Put it all here.

[Tucansam93]

If you get a rich enough flow of information you get consciousness. To see an example that is very, very different from the human brain, look at a colony of ants or bees. If you get enough ants or bees exchanging information, you begin to get something that behaves as if it has consciousness. The colony can achieve quite complicated things in regard to building, food gathering and storage, the rearing of young, language and warfare. Neither a single brain synapse nor a single ant is capable of even perceiving the achievements of the whole.

I've heard we "don't know" more than we "know" about the human brain, just as the universe itself (not saying that has anything to do with God though). The only comments I have about that is why would a randomly created universe with the supposedly random elements be able create a system like the brain and life itself even through evolution? Not to mention all the precision of the forces (I don't want to turn this into a fine tuning argument). I know that's something neither of us can answer and I'm not sure if we can. The real question is, why is there anything at all?

If there is no God, we are all slaves to the molecules that we are made of and everything we feel is an illusion. If God is real, which I think He is, then we do have free will. I think the problem many atheists have is that they have lost the definition of themselves and what is real. I know questioning everything is at the heart of many atheists, but how can anything be trusted thinking like that?

All I know is, the Bible says to live by simple faith and that we can trust our senses. That's good enough for me. I trust that God revealed Himself to us even though He isn't a part of this universe. The problem is, in my opinion, is that we have lost the definition of ourselves and many of us hope that we can find truth by ourselves. Whether we can or not, I don't know. I think God did that for us already.

I tried that. I tried calling myself a Christian despite my atheism. It caused me a great deal of heartache. It made a less tolerant, more bitter, passive-aggressive person out of me. It is something I regret. I am still trying to get the person that I was before that back.

I don't understand why it has to be like that for you. Christianity teaches to be tolerant, accepting, and loving towards everyone, no matter what. No one knows everything and no one is perfect. You don't even have to label yourself a Christian, and that's not even what it's about. We both believe in free will, and I think God is giving you the choice. That's the beauty of being a Christian. We don't have to appease God and be his slave your whole life. He is giving us the choice whether we want to follow Him or not.

I'm not going to try to force Christianity upon you. I think that's why many people have left it. You have to want it. I encourage you to keep seeking it though. Even if you remain an atheist, I don't think God will condemn you for what you don't know if He is just. I admit I have many questions and doubts, but I think if you put God in your life, things make a lot more sense than if there wasn't.

 

[god's_pawn]

I apologize for taking so long to reply. I've read your post several times and have not been sure that I grasp all that you are saying. I'm just going to jump in anyway, and maybe it will become more clear.

From my point of view, it does not seem that my position is invalid but that the God concepts I have been invited to entertain appear invalid. They are either too small (for want of a better word) in that they are based upon human or physical nature tweaked in some fashion, or unfalsifiable. If we are not defining God in terms of our universe and ourselves and producing something that is ultimately not-God, then we run up against a God that we simply cannot define, imagine, exchange information with, or falsify (to name a few things we cannot do). So, it seems the problem is not with me. I have simply recognized the problem.

But, as I say, I may be missing your point.

If you believe that there is a definition or description of God that is falsifiable, then what is it and why is that which it defines or describes God vs not-God?

Well, you do bring up some good points and I believe my last response did have some errors in it. Nonetheless, I still think your point of view is wrong, so please allow me to explain.

From your point of view (so far as I understand it that is, please correct me if I'm wrong), God is the product of our own imagining. We try to imagine a God to "solve our problems" (or whatever other reason), and thus He bears our image. He mirrors us, so to speak. Your view actually is falsifiable (I wrongly claimed the opposite in my last post), in order to falsify it, we must discover some trait in God that we as humans don't have (I will address this further down).

My point of view, puts God first. We are God's creation, therefore we bear His image (thus we are His mirror, to some extent). As it turns out, my view does indeed appear to be non-falsifiable. As God is infinite, He bears more traits than we do. Thus, any trait that we find in ourselves, we will automatically find in God. If God does not exists I would be unable to prove it because my own view prevents my from attributing anything to God that I don't have. Such an attempt is impossible. Nevertheless, I do not abandon my view. Why? Because non-falsifiability is not a necessity for truth. It is necessary for good science, but that is the only place where it is necessary. For instance, my own existence is non-falsifiable to me. I can't prove that I don't exist. If I cease to exist, I also cease to comprehend anything, thus I would never realize that I didn't exist. Does that mean that I really don't exist? Of course not! "I think, therefore I am!"

