If God existed…Question to an atheist! first of many to follow

[Gator]

I don't know. You don't either. I can admit it. Can you?

Dang, Pygo, you are quick!

 

[Philosopher]

I don't know. You don't either. I can admit it. Can you?

I say it's from God.

If you atheists dont even know where energy come from, how can you deny something as huge as God??

 

[Gator]

I say it's from God.

If you atheists dont even know where energy come from, how can you deny something as huge as God??

I guess the same way I know there is not a monster in my kid's closet.

The question is kinda weird though. To me its like asking since I don't know who won the World Cup in 1958, how can I deny the existence of Santa Claus.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I say it's from God.

If you atheists dont even know where energy come from, how can you deny something as huge as God??

For the same reason that you can deny something as huge as Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Philosopher]

For the same reason that you can deny something as huge as Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster.

I am defining God in a very broad manner --- basically the creator of the universe.

 

[Gator]

I am defining God in a very broad manner --- basically the creator of the universe.

I'm sorry I don't understand your repy. Could you rephrase?

 

[جوري]

Ethics. Empathy. Socialization. Self interest too..

Agreed!

Do you honestly feel that if I stripped you of your god belief and you thought you could get away with it, you'd be out there clubbing people over the back of their heads and taking their cars? You'd be raping women? Murdering people who upset you?.

I have moral consciousness which I believe is innate, like the soul... So I don't see how you can strip me of G-D thereby stripping me of consciousness?-- one can't exist without the other-- I can choose to believe in one and not the other-- but that would be an obvious case of hemineglect! ... I call it by its name... Something that you couldn't measure in a laboratory or science! if you admit somethings are innate then surely you can believe that it isn't something that could be measured. Sort of like feeling pain--or happiness

I really don't think you would. And if you seriously consider it I think you'll agree. If you didn't you'd be sociopath, plain and simple..

You are right... and I explained why above!

Apparently you're not able to consider that perhaps empathy is inate within us but wasn't "planted by a sentient being". .

How so? why are you willing to believe in one but not the other? You are willing to believe in innate which is something you can't measure.. yet take for granted is there... not even explaining its source... but can't do the same for the engineer who designed you to feel these instincts?

Well I'm afraid this is very likely the case. And it isn't just in us. Its in other social animals too, including wolves, dolphins, chimps. Even some insects will sacrifice themselves to protect their communities..

It is true... I have seen a show on animal planet where a predator actually took care of the young of one of its preys... they might not have the size cerebrum or that of our moral consciousness but that isn't saying the one who bestowed us of feelings of hurt and love, hasn't bestowed them with the same. Surely the one who designed us.. has also deigned them, to share similar feats... not just DNA, or chemistry but the "innate" portion of our selves as well?

Then there is simple self interest, as noted in the post above, which also leads us to follow most moral rules. We're discouraged from killing not only because of empathy (seeing ourselves in our potential victims) but also because we don't want to be killed ourselves so we push for security measures and laws..

Yes...the hypothetical whether or not outlandish speaks of a situation where you could potentially completely get away with your crime... You can't tell me perfect crimes haven't taken place? Someone out there murdered a woman named Elizabeth short and left her severed body in a disgusting pose in a dump somewhere... something the mind couldn't conceive-- yet got away with it... so a perfect murder can happen...

Then there is socialization and social programming, and not just the religious variety. Most people's parents will teach them at a young age not to steal and not to lie. They usually carry that into adulthood and continue to associate those things as being imorral (regardless of the sympathy or self interest factors above and regardless of god belief.).

But why do they do that? Why is "goodness" important? what makes us feel that it is? honestly, if life was nothing but a mere series of random events... why do we wish to protect it when it all boils down to nothing? to live or not to live is equal to be good or to be bad also equal -- what makes goodness imperative?

The statement is frequently made theists, that without a God there can be no morality. I'm not saying this is your statement exactly, but it seems related. It is offensive and ignorant. .

Well the ground rules for morality I believe came from religion-- even if society took it... tweaked it, watered it down and made it appear secular. made it appear civilized-- I have learned of these "commandments" if you will through religion... and I believe if we try to find the basis of where each law started we'd find its roots in religion not secularism.

But more importantly it is patently false. If it were true then atheists would have far higher crime rates and a disproportionately high incarceration rate. The opposite is actually what you find in most reports.

