Might does not make right, even with God

I just wanted to let you know that I’ve read through a lot of your blog and I really enjoy it.

I was raised fundamentalist and l, too, left the church and it’s beliefs after reading and researching on my own.

Keep up the good work :)

Might in the hands of the informed just equals right.

Yes, God has the right to do what he wishes with us because he created us — that’s a face that none of us can change. God doesn’t sit back and watch bad stuff happen — bad stuff happens because of The Fall, and because of that — sin is infiltrated into our world. Bad stuff happens because we have free will, and because of our own sinful choices.
I understand where you’re coming from though; I work for a ministry to strengthen persecuted Christians around the world. Everyday I read about horrible things that happen to believers and it breaks my heart. I actually blogged about it here: http://shrinkify.com/7lt

Daniel,

God commanded the deaths of people who denied Him and committed abhorrent behavior. God didn’t just randomly smite the Egyptians in the days of Joseph. No, He blessed them… even though they did not wholly buy into God as the one true deity. Anyone who treated the Israelites with kindness, He blessed, and they spared.

God leaves it to us to glorify Him through our actions. It’s not His responsibility to take care of us. It is our responsibility to walk in obedience to Him… which includes taking care of the orphaned, widowed, homeless, and helpless. And once again, it’s not that He has never provided for the hungry or poor. Once again, He has provided for me when the prospect of increased funds was highly improbable.

God created evil. No doubt. He created evil and sin, and He did it so we would have to choose. There is no glory to the Creator without the right choice being made.

As a father, it brings me no pleasure or glory when my kids do only what I command them to do. It makes my life easier and less frustrating, but it doesn’t bring me pleasure. However, when my kids do a random act of kindness or actually do productive things without prompting, it fills me with pleasure and pride. They had a choice, and they chose well.

It’s no different with our Heavenly Father.

The word games people will play to justify the abhorrent behavior of their fictional deity makes me sad for the human race.

As long as we keep giving the violent psychopath of the OT a get out of jail free card, we continue to stagnate socially. Gods are the creation of the followers, not vice versa, and these justifications are just a way of justifying our own worst natures.

Dan, thanks for the nice blog. I too am a former evangelical who woke up. It’s so nice to bump into those who share the experience. Oh, and reading the responses of the ‘faithful’ to your posts is always good for a laugh. :)

@Mark: Thanks, glad you’ve been enjoying it!

That’s a good example. My hesitancy to use it with fundies is that they don’t believe we created the child — they believe God did. They believe God is the one who blesses people with children, and it’s not up to people whether they have children or not.

But you are right, just because we are responsible for the creation of children does not mean we can abuse them. Might is not right.

God gives people free will, but when they exercise that will, he not only punishes them for it, but everyone else forever after. And he can do that because he’s god and all-powerful. I’ve never understood why Christians think that’s okay. I suspect they’ve never really thought it through and are just parroting what they’ve been told. Because if they truly don’t find anything wrong with that then it would explain a lot about Christian morality.

Allow me to work the parent angle again.

As a parent bringing the child into the world, I contribute to the creation of the child. That includes some of my good traits and some of my bad traits. It just so happens that my children generally have my temperament. While I recognize myself in them, they are still guilty when they do something or say something wrong out of anger. While I am mindful of my part, I still hold them accountable for their actions and discipline them as their indiscretion warrants.

I do not give them a pass when they get angry just because it was a pretty safe bet going into the idea of having children that my children would have strong reactions to various things.

I don’t feel bad for my part in their genetics. I feel bad when they don’t rise above it. Because even though it’s hard to not react out of anger, they still can choose not to.

God has no reason to feel bad for the way He made us or designed us.

What sin did the newborn commit so that he brought leukemia on himself? Or starved to death?

Oh, right, that’s not god’s fault, that’s the fault of fallen men. I’m sure the baby who slowly bleeds to death internally finds that a compelling argument.

Recently a guy in Australia was discovered having locked his child in a cellar for 18 years and repeatedly raped her. His explanation is that she, “hadn’t followed the rules.”

We all agree this man is vile beyond imagining.

But when god says he will burn you in constant horrible agony for all eternity because you didn’t follow the rules, then god is love, and it’s really all your fault.

Which would be really horrible if there were even a shred of evidence that your angry deity existed.

Well, let me put it to you like this… if I knew that letting my son drown would save a bunch of other people… I would hope that I would let him drown and save the myriad of other people. But I can’t predict the future (beyond knowing we all die sooner or later and that Jesus is coming again… of course), and I wouldn’t have that knowledge… so I’m sure that I would let the other people suck water if it meant he was the only one I saved. To make you happy… if I had that knowledge… I might let myself drown after I saved the other people out of the grief of making that decision… so you’d be rid of two of us nasty Christians. (I’m willing to concede that I’m not perfect, and I don’t always do everything perfectly.)

Back on track… if I entrusted the care of my creation, whatever that might be, to someone else… I would expect that someone else to honor their commitment and protect that creation… which is kind of the position most of us are in.

And my kids won’t drown where I’m capable of preventing it because I wouldn’t put them in the position to have that happen. Drowning is a consequence that doesn’t generally happen on its own.

Yeah, well, even if there was the slightest evidence that there was a god, I would hardly be inclined to worship him. He sounds like a total douche. Frankly, I find christianity to be anti-american.

Just because you can’t wrap your mind around it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a greater good brought about by the death that God allows or has accounted for. Between now and the end of time as we know it, there is plenty of crap to be lived through. There are plenty of mistakes that humans are going to make. There are plenty of atrocities that people of all race, creeds, and colors are going to commit. In the end, there is choice, the choice that we make, the consequences that we live with, and the reality that God has accounted for it all.

Ultimately, why should God spare us from ourselves?

This is all very interesting. But, somebody needs to demonstrate that there is a god, a single god, the one that’s talked about in the Bible, and that this God is the author of the Bible.

Then, maybe, perhaps, we can start discussing the Problem of Evil. But until then, the argument is just moot.

A man comes home hungry, sees dinner isn’t ready, so he beats his wife. He tells her he loves her and he’s doing it for her own good. Next time she’ll know better. She agrees that it’s her fault. She should have had dinner ready on time. He then goes and beats his kids. He tells them they’re worthless like their mother. They grow up fearing their father and believe they lack worth.

