Atheism/Theism Offshoot Thread

[Amka]

Ack! Lots of posts. But I think we're still down to Steve's question. What is the nature of God?

If a relevant God exists, he will be good, all knowing (for all practical purposes), and all powerful (within the bounds of natural law). It is clear from the evidence of human experience as well as scripture (which is essentially the history of human interaction with God, that humans wrote and then copied over and over again, and maybe imported a few cool stories as well, thus making it subject to human bias) that free will is of vital importance. So much so, that he allows people to do truly evil things.

Now actually, it is entirely possible that God created the universe. But not, I guess you would say, the meta-universe. God is never ending, but then again so is our own intelligence.

God does love us as a father loves his son. This is literally true. But does a good parent shelter their children from all suffering? You mean like, keep them forever in a padded room with sterile air and food? No bad word to ever cross their ear drum, no angry voice, nothing to get into and make a mess out of, and while we're at it the child was never nursed either because well, maybe mom has germs. She can pump, and we can irradiate the milk and then she can hold the child while wearing her clean suit.

God has a greater perspective. I'm sorry I missed the God of the 250,000. It sounds like an interesting discussion. The simple answer is, he knew us before life on earth, and he knows we will still exist after life on earth. What is 100 or so years compared to eternity? And what does shortening that life do? What is death, to God? It simply brings you back sooner.

Why send us at all? We are who we are, with bodies or without. Having bodies and being stripped of all knowledge of God is a test and a preparation. Do we sink or swim?

[Boothby]

You mean, you presume that God is all those things...

God does love us as a father loves his son. This is literally true. But does a good parent shelter their children from all suffering? You mean like, keep them forever in a padded room with sterile air and food

No; but, then again, parents aren't all-knowing, or all-powerful, either.


Yours is one of the few times I've heard of a God that is bound by natural law (a law that He, Himself, supposedly created!)

Also, just as there is no real evidence for the existence of God, there is REALLY no evidence that humankind's intelligence is "never-ending." These days (I'm not talking about this thread, but of the world at large), one has to wonder if it's ever-beginning!!


Seamusz,

But let me ask this, doesn't the mere possibility of the existence of a SB make it just as probable as not

Are you asking for a 50/50 probability, just because you went and named a fantasy? Do we allow for a 50/50 shot for the orbiting Tea-Cup, too?

I think not. The concept of a God, even with the characteristics that Amka finally provided, is astronomically low (due, in part, to its wholly self-contradictory nature, and its lack of necessity). The probability of your totally ill-defined God is even lower.

[Yebra]

But can we really suppose God is good or neutral? What if he were evil?

Stephen Law has an thoughtful piece herewhere heargues that you can use the same arguments to reconcile the existence of evil with a benevolent god to reconcile the existence of good with an evil god.

GIZIMOTH: Very well, let's suppose the universe does show clear signs of having been designed by an intelligent being.

BOOBLEFRIP: Ah, a convert!

GIZIMOTH: Not at all. I'm supposing this only for the sake of argument. You still haven't given me much reason to suppose that this designer is all-evil, have you?

BOOBLEFRIP: But God is, by definition, all-evil.

GIZIMOTH: But why define God that way? Why not suppose, instead, that God is neither good nor evil? Or why not suppose he is all-good?

(Booblefrip thinks Gizimoth has gone too far.)

BOOBLEFRIP: What a bizarre suggestion. It's obvious our creator is very clearly evil! Take a look around you! Witness the horrendous suffering he inflicts upon us. The floods. The earthquakes. Cancer. The vile, rotting stench of God's creation is overwhelming!

And an interesting twist on the free will argument:

GIZIMOTH: Free will?

BOOBLEFRIP: Yes. God could have made us mere automata that always did the wrong thing. But he didn't do that. He gave us the freedom to choose how we act.

GIZIMOTH: Why?

BOOBLEFRIP: By giving us free will, God actually increased the amount of suffering there is in the world. He made the world far more terrible than it would otherwise have been!

GIZIMOTH: How?

BOOBLEFRIP: Think about it. By giving us free will, God can be sure we will agonize endlessly about what we should do. For free will brings with it the torture of temptation. And then, when we succumb to temptation, we feel guilty. Knowing that being free, we could have done otherwise, we feel awful about what we have done. We end up torturing ourselves. The exquisitely evil irony of it all!