I don't believe any criminal thinks of G-D when committing a crime-- I believe people can justify to their person, that they are good, or that they are justified in what they are doing... but G-D isn't a priority--- if so, it would make perfect sense that they not be criminals... for no religion, nor organized ideology fosters a crime against innocence....
There are two factors one of self restraint which comes from the thought of consequences-- one that is innate the same that allows you to go loan a helping hand to someone who is drowning though you bare no relations to them---once both are gone-- Then a person feels free to commit whatever atrocities their lower self dictates to them...
Morality is lost to some just like G-D is lost to others.....

peace!

 

[Pygoscelis]

You are willing to believe in innate which is something you can't measure.. yet take for granted is there... not even explaining its source... but can't do the same for the engineer who designed you to feel these instincts?

You leap to the conclusion that it must have been designed. You skip over a whole world of other possibilities. Perhaps it gives a survival advantage and therefore evolved. I know you harbour a disdain for evolution, but thats one possibility. There are many others too. You need not leap to any of them. You need not explain how it got there to observe that it is there.

You can't tell me perfect crimes haven't taken place?

Yes. Perfect crimes have taken place. And there is no reason to believe that the non-religious people are more likely to commit them. Religion may actually be used to alleviate some of the guilt from them. We have an amazing capacity at rationalization and religion is one of the major tools to that end.

But why do they do that? Why is "goodness" important? what makes us feel that it is? honestly, if life was nothing but a mere series of random events... why do we wish to protect it when it all boils down to nothing?

Please revisit the posts above. Why do you keep saying it all boils down to nothing? You don't need to believe in an afterlife to value life and society on earth.

what makes goodness imperative?

Self interest, socialization, and empathy. Go back and reread my last post.

Well the ground rules for morality I believe came from religion

No. Religion codified the ground rules of morality. And then added a whole bunch of arbitrary dogma on top of it, including some dogma that goes directly against moral instincts. And having codified all of this in holy books, made it inflexible as the customs and needs society changed.

 

[جوري]

You leap to the conclusion that it must have been designed. You skip over a whole world of other possibilities. Perhaps it gives a survival advantage and therefore evolved. I know you harbour a disdain for evolution, but thats one possibility. There are many others too. You need not leap to any of them. You need not explain how it got there to observe that it is there..

I am willing to accept other possibilities-- provided they are indeed a product of reason and reproducibility and not just boiling down to a modern day belief ! I don't even see how evolution precludes from a G-D having set it all in motion... I just don't wish to substitute one theory for another, it would make no sense otherwise... perhaps it would be less frowned upon in certain social circles but a belief nonetheless.

Yes. Perfect crimes have taken place. And there is no reason to believe that the non-religious people are more likely to commit them. Religion may actually be used to alleviate some of the guilt from them. We have an amazing capacity at rationalization and religion is one of the major tools to that end..

I believe that crime is completely irrespective of religion... all sorts of people commit crimes-- they can be born to Muslim, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikh families -- and be the most abhorrent beings.. they can commit atrocities under the guise of religion-- People can bomb abortion clinics and claim it in the name of G-D... people can bomb a building and claim it in the name of G-D... yet I defy the man who brings me evidence from a holy book that states the killing civilians is ok and encouraged by religion!

Please revisit the posts above. Why do you keep saying it all boils down to nothing? You don't need to believe in an afterlife to value life and society on earth..

indeed... but what if your life is enhanced by a lewd act -- one which you can perfectly get away with? One that would make you rich, famous and have all the best that this life has to offer.. why not commit a crime then? surely value will be added to your life by such enhancement from the perfect crime (that plus the trophy of having outsmarted every one-- we'll go back in circles if you tell me it is innate!

Self interest, socialization, and empathy. Go back and reread my last post. .

What self interest is there in giving charity? Where would socialization exist if the one you are trying to save dies? What/ or whom gave you empathy-- why does that feeling exist in you? seems like an accessory type feeling... like a piece of jewelry -- in other words you can live perfectly happy without it.. yet it is in you.. why is it there?

No. Religion codified the ground rules of morality. And then added a whole bunch of arbitrary dogma on top of it, including some dogma that goes directly against moral instincts. And having codified all of this in holy books, made it inflexible as the customs and needs society changed.