Reminds me of Christian apologetics. God loves us all. Adam and Eve shouldn’t have disobeyed him. We deserve all the bad things that happen to us, because it’s all our fault somehow.

Brad–

“It’s not His responsibility to take care of us.”

Can I take it from this quote that you don’t think it’s your responsibility to take care of your children? Are we not God’s children?

Also, please see above for my response to the “sin” explanation for the problem of evil. If God knew what Adam was going to do (and if He is all-knowing and all-powerful, how could he not know? Wait — is God powerful enough to keep a secret from Himself? A slightly more interesting form of ‘Can He make a rock so big…’) then it’s hard to deny that creating the tree, creating Adam and Eve, creating the snake, and putting them all in the same place would make him responsible for original sin. And since Adam and Eve didn’t know right from wrong UNTIL they ate the fruit, how can they be held even partially responsible?

“Might in the hands of the informed just equals right.”

This is completely meaningless besides showing that you completely missed the point of the original post. Meaningless because you neglect to define “informed” or “just” or “right.” If “right” is just “what God wants you to do,” than any moral argument you can make is trivial, incidentally. People with selfish or destructive intentions can be just as “informed” as anyone else, and “just” usually depends on which side of the axe you’re standing. Unless “just” means “what God wants to do” in which case any ethical argument you can make is trivial. (By trivial, I simply mean you’re justifying God’s actions by setting the moral standard to whatever God says it is — simply an uninteresting and non-productive argument.)

Your parent-child/God-child analogy question… no I wouldn’t think it my responsibility to take care of my adult children. I wouldn’t think it my responsibility to take care of the very thing I put in the care of someone else either. Would you?

Your assertion of a set-up… I agree wholeheartedly that God knew what He was doing when He put that special tree in the garden of Eden. This was how He introduced choice into the equation and created the prospect of Him being glorified by us choosing Him over the alternatives.

Your statements of good vs. bad things happening… I never said that bad things don’t happen. I never said that I, or any other person, should not react with sadness or anger when bad things happen. Afterall, Jesus wept… and He knew the deal.

You never know what good comes out of a bad situation. Case-in-point, when the earthquake hit Pakistan and the 2004 tsunami hit, no country stepped up more than the United States. Did this improve our relations with the Pakistanis and the people of Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India, and Thailand?

Brad – how then can you judge anything as bad if it is really all for the good? Tsuanmis? Come from God so has to be Good. Earthquakes? Ditto.

God wanted the governments of Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India and Thailand to have better relations with the US government. “I know”, he says to himself, “I’ll kill thousands upon thousands of my creations – even those who have not had a chance to hear the word of the boy and so suffer eternal damnation – sounds like fun. After all I’m ‘all-good’ so it can’t really be bad can it?”

Why did the omnipotent one not just get a few talking donkeys (Balaam anyone?) to tell Bush and the other leaders to start being nicer to each other?

It would have saved a lot of heartache, not interfered with the leader’s free-will and ended up with the same result.

on the “God set us up for failure” point”:
i was debating my Christian friends about this recently. I was making the point that it is essentially impossible for God to create free will. There’s one piece missing from your parent examples. Not only does God know everything about his children, but he created them. He’s not like a human parent who doesn’t actually know everything in how they think or observe things. God had to make a choice in regards to their character. He chose to bring a particular person into being at that particular time. What can that person do other than what God created him/her to do?

Tsunamis??????

Though tsunamis may seem an awful curse
‘Tis quite a blessing in reverse
When thunder roar
Both rich and poor
By danger are united!

Till every wrong is righted!

Philosophers make evident
The point that I have cited -
‘Tis floods that make equal, as it were
The noble and the commoner,
Thus floods improve relations!

Now on to conjugations…

(with apologies to Leonard Bernstein)

I’ll give a summary in a few days for lazy people if anyone wants…(sez most likely the laziest dude here). Woot.

Well, my apologies for any perceived disrespect, for that was never my intention.

I was never arguing for God’s existence, (but upon this discussion, and correct me if I am wrong, we assume that God exists, and lets suffering go on for whatever reason it does. to the like or dislike of many), rather I was simply giving you a website that contains an adequate reason for God’s allowance of suffering.

It would be far more just for God to just destroy humanity and whack us all to hell, but God is loving and merciful, so we have our chance, and are not promptly judged.

I could have given you the same message in my own words, but I feel that the web page offers the same material in a manner and wording, that would surpass my own. Another contributing factor to my not putting out the explanation in my own words is my self- proclaimed laziness. But if y’all wannit, ask and you will receive. (I can see how my being lazy and not taking the time to offer the explanation in my own words can be disrespectful though. For this I apologize.)

Nothing profound, it just gives a few simple truths about God and His good character.

If you have a refutation, I’d be glad to here it.

Sorry for any misunderstandings that may have occurred and if this post is slightly incoherent.

Cheers!

By the “might makes right” logic, child abuse is not only justified, but encourage.

Once again, Paul gives an illuminating answer to just the wrong people.

Beam,

Wow that was my Road to Damascus.
That website convinced me that God is not to be blamed and that it is I that am the cause of all Evil.

I really hate myself now for all the suffering I have caused. I didnt know that I was responsible for the crusades, natural disasters, inquisitions and holy wars! It was me all along! i was blaming the wrong guy!

But I have changed – seriously. I cant live with that kind of guilt – Only someone like God can. I am with you brother, now if we could only do something permanent to those who are still blaming God – those who are not like US are truly the real cause of Evil.

I once wrote a very lengthy piece about the analogy of God as a parent, but it is lost now. But if there are any apologists still looking through these comments I’ll give some key points from it, and see if you have any answers to enlighten me.

If we compare God with a parent, which Christians very often do, I think that he is very bad at it. Not just because he punishes people severely though; we can all agree that parents must punish unruly children in one way or another. I can agree that it might be needed. But let’s look at the beginning of the bible.

In the beginning, God creates man, woman, animals and literally billions of billions of stars (mentioned only as “He made the stars also”, apparently they were pretty unimportant) during seven days. Nice job, a stellar performance, one might even say, if you are prone to puns.

After that Adam and Eve immediately sinned in the most severe way. They intentionally went against the only clear rule we know they had, under the promised punishment of _death_. Clearly these poor people had no sense of self-preservation, and no good sense of anything really, when they go against an all powerful entity that they know exists.

