I threatened to do this on another thread, so if people want to play here and vent some thoughts I'd love to hear.

I start from suspending disbelief and accepting for the purpose of discussion that god exists in some form comparable to that described in the PR releases from his staff. (I use the terms "he" or "his" lazily of course). This persona, what undercover types call a "legend", needs consistency and credibility, or god's cover is blown and we suspect he's not being completely honest.

The purpose is to see if the common beliefs about god paint a credible and rational picture. At this point, feel free to leave, laughing.

So as a starting point, here I go. Basic assumptions I draw from the PR releases;-

• God is eternal, universal, all-powerful and perfect.
• God is described as "good", i.e. in contrast with the devil/satan who is "bad".
• God is in some way creator, in particular of humans. From this a "parental" relationship evolves and, more specifically, a loving parent. (This doesn't exclude evolution, which is a form of creation with elegance befitting a god).
• God remains interested/involved.
• God already knows what is in our hearts, what is going to happen, and many other things.
• It all has a purpose.

I personally think all the above cannot be absolutely true, as, on dissection some points exclude others. I also assume for the exercise that god created us, and not the more logical reverse.


Where my thinking goes next, if we suspend disbelief;-
God created everything, but in particular humanity, and had a reason. If already universal, eternal and perfect one wonders why.

Humanity was given free choice. There were bans, notably, don't eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. That is a particularly interesting no-no. Satan stepped in at that point and encouraged humanity to eat from the allegorical shrub.

Is god universal, perfect, all-knowing? Humanity was created perfectly. The forbidden tree (allegorical as it was) was part of that perfect creation AND accessible. Free choice was created perfectly. God knew where it would go from there. God is, after all, universal and all-powerful. Although what about the bits where satan was sitting? Or are we really talking about dual aspects of one force?

Inevitably humanity wanted to know more. This is where I lose the logic of traditional teaching. How can a perfect god, having created us in a particular way, not be happy if we use all we were given, including an enquiring mind? To do less would be unappreciative, if not blasphemous (and a lot of religious leaders are therefore chronically blaspheming). So anyway, folk started nomming the forbidden fruit.

God the Loving Parent (at least the parent in our image) might have said, "So you ate the fruit? Now you have the discomfort of knowing more than would have kept you happy, but I gave you choice, and perhaps you prefer it that way. Just remember I warned you it was risky. Good luck to you, I commend your curiousity and courage. Use the new stuff well, but first tidy up the garden. If you have questions I'm here for you."

But no, god had a hissy fit, tossed them out and sat glowering. Some parents do this, particularly when their kids start making decisions of their own. The ones who get reported to welfare do it to extremes and are socially labelled feral.

From then on we hear one tale after another of god the control freak. Let's ruin someone's life or demand he sacrifice his son, just to prove he loves me. Oops, I made a mistake, bit of a mess on my part really, let's wash away the people I created, except for a tiny few (sorry, I am sort of picturing a divine John Cleese here).

Again, different parenting to the kind I think of. I would never put a pile of lollies in front of kids with instructions not to touch, then cut them off for eternity for touching, and I don't claim divine infallibility or perfection. Worse, though claiming to be the loving creator of all, god also plays favourites, wiping out armies and cities and stopping just short of genocide, unless we count the flood. Good thing there's no 2nd Amendment in Heaven, the Divine Gun Rack would be something to see, except the guns would probably always be in use.

Let's never forget, this god is perfect. But, already perfect, it still needed to create (sounds like a jumped-up fertility spirit) and to have people with free will for whom it protested limitless love. They nonetheless would face horrible, eternal suffering if they didn't praise and worship.

Why does a perfect, omnipotent entity need its ego stroked? Indeed, why did it bother to brag "I your God am a jealous god and you shall have no other gods but me." (Other gods, in the wings, muttered politely like a crowd at a bus station, and left the young punk alone). If jealousy is a quality of perfection, let's hear it for the Selfcentred Church Of Jehovah the Jealous.

Worse, at the end of it all, the plug gets pulled. At some arbitrary moment an angel with a bugle appears and, like musical chairs, wherever you stand at that instant decides your future. In three-score years and ten, we all learn enough to make the call between playing harps on a cloud and praising god forever, or torment and suffering for a like period.

And what if god pulls the plug ten seconds before we would have decided the god thing is the right way to go? It may take all our lives, for to believe honestly and sincerely and without reservation is presumably more valuable than mouthing the right words and bowing our heads on cue because we are told to. To insult the creator who gave us minds by not using them, and then to expect a special seat in the hereafter, defies logic, unless I have it wrong and god is lawful chaotic.