I don't know what religious dogma goes against moral instincts? and pls don't bring homosexuality into this... I think every so-called Archaic religious moral fits perfectly in today's society--- further, I'd find it rather scary if these common religious morals were to become extinct...
Murder Ok if you don't like your next door neighbor
Thievery ok since the supermarket owners are rich *******s and won't miss it
coveting your neighbor's wife since she is some nice piece of meat
giving into any lust or denying it-- is why religion seems inflexible to you-- some things just seem so good and natural why deny them? why be confined when you can be free-- that is the trouble with religion...

peace!

 

[ranma1/2]

This sounds like pascal's wager yet again. Its flawed in many ways, so many books have been written about it. We could do another thread on it if you would like, but its been done extensively here already, so a search should bring something up to satisfy your immediate curiousity.



If your belief in the afterlife is the only thing that keeps you moral and obeying laws, if you'd be out there raping and murdering everybody without your belief in the afterlife (which I very much doubt is true), then I dearly hope you never lose your faith. I'd also hope a person with such a view would find counselling quickly, for they would be a textbook sociopath.

I agree it sounds like a version of pascals wager.
And as you said we tend to do what we do not because of religious texts or fear of punishment or wanting ot be rewarded but becuase we are social beings.

 

[جوري]

For the same reason that you can deny something as huge as Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster.

If Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster had left us with 5 books detailing every aspect of why and how they govern the universe and came to us in a series of different people centuries apart attesting to the same thing, then I wouldn't deny them as a possibility -- so far I haven't read anything from Sanskrit literature to the Ahura Mazda to equate with what is in the Abrahamic religion-- but to leave that aside for now--

I am sure you can go on perfectly happy not knowing or even believing that there is such a thing as TPR governing your life-- yet the interplay between mean Arterial pressure, cardiac output and total peripheral resistance keeps your system in homeostasis and you alive... if one of them should fail acutely or chronically it would lead to eventual demise... Many people can go on ignoring them--- some might read up a little when stick with meds in the aspects where meds might be needed... some might go against medical advise and just call it bluff and then end up dead with their belief that no such formula can govern my body's homeostasis...

Everyone knows what they know and believe it--- it is fine for some it is beyond a reasonable doubt for others, they live and die not knowing or caring. Either way it is fine, so long as one doesn't infringe on the beliefs of others or makes them the focal point of mockery when they themselves by some other measure might be dwelling in the dark ages.

peace!

 

[Pygoscelis]

indeed... but what if your life is enhanced by a lewd act -- one which you can perfectly get away with? One that would make you rich, famous and have all the best that this life has to offer.. why not commit a crime then? surely value will be added to your life by such enhancement from the perfect crime (that plus the trophy of having outsmarted every one-- we'll go back in circles if you tell me it is innate!

Again, you are speaking as if we are sociopaths. A person who did as you describe would be haunted by guilt. You don't need religion for that. Simple socialization that they'd done wrong and empathy for those you wronged will do it in spades.

What self interest is there in giving charity?

Sometimes it wouldn't apply and the two other factors I named would instead. Other times it would very much apply. Giving to charity feeds into the societal value on charity, one that you may yourself someday need to take advantage of if you become impovrished.

Where would socialization exist if the one you are trying to save dies?

Why would socialization not apply if the one you are trying to save dies? You've been socialized, programmed to think that trying to save them is good, so you did it.

What/ or whom gave you empathy

You're trying to sneak that in again. Your assumption is faulty, as I noted in my previous post. Perhaps nobody gave me empathy. Nor does it matter how I got it. I have it.

Empathy can actually in a way be explained via self interest. Empathy is feeling the pain of another, by seeing yourself in another. Studies have been done on this and have shown that those most like yourself and those you have gotten to know best will draw the most empathy. This is why people are able to look at death statistics without much care, but are distraught if they learn more details about each of the victims - especially if they are people they can relate to. Its also why we care more about bunnies (mammal) getting tortured in laboratories than aligators (reptile) getting skewered in swamps.

A lot of theories and studies have been done on empathy. Some think it is a survival advantage for your tribe or genes, looking after like minded people etc. Its a whole area of study, and an interesting one at that.

in other words you can live perfectly happy without it..

I'm not so sure that is true. It may be, but it may not be. I see no reason to think it is.

I don't know what religious dogma goes against moral instincts?