So God has failed, in a manner of speaking. No big deal, everybody fails sometimes. Maybe it was necessary, as some people claim. The important thing is how we handle our failures.

So how did God handle his? Well, he punished the man and woman by casting them out of a perfect life and making them prone to various ailments. Fair enough so far, I guess. I mean, it does seem to be something to make them think twice about sinning next time. And they were spared to promised instant death, after all.

God also chooses to punish _every single descendant_ of Adam and Eve, even though they have not yet sinned. Now, in my imperfect understanding this seems horrible. And the very need for a preemptive strike against your own creation seems to speak of serious design flaws. But ok, I’ll admit that God, if he exists, knows more than I, so maybe this is a _brilliant_ strategy that will make people nice and good, at least in general.

Well, the next generation start with the two sons Cain and Abel. They each make sacrifices to their lord, burning plants and animal corpses respectively. Now, as any good parent does _not_ do, God showed that he very strongly preferred Abel’s gift.

Cain got very jealous, and in a fit of extreme jealousy he killed his brother, then lied about it to his all-knowing creator. Clearly Cain was an evil misfit and a total idiot, so God’s intelligent punishment of all mankind doesn’t seem to be working very well right from the start at least.

There is some mention of some additional punishment for Cain, but mostly it seems like he got a wife from somewhere and started a city. Some sort of community service-kind of punishment for murder, obviously.

So, anyway, it didn’t seem like God’s punishment had worked very well so far, but how about further on?

A few pages further on we read Gen. 6:5 “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” So, no, it doesn’t seem like God had succeeded very well in making people even slightly well-designed OR come up with a punishment that even slightly holds them in line.

Then it’s time for a new strategy, right? Time to give up the punishment that obviously isn’t working, take them back in his loving arms and care for them more personally to teach them to be better children? No, instead he drowns them all. Every single man, woman, child, embryo, animal and plant.

Ok, I could go on and on, and apparently I’ve already done so. It was not my meaning to make this comment this long. But the point is, every time God tries some constructive parenting, giving us some punishment or encouragement or punishment, we still act like evil little bastards on the next page of the bible.

That doesn’t say much good about his parenting skills… Don’t you think it’s starting to be time for God to try a different approach? Something that actually has any effect?

Killer comeback. I’d ask you actually deal with my arguments, but atheists—even the “former” Christians who supposedly know the Bible “really well”—typically don’t care as to whether they attack straw men.

@Keith:

You say that “God’s moral laws are rooted in His desire for men and women to love one another”.

So your god condones slavery and genocide because of “His desire for men and women to love one another”?

“You were never a believer in the first place”.

That’s a No True Scotsman fallacy. Besides, even if it were a valid point, you have no way of proving what anyone else believes. I find it arrogant of you to say this, to make a judgment that someone was “never a believer” without knowing anything about that person.

Also, I am a former Christian. Why should I acknowledge someone for whom there is no proof of existence?

I don’t acknowledge the authority of Thor or Allah or Zeus. You probably don’t either. So why acknowledge the god of the Bible?

Daniel: I had this exact disagreement once while discussing anime. Apparently some people will take the opposite view even when the creator is explicitly the Devil (literally, “Hell” or “Theater Basement”) and the creation doesn’t like him sending her to die for the sake of his convenience. So reductio ad absurdum probably won’t help.

But I did amuse myself on my journal by pointing out the similarities between philosophical attempts to explain this problem away, and H.P. Lovecraft’s description of the supreme god Azathoth.

“never ever try to understand God from your human perspective, because nobody can, even the most devout. and this is what makes God GOD.”

Ugggg. Back to he unknowable mind of god, except where you say so.

Funny how god cant be understood except that part about the homosexuals, except that part where other religions are talked about, except that part …….

Must be nice to know that god always agrees with you eh florence?

Free will? Yet nothing happens without the god’s consent or prior knowledge that he already knows what will happen every moment of every day for every tiny individual and bird? How can you have it both ways??

@david oman

So you agree that evil comes from god?

God did not create evil, but he allowed it. If He hadn’t allowed evil, we would be worshipping Him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own free will.

Though evil isn’t really a thing. For example, darkness is not a thing. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is also the absense of heat. Evil is the absense of good or better..its the absense of God. He wants us to make a choice, His way, or our way. And if we did not have a choice, we’d be like little robots.

“God did not create evil, but he allowed it.”

Wait…God created everything including evil, didn’t he? If not, you’re saying that something already existed that God did not create (evil). Therefore either God is not omnipotent, or there is more than one God.

Also, how can God “allow” something that has not already been created? Wouldn’t allowing be the same thing as creating? Again, if evil already existed but God decided to “allow” it…who or what created evil????

If He hadn’t allowed evil, we would be worshipping Him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own free will.

Christians say this all the time, but it is one of the most illogical and immoral statements imaginable. Saying this is exactly the same thing as saying “I have to randomly beat my children, kill some of them, and do other horrible random things to them. If I do not do this they will love me out of obligation, not by a choice of their own free will.”

These kinds of statements can only make sense to a trapped and deluded mind, and they horrify people who are not members of a christian death cult.

Just a responce to the issue of God letting people starve.
God has made man with free will! When making man he said in genesis 1: 26 he said let man have dominion over all the earth. Adam was a magistrate over this earth whom God gave it to. When Adam fell by disobedience the earth was delivered to Satan. luke 4: 6 says he could give its contents to whomever he pleased, because he said, it is delivered unto me. So Satan had control but Jesus came to get it back, the power and the authority, and had to come back through a man cause Satan knew he turned it over to a man. I Math 28: 18 and said he regained the authority off all the earth. Now he has given it back man and in galatians 3: 13, he said Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. Redeemed means to return us back to the original sate of affairs in the begininng. Luke 10: 19 says we have been given authority over all the authority of Satan including this earth. I said all that just to say this, we are responsible for the earth and cannot blame God for starving children. God expects us as stewarts to govern this earth and if anything happens we blame the one who we allowed to be put out of our schools. We can use God as a crutch not to help the poor or we can take responsibilty and do something! Why do we not put the blame where it should go, to mankind. We have the power here on earth to change these things, while we watch women get raped its easier to say God doesn’t care. Its us!

