Still, how could God listen and fathom all those prayers and hosannas in thousands of languages and dialects? To state why, He's Omni- attributed, so of course He can! No, we have no evidence that He even has a disembodied mind, much less one that can do all that!
Matt McCormick discusses why He cannot act and think were He omnipresent.
Give evidence instead of it must be and it may be!
That gives away why theists never can instantiate Him? They ultimately rely on the arguments from personal incredulity, which mocks our conservation of knowledge, and from ignorance, which underlie other theistic arguments.
No argument can tie all His referents as Creator, Designer and so forth together. And as we naturalists peel off referents, he ends up with none, and so cannot exist. We hardly then have that certitude called faith as Alister Earl McGrath finds faith to make.

I'm a strong atheist and I would list as my reasons:
1) Physics
2) Chemistry
3) Evolution
4) Molecular Biology (which is the strongest evidence for #3)
5) Paleoanthropology
6) Anthropology
7) Consciousness/Mind being a product of an evolved organ; the brain
8) Ancient Near East history (specifically Late Bronze and Early Iron Age)
9) Skepticism and the wariness of ideas that define themselves as immune to scrutiny (especially 'revelation'...not the book, the 'process')
10) Take a look at the cosmos through the Hubble Telescope (excited for the up and coming James Webb Telescope)

I spend time reading about all of these because I find them inseparable from my worldview. Each field has its own awe-inspiring aspects.

I've been reading a lot about divine command theories of ethics lately, yet I still don't see how all moral goodness can be defined by God's commands, attitudes, or character without ultimately appealing to a standard which need not reference any actual God.

Probably the most common popular-level formulation these days is that morality is defined by God's commands, but God's commands aren't arbitrary because they are based on God's essentially good character. This is probably coming from Robert Merrihew Adams' definition of moral wrongness as that which a "loving God" forbids. In either case, the concepts of goodness and loving-ness are at least as important as divine will. An evil or unloving God would not qualify as a moral authority under these theories.

At this point, I have to wonder why a God needs to be between us and the concepts of goodness and love. Why not say morality is defined by what a loving God would command (whether or not this actually occurs)? Or why not say morality is defined by what a good society would command? Both of these are objective standards, in the sense that they can measure any society or individual, including real or imaginary Gods. To deny this, it seems one would have to deny any conceivable distinction between a good vs. evil God or a loving vs. unloving God.

Richard Swinburne in his paper "Duty And The Will of God" takes a different approach. He draws a distinction between contingent moral good and necessary moral good. God can freely will (or bring about the circumstances to influence) what constitutes contingent moral good, but God himself is constrained to stick to and promote necessary moral good because of his omniscience (and unfettered ability to choose rationally based on his omniscience). Of course this strikes me as a theory of ethics which is, at base, a matter of rational necessity whether or not an all-knowing God is around to promote and add to it.

So we have one class of non-arbitrary divine command theory which is based on a generally available attitude of love, and another class based on [even!] God rationally recognizing moral truths. I agree that it would be very worth listening to an all-knowing God on questions of knowledge and an all-loving God on questions of love, but neither of these modified divine command theories seems to base morality on God. Insofar as humans can improve our love and knowledge, we should be able to access moral truths for ourselves.

I stand unrefuted! I did not beg that question. Might is right is wrong is part of standard morality. We had the might but not the right to invade Iraq ,for instance.


Theists have to show evidence of any miralcles; would you accept the testimony of the followers of Jim Jones that he caused resurrection of people? Why not the miralcles of other relgions?
It is like patent officers refuse to grant patents to perpetual motion machines- so much evidence to show that they don't work, that we atheologians discern no possible evidence in principle for miralces but we will await any anyway.
It is mere say so that Yehua came back alive! There is no reason whatsoever for trusting the Christian Testament[ Bart Ehrman-" Misquoooting Jesus" and "G.A.Wells "Can We trust the New Testament?" and Jim Walker's essay on Yeshua's existence! no beliefs]

What if over time and through our discoveries in sub-atomic physics and the nature of the universe we find that there are natural i.e. explainable in scientific quantifiable terms, "causes" for miraculous events, does this mean there is no God?

As is often pointed out, in ancient times now explainable natural events were often perceived as miraculous. In the period known as The Enlightment many of these "miracles" were shown to have natural, explainable causes. This perceptably led to many "losing faith".

If there comes a time when it can be scientifically shown how someone could be resurrected, this could either:

A) Cause a significant number of non-believers to have faith,
B) Cause a significant number of believers to lose faith
or
C) Cause no significant change

I personally lean towards B.

What say you? What kind of implications would this have on your Theology?

Craig's arguments against infinities are just red herrings. He conflates finite and infinite mathematics to arrive at his silly contradictions.

Science finds no absolute beginning of the Comsos as that would contradict the law of conservation applied to the quantum fields. His obfuscations boomerang on him, showing him to be just another sophist.
His defense of divine genocide reveals his sorry moral code, which then cannot be any objective one!
He distorts what others state as a Liar for Yeshua.
He ranks thus as a mountebank.
Absolute contingency cannot exist per that law. And Aquinas' superfluity argument boomerangs on him with not only this argument, but his other four. :pray:

None can vouch for the Tanakh and the Testament. Indeed, archaeologists and historians and scientists find it quite wrong. Oh,and any message about salvation is irrational!
We rationalists mock a square circle. Study the thread arguments about God.

There are advances in science concerning the potential nature of origins and cause and effect that show that the nature of our physical existence at both the quantum and cosmos levels is possibly without any cause other than natural causes, and the 'first mover' can possibly be natural law.

Aristotilian 'infinities' also represent inadequate concepts when arguing for the necessity of a finite and temporal physical infinities, and beginnings for our physical existence. These concepts of 'infinities' have limited or no value in defining possible limits in time and space, by today's math and science.

As far as the 'Law of Contradiction' goes, any argument that uses this concept will and of itself make human assumptions as to what is in contradiction and what is not. Yes, ultimately the nature of our existence is most likely non-contradictory whether God exists or not, but I do not believe humans are capable of defining this ultimate non-contradictory nature.

Many do have that fear of Hell for believing as that is in what the Yahweh of fundamentalists so revel! Many do have that fear of Yahweh. Many have that love of Allah or Yahweh as love and not fear.
Most people just believe,because of geography and parents. Theists do find arguments for their superstition but would believe anyway due to faith.
We naturalists find that theists use misinterpretations of evidence for evidence!
Many theists take umbrage at our taking seriously their superstition as to oppose it as we skeptics do to any evidenced-deprived claim. Craig so fears life without Yahweh, that he claims that in the end even were there no future state we need HIm1
What unsubstantiated prattle!
We all have no "mustabatory" need for Him!
Science makes strides without having Him as that divine intent-teleology. Indeed as I note in other threads^, religion contradicts science instead of complement it![B][

We ourselves determine the foundation of morality! We need no murderous Allah or Yahweh to tell us not to murder!
We can experience the Metaverse without begging the question of directed outcomes.
People can pray to me, getting the same results, only I exist and am not omni- maxed!
We have no " mustabatory" need to worship and have a relationship with HIm.
God is just an interjection, a place holder for ignorance based on the argument from ignorance! /B]