Matthew Le God

The commandments also state that the punishment for breaking most of them is death. Is that a good moral code?

Are the commandments not part of the organised religion? They are meant to be the word of the the Judeo-Christian God.

What if they decide that instead of seeking medical treatment for their child they would pray for them to be healed by God/Jesus? A large number of children have died from curable conditions due to this.

So would you say the commandments are not evil or dangerous?

Did I say every parent? No Did I say force? No - I said "to some extent forces" - there is a difference

Pretty much every religious person "forces" to some extent their children into the same religion. This is why it needs ridiculing - it is dangerous and poisons the whole of society, people don't keep it to themselves no matter how much they say they don't.

Has the Toronto blessing healed any amputees? It isn't in any way evidence for God, it is just a mass delusion. They think they will be effected in a certain way, so that is how they behave (in most cases sincerely I'm sure). Doesn't make them any less deluded though. If this is what God does to you, you should hope he doesn't exist... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCeVZ6e2T0E Do you believe in unicorns? If not, why not?

So? At least it is testable. How do you test for God? Do you believe in unicorns? If not, why not?

- Watford are apparently the club he and his family support. - Norwich in the Premier League. I would question why he would choose Watford over Saints for football reasons, but not Norwich in the top flight.

Should Saints ever play at the Olympic stadium it looks like we'll get a worse view than from the away end than at the Withdean... How you could make out what is going on from that far away I don't know!

Is that appropriate for a forum that is used by children? I didn't want to see it either.

Numerous media outlets are reporting it as Q.P.R. that made the bid.

It is shame that this place isn't big enough for the billions of people it is required for or still in operation...

Neither of them exist. But I have yet to see a photo of God, where as...

So it is okay for a creator not to have creator, but not okay for the universe not to have a creator?

Single electronic orbitals in a molecule were recently imaged by high speed lasers: http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/7020-3.html A single electron trapped in a quantum dot detected: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AIPC..772..775S http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005cond.mat.10269G At least they are testable through scientific method, rather than blind faith using prehistoric and bronze age myth to explain things early man couldn't understand.

When I said "infinite regression", I was referring to what created the creator. If you use the logic as you did that something complex needs a creator, the creator himself is complex - why doesn't he need a creator? At which point the original logic collapses.

Why is that hard to believe? There are billions of planets where it didn't happen. If you play the national lottery and you don't win the jackpot, does that mean that no-one has won the jackpot. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. If God is such a great life creator why do most of the billions of planets he created not support life? So many planets empty of life shows that life is a fluke, Earth just got lucky.

Using God as the plug to a gap in knowledge of the creation of the universe doesn't answer the question of infinite regression it creates.

There are billions of planets in the universe without life on. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it is impossible. The odds of winning the lottery are small, it doesn't mean people don't win the lottery. Earth is a planet that won the life lottery, billions of other planets didn't. We can only have this discussion because earth did win the lottery, if it didn't then we wouldn't, but that doesn't mean another planet wouldn't have the conditions needed.

Why so many thousands of different religions all over the world and throughout time then? They can't all be right, they can all be wrong, and thus shows religion is a man made concept.

So you are saying because something is complex it is plausible that there is something intelligent designing it? Thus the designer must also be complex, yes? If you follow through your own logic you have now started an infinite regression.

Why are all humans "bloody amazing" as you claim? How is that evidence of God?

Why is it "perfectly plausible"? You have missed the point of the analogy.