Then how can you logically have it both ways by claiming that the atheist has taken an additional step based on the preponderance of evidence?
You're tripping over the word "evidence" here. There are thousands of circumstances that could be taken as "evidence" one way or the other. The atheist does not think the evidence in favor of a God is enough. The only additional step the atheist (like me) has made is to go beyond acknowledging that in reality, there is no totally conclusive proof one way or another. The atheist goes a step beyond that recognition ( = agnosticism) and makes the decision for him/herself that there is not evidence out there for belief. To the atheist, most of the evidence out there points against belief in a deity, at least for them. There is no "trying to have it both ways". If my phrase "preponderance of evidence" muddied the waters on that point, I apologize.
Let's formalize this time honored atheist argument:
- God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect. 2 A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering). 3. The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.
No, let's not formalize it that way. I'd rather simplify it by observation that the sheer amount of evil, and the lack of answers to individuals seeking help from some sort of deity, can be reasonably taken as a proof that either (a) no god exists, or (b) if a god exists, he/she/it is far removed from earth and doesn't really care.
I don't think those are very unreasonable conclusions. They may not be what a believer thinks, but they're not totally irrational.
As for your second evidence for the non-existence of God. Your premise is simply false. God never claimed to pop out of a vaccuum . He has consistently claimed to be self existing, the first and the last, the alpha and the omega. Ironically, this is the exact same thing that many atheists try and sell through ambiogenesis, multi-verses etc.... that the universe is self-existing. Why is it OK for the universe to be self existing but not for God to be? The answer to that question will yield far greater pearls than the double think offered by bible cults and modern pop-culture atheist book writers.
If God didn't pop up out of a vacuum, then you're claiming that he/she/it was always there. How convenient and evasive. That "logic" is supposed to end all dissent.
Again, for the third time, I will merely state what I had said (and please no cut-and-paste response to this). I'm going with the basic premise that an inventor/creator is superior to his creation. So in the case of this universe, if a God really created it, then that God would have to be infinitely complex. From where did this God come? I don't believe in "someone always having existed", but if that's your premise -- we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't have time to elaborate much.You should make the time....it's important.
Do you know how the word "should" grates against my nerves? I'm not some wandering child who needs to be cajoled with "shoulds".
Actually, the meeting I had to call in to at my job was more important at the time than this thread was.