GIZIMOTH: Hmm.

BOOBLEFRIP: By giving us free will, God allowed for far more intense and subtle forms of suffering than would otherwise be possible.

It's well worth a read in it's entirety.

[Syphon the Sun]

Seamusz, there is a very large difference between having evidence and having proven it. End post.

[Slim]

I've been following this, but I haven't been posting anything, since I am bad at Philosophy. Most of what I wanted to say has been said by others, and these people are more capable of debate.

But, here is one of my thoughts. On the ordering of existence and nature of God:

If one is going to try and disprove God, s/he is going to have to know something of the Attributes of God. For example, if God was defined to be a inanimate carbon rod, it would be a completely different matter than a God defined to be a hyper-dimensional being capable of both time travel and unaided flight.

It is from here I sometimes hear complaints, "I cannot believe in a God that would (insert into blank), so I don't believe in God. (or your God)" To which I can only either say, "That's good because God (or my God) doesn't (fill into the blank.)" or "Well, I guess you just don't understand the things God would do." Of course, I never say the last one out loud.

On the other hand, if one is trying to know God, (and not prove God) in that case s/he must start with a belief that God exists, and then from there s/he can learn more and more about God.

P.S. It looks like I covered all six rules! Yea!

--Uh, Slim? Those rules are satirical. You're supposed to not follow them.

Oh. Oops.

[Amka]

Steve,

That it was my presumption of what God is was a given. But really, that is the only God I can debate because I've concluded (with all due respect to my theist colleagues), as you have, that most others are open to inconsistancy.

No; but, then again, parents aren't all-knowing, or all-powerful, either.

First of all, a friendly poke: If I had list of what argument an atheist will use, that certainly would be on it.

And in this case, it doesn't apply. You mentioned why, then disregarded it:

Yours is one of the few times I've heard of a God that is bound by natural law (a law that He, Himself, supposedly created!)

I will clarify, that by natural law I mean a ‘meta-natural’ law. One that goes beyond this universe, and also rules this universe. We may not be clear on what those laws would be, but cause and effect are involved, the importance of free will, etc. Another law, within my religion's premise, that we are sure of, is that “there must needs be opposition in all things” Good and evil.

God, being bound by these laws, is not all powerful and so cannot create the utopian universe you'd like without reducing us to emotionless automatons.

Anyway, the nature of Man in relation to God is a very important part of this question. Why would God create man in the first place? Why make these sentient beings, why populate a heaven or hell with them, as is traditionally thought? For me, the only satisfactory answer was that God didn’t create us, but brought us into awareness, and then when we had progressed enough, brought us into this existence for further learning and testing of our own nature.

One of the tests of a good theory is that as new data is observed, the theory does not conflict with that new data. I have not yet found anything that was in conflict to this. In fact, every piece of knowledge I gain seems only to enhance my understanding of this principal, that we are spirit beings learning to control a human body. This isn’t just learning how to walk and talk, but dealing with chemically based emotions, and acting honorably despite our human desires.

Why did I ask if you had a church? My point was that, and admittedly you did not counter this but seemed to praise this aspect, men and women by their own inspiration do not endeavor weekly over their whole lifetime to learn what they are doing wrong so that they can change and be better.

And last, I wonder about our intelligence sometimes too. And our compassion (Not talking about anything here, but in our dealing with extreme poverty, etc.)

Yebra -

Why, when we aren't rationalizing selfish purposes or perhaps insane, do we think Good actions are better than Evil? Why is Good more desirable? (Should that be another thread?)

If God is evil or capricious, then it does become irrelevant. There would be no point, because an evil or capricious God would do whatever on a whim. There would be no order. Or there would be such absolute order that we would not even have the ability or will to question and debate this.

[Boothby]

I will clarify, that by natural law I mean a ‘meta-natural’ law

Understood. I guess I should clarify myself, too. All the times I said "carrot" before, I really meant to say "fish." Or, perhaps, "screwdriver."


But seriously, you make an interesting point. A point that I, as an atheist, would also make:

If God is evil or capricious, then it does become irrelevant. There would be no point, because an evil or capricious God would do whatever on a whim. There would be no order.

God, certainly as described in the Old Testament, has some pretty capricious tendencies. And even today, it takes lots and lots of apologists to try and understand the brutality that goes on (and, let's be honest, has been going on for millenia), and attempt to reconcile it with the notion of a just, fair, compassionate and loving God. This all points towards a world "with God" as being no different from a world "without" Him.


