Matthew Le God

Yet again you have shown you can't grasp that not believing something has met its burden of proof IS NOT the same as claiming it does not exist. I'm not sure how many times or how many ways I can explain this to you before you grasp this basic concept. But it remains an issue as you keep highlighting you don't get it.

Why are you so obsessed with my sex life? Hows yours? Is being someone who trolls pedants an attractive quality for any prospective partners of yours? On a vaguely related tangent... What is more likely... Jesus was born of a virgin to a deity. Or Mary had an affair and lied to Joseph?

Humans don't consciously make their own eyes. So your analogy again is nonsense. Plus see my point on the Adam and Eve unfair test in the previous post

Nonsense yet again Turkish. The test he set Adam and Eve was not a fair test. God knew before he set them the test that they would fail. How can a test be fair if the test designer knew 100% for certain they would not pass it? They had no free will as he designed them, he designed the test and there was no way they could win.

Oh dear Turkish! Your analogy is a mess and flawed. As you ignore/forget/avoid that God is both the architect and the bricklayer. Even if he was just the architect, he is an all knowing architect who knows the future and would be aware that his plans allow for the bricklayer to mess up but decides to stick with his instructions regardless. An even bigger fuck up of ineptitude!

If the design allows for mistakes to occur... then he fucked up and is inept at design.

How can a 100% kind and loving God be comparable with one that punishes his creations for not believing in them. Especially when he is aware of what proof would be needed for believe but opts for the 'best method to get his message across to be an old book that is poorly translated. Pretty inept!

A good competent designer wouldn't allow for faults. An all knowing all powerful god should be capable of having a perfect record... he fucked up and is inept if he designed it.

Some people claim the eye is perfect and is evidence of intelligent design. All it takes is one bad human eye to show this is nonsense.

Of course not, but an all powerful, all knowing and infallible God should be capable of being less inept at design.

Are you still unable to grasp that claims of 100% perfect are ruined by only 1 example that counters it?

Have you honestly met someone who believes in God but attributes him with no more than the definition you used? No moral system or anything?

Doesn't take a genius to spot the problems with the human eye. It is a long way from being a good system, if it was designed God is inept.

I find it hard to believe any believer doesn't accredit their deity with more attributes than that.

The claim many make that it is pefect design from an infallible, all knowing, all powerful deity falls apart if there are some that fall below standard. It isn't just some that fall below standards, all human eyes are wired badly if they were created. A good design would be for them to not have the blood vessels pass in front.

Belief without definition is an oxymoron. You can't belief in something by definition if you can't define it. This is basic stuff badger! 🙄

Would you agree that me (and millions of others) who have poor eyesight renders a belief in perfect design to be nonsense? Many Christians use the human eye as evidence of creation, if it was designed it is a fuck up and god is inept.

Deeply flawed as those people who state their belief also have their own definitions for their god. Problem is no two definitions of god are the exactly the same. Each person creates their own definition of 'him/it/whatever'.

1) Creators of South Park 2a) You can't have the 'hump' with something you don't believe has met its burden of proof for existence. 2b) (or not 2b) Short sightedness isn't a 'good design'. If there was design... it is inept. He should have been tasked with designing fjords like Slartibartfast!

1) You asked me what it would take for me to belief. That can not be done until the 'thing' has been defined. What God is it you want me to say what proof it would take for me to believe, what attributes does it have? 2)

1) Take it up with Matt Stone and Trey Parker 2) I wear contact lenses and have children

I have no need to berate my mother about it, because she does not belief in a god.

It is a flawed question until the God has been defined. It is impossible to state belief in something existing if it has not been defined as to what it is.

1) Why is it? 2) Nope, you must try harder with your petty insults

Well that would certainly help. Because the human eye is terribly designed if it appeared into existence. It is wired backwards and is not efficient at all. It is how it is due to evolving from what was originally a flat bed of light sensitive cells which eventually formed a ball.