What do you guys think about afterlife? Religion VS Science

[Element83]

I like how nobody is acutally talking about the afterlife which is this whole topic but it became another religious debate topic

-I dont believe in the afterlife - No Evidence in a after life

[ARandomDouche]

Does anyone remember what it was like to not to exist? Or what it is like to be a baby before you could start remembering? I don't. So now, if we were alive only to not exist again, why aren't we always in the state where we can't remember the present moment like when were babies?

[spelerthomas]

Does anyone remember what it was like to not to exist? Or what it is like to be a baby before you could start remembering? I don't. So now, if we were alive only to not exist again, why aren't we always in the state where we can't remember the present moment like when were babies?

I do not know if I understand your question? Why can we remember the present moment and not when we were babies? Why can't babies walk or talk fluently? Why do babies need diapers? Why can't baby's be CEO of facebook? Is that your question? Babies need to learn about all sorts of things. Some things happen automatic, like remembering the present moment.

Another question that adds to this one. Why, and how, if we only live and die and never exist afterwards, is a large portion of our memories genetic?

I don't know if this question is easier to explain by following a religion or beïng atheïst. But personally I think the question is easier to answer as being atheïst.

I would like to quote something:

If the Human Brain Were So Simple That We Could Understand It, We Would Be So Simple That We Couldn’t

[spelerthomas]

Does anyone remember what it was like to not to exist? Or what it is like to be a baby before you could start remembering? I don't. So now, if we were alive only to not exist again, why aren't we always in the state where we can't remember the present moment like when were babies?

I do not know if I understand your question? Why can we remember the present moment and not when we were babies? Why can't babies walk or talk fluently? Why do babies need diapers? Why can't baby's be CEO of facebook? Is that your question? Babies need to learn about all sorts of things. Some things happen automatic, like remembering the present moment.

Another question that adds to this one. Why, and how, if we only live and die and never exist afterwards, is a large portion of our memories genetic?

I don't know if this question is easier to explain by following a religion or beïng atheïst. But personally I think the question is easier to answer as being atheïst.

I would like to quote something:

If the Human Brain Were So Simple That We Could Understand It, We Would Be So Simple That We Couldn’t

So you're content in the knowledge that we aren't even capable of understanding our own minds, yet you reject the idea of a creator?

'aren't even' ? Do you have any idea how complex our mind is?
And no, I do not reject the idea of a creator. But what does that have to do with anything?

[GrumpyGoomba]

Let's see... I would like to introduce a new point in this debate, that is the fact that there exist countless galaxies in this universe, and those galaxies in turn contain countless planets that we cannot even hope to count the quantity of in a lifetime. Life exists on earth due to it being at just the correct distance away from the star it is revolving around which, in our case, is sun, and a number of other factors. This condition might be very rare for a planet, and even more rare for the life inhabiting that planet to be sentient such as us, but considering how many planets exist in this universe, even if planets such as ours were to make a 0.000000000001% of the total number of planets, that would still be a huge number of planets we are speaking about. So now, why would there be a god who specifically created us and has made heaven and hell for judging/rewarding us? We are no more significant than a single particle of dust to this god if he would truly have been responsible for creating this universe. So is it not just 'hubris' for us to claim that this being is watching over us and judging us instead of the bazillion other possible lifeforms out there? Even if this being existed as you people claim, however unlikely it might be, it would be much more believable for us to be a mere passing fancy, or even a random experiment to this being, who has long since lost it's interest in us. Also about the matter of the 'eternal punishment' that apparantly awaits sinners in hell, tell me what is the normal lifespan of a human? 80 years? Or 90? Let's say to be fair that our sinner here lived for a 100 years, and he sinned the crap out of his life. Now what about his punishment? An eternity of suffering? What kind of bullshit is that? Do you mean to say that for sinning a hundred years which is a FINITE amount of time, you have to continue paying for it for an infinite amount of time? That seriously makes the judgement of this 'omnipotent' god questionable at best. I have a lot more to say from where I am coming from but I have typed enough for one message.

[James2]

If the probability of intelligent life coming to exist naturally is 0%, then it won't matter how many habitable planets there are. The only intelligent life would be that which God chose to create.