And good is more desireable than evil for the same reasons that pleasure is more desireable than pain, eating is more desireable than being eaten, and surviving is more desireable than death. All the species that prefer death over survival have long since died out!

[Eddie Pinz]

And good is more desireable than evil for the same reasons that pleasure is more desireable than pain

But what if doing something evil brings someone pleasure, but doing something good brings them pain?

[Yebra]

If God is evil or capricious, then it does become irrelevant. There would be no point, because an evil or capricious God would do whatever on a whim. There would be no order. Or there would be such absolute order that we would not even have the ability or will to question and debate this.

Evil is not necessarily the same as doing anything on a whim, an evil god might carefully map out a way to inflict the most evil possible, which could include doing good. It doesn't make any less sense for God to be an evil entity than to be a good one.

[Boothby]

EP,

A masochist or a sadist does what he (or she) does because they get great pleasure from inflicting pain on themseslves or on others. Go figure that one out!

Be careful, or we'll spend the rest of this thread arguing what "good" means...

[seamusz]

All right, I have thought about the explanation starlooker gave and I can see the logic in seeing the No God scenario as more likely.

May my inability to understand be excused.

Boothby, if your still willing to go on, here is my response to your earlier post. I need some clarification on some of the points, plus I don't agree with all of them.

From Seamusz (though it is usually the first statement defining God) "God scenario: He created the everything. Thus everything is evidence of his existence. No God - No everything. "

Premise: God created the universe (sorry, Mormons).
Corollary: Nothing exists without a creator. All things (such as the universe) must have a beginning.

Why "sorry mormons"? I don't think that I feel like I can say that I agree with this... I believe that he organized the matter that was already there. But I do refer to him as my creator... let me do a bit of study on it.

Premise: God created Man (and woman).
Corollary: Complicated structures cannot develop from simpler structures. (the old 747/junkyard/whirlwind anecdote)

I agree with the premise, and I accept and agree with adaptation and mico-evolution. But I do not believe that man evolved.

Premise: God loves us as a father loves his son.

I agree.

Premise: God responds to prayer.

I agree

Premise: God tells us (or his prophets) things that later turn out to be pretty good ideas.

I agree, but I think that those "good ideas" are secondary to spiritual matters, especially in regards to prophets. Unless you are counting spiritual matters as "good ideas"

Premise: The bible is the word of God, and therefore infallible.

agree/disagree. I do agree that the Bible contains the "word of God", but I don't consider it infallible, and I accept that translations and copies have not kept the integrity of the original record pure. (I have a lot more thoughts on the Bible, but this should convey the basics)

Do you accept these premises as valid? Do you have additional premises to add? Once we are in agreement on them, I will proceed.

comments? questions?

[Syphon the Sun]

Why "sorry mormons"? I don't think that I feel like I can say that I agree with this... I believe that he organized the matter that was already there. But I do refer to him as my creator... let me do a bit of study on it.

Mormons believe that matter is co-eternal with God, and as such, he organized it by creating natural laws that govern the universe.

I agree with the premise, and I accept and agree with adaptation and mico-evolution. But I do not believe that man evolved.

I'm making a separate thread for this, so we don't derail this any further.

agree/disagree. I do agree that the Bible contains the "word of God", but I don't consider it infallible, and I accept that translations and copies have not kept the integrity of the original record pure. (I have a lot more thoughts on the Bible, but this should convey the basics)

You are aware of the fact that we've found plenty of manuscripts significantly older than those the translations were being based on and, by and large, significant changes were rare between the much older manuscript and those previously available?

[Eaquae Legit]

agree/disagree. I do agree that the Bible contains the "word of God", but I don't consider it infallible, and I accept that translations and copies have not kept the integrity of the original record pure. (I have a lot more thoughts on the Bible, but this should convey the basics)

You are aware of the fact that we've found plenty of manuscripts significantly older than those the translations were being based on and, by and large, significant changes were rare between the much older manuscript and those previously available?

Indeed, most modern translations are done with the oldest extant manuscripts. A good Bible will include an apparatus criticus which notes any significant differences in MSS. This, of course, is the source of the KJV-Only movement, who believe a specific MS is the divinely ordained One True MS. (To grossly oversimplify the issue.)

