Summations Only

Could be. I'll ask you the same question I asked Chuck. You see the putrid gibberish about thermodynamics in point (3)? Well, what do you understand by it? What do you think he's saying, and why do you think he's saying it? Can you restate his thesis in your own words? Do you think he's right when he claims that "a closed system can be defined however the observer wants"?If not, then what do you find to admire in this claim? The fact that he's telling atheists that they're wrong? Is that it? Is that the sole reason you like it, or do you think that it is a meaningful and cogent statement about thermodynamics?

In all fairness - someone that holds both that a person does not exist and that they are also to blame for something...is a fool. If that person happens to be God, then they are a foolish atheist. Exactly as advertised.

Percy, why is this an issue with you? Aren't you a deist?

Holy smokes. Some clarity on the 153rd post.

Huh? Only a theist could accuse God of the i'll of this world as one's who know He exists?On the contrary. We know God is not the one causing the evil in this world.

Wouldn't that be an excellent reason for him to point out that science and atheism are not the same thing? What with him supporting the former but not the latter?

I didn't ever say the earth was a closed system. I would argue that the Universe is a closed system.From what I understand after a time things balance out (like water would cool at room temperature). Since the Sun is still burning Hot it would seem the Universe is not that old. Hence the 2nd lots...

Yes. It is not the case that all theists do so, but it is clearly something that only a theist can do. In order to attribute causal agency to God, it is necessary to believe that he exists. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." --- Isaiah 45:7.

the universe is expanding so technically it isn't a closed system since more and more room is here everyday.

Oh my...are you an atheist Dr Adequate?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

However, the person whom you plagiarized wrote: "a closed system can be defined however the observer wants".Do you agree with this? If not, why did you copy-and-paste something that you don't actually believe? Physicists disagree. But then, they're biased by knowing physics.If you could show us your calculations of how long a star could keep burning, that would be amusing, but you haven't actually made any calculations, have you?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Indeed.Do you believe the Bible?

Do you need a lesson on the lots Dr Adequate?Or should we have a lesson on what plagairism is first?

I do believe the Bible yes. Do you want Scripture to back up that God loves the world and is not responsible for the evil in it?

But as I pointed out earlier

quote:

---

But it would be a sign of a sophisticated debater who can both deny the existence of God while also being able to point out that one of the consequences of the existence of God would be its moral culpability in the creation and perpetuation of evil.

---

And it would be a sign of a foolish theist that gets confused on this point. One should not confuse 'if God exists, then he is morally culpable for evil' with 'God exists and is morally culpable'. And time and again I've seen theists get confused on this issue, even though it appears quite obvious.