Even if God had created billions of intelligent species, He is omniscient, and would be perfectly capable of caring for each of them.

The basic disposition of a person towards God (either accepting or rejecting Him) remains the same in death. The only difference is that the person can no longer reason discursively, and thus will never change their disposition, as they might on Earth. Thus one who dies rejecting God will continue rejecting Him forever, and thus will deserve to be punished forever. Note that the commission of serious sins implies a rejection of God, if done willfully and with knowledge (or willful ignorance) of the seriousness of the matter, since one who deliberately rejects God's law in a non-trivial matter is by definition choosing to reject Him.

OTOH, light or venial sins, as well as the corruption of the will which remains even after a sin has been repented of, do not constitute a complete rejection of God, but only an obstacle to union with Him. Thus they can be removed in Purgatory, which is of finite duration.

[MarvelsTheFixer]

Linking this as the source https://www.nature.com/articles/328797b0.

The whole suicide point is a bit weird. Surely it doesn't really go well with the evolution theory. Why would humans evolve into beings that are willingly killing themself. Because this represents a level of higher thinking that comes with the adaptation/mutations necessary for survival. An individual now possesses the brain power necessary to do a cost-benefit analysis on a situation in which they have to ponder the idea of life without their significant other. The same with animals or insects that do this. Try to explain monogamous animals refusing to feed after the death of their mate with evolution. Then again, if you study that animal more in-dept you can explain those things somehow, probably.

On the other hand, try to explain the same thing with creationism. Why would god have given humans the need of killing themself, or animals for that matter. That doesn't make any sense either. Then again, whenever these kinds of arguments come up they usually blame the devil.

From what I know about scripture, which admittedly leaves a lot to be desired, God is an odd creator. He wanted his creation to lead lives entirely distinct from his influence, but then when they upset him he unleashes his fury, until a certain point where he simply stops caring altogether. It might not make sense simply because we do not have all of the information surrounding the events. The devil is a common scapegoat, but his biggest sin seems to be nothing more than despising humanity for taking away his father's attention.

[GrumpyGoomba]

How does anybody know god is more moral than satan? If it’s because the bible says so, then that is arbitrary and followers of the bible are basically just listening to god saying “I’m the good one, follow me.” If it’s due to observing actions and judging god’s actions to be better, then can’t we just use those standards to judge our actions, making god unnecessary? Besides, satan hasn't even bothered authoring a book and telling his side of the story.

Also you cannot possibly claim for god to be all knowing and omniscient when he created imperfect creatures and then punishes them for being imperfect. He IS responsible for our creation means he IS responsible for all our actions, that is because he GAVE us the ability to perform them. On one hand people say god gave us free will, but on the other hand he punishes people for not accepting him. WHAT PART OF FREE WILL SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT GOD. Free will means FREE will, meaning we are FREE to not accept god. If god cannot respect the decisions made by humans who were given free will by him, then he has no right to say that he gave them free will in the first place. What kind of sick twisted fuck, pardon the language, punishes something for screwing up AFTER giving it the ability to screw up? Either don't give us free will in the first place or give us free will and leave us the fuck alone. If god were truly good, then people would follow him on there own, and not because of the fear of some bullshit punishment.

Its like somebody doing charity work and then getting mad because nobody is praising him.

[James2]

How does anybody know god is more moral than satan?

God is the source of all that is, consequently there is no morality which pre-exists Him.

That morality can be known by merely natural means does not contradict this, since God is the author of nature.

Also you cannot possibly claim for god to be all knowing and omniscient when he created imperfect creatures and then punishes them for being imperfect.

People are not punished for the state of being imperfect, but rather for their freely chosen wrong actions. It is not possible for a person to be perfect, but any particular sin could still have been avoided.

Free will means FREE will, meaning we are FREE to not accept god.

We are free to reject God in the same way that we are free to stick forks in electrical outlets. That you are free to do something doesn't make it a good idea.

[James2]

If the very face of Jesus is so holy that it would cause a man yo ley at his feet like the dead, who are we to think that we can carelessly stand before him with the stains of sin all over our lives and then think God is unfair for turning us away?

Exactly. It should not be surprising that there are people in Hell. What should be surprising is that there are people in Heaven.

[ARandomDouche]

I know you guys are talking religion and shit, I'm not interested in that but I had something happen to me.