What I am interested in, seamusz, is the fact that you disbelieve in evolutionary origins of humans, but readily admit that the Bible is not infallible in a word-for-word sense.

And totally off topic, but what is your username supposed to be? I keep flipping back and forth between "sea muse" and "seamus", and I'm getting tired of the uncertainty.

[suminonA]

Hello,

I followed this thread without jumping in because it moves so fast. But I’d like to add something (mostly questions ).

For one, I think the non-atheists need to understand that “atheist” doesn’t necessarily mean “I know <for sure> there is no deity” but more like “I understand this Universe without the need of an existing deity”. In the end it’s a matter of choice, we all see the “evidence” around us, but we interpret it differently.

I personally (as a self-declared atheist) see no need for a deity in order to have the Universe work the way it does and be the way it is. And if there was a deity igniting the “Big Bang” that doesn’t intervene in physical reality anymore, then it’s utterly irrelevant (for me).

With this I get to my first questions for seamusz, the one to bring the concept of a “Supreme Being” into discussion. Is this Supreme Being equivalent to what you call God (I’ll call it “YFD” = Your Favourite Deity)? Do you consider that all the various religions just call this Supreme Being by their particular name, seeing it their way? Do you see this not only as an explanation for the variety of deities across the past and present religions, but also as evidence that there “must be something” if so many people had to give a name to it?

I’ll also ask for some elements of the “definition” of YFD. (I don’t expect anyone to come up with a complete definition of it). But I’ll try to ask simple questions in order to understand easier what you are talking about:

Does YFD supervise/control all the Universe at once? Did YFD dictate (even if by divine inspiration) the moral guidelines/commandments to Homo Sapiens? Does “being humble” enter in those guidelines? Do you consider YFD to pay any attention to you personally whatsoever?

Please consider these questions in the context of the Whole Universe, it being as hugely huge as it is.

Thanks,

A.

[seamusz]

Syphon,

1. Thanks for the Mormon view... I agree with that.

2. As to the evolution thread... you have been rude, condescending, and presumptuous to the extreme (imho). That coupled with the fact that with putting in 20+ hours of overtime at work, a 45 min each way commute, a three year old and two nine monthers... I seriously don't have enough time to do it justice. Maybe after I loose this debate, I'll go loose one with you.

3. As for the Bible, let me put it this way. There are enough, what I consider to be, inconsistencies to make me uneasy about calling it "infallible".

EL,

I'll say this about evolution/creation. I believe in a creation, but I also don't think that God waved a magic wand a poofed the earth and creations into existence...

and it's Seamus, but sea (pronounced shay) is fine.

[Syphon the Sun]

It's always mildly amusing when one attacks you for traits that he or she also has.



You've managed to insist that people:
* agree with you before you'll participate in a discussion.
* prove negatives.
* define terms for themselves in order to refute your claims, then proceed to whine when those terms were not defined exactly as you wished them to be.
* agree with you that mere possibility is exactly the same thing as probability.
* admit 'defeat' because you've refused to hold up your part of the discussion.

These things aren't rude or condescending? I beg to differ. I've made a few cracks at how this discussion has been going, but by and large, they're pretty accurate.

And, as far as the Evolution discussion goes, you don't want to discuss it? That's fine. Don't have time? That's fine, too. I know the feeling. (Re: "Since I have been on PWEB") But don't expect me to buy that it's because I'm "rude."


As far as inconsistencies goes, inconsistencies with what? History? Science? Itself? Older Manuscripts?

[Luet]

It's LOSE, LOSE, I tell you. How do so many relatively intelligent people think it is interchangeable with the word loose?!?

/derailment

[vendor]

I am so smart, I have loosed the ability to spell korrectly....

my 'o' key sticks too!

[Syphon the Sun]

You can't even spell s-m-r-t correctly!

[Boothby]

I don't really have time to reply right now, but I wanted to post this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071017/cm_csm/ydsouza

It's about Emmanual Kant, and it is in favor of the theist's view.

While I completely agree with Kant's premise (we only perceive that which we can perceive of a larger reality, and we call that subset of reality, "reality"), I still disagree with the conclusions mentioned in the article.

More to come.

[edited to say "that which we can perceive"]

[vendor]

wow. reminds me of The Matrix.