“When arguing about the problem of evil, believers often end with saying, “God is God, and he has the right to do whatever he wants with us.” ”

- Actually.. more knowledgeable believers wouldn’t say that. They would be more likely to give the “free-will” bit – which I believe answers the problem of evil fully.

For someone who claims to have a lot of ‘experience’ in Christian Theology – honestly (and I say this with respect), it doesn’t seem like it.

You’ve mis-stated and mis-interpreted a lot of things in your previous posts. If your claiming you’ve “studied” Christian Theology substantially, I would have to assume you’re purposefully being dishonest (since you are obviously smart, I don’t think you’ve deluded yourself into believing you have a ‘deep understanding’ of Christian Theology).

“Well wottabout people who were born retarded or autistic? They have no say in this? They have to suffer, not having been given a choice? Well.. Their parents had a choice, not to have sex, being the first cousins that they are. I hope you get my point.”

That you’re either an idiot, an asshole, or a troll?
Yes, I get your point.

Mogg had it exactly right, though he also proved my point–that there is no point trying to explain logic to an idiot, an asshole, or a troll.

“The fact that you ‘think’ that was the ‘essence’ of my post, thats just hilarious – that was merely an example of our free will and the suffering it may cause.”

Hilarious indeed, since that is explicitly what you wrote. Yet it wasn’t your point?

I don’t need to explain myself logically to you, since any simple search on Wikipedia would be enough to educate you about autism and retardation. Therefor, it is much more satisfying to resort to “name-calling,” labeling you properly for all those parents of autistic kids who aren’t here to defend themselves.

Interesting… I accuse you of holding the viewpoint that your expressed comment proposed, rather than what you claim you meant to imply. You, on the other hand, have gone beyond what I have expressly written to assign words and intentions to my posts, namely, this claim that I’m better than you.

Still, I’ve read your comment for the fourth time, now. Why won’t you just admit that you were either wrong, or you wrote your comment wrong? Why do you keep trying to defend it?

“Did I say anything to the avenue of “autism is ONLY a result of inbreeding, in fact you can’t get autism from anything else but inbreeding!””

So, because you didn’t explicitly say “bonking cousins is the ONLY way to get autism,” therefor I shouldn’t assume that that’s what you meant by

“Well wottabout people who were born retarded or autistic? They have no say in this? … Their parents had a choice, not to have sex, being the first cousins that they are. I hope you get my point.”

What else have you expressly not stated? You haven’t actually said you’re not an idiot, a troll, or an asshole… so do I need to now consider that possibility again?

Seriously, you don’t get this?

“Assuming you are right about these things, you are describing a god subject to the laws of the universe. So he’s not all powerful after all? Can god create beings without free will or not? If he can, he remains responsible for the consequences of that action. If he can’t – well – he just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Not much of a “god” really. He can claim more poswer than us mere mortals, but then again might doesn’t make right.”

-God can make people with no free-will. But I’ve already explained why he chooses not to. This is circular questioning as I’m presuming you will again ask “How do you know this?” I’ve already answered this paragraph.

“Assuming you are right about these things, you are describing some kind of existential doll house, played with by a petulant child. Not really god like behavior. Because god “desires” free will he creates it, but punishes those who exercise it in a way he finds disagreeable.
Oh wait, I forgot, you don’e think god punishes the non-believers. What exactly is the motivation for believing in him again?”

- No I don’t think its like an “existential doll house” played with by a petulant child – It certainly does not seem that way to me. What is God-like behavior to you? Perhaps you could enlighten me and change my mind?

When you say non-believers you do mean people who don’t believe in God right? Please don’t assume that I equate non-believers with evil people. I don’t think that they are one and the same.

(you said that is good news for you? Well it is, congratulations. As long as you don’t act immorally, that is definitely good news for you.)

If a person knows what is good, and always chooses by his free will to do what is good, then he will be fit to enter heaven. His eternal destiny is not based upon circumstance or luck; His eternal destiny is based upon A) knowledge of what is good and B) his free will decision to always do that which is good.
Those who never heard of Christ, because of circumstance, luck or timing, could still obtain salvation by using their free will to always do what was good and right. Their eternal destiny, therefore, is not based on circumstance or luck, but on their own volition. Ah, but you will ask again “How do you know this?”.

“For which god is responsible. Seriously, you can’t be this dense. If you create something in such a way that you know will ultimately displease you, the displeasure you feel is your own fault. Do you apply this kind of convoluted logic in your own life?”

-You are assuming God knows ‘free will’ will ultimately displease him. If God knew free-will is useless as it would ultimately turn us into evil Hitlers, then yes He would’ve never created us in the first place. Like I said, parents of serial killers aren’t imprisoned because we, logically, know that they aren’t to blame. Likewise Virginia Tech teachers aren’t to blame for the workings of the Korean guy who shot up the school. You are assuming that if God created Free-will, it would logically follow that every decision we make using that free will would be ultimately his responsibility. I don’t see how that is logical.

“So by your own admission, god makes it impossible for people to see his will. It’s a matter of probability. Yet he’s unhappy when people make the wrong choice?”

- You seem to be equivocating what I’ve just stated. Unlike atheists who seem to be having difficulty accounting for the laws of logic (unless you can clarify this one for me) Christians believe that the laws of logic and rationality are a reflection of God’s being. God is logical and he is rational, which is why we have logic and rationality in us too since we were created with that divine spark. Therefore we can see God’s will subjectively. We know it by heart. I never said it is impossible for people to see God’s will.

Yes he is unhappy when people make the wrong choice. Wouldn’t you be unhappy with your kid if, say, despite all your teachings on why raping women is egregiously reprehensible, he still turns out to be a serial rapist? Now if you taught him that raping was good, then thats a different story. Likewise if God did not give us a sense of right and wrong – then it is his fault if we raped and pillaged.

“There is no practical necessity – you said above that free will is god’s “desire.” If he has the power to create free will, he should accept responsibility for the outcome of that choice.”

- again with the responsibility issue. God gave you the laws of logic, rationality and an ability to internally perceive right from wrong – if despite this, you still choose to decapitate babies for gratification purposes of some sort – than, under normal circumstances, only you are at fault. Again, we have already logically concluded this is so, thats why you don’t see mommys of serial killers on death row.

“Really? This is where you wind up? You have zero evidence for these wild claims about the nature of god other than your “subjective” experience, ie. your feelings? Disappointing.”