When I was sleeping, I had a dream, of course, dreams are weird so I won't go to all the details. In the end, when I "died" by either decapitation or getting my head smashed in (I don't know which), everything went black. I didn't feel anything anymore, I didn't think or do anything, almost like I didn't exist anymore. Then I woke up. As I said, it's a dream so I haven't thought of it much.

[MarvelsTheFixer]

Besides, satan hasn't even bothered authoring a book and telling his side of the story.

This is painfully accurate. We are never given the opportunity to read Lucifer's account for ourselves. The Bible is very heavy handed and one sided. If the text was not written by Jesus' followers it would be easier to take it more seriously.

[GrumpyGoomba]

How does anybody know god is more moral than satan?

God is the source of all that is, consequently there is no morality which pre-exists Him.

That morality can be known by merely natural means does not contradict this, since God is the author of nature.
Again that is just what you arbitrarily believe, it has not been proven and thus this point does not matter in this debate, unless ofcourse you choose to and successfully prove the statement.

Also you cannot possibly claim for god to be all knowing and omniscient when he created imperfect creatures and then punishes them for being imperfect.

People are not punished for the state of being imperfect, but rather for their freely chosen wrong actions. It is not possible for a person to be perfect, but any particular sin could still have been avoided.
But that does not mean that god has any right to send us to hell for sins that we committed BECAUSE we were given free will. Let's take your adam and eve for example, you don't want them to eat an apple? Then make the god damn apple unreachable to them instead of just making the apple reachable and telling them not to eat it. It's almost as if he WANTED them to eat the apple so that he could throw their asses off of eden.

Free will means FREE will, meaning we are FREE to not accept god.

We are free to reject God in the same way that we are free to stick forks in electrical outlets. That you are free to do something doesn't make it a good idea.
Tell me the last time you decided to stick a fork into an electric outlet and god came down and sent you to hell. Putting a fork into an electric outlet is bad because it hurts us, because the act itself results in an unpleasant experience which is why we consider it bad. You know what god's morality really is?
"Accept me... so that I can save you from what I will do to you if you don't accept me."

Also it is kind of funny how you decided to just ignore that one point about people accepting god on their own if he were really good. Not got an answer for that have you?

The eternity part is because our souls are immortal. God created them to last forever so they will. As far as Hell goes. God isn't some cruel vindictive judge that wants to send someone to Hell. We send ourselves there. He can not allow sin into heaven and there's only one other alternative. And when every one of us stands before God and sees everything the way he does, those of us that are marked by sin will understand why we deserve Hell.

Consider this. John the revealator saw the most horrific things imaginable. He saw Hell and the end of the earth. He saw every evil being there was. But only one thing actually terrified him. The face of Jesus. If the very face of Jesus is so holy that it would cause a man yo ley at his feet like the dead, who are we to think that we can carelessly stand before him with the stains of sin all over our lives and then think God is unfair for turning us away?

Well this was all in the bible I am guessing so this is nothing more that a passage from a storybook to me but it indeed does raise a good few questions. We can carelessly stand before god with 'stains' of sin all over our lives because he GAVE us the ability to commit sins. You really don't want us to commit sins? Then stop us from commiting sins BEFORE we commit them instead of punishing us after we commit them. Doesn't sound very good and kind does it now?
If god were really allpoweful then he should be able to stop us from commiting sins before we commit them right? But I don't see that happenning anywhere. This just further proves that there is nothing such as a god, or atleast an omniscient and all powerful one, but that the idea of god was crafted by people of the old time to keep others from commiting crimes, give them hope after death(without any proof mind you) so that they may keep working instead of just sitting down and waiting for death cuz after that comes anything doesn't matter anyways, and to unite several different people on the basis that they share a common belief.

[GrumpyGoomba]

As for the first sentence, just take the Crucifixion as an example - the foundation of the Christian religion. This is nothing less than a human sacrifice, and purportedly to allow sinners to go free of punishment for their sins. What father would have his own son, a 'good man' by all accounts, brutally tortured and murdered so that 'bad' people could be let of their crimes? If the answer is that god loves us all and wants us to be forgiven why did he not just do that? Why insist on a bloodthirsty Crucifixion first? This nowhere shows our freewill but instead the evil of a tyrannical dictator.

