Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[Trent Wray]

If this "God of the Bible" was able to demonstrate to me such powers as creating a global cataclysms, stopping the sun in the sky, resurrecting dead people and reading my mind, I think* that I would get the point ('do as I say Or Else') and not be too worried about whether or not it was the "apex entity".

It wouldn't matter to me if this God was less than omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent etc., or even if He was just a very powerful Alien. If He could convince me that He was able to do all the things attributed to Him in The Bible, then I would be treating Him with great deal of respect.

OTOH, if 'God' is indistinguishable from a mindless universe which obeys natural laws, then He might as well not exist. Because if this is true then we can gain all the enlightenment we need through science, and all religious faiths are bogus.



*or I might just become convinced that it's a very realistic lucid dream, and end up killing myself trying to wake up!

Okay ... I'm ASSUMING something here, to clear up confusion ... that this mindset applies to you:

* the God of the bible is a tyrant
* the God of the bible is cruel and evil
* the God of the bible is irrational

etc and so forth.

So, ASSUMING you are one of these people .... here is what I don't understand about what you just said above

Why would sufficient evidence of the existence of the God of the bible (i.e. he showed up and performed miracles, etc) be enough to suddenly cause you to respect him, whilst disrespecting him "behind his back" as it were?

Do you merely bow down to the most powerful figure and not still exercise free thought?

As I said, I am assuming you are one of those "about face" people, but if you are not .... then I am addressing those who might hold this stance. "God sucks, but if he's real, then hell yeah I'll worship him so as to not be turned into toast" or something along those lines.

 

[dlorde]

Would it be right of him to speculate in his own mind that you must not be a good owner, because you put him in pain that one time? Perhaps from his perspective it is. But from the perspective of society and the doctor, you were a great owner for taking good care of him. Because you love him so much, that you are willing to spend a lot of money to see his continued health and happiness for the rest of his short life.

Are you suggesting that the suffering and loss of life in the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, for example, can be understood in terms of a loving creator doing what's best for us? I don't see much prospect for health and happiness in what's happening to those people...

 

[Mister Agenda]

ok. But that wasn't even my point first off.

I was merely pointing out the flaw in making such a claim. That doesn't mean I have made the same flawed argument.

How do you know everyone's memories and the internet weren't re-written five minutes ago so we all think you didn't make the same argument, but really, you did?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Yeah, and you don;t see how that can be contradictory? In one sense, you want to be all in wonder about the universe, and not give God*** any credit. But in the very next breath, you want to lay the blame for suffering on a God that you are trying to convince someone doesn't exist.

What I don't see is how people who wouldn't hesitate to praise artwork they thought was done by a child and think it's not so hot if they were told it was done by the greatest artist in the world thinks it somehow contradictory to apply similar thinking when the topic is God's work.

Listen, I respect your opinion that God does not exist. I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I know it can be quite offensive if I tried.

I respect your right to your opinion and am sympathetic to the reasons you hold it.

But at the same time, I find it a little funny that atheists, who generally makes the claim that they are open-minded enough not to make wild conclusions, are the very same people who deny the existence of God. Or some derivative thereof.

Most atheists don't deny the existence of God. We just haven't been convinced by what we've heard so far. It probably wouldn't take 'I am real' spelled out in galaxies to convince most of us. For some reason, if there is a God, it has not chosen yet to inspire its followers to make make a case for it's existence that doesn't rest on a fallacy, a bare assertion, or hearsay.

*** Note: I use the word "God" to mean some sort of omniscient supernatural being. You may substitute "God," "god," "ID," or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" everytime I use the word "God." I just have personal faith in the Christian God of the Bible, and that not everything is necessarily literally true. Like 7 days is not 7 literal days.

No problem.

Ok. I see your point. Thanks for making it clearer.

You're very welcome.

In that case, it still doesn't mean it can't be a part of God's master plan, whatever it may be. Let's say, for a minute, that God does exists, and it is a fact, and that he is as omniscient and omnipotent as the religious folks claim he is.

I agree, the reason we find the evidence we do is conceivably because it is part of an omnipotent God's plan. I'm just saying the evidence doesn't require an omnipotent God to explain it.

Does that mean you should be able to comprehend why there is suffering in the world? That it is a legitimate argument to make? God's mind is so far above and beyond our own, that it will be impossible for anyone to ever understand Him, and what He does.