- Oh don’t tell me, your surprised? If I had empirical evidence, there would be no atheists in the world. I guess this is a retort for the sake of being contentious.

“Evidence to back these claims?”

I believe in a particular worldview – the Christian worldview. These notions are derived from simple logic taking into consideration a belief in this particular worldview. Atheists too derive their notions from their worldview – It is the logical point of view considering the given worldview. Its as simple as that, really.

“Thus, he is responsible for the outcome that apparently makes him unhappy”

I’ve already reiterated that we do not have any ‘destiny’ because of free-will. So my ‘parent-serial-killer’ analogy is well placed here. If you think parents of serial killers are responsible for their kids murders then that is your opinion. But I would really beg to differ.

I have been reading about sin and what happens to people, that you bring bad things upon yourself and so God punishes you. I am tempted to swear up a storm at you, but I will resist. At the age of 6 I was raped by a relative. I suffered horrible abuse at the hands of my father(whom I will respect when God himself shows up at my home and tells me to). I was molested by teachers. What I get from you is that I brought this on myself? I sinned and was punished?! That God might do this to punish me makes this whole site all that more compelling. I do not like people like you.

If God has the right to do whatever he wants to us, then would we have the right to decimate more primitive peoples because we have tanks and bombs? Would advanced aliens have the right to conquer us or wipe us off the globe at their leisure? To me, this is the same thing.

For that matter, does God have the right to send people to Hell (or their souls at any rate) for all eternity because we behave badly due to his flawed design?

Glad that dude isn’t real. :-) He’s a bit of a grouch.

Now that i am over the age of 18 i am starting to question life my self. I was raised and still am a believer of the christian bible. But I don’t think I can confidently say that i am a FIRM believer. As a christian, I’m surprisingly not offended, but intrigued by these arguments. How can I be angry at someone who thinks that talking snakes never existed.

I’ve heard just about every argument against the bible, but the one about jesus not being the first (supposelly) to be born of a virgin is a first for me,…. and right now it’s the only that’s stumping me. I know, I know, your saying that, “WHAT?, and the whole talking snake thing doesn’t stump you? But think about it……if GOD is GOD, don’t you think that he can do “the impossible,” such as change the laws of science when he sees fit?

You have already have given reasons not to believe, so here are a few of the oppisite

>If Heaven is real, then don’t you think that 100yrs of hell on Earth is worth experiencing in exchange for an infinite amount of years of pure bliss in Heaven. “Sounds like a good deal to me”

>It seems that the whole universe is finely tuned to benifit the survival of earth.(ex: if the universe expands any faster we would shredded apart)

>Why are we the only spieces that have (supposely)
evolved to be able to reason? to make decisions?

>If there is no God then why do a lot Atheists continue to do “RIGHT” and not “EVIL.” What’s the point of having morals, caring for others and fearing death if there is no afterlife? Is there a superior force trying to convince them to do right?

>How do you explain documented excorcists? …..the posessed reacting to the name of Jesus?

>In the Bible it says that in the “end times” certain events at one location will be seen by the whole world. (Television)

>If God is infinite in all ways then how do you expect a mind of a man who has only been in existence for a few decades to understand a mind who has been in existence forever. {note that time is an actual thing created with the universe} It would be like explaining algebra to an ant.

>wouldn’t you rather be able to say you earned something than not. Life on earth could be God’s way of letting us earn knowledge and godly characeristics.

>you say God’s ways doesn’t make any sense or he isn’t just. But does a toddler understand how his father punishing him will help him in the long-run. A wealthy teen wonders why their parents put them to work and just doesnt hand him money, but they will understand in time.

So I guess all I can do is CHOOSE to believe. Because like it or not,…. nobody has proven God to be nonexistant. But maybe I’m just afraid of a life without insurance.

P.S.
Thank you for your perspective on the matter because it is a very valuable tool in my journey for the truth.

sincerely,
open minded 21 yr old

You ask a lot of good questions, and, luckily for you, those are very common questions with believers who begin to doubt, and they have been answered very efficiently over the ages. I will do my best to give a pocketnotes version of answers; hopefully someone will come along with more documented links.

>If Heaven is real, then don’t you think that 100yrs of hell on Earth is worth experiencing in exchange for an infinite amount of years of pure bliss in Heaven. “Sounds like a good deal to me”

I don’t quite understand this statement. Is this in response to the problem of evil? Are you proposing Pascal’s Wager? Please clarify.

>It seems that the whole universe is finely tuned to benifit the survival of earth.(ex: if the universe expands any faster we would shredded apart)

1) The universe is definitely not finely tuned for life. Earth is a tiny dust mote that harbors life against a universe full of lethal forces–hell, even the earth itself can only support life on a very small percentage of it’s total surface area.

2) And what would happen if the universe did expand faster and atoms could not collect into molecules? Well, we wouldn’t be here to ask this question, would we? It’s called the anthropic principle–that conditions are just right for life here because, if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to ask why conditions weren’t perfect for life, would we?
Here’s a quote from Douglas Adams that represents this issue of us thinking we’re so special simply because we’re here:
“imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

It might also be worth your time to look into Quantum Mechanics and the parallel worlds theory; there is a lot of evidential support that there may be tons of universes out there that don’t support life, and we just happen to be one puddle in a desert.

>Why are we the only spieces that have (supposely)
evolved to be able to reason? to make decisions?

Same as above. However, I think you vastly underestimate our lower animal cousins. Lots of other animals have morality, can plan for the future, learn new things, invent novel solutions… it’s very difficult to nail down exactly how humans are different from “lower animals.” All our vaunted human skills seem to be merely a sliding scale shared by all animals.

>If there is no God then why do a lot Atheists continue to do “RIGHT” and not “EVIL.” What’s the point of having morals, caring for others and fearing death if there is no afterlife? Is there a superior force trying to convince them to do right?

Again, morality evolved long before homo sapiens. But besides what another poster replied about atheist morality, you wouldn’t really try to claim morality came from the Bible, would you? Genocide, slavery, torture… the Bible is a wicked book full of God smiling on wicked deeds because might makes right in Abrahamic faiths. We’re moral ~in spite of~ religion, not because of.

>How do you explain documented excorcists? …..the posessed reacting to the name of Jesus?

How do you explain alien abuductions? Or astral projection? Or ghosts? If you’re going to appeal to anecdotal stories, you’re going to have to explain all of them, not just the ones that back up your particular brand of faith.