As for the fact of the bible being a collection of 66 books with 40 authors written over 1500 years, I fail to see the relevance of that in saying that the contents of the story to be true. Art and fictions inspire themselves, which is why there were multiple authors to this book. And unlike other books the bible was discussing a very important matter, that of our existance and the basics of our very soceity. So it isn't really surprising that it would be popular and prompt the other authors to right more, but it still doesn't explain how it isn't just a very elaborately created and lengthy fairy tale. I think that the bible says that god created earth in 6 days, and on the seventh day he created humans. This is obviously false since we know that earth exists for around 5 billion years while humans first appeared a mere 65 million years ago. There, your first contradiction.

[James2]

Again that is just what you arbitrarily believe, it has not been proven and thus this point does not matter in this debate, unless ofcourse you choose to and successfully prove the statement.

I thought that you were arguing that God was bad, not that He doesn't exist. Please specify which argument you are making, and do not move the goalposts.

But that does not mean that god has any right to send us to hell for sins that we committed BECAUSE we were given free will. Let's take your adam and eve for example, you don't want them to eat an apple? Then make the god damn apple unreachable to them instead of just making the apple reachable and telling them not to eat it. It's almost as if he WANTED them to eat the apple so that he could throw their asses off of eden.

It wasn't about the apple. It was about whether Adam and Eve would choose to follow God or to disobey Him. The nature of rationality is such that it necessitates the freedom to identify something other than God as the supreme good.

Tell me the last time you decided to stick a fork into an electric outlet and god came down and sent you to hell. Putting a fork into an electric outlet is bad because it hurts us, because the act itself results in an unpleasant experience which is why we consider it bad. You know what god's morality really is?
"Accept me... so that I can save you from what I will do to you if you don't accept me."[/b]

The number of people who stick forks in electrical outlets is smaller than the number of people who reject God because the negative effects which naturally follow from the former are more immediately tangible.

The main suffering in Hell is absolute spiritual desolation, which follows naturally from the damned souls' rejection of God.

Also it is kind of funny how you decided to just ignore that one point about people accepting god on their own if he were really good. Not got an answer for that have you?

Some people do have perfect charity, but the knowledge of Hell serves as an aid to those who do not (who are far more numerous).

[James2]

As for the first sentence, just take the Crucifixion as an example - the foundation of the Christian religion. This is nothing less than a human sacrifice, and purportedly to allow sinners to go free of punishment for their sins. What father would have his own son, a 'good man' by all accounts, brutally tortured and murdered so that 'bad' people could be let of their crimes? If the answer is that god loves us all and wants us to be forgiven why did he not just do that? Why insist on a bloodthirsty Crucifixion first? This nowhere shows our freewill but instead the evil of a tyrannical dictator.

God could have saved humanity without the Crucifixion, but that would have been less in keeping with His Justice.

The Catholic view is different from the Protestant view on this matter. Protestants generally believe in imputed righteousness and penal substitution, whereas Catholics believe in infused righteousness. In other words, God does not simply pardon sins as a juridical matter, rather He actually makes the saved righteous.

Christ's suffering and death won for us the grace to make us righteous. Of course, God could have given that grace by fiat, but is was more fitting for it be merited for us by the God-man.

[James2]

"Do not say: “It was God’s doing that I fell away,” for what he hates he does not do. Do not say: “He himself has led me astray,” for he has no need of the wicked. Abominable wickedness the LORD hates and he does not let it happen to those who fear him. God in the beginning created human beings and made them subject to their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments; loyalty is doing the will of God. Set before you are fire and water; to whatever you choose, stretch out your hand. Before everyone are life and death, whichever they choose will be given them." - Sirach 15:11-17

[deathofrats0808]

As for the first sentence, just take the Crucifixion as an example - the foundation of the Christian religion. This is nothing less than a human sacrifice, and purportedly to allow sinners to go free of punishment for their sins. What father would have his own son, a 'good man' by all accounts, brutally tortured and murdered so that 'bad' people could be let of their crimes? If the answer is that god loves us all and wants us to be forgiven why did he not just do that? Why insist on a bloodthirsty Crucifixion first? This nowhere shows our freewill but instead the evil of a tyrannical dictator.
There can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. This is because of the very nature of sin. Sin is a red stain that is abhorrent in the eues of God. Blood is the life of the flesh, which is also red. Now if someone is covered by blood, it covers sin, why? Because when you take something that is red, and looks at it through a red lens, it appears to be white. As for why he had to give his son. Jesus was the only one who was powerful and pure enough that his sacrifice could last throughout the rest of time.

