?

The Catholic is certain the Muslim is wrong, just as the Muslim is certain the Catholic is wrong, and of course the Jew thinks they are both wrong. Even among the same faiths such as Christians, they can't all agree either, which is why there are over 200 sects of Christianity alone.

Would picking the wrong God be just as bad as not picking one at all?



The Problem With Free Will

Webster defines free will as:

1: voluntary choice or decision, I do this of my own free will.

2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

When theists are presented with a dilemma such as all the ones I have raised here, their go to response is 'free will.' This is not only a cop out, but not even an acceptable answer. A theist cannot truly believe they have free will while at the same time believing God knows their every thought and action.

If God knows what you are going to do before you do it, that would mean it is predestined. It does not matter that you have the option of changing your mind, because in the end, God would still know what your final decision would be. Even if you were to change your mind 1000 times, God would still know what your final decision would be. If God knew yesterday that today I would eat cereal for breakfast, am I free to not eat cereal today? The problem is of course if I am free to not eat cereal today, God would have been wrong in knowing that I would eat cereal today.

If someone knows in advance what you will do, you do not have free will because it was decided ahead of time what you were going to do. Although you might have convinced yourself that you had free will in your decision, you did not because God knew before you did what you were going to decide.

Either we truly have free will and God (or anyone else) does not know what we will do tomorrow, or we do not and our future has already been decided.

Free will does not answer any of the dilemma's I have placed here, so if you use free will to try and explain any of this, I will discredit your answer based on your not having free will and your misunderstanding of the meaning of free will.



It's a Miracle!

Do you believe in miracles?

Miracles seem to happen almost daily in the lives of a theist. These miracles may be something as trivial as remembering where someone left their car keys to someone being pulled from the brink of death at the last minute. Of course these things could only mean it was 'God' that performed these 'miracles' to the believer.

Never does the believer ever question why their god would be so discriminate in His choices of where to perform these miracles. A young child dying of cancer is not 'Gods' fault, nor does the believer not only question why, but goes further in giving their God a free pass on the subject entirely. The go to answer is of course that 'God' works in mysterious ways and had a much lager plan for why He did what He did, and we could never fathom the brilliance of such a plan. We should not question this plan because it's divine.

God seems to have time in his busy schedule to find someones car keys, have someones favorite sports team win the Superbowl or make sure they get the job they applied for, but can't seem to be bothered with things like curing cancer, stopping hunger or stopping that plane from crashing killing everyone on-board...but if by chance there is a lone survivor this could only be 'Gods' work and it's no doubt a 'miracle'...Hallelujah indeed!

Any 'miracles' of monumental proportion all would seem to have taken place many hundreds or thousands of years before man was capable of documenting these 'miracles' and today there are no 'miracles' at all of this magnitude. Parting sea's, flooding the Earth, turning people into salt pillars, talking snakes, virgin births, all seemed to have conveniently happened at a point in time before such things could be examined scientifically and documented.

Of course the theist would make the argument that 'miracles' still happen all the time. These times would include those rare occasions when someone somehow is cured of a disease, an abducted child is found, that one person survives an airplane crash, or someone finds their car keys....these could only be 'miracles' and 'God' is most certainly to credit for these things...but what about when in the majority of other times things do not have a happy ending, why is 'God' not to blame? The person dies of the disease, the abducted child is found dead, everyone on the plane dies and you never find your car keys.

It would seem that 'God' gets all of the credit and none of the blame. Of course to anyone of a rational mind we understand that this is just how it is...sometimes things work out well and sometimes they don't, but in either case there was no divine intervention.



Who or What Created God?

Theists will say that everything needs a creator, but then who or what created God? Theists will try to make the claim that God has always existed or that He created himself even after also making the claim that everything must have a creator. If God existed before the beginning of time, how did He exist? How could something exist before there was something to exist in? Theists seem to be the one's making the claim that nothing created something, not atheists.

This same claim would not be accepted if a theist were to ask an atheist who or what created the Universe and an atheist were to answer that it just created itself. Then why is it that this same claim is acceptable to them when it comes to explaining how their God came to be?

Theists like to make the claim that atheists believe that there was a Big Bang and then everything was just created. This of course is not true and nothing more than an attempt by theists to discredit Evolution. The Universe was created through millions and millions of years of evolution, not all at once. Anyone that is really interested in learning the truth about Evolution should read The Blind Watch Maker by Richard Dawkins.

So, why is the same argument good enough to a theist when trying to explain the existence of God to an atheist, but not good enough when an atheist using that same argument is trying to explain the existence of universe, matter and energy to a theist?


This is continued in- Is God Just Pretend Part 2