But there’s not much mysterious about people with psychological problems responding to the name of Jesus. I think there’s even been documented research into this area–but don’t take my anecdote for it. In a nutshell, if someone is conditioned their whole life to believe that people can be possessed and act in a certain way X, and when a priest does certain factors Y they’re supposed to respond Z… it’s not very mysterious.

I think several of your questions would make a lot more sense to you if you’d just do a little research into the very real fields of neuroscience and neuropsychology. The brain is a powerful agent of delusion, and we’ve seen it happen in repeatable, controlled conditions.

>In the Bible it says that in the “end times” certain events at one location will be seen by the whole world. (Television)

Which makes great sense when you realize ancient Hebrews believed the world was flat and from a high enough mountain one could see to the “ends of the earth” (see satan tempting Jesus)

>If God is infinite in all ways then how do you expect a mind of a man who has only been in existence for a few decades to understand a mind who has been in existence forever. {note that time is an actual thing created with the universe} It would be like explaining algebra to an ant

And yet every religious person seems to know just what their God wants you to think and do and say…? Curious, isn’t it? You need to do some research in what we DO know through repeatable, testable means (science). If you want to posit there’s an invisible, omnipotent intelligence that has completely hidden itself from our view and we can never understand it, fine. Might as well posit a celestial teapot (google it), but I can’t refute it.
Religions, of course, don’t do that. They posit specific gods with specific personalities; traits that can be checked against what we see in reality. Christianity, in this regard, gets an Epic Fail.

>wouldn’t you rather be able to say you earned something than not. Life on earth could be God’s way of letting us earn knowledge and godly characeristics.

You’ll have to take that up with the Apostle Paul, I guess.

>you say God’s ways doesn’t make any sense or he isn’t just. But does a toddler understand how his father punishing him will help him in the long-run. A wealthy teen wonders why their parents put them to work and just doesnt hand him money, but they will understand in time.

I guess you’re right. All those starving children in Africa who never heard of Jesus… yes, it all makes sense, now!
Seriously, I think you greatly underestimate the level of misery and suffering on our planet. Do a little research on Darfur or diseases in the Third World. But really, the problem of evil has bee dealt with so much more thoroughly than me by philosophers throughout the ages… lets just start with those simple answers, and go from there, yes?

I’d be interested to hear your response.

Bill,

If someone has free will, then that someone can choose to do evil. Ofcourse he chooses to do evil for a variety of reasons. Maybe for money, or for sex or for whatever. Is it really that hard to infer that evil and suffering is a result of peoples free will?

No, he is responsible of our free-will. We are responsible for whatever we choose to do with it. Our parents are responsible for us in a way, having brought us into this world. If we kill them, can we say that they are responsible for their own deaths? (ofcourse depending on circumstances, but generally this would be a ridiculous conclusion).

“For instance, we’ve dscovered new technology that, once transplanted in our childrens brains – it would lead them to do anything we want. Now, say, you were the smartest parent in the world and you know if your kid followed you to an atom, he would grow up the best person, richest, most famous, most respected etc. Would honestly consider subjecting him to such a life, wherein he had no choice? Knowing that if he had choices, he could grow up smoking weed, having kids at the age of 15, maybe even ending up in jail or something.

God knows that we can choose to do evil things. But he would still rather we had free-will, than none at all. I don’t see how you can say that he is responsible for whatever we choose to do of our own free-will, thats reaching.”

Two responses:

First – following your hypothetical, I would be responsible for the outcome if I didn’t implant the chip. I may think it’s preferable for my kid to have free will, but If I let him have it I’m responsible for his choices. So if he winds up a 15 year old drug addicted parent serving time, it’s my fault. I have to take responsibility for that outcome since I could have avoided it through my own actions.

Eliminating free will would be preferable to this outcome.

Second – If I chose to let him have free will and he turns out to be a criminal I would have to be a complete sadist to eternally punish him for acting in a away that I knew he would act.

Yet the christian god – if he exists – acts in exactly that sadistic way. Hardly seems worthy of worship.

Bill,

“If god is the creator of all things, then god is the creator of free will.

If god is all knowing, then he knows that free will results in “evil”

Thus god allows evil to exist.”

- This is exactly right. He knows that free-will will result in some people using that free-will to do evil. Its not that he wants people to do evil, but he wants people to have a choice.

And yes, God can eliminate evil, but this would mean he would eliminate free-will.

“In other words – if god exists in the form most christians claim, he is responsible for evil. Free will doesn’t solve that problem.”

- No, he is responsible of our free-will. We are responsible for whatever we choose to do with it. Our parents are responsible for us in a way, having brought us into this world. If we kill them, can we say that they are responsible for their own deaths? (ofcourse depending on circumstances, but generally this would be a ridiculous conclusion).

For instance, we’ve dscovered new technology that, once transplanted in our childrens brains – it would lead them to do anything we want. Now, say, you were the smartest parent in the world and you know if your kid followed you to an atom, he would grow up the best person, richest, most famous, most respected etc. Would honestly consider subjecting him to such a life, wherein he had no choice? Knowing that if he had choices, he could grow up smoking weed, having kids at the age of 15, maybe even ending up in jail or something.

God knows that we can choose to do evil things. But he would still rather we had free-will, than none at all. I don’t see how you can say that he is responsible for whatever we choose to do of our own free-will, thats reaching.

Oh yah, I wasn’t implying it was a “punishment for bonking your cousin”. But it could obviously be a result of such action. We all know incestual relationships can produce genetically impaired offspring. No one was saying it is a “biblical sin”. Why don’t you reread the comment.

Mogg,

I apologize If this response isn’t clear enough. English is only a second language to me. I understand english very well, but its not as easy for me, as it probably is for you, to express myself in such.

“The problem that appears obvious to non-Christians is that to suggest that it is moral for God to condemn a certain proportion of people to an eternity in hell for not believing in him, and
condemn the rest to a life of suffering in order for them to see the error of their ways and come to him, solely because he didn’t want to be bored with what he created, is to suggest something
evil. Boredom does not excuse evil behaviour in humans, so why should it for God?”

