Megalomania : a psychopathological condition characterized by fantasies of power, relevance, omnipotence, and by inflated self-esteem.

It's a lovely day in Ballarat
I'm kicking back, thinking of you
I hear that you've been poorly
I am sorry that you're feeling blue

I know what it's like when you feel a little shitty
You just want to curl up and have an itty-bitty doona day
But a lot of people here really miss ya, Georgie
They really think you oughta just get on a plane
(Just get on a plane)
We all just want you to...

Come home, Cardinal Pell
I know you're not feeling well
And being crook ain't much fun
Even so, we think you should come

Home, Cardinal Pell
Come down from your citadel
It's just the right thing to do
We have a right to know what you knew

Couldn't you see what was under your nose, Georgie
Back in '73 when you were living with Gerry?
Is it true that you knew but you chose to ignore
Or did you actively try to keep it buried?

And years later, when survivors, despite their shame and their fear
Stood up to tell their stories, you spent year after year
Working hard to protect the church's assets
I mean, with all due respect, dude, I think you're scum!
And I reckon you should...

Come home, Cardinal Pell
(Cardinal Pell)
I know you're not feeling well
Perhaps you just need some sun
It's lovely here, you should come

Home, you pompous buffoon
(Pompous buffoon)
And I suggest do it soon
I hear the tolling of the bell
And it has a Pellian knell

I want to be transparent here, George, I'm not the greatest fan of your religion
And I personally believe that those who cover up abuse should go to prison
But your ethical hypocrisy, your intellectual vacuity, and your arrogance don't bother me as much
As the fact that you have turned out to be such a goddamn coward

You're a coward, Georgie
(You're a coward, George)
Come and face the music, Georgie
(Face the music, George)
You owe it to the victims, Georgie
(You owe it, George)
Come and face the music, the music
Hallelujah, hallelujah
If the Lord God omnipotent reigneth
He would take one look at you and say:
(One look at you and say)

"Go home, Cardinal Pell
I've got a nice spot in hell
With your name on it and so
I suggest you toughen up and go

"Home, Cardinal Pell
I'm sure they'll make you feel wel-
Come at the pub in Ballarat
They just want a beer and a chat"

Come home, Cardinal Pell
(Cardinal Pell)
I know you're scared, Georgie-Poo
(Come home)
They have a right to know what you knew

Your time is running out to atone, Georgie
I think the Lord is calling ya home, Georgie
Perhaps he could forgive even you
If you just let them know what you knew

Oh, Cardinal Pell
My lawyer just rang me to tell
Me this song
Could get me in legal trouble

Oh well, Cardinal Pell
If you don't feel compelled
To come home by
A sense of moral duty
Perhaps you will come home and frickin' sue me

I'm pretty open minded about religion, but I think if you have actual two-way spoken conversations with God in English, you may be schizophrenic or at the very least have a bit of an ego problem. Also, here you are, having a chat with the all-knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe, and best you can do is make small talk about what you plan to do with your private airplane? Granted, I'd probably find myself a little tongue tied in that situation, but I'd at least try for something more significant--at least enough to write a short epistle.

Shiny,
Yes, intelligent design is a valid theory, but 'Intelligent Design' is not. You know the difference, right?
So far, the only evidence I've ever seen or heard about of 'intelligent design' in biology is in the manipulated biology we humans have designed.
Intelligent design applies to anything WE design, it is not inherent to either chemistry or astrophysics themselves, nor is it a term used in either field.
No, it's not possible to completely DISPROVE the hypothesis, but you must look for it through religion colored glasses to see even the most tenuous evidence of it, without that filter, it's not visible anywhere. It's also not possible for you to prove that golden monkeys don't fly from my anus when you aren't looking, but masquerade perfectly as turds when looked at directly, but you would not believe me if I said that's what happens, even if I had a book that said so, right?
The laws of physics are not "finely tuned" (already implying an 'unseen hand') to allow for life, it's more like life evolved to exist in the conditions present. There's no 'fine tuning' going on, life that couldn't exist in the conditions found doesn't exist, life that could may or may not.

Because you start from a point of "god exists and designed all" and search for things that even loosely fit that hypothesis by looking through religion tinted glasses, you find it. Because I don't have that filter to see the universe through, and do not accept 'unknown mystery' or coincidence as proof of 'god' and/or his hand, they will always be invisible and indeed un-necessary and so not believed in by me, just like my brothers invisible friend.