I propose the praise and worship stuff is BS. This is a red herring created to perpetuate the worship industry, which gives a few people status, power and wealth and the many an obligation to toe the line. This is an heretical thought. It opens the possiblity of each person relating privately with god, who of course knows our hearts.

If, and note I say if, god is in any way as advertised at the most basic level, then there's some logical outcome to it all beyond feeding the ego of a divine neurotic. God's whole purpose drives towards that outcome, and what we call satan is what prevents or competes with that outcome.

Is the purpose simply for God, wearing a Rowan Atkinson face, to say at some arbitrary point, "Okay, everyone who sucked up to my ego stand over there, the rest of you, fire and brimstone, no appeal, regardless of the kind of lives either group led"?

If we believe either god, or life, the universe and everything is irrational, that will do. If we believe unquestioningly in a scowling, arbitrary, self-focussed Jehovah that will certainly do.

If we believe in the divine and in some rational purpose behind the Great Plan, it won't do in a fit. Two divine entities do a head count of souls, say "thanks for the game" and shake hands sportingly? But hang on, satan's defeat is inevitable. Doesn't god then take the spoils? Or are the spoils and satan banished together? How does the latter fit any concept of completion or fulfilment, much less the criteria of perfection. Or the loving parent model, come to that? "Sorry, kids, you didn't say I was wonderful, burn forever."

Personally I think the game would continue to some kind of completion (within the hypothetical rules in which we suspend disbelief) and indeed may be endless. And personally I find it logical that, if there must be a conclusion, then for god to be complete and perfect, it will be when the little bits of god in all of us come together.

Again I would separate god and religion. Religion tells us what to think. God, knowing our hearts and the ultimate purpose, is pleased if we don't accept blind parrot-learning, and smiles if we try to lift its mask and see the next mask below it.

I know this whole train of thought revolves around god personified. There are good reasons to avoid that model, and of course good reason to consider the whole god thing as a diversion from the realities of existence.

This is why I won't argue with god-botherers any more. I personally hold no belief in the divine, but I won't dignify them with serious discussion, when even limiting debate within the bounds of their own position shows internal inconsistencies big enough to park an omnipresent deity in.

(Slightly O/T, please excuse me ) I don't bother with attempting to dispell each and every little fallacy that they promote, because that's what most of them are, fallacies. They attempt to say God is always there, but he doesn't do anything, but he will when you die (because he's disinterested) - that is very contradictory and makes very little to no sense.

Personally, I attempt to disprove the whole thing in one go. My own personal belief is that many many thousands of years ago, the cavemen did not have the scientific knowledge we have today therefore the thing to do was to make things up, come to 'logical conclusions'. Having no knowledge or playing dumb wouldn't go down well with the Chief's plebs therefore he had to make decisions. A big man in the sky who can see your every move, and who made everything around us (just like the big chief and his followers) doesn't seem so wacked out when you're running around in a loin cloth. Of course, it was then started to be used to manipulate the followers, "remember, God is watching" - that's when the vision's start... "God said this to me in a dream, you must do it otherwise he said <this> will happen"; gradually the whole thing becomes more engrained, and bigger and bigger. Everyone knows man wrote the Bible. Everyone knows that the version we see is very different to the original copy, which was probably written in a mud hut somewhere in the middle east by a very clever man/leader.

The problem though is that now we can disprove God and we have science to explain those little events and things which man didn't know about all of those moons ago, but the deluded, short sighted, and often intimidated religious types who use their 'faith' (that word is one I like to talk about - faith is something you have against all odds, it's very weak) as a daily life support machine won't let themselves see it.

I have to go now, I might add more later!!

All good, Hangman. I was trying to come up with the inconsistencies of simply limiting my critique to what the god-botherers themselves push, based on forced association leading to discussions with them in the past. It wasn't really hard but it was interesting.

Following the logic of any supporting argument for god through, I can't help but arrive at a point where the most charitable thing I can honestly say is that, if them god-botherers are at least partly right about god, then he/she/it won't give a toss about prayers or church attendance or, worst of all (for them), what I put in the collection plate. Nor will I have to pray or explain if god knows my heart. I can simply chat personally with god and it's nobody's business.

Of course one is wise to wear an alfoil hat so one knows the replies aren't nefarious transmissions from aliens. This explains church regalia to some extent.

OK, the hardest part about replying to this is know where to start, so i'm going to start by responding to something that callum said.
Actually we CANT disprove the existance of God(s) no more than we can actually prove it......and science actually means nothing in the grand scheme of things as science is only as good as the facts that are presented to draw a conclusion and on this subject has proved nothing at all.