I'm not claiming anything about an unknowable God. I'm making an observation that has implications for some of the versions that some people claim they do know something about. You're employing a double standard here: theists get to argue that the universe and life are evidence of a specific God's handiwork and claim that it is congruent with a specific God's work, and when I respond, suddenly that specific God is so unknowable it doesn't make sense to try to try to fathom what it does.

Take this example:

Let's say you have a dog who loves to go on car rides and stick his head out the window. Let's say that on one particular occasion, you need to take the dog to the vet to have....I dunno....some kind of wicked shot that will keep the animal healthy.

The dog does understand why you are hopping in the car. He doesn't understand what you are doing, and he may not understand that he is even traveling somewhere. What he does understand, is the moment of pure glory of having the wind in his face, and how great it feels.

But then the car stops, and you enter into a building with your dog. You place your dog up on the table to receive the shot. The dog just feels an excruciating pain in his backside, yelps, and tries to run away. The dog has no idea WHY you placed him in a position to be hurt. He'll never understand what that pain was, what it was for. The dog's mind is so far inferior to your own, and the doctor's, that he will never understand why that pain was necessary, and may even be angry with you for putting him through that. He doesn't know it was actually good for him. Would it be right of him to speculate in his own mind that you must not be a good owner, because you put him in pain that one time? Perhaps from his perspective it is. But from the perspective of society and the doctor, you were a great owner for taking good care of him. Because you love him so much, that you are willing to spend a lot of money to see his continued health and happiness for the rest of his short life.

As a human being, there are limits to how I can ensure my dog's health. If I were omnipotent I could do so effortlessly without causing my dog any distress. So your example is fundamentally a different case than the situation I'm talking about.

Why don't you give up on your God being so omnimax? A very powerful and wise God who created the universe and wants the best for us, but isn't in control of everything that happens and doesn't know everything is neither internally inconsistent or at odds with what we observe of the universe. Why do you cling to a concept of God that is so problematical?

Maybe the ancient Hebrews did have dealings with the creator of the universe, and were properly frightened, and erred on the side of flattery when describing Yahweh.

I think that a less fantastical God who doesn't torment nonbelievers eternally in the afterlife may eventually supplant the current typical Christian conception of God eventually...and then we'll have much less to argue about.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Okay ... I'm ASSUMING something here, to clear up confusion ... that this mindset applies to you:

* the God of the bible is a tyrant
* the God of the bible is cruel and evil
* the God of the bible is irrational

etc and so forth.

So, ASSUMING you are one of these people .... here is what I don't understand about what you just said above

Why would sufficient evidence of the existence of the God of the bible (i.e. he showed up and performed miracles, etc) be enough to suddenly cause you to respect him, whilst disrespecting him "behind his back" as it were?

Do you merely bow down to the most powerful figure and not still exercise free thought?

As I said, I am assuming you are one of those "about face" people, but if you are not .... then I am addressing those who might hold this stance. "God sucks, but if he's real, then hell yeah I'll worship him so as to not be turned into toast" or something along those lines.

Hold your hand in an open flame for one minute and get back to me on your contempt for people who show respect for irrational, cruel and evil tyrants who have power beyond death over them. If I thought the God described in the Bible was real, I'd kiss his ass in a heartbeat to avoid his wrath and I'd be another Fred Phelps to my children if I thought the alternative was letting them burn. It's one thing to give your life to defeat a tyrant, it's another thing to go to the torture chamber knowing it won't change a damn thing...and that the tyrant has a record of going after your family, too.

Are you one of those 'about face' people who is all respectful to someone holding a gun to your head, and then talks about what a bastard that person is when you think you are safe? If not, why not?

 

[Mister Agenda]

If the God of the Bible, for example, appeared to all of us instantaneously ... and said, "all the stories are true, here are some miracles to prove it to you all finally .... you just needed to trust me, and that's that ... I am God, the only God, there are no others, I am your Lord," etc and so forth .... how could we know this for 100% certainty? How could we ever know, intellectually, that this being was an "apex entity" of which no other entity could claim "god"? Just because the entity is more powerful than us, or capable of transcending certain physical laws we cannot, doesn't mean they are "god".