As I've said many a time, if god exists, he's certainly going to amazingly great lengths to remain unknown, unseen, unfelt, unheard, and un-needed by me and billions of others, and misunderstood by even more.

Because unbelievable hypothesis require indisputable proof, you must know it's impossible for YOU to convince me. Even if 'god' popped into my living room and took me on a sightseeing tour of the universe, I would still say "he" could be an advanced alien, not a deity, and require proof of divinity rather than technology or simple advanced knowledge or ability. If "He" is omnipotent, he knows that, understands that, and only 'he' is capable of proving that, or even knowing how it might be proven....but has failed to do so to date one tiny whit. I'll wait for him to pop in and prove it to me. Until then, thanks kindly for your 'soul saving' effort just the same, but it's never going to succeed. I do appreciate it's done with good intentions...but you do know what they say about good intentions, don't you?

I say things like that because they are objectively true. The very concept of omnipotence and omniscience violate all kinds of physical laws. They are paradoxes; the "immovable force meeting the immovable object", but all our experience and learning tells us the universe does not work like that. Again, we might be wrong, but the more we learn, the less likely it becomes that we've missed something so vast.

We haven't missed it, chaosengine; the vast majority of people on Earth believes there is a God.

Human history is full of misery, suffering and cruelty to everything around us. One of the few bright points is our quest for knowledge, and you willfully reject that to cling to a stone age belief system that has been demonstrably proven false (geocentricity, for example) again and again.

In every important way, man hasn't learned anything and hasn't changed at all. The misery and suffering in the world increases year by year, it doesn't decrease.

Factually, it's incorrect.
Morally, it's bankrupt and consistently on the wrong side of history.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

One day you might wake up and realise (to paraphrase the much missed Douglas Adams) that "the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it".

Until then, you are welcome to indulge in your fantasies, but if you insist on injecting your irrationality into debates like this, expect disagreement.

I've read most of Douglas Adams works. I grew up secular and you would probably be shocked at the level of agreement we would have had in the not too distant past. I have been set free from the bondage of slavery to sin, and have been born again into a living hope. What you know on its own profits you nothing, because without faith it is impossible to please God. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. You don't have to acknowledge it to me, but that is the only way you will ever know anything about God, is by His personal revelation to you. He is faithful to give you a revelation of your need for a Savior.

I say things like that because they are objectively true. The very concept of omnipotence and omniscience violate all kinds of physical laws. They are paradoxes; the "immovable force meeting the immovable object", but all our experience and learning tells us the universe does not work like that. Again, we might be wrong, but the more we learn, the less likely it becomes that we've missed something so vast.

Human history is full of misery, suffering and cruelty to everything around us. One of the few bright points is our quest for knowledge, and you willfully reject that to cling to a stone age belief system that has been demonstrably proven false (geocentricity, for example) again and again.

Factually, it's incorrect.
Morally, it's bankrupt and consistently on the wrong side of history.

One day you might wake up and realise (to paraphrase the much missed Douglas Adams) that "the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it".

Until then, you are welcome to indulge in your fantasies, but if you insist on injecting your irrationality into debates like this, expect disagreement.

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

That's simply the fallacy of false equivalence. Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe. There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible. It is simply a faith that many scientists and atheists have that it *must* have happened that way because of evolution. Abiogenesis because evolution is not a theory of origins, it is blind faith.

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that.

You know that life exists but what you don't know is how or why. To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias; there isn't a logical reason to do so. There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence, there isn't any for abiogenesis. Faith in God is reasonable, faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith.

Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe. I think you're confusing mechanism with agency. Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence, and that people suppress the truth because they love their sin. It's not really about evidence; I know atheists who have had out of body experiences who deny they have a soul.

No. Not everyone thinks like a theist.

I have no idea whether life exists on other planets or not. I can theorise about the probability of it, but that's as far as I'm willing to commit.

As for the nonsense "roll a seven on a six sided die" argument... I really don't know if you're trolling or just genuinely have no understanding of logic, math, probability, statistics, etc.

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable. The video tells us that the latest evidence is that there are around 20,000,000,000 sun size stars and probably about 4,000,000,000 earth like planets. Now, the video gives the odds of life on each one at 0.1% (and then somehow comes up with 1 million instead of 4 million, but I digress).

So we have 4 billion planets that might possibly have earth like life. But let's say that abiogenesis is really, really improbable. In fact, let's say, it's 1 in 4 billion. We've been testing out the various abiogenesis theories for a while now, but I doubt we've conducted anything like 4 billion separate experiments, so it's really no surprise that we haven't observed it.