[suminonA]

From the article Boothby linked (last lines):

Kant exposes the ignorant boast of atheists that atheism operates on a higher intellectual plane than theism. He shows that reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. Atheism foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while theism at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.

I’d like to see the atheist who can’t accept that there MIGHT BE something more than what we perceive as “reality” (let’s call the whole by the name of “Reality” and the difference Reality – reality = metareality ). By definition, metareality is INTANGIBLE and doesn’t affect our senses. If religion would limit itself to assure people of the possible existence of the metareality, then there would be no conflict whatsoever with “reason”.

But to claim that some component of that INTANGIBLE side of Reality said so and so and inspired such and such individual to write such and such scripture, well that goes against the definition of metareality itself. A reasoning person (I mean a person that puts reason above faith) has to decide, which is it? Does that side influence our reality or not? If it does, then we have to perceive it to care about it. If it doesn’t it is irrelevant in reality.

Looking for “proof of existence” of metareality is as useless (and unreasonable) as claiming to know what that part is really like.

A.

PS: of course, there is the possibility that there were a few individuals that COULD perceive metareality (in whole or in part), but to believe them on their word is a completely another matter. That’s what “blind faith” is. If you can’t see (perceive) something, but believe someone else who tells you it exists, than you are exerting your right to rely on blind faith. If you can perceive it yourself, for me to believe you would be to exert my blind faith.

[Amka]

I'm not even reading replies here, because I might get caught up and I don't have time. I just want to say I haven't dropped out. I have enjoyed it and do want to participate more.

My grandmother has passed away. She was 90 years old and the last few years have been difficult on her. There was no one disease, really, that she died from. Just the accumulation of the little health things that we always have. She was not a complainer, so she was found unconsious before we knew how difficult it had become for her to swallow about a year and a half ago. (An adult cousin lived with her before to keep an eye out.) She probably knew that she would have to move in with someone and didn't want to. She has suffered from osteoperosis so badly it was painful to watch her. This and her weakness from starving put her in a wheelchair, made her unable to care for herself. She was used to always taking care of others. She was intelligent and read all the time. Even though she had become blind, she still listened to books on tape. She died peacefully, during an afternoon nap in her chair at my aunt and uncle's house.

I admire this woman so much, I may have more to write of her later.

Of my family, I am the only one that lives near her, so everyone will be staying at my house. So I'll be out of the picture until probably Sunday evening or Monday.

Take care all.

[Boothby]

Ami,

I'm so sorry to hear about your grandmother.

You are in our thoughts and prayers.

God bless.

--Steve

[suminonA]

Amka, one has to be close to the loved ones while it matters. Don't worry about us, I'm sure PWeb-ers can understand your priorities.

Take care,

A.

[vendor]

Amka, as difficult as these times are, it will make you stronger.

[vendor]

double post

I agree with the metareality concept. I understand the five senses as the whole of what we can tangibly perceive, except I believe that a sense of the metareality can be made operable by putting blind faith in it.

I would like to assure you of the existence of the metareality.

[BonitoDeMadrid]

Amka,

I feel sorry for you about the loss of your grandmother.

I hope you will recover quickly and keep being strong, for your own good.

And remember, "always look on the bright side of life"- there is always one.

-BDM

[suminonA]

I agree with the metareality concept. I understand the five senses as the whole of what we can tangibly perceive, except I believe that a sense of the metareality can be made operable by putting blind faith in it.

Are you trying to say that if you believe with a strong (and blind) faith that metareality exists and has certain characteristics, you can sense it (outside of your 5 senses)?

I would like to assure you of the existence of the metareality.

I suppose that’s the all inclusive “you”, but still I have questions:
How are you sure about it? What difference does it make if it exists? And last but not least, why do you assure others of it?

I hope this questions don’t bother you. If they do, say so and then ignore them.

A.

[vendor]

I'm sure that helen keller didn't know what she was missing. she had to want to know and be willing to be taught. Don't be offended, I'm not calling you disabled.

I do believe that the five physical senses are not the only way we can receive stimulation.

I don't want to be accused of pushing my favorite deity. All I'm saying is that, for me, when I meditate, I receive external stimulation other than hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell. This practice has elevated my life. I don't believe that everyone can do this. That's why I said, "can be made operable".

If you don't feel you need or want it, that's ok. I still want to feel validated by assuring you that it exists. And yes, it's an all inclusive you.