- Again, you are taking my comment so superficially. I was not suggesting God created us with free-will so he wouldn’t be bored.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t think, like you, that God would condemn a proportion of people to eternity in hell for not believing in him. God is a merciful and a just God (thats what I believe, and a
lot of moderate christians believe this too). I don’t think it is also enough that I believe in him, but that I should also act morally. To the people who believe in him and act morally – God
would be merciful, to the ones who don’t believe in him but still act morally – God will be just. This is like a variation of the question: “will jews go to heaven too? ” My answer is: yes if they lived a life that could be considered morally good.

Also, on suffering – this is relative. Can being blind, for example, be axiomatically equated to suffering? If there were absolutely no suffering in the world, don’t you think every step we take would be the worst suffering we could possibly experience, so much so that none of us would take walks? If we didn’t get everything we wanted, wouldn’t that constitute some amount of suffering too? When you view life as eternal and not temporal, the relativity of suffering exponentially increases. So I don’t think God placed suffering in the world for people to see the error of their ways and come to him. Suffering is simply a result of existing and the choices we make and how we view our own situations.

“You could also look higher up the comment thread to see some suggestions as to why free will as created by an all-knowing God can’t actually be free will anyway. If free will isn’t really
free, then God is also condemning people to hell for no real reason, which is also evil.”

- This I am guilty of. I didn’t care to read all the comments, just the ones that caught my attention.

““God’s ways are mysterious” is not really a good enough answer to this, because if God created us to be able to have some kind of relationship with him and the only way we can find him is to
recognise the evil in our lives, it seems like a valid assumption that our sense of good and evil is similar to his.”

- Gods ways are really mysterious, but this is simply because he is God. He won’t be God if we could understand him fully. We have yet to understand ourselves fully. But this is not to dodge any questions. I don’t believe that the only way to find him is to “recognise the evil in our lives”. Maybe you could explain this
paragraph further.

“I’m not sure how to understand this comment if it was not to imply that the actions of people cause cancer, heart disease, autism and retardation in themselves or others, and particularly that the latter two are the result of inbreeding – a manifestation of the “sin” of the parents, suffered by the child. I did read the comment, very carefully, and that’s the
understanding I have of what you said. If you meant something else, perhaps you might like to clarify? ”

- Well, I think your digging deeper than you really should. The comment was simply to imply that bad things happen because of our free-will. We wouldn’t be free, if we are not free to do evil. But I was in no way making a sweeping statement that autism is only a result of inbreeding or something like that. It could very well be a result of something else.

John Frost,

That, again, is exactly how a child would try to defend the childish position he chose to take.

“well your hilarious! I’m better than you, blah blah”

You are immature. Have it your way.

“Ah, but you’ll say: God is all-knowing, so he should’ve known that some would end up that way. ”

Yup – so feel free to give me your explanation. I can’t wait.

“A loving parent who knows his son has the propensity to turn into Hitler will not kill the son, or put him in a cage for the rest of his life to thwart his evil future. The parent would probably resort to other things to try and change what could be.”

If the parent knows that the kid will become Hitler, it would be imoral to not put him in a cage forever. If the parent is all powerful and can change the nature of the Hitler child, it would be imoral to not change that nature.

Sorry, but you can’t win this argument. If god actually is responsible for free will, he is responsible for all the bad stuff he knows (because he’s all knowing) free will causes.

Well, more “Your ridiculous, and ignorant, and I’m smarter than you” crap. *yawn*

“1) God seeks to create an eternal nation of good and holy people.”

How do you know this? Did he tell you? Can you get him to tell me?

“2) God can’t instantly create people with this holy nature.

a. There are some things that God can’t do. For example, he can’t lie. He can’t go against His own moral nature.

b. The things that God cannot do serve to define God, as well as those things that He can do.

c. God cannot do things that breach logic. For example, He may be able to create a square or a circle, but he cannot create a circle that is a square. Such an object cannot logically exist.

d. The fact that he cannot do everything does nothing to compromise His existence as the most powerful force that can possibly exist.

e. Therefore, the description of God being ‘all powerful’ should not be held to a rigid, hyper literalism. It is hyperbole. ”

How do you know these things?

Assuming you are right about these things, you are describing a god subject to the laws of the universe. So he’s not all powerful after all? Can god create beings without free will or not? If he can, he remains responsible for the consequences of that action. If he can’t – well – he just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Not much of a “god” really. He can claim more poswer than us mere mortals, but then again might doesn’t make right.

“3) The very attributes that he desires His holy people to possess are dependent upon the existence and exercise of free will.

a. Morality involves conscious decision-making.

b. Other holy attributes, such as generosity, love, and mercy, are also dependent upon free will. ”

How do you know these things? What evidence is there to support them?

Assuming you are right about these things, you are describing some kind of existential doll house, played with by a petulant child. Not really god like behavior. Because god “desires” free will he creates it, but punishes those who exercise it in a way he finds disagreeable.

Oh wait, I forgot, you don’e think god punishes the non-believers. What exactly is the motivation for believing in him again?

“4) God creates a perfect free will agent in order to accomplish #1 (create a good and holy people).

a) God does not create defective men with a sinful nature.

The presence of free will establishes a human nature that can alternate between choosing God’s will and rejecting God’s will. When a free will agent uses his free will to go against God’s will, it is not evidence of an error on the part of God, but evidence that God has successfully created a free will agent.”

For which god is responsible. Seriously, you can’t be this dense. If you create something in such a way that you know will ultimately displease you, the displeasure you feel is your own fault. Do you apply this kind of convoluted logic in your own life?

Oh and again – what evidence do you have to back up these claims about the kinds of men god creates?

“b) Free will agents form their own nature through the hundreds of moral decisions that they make in a lifetime.

We choose whether to entertain, or extinguish our desires, regardless of whether those desires are genetic predispositions or acquired. The condition of our soul becomes a product of our choices.”

With the free will god allegedly gave us making god responsible if the exercise of that free will makes him unhappy.

Any evidence for this “soul” thing?

“c) No man is completely holy, just as no man is completely evil.

At times, free will agents are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. At times, free will agents become faced with moral dilemma’s and the answer is not clear to them. Therefore probability, not God, dictates that few individuals will always choose God’s will, just as very few will never choose God’s will.”

So by your own admission, god makes it impossible for people to see his will. It’s a matter of probability. Yet he’s unhappy when people make the wrong choice?

Any evidence backing up these claims?

“d) Divine coercion would deny the practical necessity of free will, hence, God will not use irresistible coercion.”