There would be no way to know the being presenting itself is actually the God of the Bible, but it would be much stronger evidence than we have now.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, and you don;t see how that can be contradictory? In one sense, you want to be all in wonder about the universe, and not give God*** any credit. But in the very next breath, you want to lay the blame for suffering on a God that you are trying to convince someone doesn't exist.

Listen, I respect your opinion that God does not exist. I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I know it can be quite offensive if I tried.

But at the same time, I find it a little funny that atheists, who generally makes the claim that they are open-minded enough not to make wild conclusions, are the very same people who deny the existence of God. Or some derivative thereof.

*** Note: I use the word "God" to mean some sort of omniscient supernatural being. You may substitute "God," "god," "ID," or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" everytime I use the word "God." I just have personal faith in the Christian God of the Bible, and that not everything is necessarily literally true. Like 7 days is not 7 literal days.



Ok. I see your point. Thanks for making it clearer.

In that case, it still doesn't mean it can't be a part of God's master plan, whatever it may be. Let's say, for a minute, that God does exists, and it is a fact, and that he is as omniscient and omnipotent as the religious folks claim he is.

Does that mean you should be able to comprehend why there is suffering in the world? That it is a legitimate argument to make? God's mind is so far above and beyond our own, that it will be impossible for anyone to ever understand Him, and what He does.
Take this example:

Let's say you have a dog who loves to go on car rides and stick his head out the window. Let's say that on one particular occasion, you need to take the dog to the vet to have....I dunno....some kind of wicked shot that will keep the animal healthy.

The dog does understand why you are hopping in the car. He doesn't understand what you are doing, and he may not understand that he is even traveling somewhere. What he does understand, is the moment of pure glory of having the wind in his face, and how great it feels.

But then the car stops, and you enter into a building with your dog. You place your dog up on the table to receive the shot. The dog just feels an excruciating pain in his backside, yelps, and tries to run away. The dog has no idea WHY you placed him in a position to be hurt. He'll never understand what that pain was, what it was for. The dog's mind is so far inferior to your own, and the doctor's, that he will never understand why that pain was necessary, and may even be angry with you for putting him through that. He doesn't know it was actually good for him. Would it be right of him to speculate in his own mind that you must not be a good owner, because you put him in pain that one time? Perhaps from his perspective it is. But from the perspective of society and the doctor, you were a great owner for taking good care of him. Because you love him so much, that you are willing to spend a lot of money to see his continued health and happiness for the rest of his short life.

Just another GWIMW argument.

How no one can understand god and what he does then you attempt to do that very thing.

 

[Nihilianth]

Are you suggesting that the suffering and loss of life in the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, for example, can be understood in terms of a loving creator doing what's best for us? I don't see much prospect for health and happiness in what's happening to those people...

And that is the reason why you and I are just "dogs" compared to God, but even lower. So much lower. We are lower than the lowest little atom compared to the whole human mind. Far lower.

You don;t have to see it that way, and I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am merely showing how/why atheists can look just as foolish with their absolute denial of the possibility of a creator, as religious folks are about their absolute denial of scientific facts that have been painstakingly gathered over many decades/centuries.

I just find it a bit foolish to mock something, just because you don't believe that something is real or true.

I do not think you are necessarily foolish with what you believe or don't believe. I think you are foolish if you were to mock someone for their belief or non-belief in something.

 

[Nihilianth]

How do you know everyone's memories and the internet weren't re-written five minutes ago so we all think you didn't make the same argument, but really, you did?

And that bit of philosophy really doesn't pertain to what I said at all.

 

[dlorde]

And that is the reason why you and I are just "dogs" compared to God, but even lower. So much lower. We are lower than the lowest little atom compared to the whole human mind. Far lower.

So now you know the mind of God?

I just find it a bit foolish to mock something, just because you don't believe that something is real or true.

I do not think you are necessarily foolish with what you believe or don't believe. I think you are foolish if you were to mock someone for their belief or non-belief in something.

I don't personally recall doing any mocking in this thread, but in general, I agree it is foolish and counterproductive to mock ignorance and stupidity. However, a reasonably held belief is hard to mock, and withstands mockery by reason of its rational foundation. This is rarely (if ever) the case with religious beliefs, which makes them tempting targets, and prone to mockery - and despite assertions of the unshakable strength of their beliefs, it's surprising how many behave as if their beliefs are threatened by it.