So, while you can't prove me wrong, I can try to provide evidence which may prove you wrong. However, I have never really tried this before so may not do that well. Still, I hope you will humor me while I try to do so and hopefully we can both learn from this. I will make several arguments below and you are more than welcome to comment on them as you see fit. Note, however, that I am writing in the understanding that you were once a Christian, therefore some things will be assumed that you understand them (if you don't please indicate so in order that I may clarify), and once believed them. Thus, you may find that some of my arguments are an attempt to prove not so much your present position as false, but that your transition from belief to disbelief was flawed. I may not succeed in any of these attempts, but I'm still going to try because I still believe that this is the truth. Okay, here we go; and one final note, these are not in any particular order.

1: Complexity. It is clear from the Christian perspective of God that He is far more complex a being than we are. While we bear a limited number of traits, he bears an unlimited (i.e. infinite) number of them. It is thus very easy to imagine Him creating a being that is less in complexity. On the other hand, your view makes this impossible. A finite being cannot project infinite qualities onto another being. Why then do we have a concept of the infinite? How is it that we can conceive of the impossible? Granted, we cannot fully picture such a concept in our minds, but most everyone knows what "infinity" means. Besides, as finite beings, it is logical to conclude that we would not understand something that we are not. Likewise, it is logical that we cannot fully comprehend God because we are not God. Nonetheless, even little children understand the basic concept of God. In fact, studies have been done that indicate a natural tendency to believe in God. How could this be a normal natural thing to do if God does not exists? In any case, if God has but one trait that we don't have, then I believe it is safe to assume that we were made in God's image, not vice-versa. Thus, despite the inherent weakness of this argument (so far as I see it), it does help support a couple others below.

2: Mistakes. "To err is to be human." I don't quite remember where I heard that before, but I'm willing to gamble that either you've heard of it or at least you understand (and most likely agree with) what's being said. We make mistakes; it's as simple as that. Nobody is perfect and I dare say those who disagree only prove the point. That said, from your perspective, how can we successfully attribute perfection to God? The Bible makes claim to His perfection, and I believe it defends that premise well. You can make any argument you like against His perfection, I'm quite certain that I can produce a plausible counter argument. This is not to prove definitively that He is indeed perfect, but it does allow the possibility for Him to be perfect. If it is possible, the you must grant that it is equally possible that we are made in His image (minus the perfection) rather than the other way around (which cannot account for said perfection).

3) Miracles. Coming from a Christian background, you undoubtedly are aware of the presence of miracles within the Bible. I will focus on one because I'm not arguing for their existence so much as their validity as evidence for us being made in God's image. Basically, I'm arguing that if God is made in our image, how did people in Jesus' time account for miracle? Take, for instance, the immaculate conception. Now, whatever may have actually happened (I believe in its truth, I'm guessing you don't), Joseph believed it really happened. Now, whatever you might believe about history prior to this event, we both would agree that, at the very least, about 6000 years of procreation had been going on. This means that Joesph knew very well where babies come from. This was not a 1st century misunderstanding of a basic law of our survival (sex makes babies), he literally believed that not only was Mary pregnant, but she became so without having sex. Not only that, but people in general from that time on continued to believe it. Why? How does your view account for this? How can we, who cannot perform miracles (at least from your perspective), project this ability onto someone else? Where does such a concept originate save from experience?

4) Change. When a human being goes through a particularly moving or traumatic experience, what do they often say about it? "It changed me." Whether or not they admit it, people do change over time. Sure there are some aspects that don't, but no human every retains their exact character and preferences over a life time. How then do we come up with a God who does not change (Numbers 23:19, Psalm 102:27, Malachi 3:6)? Throughout the Bible, we see a God who remains the same. He is not affected by what we do, His character and preference are no different in Genesis than they are in Revelation. If we were truly projecting our image onto God, then He would change in some way, shape, or form of the term.

