Then it should be easy to show me . . . .

If its weak then you should have no problem explaining why . . .

So far you are the only one who has failed to make any kind of informative analysis of any arguments.

Choice requires time. Explain a timeless choice.

To choose requires that there are choices. He has to be able to say, well I could create the universe, or I could not.

To move from one thought to the next requires time. So if god has his own time continuum in which to think these personal thoughts then what created that?

If god can have rules of nature he must obey like his own personal time then that means something would transcend god, and thus place you right back in the predicament you started with that made you posit this idea of god outside of time.

You have failed again.

Trying to step outside the box, but saying that the area outside doesn't have time, space, or matter, or rules of causation yet saying some "thing" could create from this outside space is absurd.

Self refuting absurdities.

Ewww.

God can work within the time frame structure. Not only that, God can do anything power can do. He cannot do anything that contradicts His human nature. If he could He would not be all powerful.

So that is why in the Bible it says he can not fight chariots made of iron?

How many times did this take place in the bible exactly with these men offering up virgins to be raped and presumably murdered by mobs? Then god refers to them as "just" and "righteous." It sounds just like that incident with Lot and his daughters.

So now god made the universe from within time . . . but earlier you referenced the big bang as it was the beginning of time, making use of the theory of relativity unwittingly so perhaps but did so nevertheless. So are you saying that god operated outside this time, but within another time? Does this regression of spacetimes ever end? You see how when you try to posit a higher authority and a structure for which to create you must then posit another layer to account for the previous.

THe bible faithfully records what actually happened, this does not mean God approves of it

It is clear that the god of the old testament demanded blood as a sacrifice.

God described Lot as "just" and "righteous."

So are you saying that where the bible says "god says" isnt true?

OMG!

The only thing that I have noticed consistently is that theist are really bad at answering questions, they ignore 90% of the best questions.

___________________________

Is it wrong to enjoy this?

The Bible was written by a culture that tried to claim that God is on their side and condoned their murdering of anyone who disagreed with them.

That's all the Bible is.

It's a dispicable example of human arrogance.

That's all it is.

Surely you don't believe that the creator of this universe would have condoned all that murdering?

That's absurd.

Why now many primitive religions took the concept of seasonal change, circle of life stuff seriously, shiva creator and destroyer, etc.

Truly. Either the Bible is the word of God or it isn't. Let's make up our minds. Because if 90% is crap that God disapproves of then let's just toss it in the trash can. I'm all for that.



Only if the bliss is so divine that it gives you a heavenly orgasm to the point where it affects your better judgment.

Intoxication. tsk tsk!

Sometimes my better judgment would tell me not to respond, so I guess sometimes lol.

I have to keep reminding myself: all things in moderation!

"God makes sense of objective moral values in the world. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J. L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted: "If...there are...objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of God."

You still have not provided a definition nor an example of an objective morale value.

That's ridiculous.

Clearly rapists don't think there's anything immoral about raping.

The idea that just because the vast majority of people will agree on what they feel isn't right doesn't make it 'objective'.

It's just a widely held subjective opinion is all.

Anyone who argues these kind of 'moral arguments' as "proof" of God simply has absolutely no sense of logic at all.

The moral arguments are as lame as saying something like we all agree that fire burns, therefore fire must be evil.

Obviously that's not true.

Anyone who thinks that moral arguments are proof of anything other than the fact that they have no clue what consitutes a sound argument is truly lacking rational capabilities.

That's all there is to that.

Sometimes I feel a little uneasy when Christians start regurgitating their own interpretations of Atheist Philosophies.

"Concerning religion, he was well known for vigorously defending atheism, and also arguing that the problem of evil made untenable the main monotheistic religions. His criticisms of the free will defence are particularly significant. He argued that the idea of human free will is no defense for those who wish to believe in an omnicompetent being in the face of evil and suffering, as such a being could have given us both free will and moral perfection, thus resulting in us choosing the good in every situation. Thus, Mackie's critique of free will theodicies was based on his support for compatibilism. In metaphysics, Mackie made significant contributions relating to the nature of causal relationships, especially regarding conditional statements describing them and the notion of an INUS condition."