Wait wait wait. I've been avoiding this thread because it's essentially going to be another pointless debate where everyone tries to futilely convince everyone else that their beliefs are correct. But where on earth do you get the idea that looking at something red through a red lens makes it look white?! It makes it look like a darker shade of red!

[MarvelsTheFixer]

How does anybody know god is more moral than satan?

God is the source of all that is, consequently there is no morality which pre-exists Him.

That morality can be known by merely natural means does not contradict this, since God is the author of nature.
Again that is just what you arbitrarily believe, it has not been proven and thus this point does not matter in this debate, unless ofcourse you choose to and successfully prove the statement. This point is true if you believe in the absolute sanctity of The Bible and, consequently, that it is absolutely authentic and historically accurate. Since this relies on faith, and faith alone, it is impossible to prove anything about it one way or the other, and attempting to do so will bear less fruit than a beartree. It is 2 separate ideologies coming into conflict with each other, and there is no reason why either one of them has to be wrong.

Also you cannot possibly claim for god to be all knowing and omniscient when he created imperfect creatures and then punishes them for being imperfect.

As I understand it, God created Adam and Eve with free will with the expectation that they would act accordingly with his rules and everything he wanted for them. Then he got upset when this was not the case.

[KarlBowers]

How does anybody know god is more moral than satan?

God is the source of all that is, consequently there is no morality which pre-exists Him.

That morality can be known by merely natural means does not contradict this, since God is the author of nature.
Again that is just what you arbitrarily believe, it has not been proven and thus this point does not matter in this debate, unless ofcourse you choose to and successfully prove the statement. This point is true if you believe in the absolute sanctity of The Bible and, consequently, that it is absolutely authentic and historically accurate. Since this relies on faith, and faith alone, it is impossible to prove anything about it one way or the other, and attempting to do so will bear less fruit than a beartree. It is 2 separate ideologies coming into conflict with each other, and there is no reason why either one of them has to be wrong.

Also you cannot possibly claim for god to be all knowing and omniscient when he created imperfect creatures and then punishes them for being imperfect.

As I understand it, God created Adam and Eve with free will with the expectation that they would act accordingly with his rules and everything he wanted for them. Then he got upset when this was not the case. Because Adam and Eve ate the Tree of Knowledge that God said to not eat to.

[GrumpyGoomba]

Whew it had been a hectic week with the exams and all but I am finally free so here I am.

Again that is just what you arbitrarily believe, it has not been proven and thus this point does not matter in this debate, unless ofcourse you choose to and successfully prove the statement.

I thought that you were arguing that God was bad, not that He doesn't exist. Please specify which argument you are making, and do not move the goalposts.

I did not ever move my goalposts. Although I thjnk by now you know that I don't believe in god's existence, never did I try to steer this specific statement towards that point. I asked you to prove that god is the source of all morality and the author of nature. Prove why satan wasn't the first being to come into existence and god was his follower who rebelled against him and since history favors the winner, spread all the false facts paimting himself good and satan bad? Prove it and I will accept your statement as valid. And don't say because 'it was written in the bible'.

But that does not mean that god has any right to send us to hell for sins that we committed BECAUSE we were given free will. Let's take your adam and eve for example, you don't want them to eat an apple? Then make the god damn apple unreachable to them instead of just making the apple reachable and telling them not to eat it. It's almost as if he WANTED them to eat the apple so that he could throw their asses off of eden.

It wasn't about the apple. It was about whether Adam and Eve would choose to follow God or to disobey Him. The nature of rationality is such that it necessitates the freedom to identify something other than God as the supreme good.

So it was basically the illusion of freewill where we were made to believe that we could do what we wanted but ultimately we could only do what he wanted or else we would get punished. A thinly disguised slavery if you ask me, which thankfully the majority of the world now agrees as a bad thing.