 

[Trent Wray]

Hold your hand in an open flame for one minute and get back to me on your contempt for people who show respect for irrational, cruel and evil tyrants who have power beyond death over them. If I thought the God described in the Bible was real, I'd kiss his ass in a heartbeat to avoid his wrath and I'd be another Fred Phelps to my children if I thought the alternative was letting them burn. It's one thing to give your life to defeat a tyrant, it's another thing to go to the torture chamber knowing it won't change a damn thing...and that the tyrant has a record of going after your family, too.

But this is exactly what some of those who have "faith" are basically hinging their faith on ... that they are correct about holding out in faith in the face of logic and evidence, and upon death, a mystical being will do just this if they DONT go all Fred Phelps on everyone right now.

By stating the above, you are essentially just one hair different from the believer. You are both standing at a roulette table. One bets black, the other red. This is partially my point .... two sides of the same coin. A coin which is determining the atheist stance, and the theist stance, when arguably the coin doesn't exist in the first place.

I suppose an agnostic would bet green lol

Are you one of those 'about face' people who is all respectful to someone holding a gun to your head, and then talks about what a bastard that person is when you think you are safe? If not, why not?

Actually no. I've been in this scenario before, and I've been defiant, even with words. Unfortunately, I've done it at the risk of others as well .... which I later regretted. When it came to my own life, I wasn't concerned (because I'm not afraid to die). But putting others at risk was different and in retrospect I caused others to fear even more for their lives, and unnecessarily so.

I've never been tortured, but I've been threatened with some fairly horrific things, a few of which were attempted on me ... so I can't say that I wouldn't finally give in under torture (as I'm not afraid to die, but I don't seek out suffering and I might cave at some point lol). Thus far, I've not been the type of person who says one thing behind someones back, but kisses their butt with a gun to my face or the threat of pain. HOWEVER .... if I find someone to be an irrational boss, or a dehumanizing employee I have to work with, for example ... and I've tried talking to them but to no effect, I will pick my battles and moments. I will talk about them behind their back, but give them a sort of "pass" to their face. I suppose it's because, like I said ... I view them as a sort of cowardly bully whom I have to pick my battle with. I won't try to squeeze them unless they are clearly doing it to me, and even then I will pick my moments where I think I'll be the most effective. But I will appear two faced with someone like that, to a degree.

Now, a God who would threaten my family and loved ones if I didn't bow down .... hmm ..... if there were NO other options, and absolutely NO way I could avoid death and suffering for them ... I mean, none at all .... I'm sure I would bow down. But then again, I'm not completely sure I would. I might just be that selfish and myopic. If there was no hope for escape, or safety, or some hero coming in to save the day. But if there was, I would most likely be defiant, hoping that my children wouldn't have to suffer and that my hope became a reality. I imagine this is similar to what the Jews experienced when forced with the same choices by the Nazis, something I cannot imagine going through.

 

[tsig]

So now you know the mind of God?


.

Odd isn't it? They tell you god is beyond understanding to escape a hard question, then in the next breath start telling you their understanding of god never noticing the contradiction.

 

[Mister Agenda]

And that bit of philosophy really doesn't pertain to what I said at all.

That's an incredibly deep double standard. You actually cannot see it is your own logic turned around. When the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly that sort of objection seems nonsensical.

So, I ask again: How do you know that there aren't mammals somewhere in existence that have mouths inside of their stomachs? --Nihilianth

So, I ask again: How do you know that you didn't make the argument and since then the universe has been rearranged to make everyone, including you, think otherwise?

I'm not making a philosophical claim. I'm asking 'how do you know?'

Well, actually, I've derailed a conversation by asking a question that can't possibly advance the discussion, no matter what answer is given. I suppose I shouldn't do that...but the other kids are doing it, so....

 

[Mister Agenda]

But this is exactly what some of those who have "faith" are basically hinging their faith on ... that they are correct about holding out in faith in the face of logic and evidence, and upon death, a mystical being will do just this if they DONT go all Fred Phelps on everyone right now.

By stating the above, you are essentially just one hair different from the believer. You are both standing at a roulette table. One bets black, the other red. This is partially my point .... two sides of the same coin. A coin which is determining the atheist stance, and the theist stance, when arguably the coin doesn't exist in the first place.

