Hitch is dead

He is not all-powerful enough to make us perfect.(without fundamentally changing our freedom and destiny) Some believe that He expects us to use the grace He gives us to become kinder, gentler, more altruistic individuals toward each other. Personally I have no doubts about His power. I have questions but no doubts about His intentions. And I fully understand why He allowed people the very right to disbelieve and even mock Him.Humans seem to be advancing towards the idea that we and only we are responsible for the future of humanity and human progress. We still have the ability to believe in Him were we to think it would help us in any way. That jury has not reached a conclusive decision. Edited by Phat, : added point

Really well put. I agree with all of that. Could that be considered scientism of the gaps? However, wouldn't that be a discovery in the same vein as evolution. Evolution gave us a framework to understand how life evolved. However, just because we found out how life evolved it did not answer the question of the agency involved. Was the agency other natural processes or was there an intelligent agent? Scientists can observe the process happen naturally. It doesn't rule out at all the possibility that the natural process was set in motion and then left alone or even if there was intervention(s) at some point(s) in time. On that issue I'm agnostic. I am simply saying that if we understand what happened at T=0 it still will not rule out an intelligent agency. Largely correct except that when you talk about a god pulling on all of those strings it sounds like you are suggesting that God physically intervenes pretty much constantly. Yes I believe that God has intervened directly but I suggest that His intervention is mostly indirect, and being done by creating a world that understands good and evil and a consciousness that understands that we should override the evil and choose the good. Once again understanding that stuff is well above my pay grade but again it is the process that you are describing not necessarily the agency. This is where we come apart. I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, that your belief is that the processes themselves are the agency where as I believe that the processes are the result of an intelligent agency. All true. However when I look at it I marvel at how a creative intelligence has made us co-creators of life.

But according to your book he is! He creates heaven where all is apparently perfect, why does he need this messy stuff? That'll be because we're sick of waiting for some supernatural being to tidy up the mess he made here.

If you like. It just means it's at the edge of our current knowledge. You've assumed an agency. Science doesn't assume agency; it concerns itself with evidence. 'Mostly'. What does that mean? As for the rest, it's just fanciful religious invention. It's not a bloody belief! Stop doing that! It's just factual, observational science. There are processes all the way down. None require external interference.There is no point in any of the processes that require external intervention, they all follow naturally one to the next. Can you show us anything that requires it? Marvel away. But please point to any part of the process from conception to birth that requires supernatural intervention. All those zillions of processes - where is the intervention?

If He made us perfect from day one, we would have had no free will nor no development and choice to achieve what He ordained for us
Protecting us and making us sanctified would have defeated the whole purpose of our existence.
The "messy stuff" as you put it was necessary to give us a resistance to fight against. You will say He blew it by causing many deaths and suffering along the way, but I doubt you would even listen to His explanation of why it had to be that way. You would simply set up the straw god and then indict him according to human logic and justice.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

And yet you would have no problem with the "winner of a giant cosmic lottery" explanation. You would place more faith and likelihood on a random chance than on an intelligent designer. As for the supernatural part, you would never believe anything that you had never seen.

Maybe we mean different things by agency. In terms of natural causes I can use this example. A tsunami occurs. I would understand that the agency was an earthquake. However I may be extending the meaning of the term beyond what is intended. I probably should simply use supernatural cause or natural cause. I agree that in the vast majority of cases stuff happens naturally, however I personally believe that God does intervene with the major example being the resurrection. We don’t know. I contend that life required external intervention and as part of that consciousness, sentience, and morality. I know you have theories of how these evolved naturally which may or may not be accurate, but even if they are we have no way of knowing whether or not there was a intelligent cause and or intervention(s) that occurred. I know you disagree but IMHO the natural process itself required supernatural intervention in order to exist.

Is there free will in heaven? What is the purpose of our existence? Who was it that gave us human logic and justice? Would who ever did it expect us not to use it?

There is evidence for random chance as well as many other actions within evolution but there is zero evidence of any intelligent design or designer and overwhelming evidence that there is no plan or goal.Sorry but GDR and many others are simply using the Gods they create as an answer to the questions that they want to hear.It's fine to believe that there is a GOD that is the creator of all, seen and unseen but to pretend there is any external purpose or rhyme or reason to all that is seen and unseen is just hubris.

You keep dodging. In the example I gave of conception to birth there are literally billions of processes that occur naturally. In embryology we can see each developmental stage. You can't point to a single one that requires anything supernatural.If you want to say that god created the the circumstances where those processes developed naturally, we say that is simply a god of the gaps argument. But in that case it's a deist belief, not a theistic one anyway. Unless you can find a place for intervention, you do not have an interventionist god.

Fine. I’m not saying that natural processes don’t exist. My point was that the process itself has a supernatural cause. I agree that I can’t objectively know that. No it’s not. It is an answer as to why something exists, which is not a question of science. It is a philosophical and/or theological issue. I agree, that is as far as that takes us. As a Christian I see it in the resurrection, and then again back to that still small voice.

Right, we can't go any further than that without solving the something from nothing problem. Just be aware that that gap in our knowledge may also be filled, possibly within our lifetimes. Sadly though neither of us will understand it. I'm afraid it is. You filled the gap in our knowledge about how the universe came into existence by inserting an uncaused cause. That's not an explanation it's a linguistic trick. Which is merely mythology. Which we know is a naturally developed brain function.

No it isn't. It is not a gap in scientific knowledge. It is an explanation as to why the science is as it is. Part of the problem is that our minds can only comprehend time as we experience it in one direction. Ultimately there has to be a first cause that is uncaused. It might be mindless or intelligent. We've been around that one before. Yes, it is a belief for which there is historical evidence. ..which does not preclude the idea that there is also that still small voice.Off to bed.

I believe so. There most certainly was a war in Heaven where Lucifer and 1/3 of the angelic hosts got booted out. (According to some popular mythos) so I'm assuming that we too would have it. On the other hand, once someone decides to get on a bus or a plane, they don't simply get to stop it and get off mid-trip. Very few people change their minds. The freedom of free will in Heaven is to desire to be there and/or remain. Where else would one wish to go? Or do you mean to assume that you can make independent decisions in Heaven? Good question, that. According to the last bit of Ecclesiastes, the following statement is made: Of course since you have judged God as evil already, you may have difficulty with a Heavenly abode. Thankfully your brain has adopted an alternative explanation of reality. So I have a question for you:
Would a good and fair God allow you the option of opting out? Can you imagine any reason that He wouldn't, assuming that He is good and fair? Also a good question. Assuming that someOne did give it to us, an additional question might be *how* did He expect that we would use it?

And yet you too write your chosen belief. You claim the God you believe in to be unknowable, and you claim no way of knowing different until after you die. (If even then) There has to be some reason that you reject the interactive God of popular mythos and belief. You are, of course attempting to use logic and evidence and avoid fantasy. My point is that you essentially have no such thing as leaps of faith.Another part of your belief that differs from popular mythos is that you claim God if God exists as being *complete* rather than "Good". Essentially you have given God the responsibility to represent both good and evil. Sort of like the concept of Fatalism. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.