Tell me the last time you decided to stick a fork into an electric outlet and god came down and sent you to hell. Putting a fork into an electric outlet is bad because it hurts us, because the act itself results in an unpleasant experience which is why we consider it bad. You know what god's morality really is?
"Accept me... so that I can save you from what I will do to you if you don't accept me."[/b]

The number of people who stick forks in electrical outlets is smaller than the number of people who reject God because the negative effects which naturally follow from the former are more immediately tangible.

The main suffering in Hell is absolute spiritual desolation, which follows naturally from the damned souls' rejection of God.

So, god decided to make the negative effects of rejecting him so intangible that it takes place after death, which is so conveniently non observable by anybody BUT the dead people. God really needs to prove his existence more where it really matters instead of focusing it on some place that might not even exist in the eyes of the living if he really wants us to accept him.

Also it is kind of funny how you decided to just ignore that one point about people accepting god on their own if he were really good. Not got an answer for that have you?

Some people do have perfect charity, but the knowledge of Hell serves as an aid to those who do not (who are far more numerous).

If people have perfect charity, then THEY are the ones that are good. Here it is being discussed whether god himself is good or not. Please don't 'move the goalposts'.

[GrumpyGoomba]

As for the first sentence, just take the Crucifixion as an example - the foundation of the Christian religion. This is nothing less than a human sacrifice, and purportedly to allow sinners to go free of punishment for their sins. What father would have his own son, a 'good man' by all accounts, brutally tortured and murdered so that 'bad' people could be let of their crimes? If the answer is that god loves us all and wants us to be forgiven why did he not just do that? Why insist on a bloodthirsty Crucifixion first? This nowhere shows our freewill but instead the evil of a tyrannical dictator.

God could have saved humanity without the Crucifixion, but that would have been less in keeping with His Justice.

The Catholic view is different from the Protestant view on this matter. Protestants generally believe in imputed righteousness and penal substitution, whereas Catholics believe in infused righteousness. In other words, God does not simply pardon sins as a juridical matter, rather He actually makes the saved righteous.

Christ's suffering and death won for us the grace to make us righteous. Of course, God could have given that grace by fiat, but is was more fitting for it be merited for us by the God-man.

Indeed it is more fitting for this deity's son who had done nothing wrong to be gruesomely murdered as a human sacrifice by a group of savages so that their deity would forgive them for doing all the other baloney they might have committed. Indeed how fitting to be merited to us by the god-man.

[GrumpyGoomba]

"Do not say: “It was God’s doing that I fell away,” for what he hates he does not do. Do not say: “He himself has led me astray,” for he has no need of the wicked. Abominable wickedness the LORD hates and he does not let it happen to those who fear him. God in the beginning created human beings and made them subject to their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments; loyalty is doing the will of God. Set before you are fire and water; to whatever you choose, stretch out your hand. Before everyone are life and death, whichever they choose will be given them." - Sirach 15:11-17

Don't quote the bible on me before proving that what is written in it is the absolute truth, thankyou.

[GrumpyGoomba]

As for the first sentence, just take the Crucifixion as an example - the foundation of the Christian religion. This is nothing less than a human sacrifice, and purportedly to allow sinners to go free of punishment for their sins. What father would have his own son, a 'good man' by all accounts, brutally tortured and murdered so that 'bad' people could be let of their crimes? If the answer is that god loves us all and wants us to be forgiven why did he not just do that? Why insist on a bloodthirsty Crucifixion first? This nowhere shows our freewill but instead the evil of a tyrannical dictator.
There can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. This is because of the very nature of sin. Sin is a red stain that is abhorrent in the eues of God. Blood is the life of the flesh, which is also red. Now if someone is covered by blood, it covers sin, why? Because when you take something that is red, and looks at it through a red lens, it appears to be white. As for why he had to give his son. Jesus was the only one who was powerful and pure enough that his sacrifice could last throughout the rest of time.
Wait, who the hell proclaimed what the nature of sin is, and who said that sin is a stain of red? So does that mean that a person who hasn't sinned but is covered in blood would appear red and not white because there is no sin to cover? What a coincedence, everybody on this planet appear red when covered in blood. I wonder what that means...