Your questions don't bother me. Much of learning is asking questions.

[Boothby]

Vendor,

You mean that your subjective mind has had delusions of a larger world? Don't be offended, I'm not calling you delusional.

And do mean "operable" as in you can "operate" it ("work" it)? Or do you mean "sensable," as in you feel you can sense it?

If it was "operable," then you could make it do things that other people could perceive, like levitation.

And, a truly friendly note, people who have recently lost loved ones really don't want to hear such crap as "it will make you stronger". I assume that you have never lost anyone really close to you (which would be good--not to have lost anyone close to you!)

[vendor]

Amka, I really am sorry for your loss. I apologize if you think that my earlier comment wasn't helpful. I lost my little sister to a car accident two months before 9/11. She was nineteen years old. I have a lot of fond memories of her. I don't think I really mourned her death. I wish she was still here, and I shed a few tears, but I don't think I really mourned. Maybe that's something that I need to learn to do.

Boothby, the ability to smell is a function. That is what I meant with the word operate.

You mean that your subjective mind has had delusions of a larger world? Don't be offended, I'm not calling you delusional.

compare

I'm sure that helen keller didn't know what she was missing. she had to want to know and be willing to be taught. Don't be offended, I'm not calling you disabled.

I wanted to illustrate that hellen keller was ignorant of others ability to sense their surroundings. I wanted to make clear that I wasn't calling suminonA disabled, only ingnorant of a metareality. It appears as though suminonA already discovered this by the new thread that was made.

Everybody is ignorant to many many things. It is not an insult. You may feel that I am much more ignorant than you. That's ok. Maybe you think my example wasn't effective. That's ok. I was answering suminonA.

[suminonA]

Just to assure you (all inclusive) I'm not that easily insulted. And I believe it when vendor says no offense was intended.

BTW vendor, thanks for your responses.

A.

[Boothby]

Vendor,

Sorry for the loss of your sister.

When my mother passed away about 12 years ago, if someone made that "makes you stronger" comment, I would not have appreciated it. In a few months, once I was through grieving, yes--but not right then.

And I really didn't mean to offend, either; I just couldn't resist the parallel.

And "operate" seems to be a much more active word, rather than a passive one--to me, at least.

[Amka]

Well Steve,

If the death of my grandma can get you to pray...

As far as anyone saying anything while they're trying to comfort me that might offend or bother me, don't worry about it. Any sentiment of condolence and comfort is a kindness, and I appreciate it. We all have so many different experiences with death.

My family all left earlier than I had anticipated. I am unusually introverted (in the real world) as a result, and I think at this time it has less to do with my grandma's death and more to do with five extra children being in my house. No matter how good children are, get a whole bunch of them together and it is chaos, especially with toddlers and preschoolers thrown into the mix.

So, back into things:

God, certainly as described in the Old Testament, has some pretty capricious tendencies. And even today, it takes lots and lots of apologists to try and understand the brutality that goes on (and, let's be honest, has been going on for millenia), and attempt to reconcile it with the notion of a just, fair, compassionate and loving God. This all points towards a world "with God" as being no different from a world "without" Him.

This poses far greater difficulty for the person arguing an absolute word of God approach to the bible. But if one understands that the Bible, and especially the Old Testament is a collection of histories then we have a different picture. Bring evolution into the picture and things look even more different.

Imagine pre-historic man starting to have a relationship with God, who then, like now, values their free will. However, these guys are awful to each other. You can't turn people like this into modern model citizens. An eye for an eye was an improvement over a death for an eye. Women gained rights under the Old Testament.

I could go into a lot of detail, but understanding the Old Testament as an ancient record of a violent people that was inconsistantly transmitted to our age, and also understanding what death is to God, paints a slightly different picture than a capricious God.

Yebra –

Evil is not necessarily the same as doing anything on a whim, an evil god might carefully map out a way to inflict the most evil possible, which could include doing good. It doesn't make any less sense for God to be an evil entity than to be a good one.

I can imagine a great deal more evil in the world, which would seem to nullify that possibility.

Uhm, well... I will read the Emmanual Kant stuff later. That is a philosopher I have wanted to sink my teeth into and don't have the time. But I know my husband loves his stuff.

So now I'll go slip into the evolution thread because I love evolution.

And last but not least: Please play nice everyone! Respect each other. Try to respond in kindness even during disagreement.