But it might be even more unlikely. Maybe it's 1 in 400 billion! Seems pretty unlikely, but let's roll with it. There are still 200 billion galaxies out there. Even if only 1% of them are like the milky way that's still 8 billion billion potential life bearing planets. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some of them could have life.

You don't need a seven, but maybe you do need an edge, or a corner!

Do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"?

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that. Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

Yahweh has NEVER given evidence of his existence. No more so than any other god anyhow. They all answer prayer equally and randomly well. They all claim to have made the universe/world, they all claim to be the true one... Near death experiences differ by culture expectations of that culture and don't all conform to the supposed Christian expectation... he has done nothing to make himself stand out from the rest of the gods that Christians dismiss. Heck, I've never seen a Frost Giant or evidence they ever existed, so clearly Odin has one up on Yahweh.

In the 4,000 years or so from Adam and Eve's time in the Garden to Jesus, Yahweh couldn't or wouldn't make himself known to the other races. He didn't reveal himself to those in Africa, Asia, the Americas or Europe, just to one tiny specific group of people in the Middle East. If couldn't then he's not the omnipotent, omnipresent god he claims, if he wouldn't that makes him a racist ass not worthy of following by picking one people to be his chosen people.

The only reason Europe became Christian was forced conversion when the Christian armies of Rome forced them to, which setup a tradition of most Europeans and later Americans being born into a faith. Were the exact same people born in Saudi Arabia they "would know that they know" that Islam is the true religion, or same in India but applying to Hinduism.

And saying that atheists have had supernatural experiences and can change to theism when talking about it, ignores the whole point of the video, especially the part when he talks about the linked Darren Brown video, which demonstrates that it is easy to make a spiritual experience happen that has no basis on any real god.

By way of example: I used to be a heavy evangelical Christian, I watched TBN and Fox News religiously (pun intended, see this old post of mine here on the sift from an old account that I couldn't recover http://videosift.com/usercomments/Charon... heck see my Revelations from the Word posts on my blog, http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/religion/revelations-from-the-word/ or more embarrassing my older political posts http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/politics/ which while progressive now, go to page 4 or so around June 2008 and back and you see a Libertarian and further back Republican with some crazy anti-vaccine paranoia , climate change denialism, science denaillism and other things I'm deeply ashamed of now)... I've had deep and meaningful spiritual experiences with god. After Republicans ruined Christianity for me (as the Republican party is clearly 100% against every teaching of Jesus... and yeah we can tick that off as being humans, but god does nothing to correct them, he may have spoke to my heart or whatever one wants to say to have more empathy, but over half the Christians in this nation still vote for a party 100% devoid of the teachings of the Jesus of the Bible while claiming to do it for Christian reasons) and I eventually lost faith (while Republicans are the reason I initially lost faith, they aren't the reason I stayed away, god is a dick is why I stayed away). After I lost faith in the Christian god, I gave paganism a try, and I've had just a meaningful spiritual experiences while worshiping at a Druid rite as I have at any Christian church. This is why people pick a religion, first by accident of birth (most people are Christian in the US because their parents were, and back to Europe where going back further they were forced to convert by invading Christian armies), second by choosing one that connects more personally with them... for many they see the hypocrisy of Christianity (and its general lack of empathy) but do connect with some form of paganism, and pagans generally have a patron god they serve above most others, and that god is the one they have a deep connection to, the same deep connection that Christians claim to have with Jesus/Yahweh... One doesn't drive a plane into a building killing 3,000 plus people without a deep and meaningful relationship with their god, and to dismiss t hat relationship as being deceived is naive and demonstrates a lack of empathy.

Now, I will allow the possibility that god does exist, but not in the form Christians propose, but perhaps closer to what the US Founding Fathers believed, but perhaps expanded a bit with more modern knowledge. A Deist like view. That this god somehow this god, created the energy and set into motion the laws of this physical universe that spun out from the big bang, but he's had nothing to do with anything since then. Perhaps all religions actually worship the same god but with their own culture's expectations and interpretations. However this would mean that all religions and lack there of are equally valid, which most faiths (aside from most modern paganism) doesn't allow for as their claim rests on being the true one.

I've rambled on far too long already so I'll leave it at that.