As for the fact of the bible being a collection of 66 books with 40 authors written over 1500 years, I fail to see the relevance of that in saying that the contents of the story to be true. Art and fictions inspire themselves, which is why there were multiple authors to this book. And unlike other books the bible was discussing a very important matter, that of our existance and the basics of our very soceity. So it isn't really surprising that it would be popular and prompt the other authors to right more, but it still doesn't explain how it isn't just a very elaborately created and lengthy fairy tale. I think that the bible says that god created earth in 6 days, and on the seventh day he created humans. This is obviously false since we know that earth exists for around 5 billion years while humans first appeared a mere 65 million years ago. There, your first contradiction.It's relevant because it's unprecedented. You can't find any other collection of books that share these criteria, no matter how relevant the subject is. As for the contradiction that is: A)not a contradiction between different parts of the Bible rather between the Bible and your science and B)not something you can back up without encountering flaws in your own logic.
A)The literal definition of science (as copied from google) is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Basically it means that science is proving things through experiments and facts, which is a lot more reliable than the writings of a book, however inspirational it might be, with no proof of the correctness of the content in it. So there is no 'your' science or 'my' science but THE science. So what you meant to say was that the contradiction is in between bible and the science. Also it IS indeed a contradiction between different parts of bibles. The bible was first written primarily in hebrew with a little bit of aramaic thrown in between. The part that mentions the creation of earth by god uses the hebrew term for day 'יוֹם, yom' which although may mean an indeterminate period of time, the same term is used in the rest of the bible mostly with morning or evening or is modified with a number, as in sixth day or seventh day. These mostly include dealings with humans and the bible itself proclaimed that the lifespan of humans is 120 years. So even if you decide to not accept that the day mentioned in the creation of earth is not 24 hours and say that it could mean any amount of time, it cannot exceed more than 120 years or else it would introduce several fallacies in the other parts of bible where the term is used. And as I said the earth is 5 billion years old and not 720 years (which is the maximum even, not the minimum) and thus it is a contradiction between different parts of the bible. B) please do present these 'flaws' in my logic so that I may take a look at them.

[James2]

I did not ever move my goalposts. Although I thjnk by now you know that I don't believe in god's existence, never did I try to steer this specific statement towards that point. I asked you to prove that god is the source of all morality and the author of nature.

What I (and any other classical monotheist) mean by "God" is "the unique creator of everything else that exists". This is a matter of definition.

If God (as defined) exists, then it follows logically that He is the source of all morality, since He is the source of everything. If you wish to argue that God does not exist, then make that argument.

So it was basically the illusion of freewill where we were made to believe that we could do what we wanted but ultimately we could only do what he wanted or else we would get punished.

You seem to be using a lot of terminology divorced from its accepted meaning. Free will means precisely what it says, that the will is free to choose one course of action or another. It does not mean, and has never been held to mean, that there are no consequences to bad choices. No one has ever held free will to mean that because that is an absurd concept.

So, god decided to make the negative effects of rejecting him so intangible that it takes place after death

While human beings are alive, we have the capacity to reason discursively. Inherent in this is the ability to rationalize, distract ourselves, and the like. Thus it is possible for those who live in rejection of God to maintain the illusion of happiness. However, this is no longer the case when we die, thus the total desolation which follows from rejecting God comes into effect then.

Of course, studies have shown that, even here on Earth, believers are happier than atheists, so the negative consequences are not strictly in the afterlife.

God really needs . . .

God, being God, has no need of anything. He would have been well within his rights to abandon us to sin and damnation after we rebelled against Him. He also would have been well within his rights to have never made us at all. God reached out to us gratuitously, so that we might have life.

If people have perfect charity, then THEY are the ones that are good.

Perfect charity means love of God motivated by His goodness. Imperfect charity means love of God motivated by fear of Hell. The former is far better, and all those actually in Heaven have it. Thankfully though, God, in His great compassion for the weakness of fallen human beings, does not require perfect charity of us here on Earth, but accepts imperfect charity as sufficient.

The point was that the reason why so few people follow God simply because of His goodness, is because so few people have the goodness in them to do so (and even those that do only do because of God's grace). It is a great mercy that God has warned us of the consequences of rejecting Him, since otherwise many more people would be lost.