I suppose an agnostic would bet green lol

The difference between a skeptical atheist and a believer isn't how they would act when a gun is held to their heads. The difference is how easy it is to get them to believe someone is holding a gun to their heads.

 

[dlorde]

Odd isn't it? They tell you god is beyond understanding to escape a hard question, then in the next breath start telling you their understanding of god never noticing the contradiction.

The mind has amazing capabilities; religious thought takes advantage - Charles Dodgson put it well, using the White Queen - in 'Alice In Wonderland': "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." and about rewards/answers in 'Through The Looking Glass': "The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam to-day." Also in 'The Hunting of the Snark': "What I tell you three times is true."

 

[John Jones]

westprog, just a small correction. Intelligent Design is not just a biological theory. There are ID theories in physics and have been for a long time.

No. Please stop the derail attempt, or I will rat you out to the mods.

 

[John Jones]

But this is exactly what some of those who have "faith" are basically hinging their faith on ... that they are correct about holding out in faith in the face of logic and evidence, and upon death, a mystical being will do just this if they DONT go all Fred Phelps on everyone right now.
[snip!]

You're from Tennessee. The Scopes Monkey trial was in Tennessee. Where do you stand? Hmm?

 

[Trent Wray]

The difference between a skeptical atheist and a believer isn't how they would act when a gun is held to their heads. The difference is how easy it is to get them to believe someone is holding a gun to their heads.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying ...

 

[Trent Wray]

You're from Tennessee. The Scopes Monkey trial was in Tennessee. Where do you stand? Hmm?

Just come right out and say what's on your mind ... don't beat around the bush.

 

[Nihilianth]

What I don't see is how people who wouldn't hesitate to praise artwork they thought was done by a child and think it's not so hot if they were told it was done by the greatest artist in the world thinks it somehow contradictory to apply similar thinking when the topic is God's work.

I see. That makes a lot more sense now that you explained it. Thanks.

I respect your right to your opinion and am sympathetic to the reasons you hold it.

Same to you.

Most atheists don't deny the existence of God. We just haven't been convinced by what we've heard so far. It probably wouldn't take 'I am real' spelled out in galaxies to convince most of us. For some reason, if there is a God, it has not chosen yet to inspire its followers to make make a case for it's existence that doesn't rest on a fallacy, a bare assertion, or hearsay.

IMHO, I don't think God would care a whole lot about human logic or anything. You are correct, however, that if God really wanted to reveal Himself, He most certainly could at any point. I don;t think it would happen before the Second Coming of Christ though.

No problem.



You're very welcome.



I agree, the reason we find the evidence we do is conceivably because it is part of an omnipotent God's plan. I'm just saying the evidence doesn't require an omnipotent God to explain it.

So, your saying there could be a difference between the evidence we find in science IRT God, and the possibility of the actual existence of God? I can accept this as well.

I'm not claiming anything about an unknowable God. I'm making an observation that has implications for some of the versions that some people claim they do know something about. You're employing a double standard here: theists get to argue that the universe and life are evidence of a specific God's handiwork and claim that it is congruent with a specific God's work, and when I respond, suddenly that specific God is so unknowable it doesn't make sense to try to try to fathom what it does.

One of the biggest reasons why I am not at all a strict Catholic. (I am not really Catholic any longer, as I have not received Communion in several years.) I made this argument to myself about 7 years ago, when I was 20 or 21 or so. I saw the contradiction in my aunt's "preachiness" to a buddy of mine about how much she claims she knows all about God and the way He works. When my brother would question her, she would just say: "Oh, He works in mysterious ways, and he is completely unknowable."

I brought that problem up to her, and she was all snooty about it, and said "Well! We do have the Bible, after all!" I then told her that if God were so all-knowing and so much higher; above and beyond us; then how can the Bible be anything BUT total laymen's terms?

I sort of had my own internal revelation about the Bible right then and there. I was already working up to the point where I thought the creation story, as an example, was just simply allegorical. I was told by one of the priests at one point, that Jesus has said everything in scripture (the OT) was true. And if Jesus said it was true and you believe in Jesus, then the creation story had to be literal**.

But after telling my aunt that if God were so far above and beyond us mere mortal humans, then the Bible couldn't be anything but laymen's terms; I had an answer to what the priest had told me** just a couple of weeks before hand.

