eh?

I'm no expert in archaeology or paelentology, but are you suggesting here that dinosaurs and humans co-existed on the earth, and dinosurs were wiped out in Noah's flood?

(BTW, Matt, despite our obvious differences in opinion I think you're doing bloody well trying to keep your end up here!)

Goodness is what you do. Not who you pray to.

Mattwebb, may i ask two things.

Firstly, what 'evil' did you read in the Koran?

Secondly did you read it in Arabic (im guessing not) or the translation, which similar to the bible, struggles to actually translate it all correctly?

apparently there is a new theory about this whole "how the world started" etc. They are saying that God made the Big Bang, thoughts anyone.

As i am an athiest, it is not up to me to prove the non-existence of God by for believers to prove his existence, which Matt is trying to do, and fair play to him.

Please remember that this is just my point of view, and no offence is meant.

However, if the Matt is unable to make a persuasive argument as to the existence of God (which i believe he cannot) then my beliefs in athiesm are justified.

I believe that i am a strong athiest, and therefore i have certain issues with the existence of God.

I cannot believe that an omniscient, onmipotent, and benevolent God can be in existence as our world is so full of evil and suffering.

If he is omniscient, then he KNOWS how to stop it, if he omnipotent then he is ABLE to stop it,
and if he is benevolent then he WANTS to stop it. So then, why does he do none of these things? Because he does not exist....

2. I have a problem with the doctrine of divine omnipotence, that God is all powerful, mainly because it is absurd, illogical, and impossible that any being can be Omnipotent. Therefore, God does not exist.

3. I also have a problem with omniscience, (God is all knowing), because God cannot possibly know everything, as this is illogical, and also inconsistent with Divine Impeccability the theory that God cannot sin), and is proved false by the existence of human freedom. Therefore, no God!

4. Divine justice is another area to look at. This conflicts with the idea that God is forgiveing. A just got sees that each person gets their just desserts, when a forgiving God sees that some peoples sins go unpunished.

Heaven and hell are unjust, if your sent to hell for one sin, how can it be justified that you stay there infinitly?

Surely punishment and reward should be proportionate to the goods and bads done by people, but the concept of heaven and hell means that its all or nothing.

5. The argument from autonomy is the argument that the existence of morally autonomous agents is inconsistent with the existence of God, and so that the fact that morally autonomous agents do exist disproves the existence of God. God, if he exists, is worthy of worship. If a being is truly worthy of worship, though, then he is entitled to our unconditional obedience. Moral agents, however, cannot be required to give unconditional obedience to any agent. Moral agency requires autonomy, and so the idea of a moral duty to give up one's autonomy is incoherent; in giving up one's autonomy one would cease to be a moral agent so would cease to have moral duties at all. We cannot, therefore, have a duty of unconditional obedience to any agent, and there therefore cannot be any agent that worthy of worship. There can therefore be no God.

Therefore, I can never agree with Matt, but well done for putting your opinions across.

Boys are Studpid, Throw Rocks at Them........

i think interpretation is everything in these situations. every little tiny sentance can be twisted and interpreted to mean anything that the reader wants it to

Boys are Studpid, Throw Rocks at Them........