Oh come now, you don't really want me to answer that do you? It could be its own thread. Could write a book on it.

Well - since you did ask, how about just one example. Can give more of them all day if you'd like though.

Human sacrifice is a fun one. How many religions throughout the ages demanded that one? Ya, even the old testament bible has a God smiling on the idea and the whole christian religion is based on it in a less direct way (Jesus).

and pls don't bring homosexuality into this...

Ok, I'll let you do that. lol. You just did. Its one example of a rather arbitrary "moral value" that leads people directly away from peoples' desire for equal treatment. The same can be said of the male chauvenism that is rampant in some religions.

I think every so-called Archaic religious moral fits perfectly in today's society

I don't know the Quran well so I can't really speak to your own religion.

But I do know the bible. There is lots in that book that is down right sickening. I'm glad most Christians don't follow it. If they did, we'd be running out of stones by now - with all that stoning people to death God purportedly demands of us for the silliest of things.

--- further, I'd find it rather scary if these common religious morals were to become extinct...

The ones you listed are not "common religious morals", they are "common morals". Religion is irrelevant to them.

 

[Pygoscelis]

If Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster had left us with 5 books detailing every aspect of why and how they govern the universe and came to us in a series of different people centuries apart attesting to the same thing, then I wouldn't deny them as a possibility -- so far I haven't read anything from Sanskrit literature to the Ahura Mazda to equate with what is in the Abrahamic religion-- but to leave that aside for now--

No Gods I have heard of have written any books either. Have you noticed how it is always some human being doing the actual ink to paper? Oh, they claim that God is talking to them, but then... who are you to say that the teapot and unicorn don't talk to people too?

In fact, the existence of these books seems to me to be direct evidence AGAINST the existence of their purported gods. A real god would not need such books. A real one would simply have people know whatever it wanted them to know. And we'd all know the same message, and we wouldn't have all these divides between catholic and protestant or sunni and shia. That the books exist shows either that the gods don't exist or that they don't wish to be clearly understood.

 

[جوري]

No Gods I have heard of have written any books either. Have you noticed how it is always some human being doing the actual ink to paper? Oh, they claim that God is talking to them, but then... who are you to say that the teapot and unicorn don't talk to people too?

In fact, the existence of these books seems to me to be direct evidence AGAINST the existence of their purported gods. A real god would not need such books. A real one would simply have people know whatever it wanted them to know. And we'd all know the same message, and we wouldn't have all these divides between catholic and protestant or sunni and shia. That the books exist shows either that the gods don't exist or that they don't wish to be clearly understood.

I was about to address your other post but seeing how this is taking a bit of my time we'll leave the other one until tomorrow or so--let's start with this one...

How can the existence of these books be a measure against G-D? I don't understand-- I'd accept such a remark from a devout theologian who has spent a great deal of his life studying religion along with scientific theory and can argue clearly his reasons to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt ... I argue vigorously against the notion that in order for you to be a scientist you have to reject G-D and to be a theist by default you have to accept and look for him. I think it belittles the psychology of both the scientists and the theists seeing how I have seen members of both crowds do exactly what is expected from the other-- but I digress--
Further all 5 books speak of the same one G-D whether or not people resort to colorful allegorical or fundamental understanding of what is written ( there is no room for doubt of whom we are speaking) -- undoubtedly if anyone has studied theology for a long time can come forth and comment on this--

Now, I don't see why G-D would need to make himself visible to us? what is the point of life then? we'd all be in a blissful abode in heaven's high mead smiling that we are free from all mysteries of the world along with its strife ( this is the human condition)-- if everything was so apparent we wouldn't have this diversity... there wouldn't be people like you or people like me... There would be no cause for free will and reflection... What is the point of having photos of a vacation if you didn't go on the trip?
I believe if people get back to basics they wouldn't need innovations in religion (there can only be room for one correct one) There is only one form of Islam and it makes up 90% the rest are standing in highlight for political interest and personal agendas, but I will not get into that now... all can be very easily verified on a personal level this needn't be a communal effort... Abraham and Lut were the only two monotheists of their entire people--- just pick up the proper original books and go to scholars with your questions not lay men!-- in Islam in general we all use the same book in Islam Muslims or shiites, there is very little room for error--- unless one chooses error--- there is one visible apparent message, which one can arrive to after much thought and study...No one can do that for anyone-- You don't wake up one day and decide to be an Atheist or a Muslim (I hope) it is a product of deep thoughts and reflections..... I'll use Doyle's words to "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"-- that is the essence of what G-D is asking you to do in the last testament anyhow--- go bring all your proof, follow every road, check out every theory exhaust all your possibilities check out all the options... go over every point of interest again and again... there will always be one thing left at the end and a very basic thing at that... you either choose to remain exactly where you started in doubt or accept something that is beyond your comprehension.