This is what I concluded: Of course the Bible is True, as far as it can possibly be explained in human terms. Kind of like trying to explain gravity to a second grader (if you read the one education thread, you would understand.) But in case you haven't, here's an example:

Back in the days when the OT was first being written, assuming it is a direct revelation from God Himself, how in the world could God possibly explain all the inner-workings of how the Earth was created and the animals, and eventually humans came about? Explain all of this to a people that was barely out of the Stone Age? He couldn't. He would have them so thoroughly confused, much like a second grader would become thoroughly confused if you tried to explain String Theory to him.

So maybe God instead decided to use the allegory of seven days to possibly show the order of which things came about. "In the beginning, there was light. (the Big Bang,") on Day one.

Then he created the sky (the stars, and all the "heavens" as seen from earth) on day two.

On the third day there was dry land, followed up by water. The text mentions dry land before it mentions water. (The earth was formed before being bombarded by comets which filled it with water. Very soon thereafter still on the third day was plants and vegetation. In reality, primitive life began within a billion years of the formation on earth. Pretty much immediately after water started forming.) There is scientific evidence of an "oxygen catastrophe" produced by possible cyanobacteria, which killed off many of the early life forms, caused iron and rocks to oxidize, and possibly caused the earth to become a global iceball.

While all of this was going on, the earth was still being bombarded by comets and asteroids, with volcanoes erupting. On day four in the bible, the sun and stars were created. This was a time of decreased cometary and asteroidal collisions. So the atmosphere began to clear to allow more sunlight and so forth through, and caused the earth to warm up and get out of the "snowball" phase.

Over the next 4 billion years (about 500 million years ago,) the "small shelly fauna" appeared, which quickly and very rapidly began to diversify into more and more complex animals. Within a hundred million years? There were birds and things. This was day five.

Finally, on Day 6, homo sapiens sapiens finally evolved and began to walk the earth.

And at the start of day seven, Christ died on the cross for our sins. At which point, God took a rest to bless his creation and make it holy. This is still Day seven as we speak. Hence, God doesn't get involved with human affairs a whole lot if at all anymore. Since God is "resting," he allows things to shake up mankind.

It is up to us to fill in the clues and blanks of His creation in order to hopefully learn more/something about Him. It isn't up to us to question why he did this that, and the other thing. Which is why science should remain distinguished from religion/philosophy.

As a human being, there are limits to how I can ensure my dog's health. If I were omnipotent I could do so effortlessly without causing my dog any distress. So your example is fundamentally a different case than the situation I'm talking about.

In the grand scheme of things, it is rather silly to try to compare our very limited human knowledge about a dog and his health to God's unlimited omnipotence. But I think you can still do so, in order to best illustrate the point that we are so much lower than God; that there is no way of knowing Him (His plans at least,) or how He does things and why.

The difference between humans and God, is much greater than the smallest, lowest, and homeliness thing in the universe is to a human. Which is why it was a rather "silly" comparison for a human-dog comparison with a God-human comparison. But the point was: to show the love we have for something is great enough to allow us to cause it pain for it's own good, even if the dog has no idea why you did such a thing to him, especially if you love him so much.

What the "good" in the recent disaster in Japan was: God only knows! After all, we are only dogs and have no idea why something which loves us so much causes us so much pain and suffering.

Why don't you give up on your God being so omnimax? A very powerful and wise God who created the universe and wants the best for us, but isn't in control of everything that happens and doesn't know everything is neither internally inconsistent or at odds with what we observe of the universe. Why do you cling to a concept of God that is so problematical?

Maybe the ancient Hebrews did have dealings with the creator of the universe, and were properly frightened, and erred on the side of flattery when describing Yahweh.

I think that a less fantastical God who doesn't torment nonbelievers eternally in the afterlife may eventually supplant the current typical Christian conception of God eventually...and then we'll have much less to argue about.

I hope the illustrations I have provided above this helps with clearing up my personal belief system. Do note, I do not claim to represent anybody else, or any other belief system out there. What I believe specifically is my own philosophy on the matter for the conclusions I have come to between reconciling the Bible and various Christian teachings, with the toughest atheistic questions you guys can conceive. I have honestly done this in my own mind over the course of the past seven years or so. I may be wildly incorrect or look like a complete fool, but alas.

ETA: Made many grammar/spelling mistakes. Cleared up many ambiguous sentences.