There is no practical necessity – you said above that free will is god’s “desire.” If he has the power to create free will, he should accept responsibility for the outcome of that choice. Or he could control his “desire” as he apparently keeps telling humans to do.

BTW…any evidence at all to back up these claims?

“God reveals Himself subjectively, rather than objectively.”

Really? This is where you wind up? You have zero evidence for these wild claims about the nature of god other than your “subjective” experience, ie. your feelings? Disappointing.

“If we knew with 100% certainty that the Biblical God existed, there is not one among us, including the already faithful, who would not act differently.”

Well I know of at least one who might – assuming he wanted me to act differently.

Evidence please.

“You, on the other hand, have gone beyond what I have expressly written to assign words and intentions to my posts, namely, this claim that I’m better than you. ”

- Oh so now your saying you didn’t propose that you were better than me? Than I guess this particular paragraph of yours

“I don’t need to explain myself logically to you, since any simple search on Wikipedia would be enough to educate you about autism and retardation. Therefor, it is much more satisfying to resort to “name-calling,” ”

was meant to show me your oh-so humble side?

Perhaps we can move on from this nonsense John. This childish bantering isn’t answering any points.

“If you are suggesting that he knows the future before it happens, so he knows definitely who will do evil – I disagree, if everything that happens to us is our destiny, than we don’t really have free-will now do we.”

Well the answers one of my questions. Sor your god:

1. Is limited by the laws of the universe;

2. Isn’t all knowing.

Sounding more and more human.

“1. Is limited by the laws of the universe;

2. Isn’t all knowing.”

- When you say laws of the universe, do you mean the laws of logic? If so, then No, he isn’t limited by them. The laws of logic are a reflection of his nature. The world is logical and rational because God is logical and rational. So he isn’t limited by his own nature – he is his own nature!

He is all-knowing, but like I said (or perhaps I didn’t articulate it as eloquently as I should have), since he chose to give us free-will, we cannot be “destined” for something. We all have the ability to change; we are free-willed. Hitler’s being the mass murderer that he was, was a result of a series of choices he made in his life. If he was destined to be a mass murderer without any ability to change his destiny – then we cannot say he has free-will, he chose his destiny. If we really believed this, then, might as well not imprison anyone, hey, they had no choice in anything they’ve done. You and I already know and believe that this is what a “free-will” entails.

“Chicken or egg proposition – whether logic is an internal characteristic arising from your god, or an external force acting on him, per your definition he is limited to it, and thus not all powerful.”

- “can he create a rock he can’t carry?” – type of question. If God devolved himself to be illogical, then at that instance he was ‘illogical’ he would’ve been ‘imperfect’. He wouldn’t be much of a God now would he, if he was imperfect? A perfect entity cannot be illogical or irrational. So either way, you will say, he isn’t all-powerful.

“On “all knowing” – you are clearly saying that your god is not all knowing. He doesn’t know what will result from his granting of free wiil. But surely he at least knows the potential outcomes, right? Otherwise he couldn’t know which ones please him and which don’t. Yet he is apparently unhappy when people exercise the free will he gives them? ”

- No, I am clearly saying that he is all-knowing. But since he granted us free-will, we cannot be “destined” – we can make our individual choices. He created us to be ‘free-will agents’, we can therefore choose freely apart from him. I said, God cannot be illogical because he is perfect. It would be illogical to create something that had free-will, yet is destined for something – that essentially means he had failed to create a ‘free-will agent’. This is again ‘a rock he cant carry’ type of retort.

“Yet he is apparently unhappy when people exercise the free will he gives them? But he doesn’t send them to hell for it?

- No one said he is unhappy when people exercise the free will he gives them. the presence of free will establishes a human nature that can alternate between choosing God’s will and rejecting God’s will. When a free will agent uses his free will to go against God’s will, it is not evidence of an error on the part of God(immorality), but evidence that God has successfully created a free will agent. Thus ofcourse He is unhappy when free-will is used for immorality, which is to go against his will.

“(Again I’m unclear what, by your definitions, is the motivation to believe in this god when there are apparently no negative consequences for not believing in him.)”

Like I said, God is just and merciful. To simplify what I said earlier: those who don’t believe – he is just, those who believe – he is merciful. I don’t know if it would be motivation enough for you, but for me, If I committed a crime, I’d rather stand trial before a jury who is more merciful than just.

“None of this changes the fact that god could – if he wanted to -not grant free will and get excatly the outcome he apparently desires. Thus, he is responsible for the outcome that apparently makes him unhappy”

- No, I’m thinking that you didn’t care to read my last posts. God wants to create a holy and moral people –these very attributes are dependent upon the existence and exercise of free will. Morality, generosity, love and mercy are dependent upon free-will. God therefore creates a perfect free-will agent in order to create holy and moral people. So without free-will, he, logically, cannot get the outcome he would’ve wanted. Like I said he is a logical God, so don’t respond to this with more of your “well he is all powerful so he can do anything” response. Like I said, he cannot do anything illogical, That is against his nature; He cannot devolve into imperfection.

“There really are much more simple explanations than the contorted logic you are trying to apply.”

- I think I’m holding quite fine. Honestly, you don’t seem to be fairing any better. You seem to be equivocating every statement I make, and continue to suggest that God should be able to be illogical and irrational if he is to show that he is all-powerful. This is a contradiction. I don’t think you are making any note-worthy arguments here Bill. I’ve answered all your questions (ofcourse I don’t actually think you will believe them, but I hope you do see the logic of where I’m coming from. Why wont you admit that?), you keep asserting the same.

No, it’s not arbitrary. The vast majority of non-christians lead lives that are very similar to that of Christians, from a moral point of view. It takes either lots of psychological damage or some breakage in the wiring like sociopathy to make someone who doesn’t more or less follow the general moral outline laid out by our evolution as a group-living species, socially refined to fit into the mores of the specific culture we find ourselves in.

That’s a fairly definitive statement. Why not? The codes that are common across all of humanity are fairly easily understood as evolutionary advantages, and don’t require that some being wrote them down on a celestial blackboard as reference for the universe.

“Perhaps we can move on to more serious topics than ‘autism’ and ‘boinking cousins’”

What’s more serious than a child with autism – a self-congratulatory examination of the nature of an improbable and ridiculous Invisible Friend? I guess so.