I'll leave with these two verses from the Quran on the account you'd want G-D to make himself visible to you! and on this note call it a night

هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلاَّ أَن يَأْتِيَهُمُ اللّهُ فِي ظُلَلٍ مِّنَ الْغَمَامِ وَالْمَلآئِكَةُ وَقُضِيَ الأَمْرُ وَإِلَى اللّهِ تُرْجَعُ الأمُورُ {210}​

[Pickthal 2:210] Wait they for naught else than that Allah should come unto them in the shadows of the clouds with the angels? Then the case would be already judged. All cases go back to Allah (for judgment).

بَلْ يُرِيدُ كُلُّ امْرِئٍ مِّنْهُمْ أَن يُؤْتَى صُحُفًا مُّنَشَّرَةً {52}​

[Pickthal 74:52] Nay, but everyone of them desireth that he should be given open scrolls

they certainly describe that your wants of a visible G-D aren't any different from those preceeding you! You should seek him for questions not the other way around

peace and g'night

 

[Pygoscelis]

I argue vigorously against the notion that in order for you to be a scientist you have to reject G-D

Not sure where this is coming from all of a sudden. I don't disagree.

and to be a theist by default you have to accept and look for him.

Actually, isn't this the very definition of theist? One who accepts and looks for gods?

Now, I don't see why G-D would need to make himself visible to us?

Fair enough. But if he doesn't want to be known, why would he write us books? This is my point. The whole idea of holy books is that Gods are sending humans messages. Well, I doubt that, because if they actually were sending us messages they would not need books. It fits much more the theory that the books are just writings of men claiming to speak for Gods.

I believe if people get back to basics they wouldn't need innovations in religion (there can only be room for one correct one)

As soon as you start telling me that your God is the only God and your way is the only way, I start to get concerned. That is the birth of intolerance and it is only a short trip to nastiness.

just pick up the proper original books and go to scholars with your questions not lay men!

So God not only had to write a book instead of just having us know what he wanted us to know, but the book he wrote is so cryptic that we need experts to study it and tell us what it says? If a God actually did this, she'd clearly not want us to understand her. She'd be playing some peculiar game.

 

[جوري]

Not sure where this is coming from all of a sudden. I don't disagree..

A general comment to a sentiment I felt echoed here in this thread in general -- not necessarily by your person!

Actually, isn't this the very definition of theist? One who accepts and looks for gods? .

Some theists end up too saturated with religion and take a hiatus!

Fair enough. But if he doesn't want to be known, why would he write us books? This is my point. The whole idea of holy books is that Gods are sending humans messages. Well, I doubt that, because if they actually were sending us messages they would not need books. It fits much more the theory that the books are just writings of men claiming to speak for Gods.

How else do you propose you learn of him?-- I mean once you recognize that you can perform a Roux-en-Y do you just cut some guy up and start chopping at will or do you follow ASBS standards as documented in the books? How sad that he'd give us life and not leave us with out any clues on how to find him

As soon as you start telling me that your God is the only God and your way is the only way, I start to get concerned. That is the birth of intolerance and it is only a short trip to nastiness..

There is only one G-D for all... Islam doesn't deny that which is before it.

So God not only had to write a book instead of just having us know what he wanted us to know, but the book he wrote is so cryptic that we need experts to study it and tell us what it says? If a God actually did this, she'd clearly not want us to understand her. She'd be playing some peculiar game.

That is merely to avoid yourself innovations, since that is how sectarianism starts! when you don't understand something, instead of asking your next door neighbor-- you may ask a learned theologian-- however it isn't a requirement-- it isn't at all cryptic on a basic level-- depends on how deep you want to go. By the way let's avoid anthropomorphism when addressing G-D-- I understand you don't feel the need to show respect... but he is of neither gender we use (he) in general since English deficient but in no way is G-D a male or a female. I have no need to worship something human!

peace

 

[Pygoscelis]

How else do you propose you learn of him?-- How sad that he'd give us life and not leave us with out any clues on how to find him

If a God wanted to be found and understood, he would be found and understood. There would be no need for cryptic books or other obscure potentially misleading clues.

however it isn't a requirement-- it isn't at all cryptic on a basic level-- depends on how deep you want to go.