As with many scientists who say aliens cannot exist on a particular planet due to their being a lack of oxygen, or organic matter and who dont consider the possibility there could be silicon lifeforms who disprove their theory - the argument surrounding the existance of God through the use of science is flawed by assuming that if there was a God he would exist in the same plane of existance as we do.
The truth is there could be a single God, or many Gods living among us out of phase from what we can see, or living on a completely different plane that we are not aware of, and its something that can possibly never be proven, or disproved as we dont have all the facts at our disposal.

People who believe in Ghosts, or those who think they have seen Ghosts would suggest they are real, and if there is a possibility that Ghosts do exist there could be many reasons, from some kind of residual energy in a particular location, to them having not crossed over to the other side - but what is the other side if not a spiritual plane of existance?

Now if you believe there are infinite possibilities in the universe, for example parallel universes, where we could have a double that exists living a somewhat similar, but altogether different life from the one we are living, then that could also suggest there are planes of existance out there we are not aware of, which could also support the possibility of there being a spiritual plane, where Gods or God like creatures could exist.

Like all these theories, theyre purely hypothetical, but then many years ago the idea of a man standing on the moon would have been seen as hypothetical if not ludicrous also.


Now at this point I have to say I dont believe in God, but I do believe that there is something out there more powerful than we can possibly imagine, and that power resides in all of us, and rears its head every single day of our lives.

Its called choice!

I firmly believe that there are two two forces that live within us all, the spirit of Good, and the Spirit of Evil (I use the term spirit for want of a better one) and we have the Power to choose between those forces in our everyday lives - how many times have you considered doing something bad, but have reconsidered and gone the other way? I'm not talking about murdering a neighbour, but something far more trivial like stepping on a spider - or dropping a friend in the shit rather than standing up and being honest.
All these things, from the trivial to the serious could be deemed as bad, or even evil and we are forced to do battle within ourselves with an ever changing outcome, as nobody can be good all the time.

Now what if those feelings that live inside us ARE manifestations of two overall powerful entities, little snippets of the whole if you will, then its possible that a universal battle is being fought within us all, and when the God botherers hear what they think is the voice of God in their heads, it is purely the voice of their own sense of choice coming out and picking a side in the battle, but what is curious is how even that choice, can become tangled and slip to the other side if you will, when that overpowering sense of self righteousness takes good intentions, and turns them bad.

God botherers would say its the Devil temping us, but the Devil is nothing more than Evil with a D, in the same way that God is Good with a single O missing. Men and women have been aware of the battle within them for thousnds of years, but as with all things, they have to give it a name, give it a purpose and try and justify their own, and other peoples actions by the use of words.

I dare say when the religious books were written, the people writing them firmly believed what they penned, or hoped that what they penned would be enough to persuade people to change their way of life, denounce the evil feelings inside them, and live happy and peaceful lives, but what they didnt realise is that they would start a war that would transcend common sense, and cause more problems and loss of life across the earth than they could possibly imagine.

I think I'll let god's story speak for itself....

So, on the first day god created light and then separated light and darkness.

But wait.....

The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created til the fourth day.

So what did he do on the first day.. create a lightbulb?

So....Trees were created before man was created. Sounds fair enough.... ahhh, hold on.....

So, now man was created before trees. Makes the chicken and egg question look easy!

There are also contradicting sections which state that birds were created before men, men were created before birds, animals were created before man and man was created before animals... go figure!

I really like this next bit.....

(Bolding mine!) Man and Woman was created at the same time. Hey, God was an equal rights creator!.... Or was he....

Guess he changed his mind then.

Hooray, god is pleased with all his hard work!

uh oh....

Surely, if god knows all - he saw this coming? Omniscience and all that....

So, apart from god not wanting his new toy to be able to differentiate between good and evil, he's going to kill them if they try.... okay....... but, hang on..
930 years... that's one hell of a timespan for someone who was told they were gonna die for eating from the tree of good and evil...... I guess god was too busy that day huh?

so, what... knowledge is bad?

Looks to me like the serpent was telling the truth but god was lying..... odd that......


That's just using Genesis as an example (there are many more but it'd run this post on for years!)... but to sum up, no, I really don't think god's story holds up... that or he's a paranoid schizophrenic

And whats curious there is how the king james version also differs from other versions, it leads me to wonder just how bastardised the bible and other religious books have become over the years to suit mans own purposes....


