does it matter which god? the idea is still valid.

@Basem if you don't call it God, what do you call it?

@Word i don't know what to call it, Bertrand Russell's example of the floating tea pot can be used here. we can't prove or disprove "god's" existence, and more than that, if there is a god we wouldn't know if it/he/she wants to be called god.. maybe potato maybe sponge bob.. i have no idea.

@Basem for 1000s of years people have been called "gods". It is well proven we exist. Illogical atheist refuses to accept this historical fact. They refuse people being labeled as gods for 1000s of years and only accept recently modern inventions of the labels human and homo sapian. It is not a matter of proof that a style of god exist, its historical fact.

@Word what and who is an illogical atheist?

@Basem atheism is illogical therefore atheist would be an illogical thinking person in their atheism. This is not to say that a person calling themselves atheist is illogical in other subjects out side of atheism.

@Word why is an atheist illogical? im not sure that i follow.

@Basem exactly the point of being illogical not following.

non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

@Word ok.

Since almost all religions use ritual and prayer to invoke the pleasure and mercy of their god, then I think it can be considered that there is a consensus that at least two attributes of their god are the ability to interact with the world and the ability to decide whether or not to interact, so therefore something that cannot do either is not a god and probably does not exist.

@LenHazell53 Well yes but only if you allow religions to define god. While not a deist, I would still respect that view, at least as much as religion.

islamic scholars are bothered a lot by this argument, they'd try any possible way to refute it. and they can't. the "best" shot they have on this topic is stating that "god is good in him self" if i got the translation correct. means that whatever god does, it is the best possible goodness we can perceive. personally, i don't see it adding any meaning or explanation. it is rather complicating the problem of evil even more.

@Basem Interesting, it was this argument that really got to the Christians as well. Since Epicurus then continued to conclude that, if God is good then, you have nothing to fear from god, since a good god will always respect any attempt to do good, and forgive human weakness if you fail to do good. How could he not, and still be good ?

This made the Christians invent the doctrine of. "God fearing Christian." In which an irrational fear of god, was a needed qualification to be Christian. Rejecting rational thought in favour of irrational fear, was the best they could do.

@Fernapple "if God is good then, you have nothing to fear from god, since a good god will always respect any attempt to do good, and forgive human weakness if you fail to do good. How could he not, and still be good ?" I LOVE THAT!!!!

if we are to trust god blindly for he is good in him self, then there is no reason to fear god, but god will not forgive us once we commit something wrong... therefore we will go to hell. So, where is the goodness of god gone?

@Basem Quite.