So, your God wants to be understood, but only a little bit?

By the way let's avoid anthropomorphism when addressing G-D-- I understand you don't feel the need to show respect... but he is of neither gender we use (he) in general since English deficient but in no way is G-D a male or a female. I have no need to worship something human!

I use he, she, it, them, interchangably, because I'm not refering to your particular God, or any particular God, but to the concept of Gods in general.

 

[جوري]

If a God wanted to be found and understood, he would be found and understood. There would be no need for cryptic books or other obscure potentially misleading clues. .

I am not going through this circular argument again

so, your God wants to be understood, but only a little bit?.

The G-D, can be understood by all-- common man and well learned folks... it is not a big mystery

I use he, she, it, them, interchangably, because I'm not refering to your particular God, or any particular God, but to the concept of Gods in general.

Again-- one G-D-- Not feminine, not plural, not over powered by a bigger G-D... not a G-D of the people of the east... G-D of all, heaven and earth and what is in between. The one who gave you (SA nodes, AV Nodes, And Purkinje fibers)-- so when one mal-functions the others take over!... I am not going to sit here and justify anything to you... you can be mindless of him until the cows come home-- It makes not one bit of a difference to me one way or the other--- and just so we aren't doing this again tomorrow
don't ask me Why G-D would want us to know of him or why do we need to worship him?-- my reply to that would simply be (why do you think you are entitled to all of this for free?)

peace!

 

[Pygoscelis]

I am not going through this circular argument again

Nothing circular about it, but ok.

The G-D, can be understood by all-- common man and well learned folks... it is not a big mystery

Yet a few posts upthread you were writing how we should seek scholars to explain it to us. Doesn't sound so straight forward to me. Sounds like a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Not a way a God would communicate if he wanted you to know something.

Again-- one G-D-- Not feminine, not plural, not over powered by a bigger G-D... not a G-D of the people of the east... G-D of all, heaven and earth and what is in between. The one who gave you (SA nodes, AV Nodes, And Purkinje fibers)-- so when one mal-functions the others take over!... I am not going to sit here and justify anything to you... you can be mindless of him until the cows come home-- It makes not one bit of a difference to me one way or the other---

Great. And you can continue to believe in your God and it makes no difference to me either. We can peacefully co-exist. Thats refreshing.
Just don't expect me to adjust my terminology to fit your particular God when I am in fact refering to the concept of Gods in general (which is what your previous post looked like it was demanding).

why do you think you are entitled to all of this for free?

Now there is an interesting thought.

By "all of this" do you mean your existence?

Why do you think you need to pay somebody for it (much less invent somebody to pay for it)?

For the sake of this thought experiment lets say for the moment that God does exist and did give you your life. I'm still not sure that would mean you have any obligation to pay for it. Did you contract for it in the womb before birth? Did you have any choice at all as to whether you'd get it or what shape it took? DId giving it to you cost this hypothetical all powerful creator being anything? Can you somehow reverse time and give it back?

 

[ranma1/2]

No Gods I have heard of have written any books either. Have you noticed how it is always some human being doing the actual ink to paper? Oh, they claim that God is talking to them, but then... who are you to say that the teapot and unicorn don't talk to people too?

In fact, the existence of these books seems to me to be direct evidence AGAINST the existence of their purported gods. A real god would not need such books. A real one would simply have people know whatever it wanted them to know. And we'd all know the same message, and we wouldn't have all these divides between catholic and protestant or sunni and shia. That the books exist shows either that the gods don't exist or that they don't wish to be clearly understood.

Very good point, surely a god could write the knowlege in our minds so we would have no doubt that that was what god wants. This would still allow us free will to good or bad. So why does such an omni potent being make it such a gamble for others. For those that never even hear of that god? Or those that cant tell which one is right from the milliions out there?

Very good point.

Of course to played the flawed devils adovocate.

God did send gold tablets to John Smith. He just translated them... Um.. why did he need to translate it ......