Its very easy to have faith in something, but to set your stall by a book thats been knocking about for thousands of years, with no proof the words within said book are even the same words as in the original copy is pushing your trust a little too far IMO.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"And so it came to pass in the time of the weasel, that man did succumb to the beasts of the forest, and all did give thanks to the mighty squirrel, and the badger did lead man unto a new era of peace and love"

"But then came the time of the salmon, when the great fishes of evil came down from the river of doom and poisoned the waters of the forest. First fell the squirrels, for they ran out of nuts, then fell the wise old badger as he drowned one day while doing his washing, and then fell man, who trod the path of evil into the waters, tripped over and banged his head after which he renounced the teachings of the forest to follow the wickedness of the fishes"
-----------------------------------------------------------

Give it a few years and possibly a nuclear war, that could become part of the next bible, who knows

What annoys me is the continuance of the "thou" crap. All of the modern editions are written in the old style and it's irritating.

Azhria, examining the chief witnesses for consistent stories - and not finding consistency - was my point. I've seen science vs religion debates and they soon get old, it's interesting to hoist religion by its own petard. I must find out what a petard is.

To really and sincerely "believe" (which itself irritates me since, if we were created with brains and enquiring minds by a perfect god) we seem to be facing a god who is impetuous, egotistical, vindictive, unpredictable, yet loving, good, and who has a plan. It leaves us having to make a choice between various contradictory views of god (or of course none), and causes me to draw the conclusions I did earlier - that we should indeed use our judgment and not simply follow dogma. This, of course, assuming we wish to have a god.

And a small point, but I suggest from the evidence you cite that god is not just a paranoid schizophrenic but bisexual..

If the serpent was telling the truth and god wasn't, I am unsurprised. I read somewhere that in some belief systems the serpent symbolises wisdom.

Warlock, I agree with the view that god and the devil are personifications of good and evil. Going a step further, even good and evil are not black and white (this is turning into a Sarah Lee layer-upon-layer concept!) but variable across cultures and according to circumstances. Maybe we all have a bit of god within us, or maybe god is merely bits of us.

An old friend of mine who has involved himself in a fairly responsible investigation of UFO events, near death experiences and a host of other oddities which may be aspects of similar processes put an interesting story to me once. His interest was more psychological and sociological than an interest in "finding aliens".

Not sure if it's his own model or if he found it somewhere, but the theory is that the human brain, which has been seen as differentiated into a creative right brain and a logical left, originally had less substantial "connection" between the two sides.

In a more tribal era imaginative concepts from the right brain which reached the left seemed to that logical and practical side to have come from "outside". In biblical and classical times the connections became a bit more substantial but the "other half" was still interpreted as another set of entities; hence, messages in the head from spirits and gods.

I am not terribly comfortable with that model. I think possibly that, before anyone developed understandings of the mind, odd concepts with no obvious train of causality and coincidental thoughts interpreted after the event as prophetic were rationalised as messages from somewhere outside, nothing more. Smart control freaks exploited the belief and formalised it into religions which justified their control.

Hangman - don't complain too much about the "thou" crap, for a long time it was worse - it was all Latin! Jargon is used to mystify and to divide the "in-group" from the masses and Latin is effective in that role. Works fine in mystifying the legal process.

Yep, God's family seems to be pretty damned dysfunctional, starting at the top. Hmm. Maybe we need something like "Relig-Anon" ("RA" for short), where the first step is taking back one's power from the Higher Power.

Speaking for myself, I don't believe in a "personal" god, or a god that is a creature with anthropomorphic physical and emotional characteristics. IMO any such god is a projection created by humans, based on our fears, desires, psychological complexes, etc. The traditional Judaeo-Christian God sounds a bit like Santa Claus -- probably not a coincidence -- watching my every move and keeping tabs on what's going on in my mind. (I always thought that whole Santa thing was kind of spooky.) I do consider myself as having a spiritual life, but it has nothing to do with either theism or atheism.

I don't know how one would prove or disprove the existence of "god/God", since we (meaning mankind, not IaBT-ers) can't agree on what it/he/she is. I don't have a great need to use science to prove the validity of my spiritual beliefs, because science and spirituality are two separate kinds of belief systems. Although I will point out that the things that quantum physics are discovering do, in fact, mirror what both Eastern and Western mystics have said for aeons.

The snake or serpent has been a symbol of power and knowledge in many cultures, ancient and modern. In the Hindu and yoga traditions, it's known as "kundalini", the creative "fire" or energy connected with the life force.


Yes, that's essentially the basis of my own spiritual belief system.

"Set a new course. There's coffee in that nebula." -- Capt. Janeway, Star Trek: Voyager