5) Origin. If you are correct and God is nothing more than what we make Him to be, then where does our "image" come from? Better stated, if God's character originates with us, where does our character come from? What gives us personality? You can say it came from evolution, but then, where does evolution come from? What started that process and made it work in such a way that gave it the ability to produce personality? There has to be a beginning somewhere. This is not just a philosophical consideration, there is scientific evidence that there had to be a beginning (see the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem). I would make the argument that it started with God.

That's all I can come with at present and I may come up with more later, but I'm sure that's enough to get a good discussion going. Please also take your time in responding, I would rather a delayed but well thought out response than a quick one that is formulated poorly. This is not a matter of winning or losing for me (I'm assuming that's the case for you as well), I am well aware that I have little chance of truly convincing you. If anything this will help me confirm my own views (which it already has) and help me when I face this issue again.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I've heard we "don't know" more than we "know" about the human brain, just as the universe itself (not saying that has anything to do with God though). The only comments I have about that is why would a randomly created universe with the supposedly random elements be able create a system like the brain and life itself even through evolution? Not to mention all the precision of the forces (I don't want to turn this into a fine tuning argument). I know that's something neither of us can answer and I'm not sure if we can. The real question is, why is there anything at all?

The elements aren't really random. Fusion, as it takes place in stars, forms the elements in a logical step-by-step fashion. Small stars are able to convert hydrogen into helium. Medium stars like our sun can convert helium into oxygen and carbon late in their lives. Massive stars can fuse oxygen and carbon into neon, sodium, magnesium, sulfur and silicon. Later in their lives they form[SIZE=+1] calcium, iron, nickel, chromium and copper. As they supernova, they form the heavier elements.

Evolution is controlled by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. The latter is quite pragmatic. [/SIZE]

If there is no God, we are all slaves to the molecules that we are made of and everything we feel is an illusion. If God is real, which I think He is, then we do have free will. I think the problem many atheists have is that they have lost the definition of themselves and what is real. I know questioning everything is at the heart of many atheists, but how can anything be trusted thinking like that?

Many atheists are skeptics. Not all, but many.

Here are three things it is good to know about skeptics:

• Skeptics do not believe easily.
• When skeptics take a position, they do so provisionally.
• Skeptics do not bow to orthodoxy.

My question would be: How do you know to trust anything if you believe easily?


I do not understand how you have drawn the conclusion that without God all we fell is an illusion and that we would not have free will. How is it that the one follows the other?


I don't worry too much about having a definition of myself, but if I were to need one, what would go into it?

All I know is, the Bible says to live by simple faith and that we can trust our senses. That's good enough for me. I trust that God revealed Himself to us even though He isn't a part of this universe. The problem is, in my opinion, is that we have lost the definition of ourselves and many of us hope that we can find truth by ourselves. Whether we can or not, I don't know. I think God did that for us already.

Can you cite where in the Bible you find the exhortations to live by simple faith and trust our senses? I can probably figure out what you're getting at, but it would be better if I could examine your source.

I don't understand why it has to be like that for you. Christianity teaches to be tolerant, accepting, and loving towards everyone, no matter what. No one knows everything and no one is perfect. You don't even have to label yourself a Christian, and that's not even what it's about. We both believe in free will, and I think God is giving you the choice. That's the beauty of being a Christian. We don't have to appease God and be his slave your whole life. He is giving us the choice whether we want to follow Him or not.

i think some Christians distrusted my motives or felt that I would be an evil influence or disruptive to their fellowship. Wolf in sheep's clothing and all that.

I do like what you're saying about not having to appease God all the time. You might like my topic on the Parable of the Talents. I'm trying to make that very point.

I'm not going to try to force Christianity upon you. I think that's why many people have left it. You have to want it. I encourage you to keep seeking it though. Even if you remain an atheist, I don't think God will condemn you for what you don't know if He is just. I admit I have many questions and doubts, but I think if you put God in your life, things make a lot more sense than if there wasn't.

i have no idea how I would put God into my life without being disingenuous. Thank you though, very much, for not condemning me by proxy. That is all I really hope for.

 

[Believe the Impossible]

Greetings, Glass Soul!