OK, I'm glad you tried though.
Actually I dismiss this as ignoring previous repeated public/biblical statements about god, Jesus, and the holy ghost being a single omniscient and omnipotent super being.
I've been told time and time again that Jesus "sacrificed himself for our sins". That means HE had control, obvious if he/3 is omnipotent, he has control over everything, knows everything, and free will is an illusion/lie...just like the cake. ;-) It simply can't be both ways. Either god is omnipotent or not. There's no such thing as 'partially omnipotent'....it's like saying 'part of infinity'....meaningless. (in case you are unaware, any portion of infinity is infinity)
If it was not intentional, and was all the doing of man, then Jesus didn't do anything FOR us in that death. So why do people thank him constantly? Why do people chastise others with 'Jesus died for your sins...so now you owe him your eternal gratitude'?
Man wouldn't need saving if god didn't CREATE sins to be avoided, or rules and rituals that must be observed (although oddly, every religion interprets the rules differently, even those that take the rules from the same book, which should be impossible if it's really the 'infallible word of god', no? Why would He make his definitive requirements so impossible to understand and follow, unless he's really closer to Loki in temperament and is really just screwing with us all), or punishment for being 'confused' about what's reality and what's not: Hell....or if god doesn't exist, or if god's existence and/or sin is unknown to a person.... (WHAT? What kind of rule system is that?) Reminds me of a joke too....

Aborigine asks the missionary :"So, you say God would not have punished us for sinning if we did not yet know about him or sin, and we would have all gone to heaven?"
Missioinary replies: "Yes, God is compassionate, and would not punish you for not knowing something you could not know, or not knowing rules you had not been taught."
Aborigine replies: "The why the f#ck did you tell us! Asshole!"

"Arguments for" an idea are worthless. "Evidence" is what is needed, and there simply isn't any provided here.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/

:That's not even addressing the straw man at the very beginning. That's not a binary question being asked.:

I think it is addressing the presuppositions of naturalism mainly:

nat·u·ral·ism
ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: naturalism
1.
(in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail.
2.
a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

You could expand the question to include many conceptions of God, or something supernatural, but essentially the argument is dealing with a being which is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

Okay... if the bible is the infallible word of God, then why are you wasting your Sunday preaching, when he told you to stone those poor people who work over the weekend to death? C'mon, get with the program.

I assume, as a biologist, he also knows that rabbits are ruminants, some flying creatures have four legs, whales are a kind of fish, and bats are a kind of bird.

God is omnipotent, except when he's not.

Multiple Kings began their reigns at different ages (depending on which book of the bible you look at).

Saul killed himself, and the Philistines killed him.

I love the irony of people believing in an eternal, omnipotent, realitydefining being that can't be the driving, creative force behind concepts like evolution or the big bang just because their human written book says so.
It simply illustrates my point: if a timetraveller went back and edited the early biblestories to include Superman instead of Jesus, these people would have the letter S on their necklaces instead of crosses and the Pope would wear a red cape.
They call themselves christians but what they truly believe in is a book and not the people or concepts it talks about. If it isn't in the book, it isn't real. These people live in Fantastica and science is their Nothing.

So the devil's antics are based in human years? I don't understand how the greatest of ALL angels gets "willier" over the course of 2000 some years when his existence is outside the restraints of time and space.

Same thing with God and His evolution of ideals. The law and then forgiveness and blah blah blah; slaves, no slaves; anathema, no anathema; burn shit to the ground for sins, don't stone the "prostitute". It doesn't make sense. None. At all.

Unless God ISN'T omnipotent, omnipresent, and/or benevolent. He can't be all of those things and yet so ignorantly rule creation within the context of human civilization pre-information age. Sorry, but if you don't see this pattern, you're living in denial. Either that or the idea of these beings is true and the Bible is the Devil's work.

Oh SNAP, didn't think about that in all of your squabbling, did you? The arguments over what to canonize; burning of Biblical apocrypha; human courts judging anathema over naysayers who were believers in God themselves; King James' toying with the text; and the list goes on and on. Lies! If God be love, Jesus saves and by faith be known, these historical truths makes your "holy" text anathema!

My bet is that the Devil knows the Bible because the Devil orchestrated it. If I believed in that sort of thing, that's what would make the most sense to me. But I suppose reason plays no part in the smoke and mirrors of gods and monsters.

That was a bit of a rant you went off on, there... But, this bit reminds me of what most puzzles me about certain beliefs - How can something interact with the physical world without being, itself, physical? I see no way, logically, to have a being not constrained by the laws of the physical world and still able influence anything in it. If you can't have that, surely omnipotence, at least, goes out the window?