crash0

my experience - don't go too much logical with them... they just don't get it BAD EXAMPLE: atheist: god is absolutely righteous, right? prehistoric man: yes atheist: by being absolutely righteous, he is being absolutely objecitve, right? prehistoric man: yes atheist: god *wanted* to create the universe, right? prehistoric man: yes atheist: then in that moment, he acted subjectively, right? prehistoric man: yes atheist: so god is not absolutely objective, and thus not absolutely righteous, which makes him only partialy righteous? prehistoric man: no, you see, it's all written in the bible... once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away... zZzZ... ps: I was raised as a catholic so it took some time until I concluded that the existence of god makes things much more complicated than the nonexistence of god. And as we can see, nature has a habit of making things less complicated when possible, so it seems natural to me that god therefore doesn't exist.

Hi, Just had an idea about disproving a default god figure. premise 1: god is perfect premise 2: god created man premise 3: man is imperfect question 1: if a perfect god created an imperfect man, why does man have to constantly apologize to god about his sins, although it's not actually man's fault that he's imperfect? question 2: if it's not man's fault that he's imperfect, then it's god's fault, but how can it be god's fault if he's perfect? conclusion 1: god is contradictory to himself *OR* conclusion 2: one of the premises are wrong. but which one? that god is perfect, that god created man, or that man is imperfect? either way, religion is wrong, because this means that either: 1. god isn't perfect 2. god didn't create man 3. man is perfect now, you could debate about the meaning of "perfect", but I used it here in a religious "sin"-thing sense