I have always found it interesting that atheists find so much time and pleasure to spend at Christian forums; why do you think that is, if, in fact they are okay with their atheism and could be just getting on with and enjoying their lives?

Christians are here to address those who are truly interested in seeking God otherwise we are told to 'shake the dust from our feet', in other words, leave it to God if our words are just not impacting them. We are supposed to be ready to answer; we are told to spread the gospel; we're even told the blood of those we didn't warn would be on our heads.

So, why do you think atheist care so much about how Christians believe so much so that they would take on a sort of evangelizing of their own? Do you see it as something positive or negative?

And, if you are okay about your atheism, tell us why are you here on a Christian forum?

Thanks.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Greetings, Glass Soul!

Greetings!

I have always found it interesting that atheists find so much time and pleasure to spend at Christian forums; why do you think that is, if, in fact they are okay with their atheism and could be just getting on with and enjoying their lives?

First of all, thank you for placing this question in this thread rather than one of my more topical ones. This is exactly why I started it.

I can't speak for all atheists. There have been a number of "Why are there atheists here?" topics on this website over the years and they always garner a variety of replies. I am here because my ceasing to believe in God did not cause me to throw out everything that attracted me to Christianity. I am still quite interested in talking about those things. Talking about them with people who are likewise interested is not at all counter to my getting on and enjoying my life.

Christians are here to address those who are truly interested in seeking God otherwise we are told to 'shake the dust from our feet', in other words, leave it to God if our words are just not impacting them. We are supposed to be ready to answer; we are told to spread the gospel; we're even told the blood of those we didn't warn would be on our heads.

I am familiar with the scripture you are referencing. It is from Matthew 10:

“Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts — no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

The impending destruction of Jerusalem is like a specter hanging over the book of Matthew.

The shaking of the dust off one's feet was an act that Jews performed to demonstrate that even the dust of the ground in Gentile territories was unclean to them. Jesus instructed his disciples to perform this act if their fellow Jews would not welcome then or give them a listen. It would have been quite pointed. I don't know that this every specific action as performed in this very specific case applies in the situation of an atheist chatting on a website populated by Christians. If you feel it does, I can't stop you from ceremoniously distancing yourself from me.

So, why do you think atheist care so much about how Christians believe so much so that they would take on a sort of evangelizing of their own? Do you see it as something positive or negative?

I do not wish to evangelize you. If I feel that there is something developing in Christian circles that will be harmful to my fellow human beings, I will speak out against it. If I see good developing, I will support it. Some Christians may find it helpful to see how their beliefs look from a different perspective. If you do not, you need not explore the issues in my topics with me. Just don't click.

And, if you are okay about your atheism, tell us why are you here on a Christian forum?

Thanks.

Hopefully I have answered your question.

You're welcome.

 

[cloudyday2]

Here's another question for you, Glass*Soul:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I liked what you were saying about an ant colony having consciousness, etc.

Do you think you have a discrete soul with a discrete free will? I think it makes more sense if there is something like a God soul that flows through everything and your brain has a limited discrete awareness of this universal soul. And then free will is related to quantum mechanics somehow (proof left to the reader )

Anyway, that's what I think sometimes. I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe you already covered these ideas.

 

[Believe the Impossible]

I am familiar with the scripture you are referencing. It is from Matthew 10:

The impending destruction of Jerusalem is like a specter hanging over the book of Matthew.

The shaking of the dust off one's feet was an act that Jews performed to demonstrate that even the dust of the ground in Gentile territories was unclean to them. Jesus instructed his disciples to perform this act if their fellow Jews would not welcome then or give them a listen. It would have been quite pointed. I don't know that this every specific action as performed in this very specific case applies in the situation of an atheist chatting on a website populated by Christians. If you feel it does, I can't stop you from ceremoniously distancing yourself from me.

Hello, again!

I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't directly using that scripture toward my questions or atheists. I listed those three scenarios as the justification as to why Christians even say or do what they do: defend the Word of God, spread the Word of God and eventually having to 'shake the dust'. They are all commands given to us by God.

I by no means meant that I was inciting this scripture with you or anyone else. It is always quite apparent who the trolls are and when they come here with a mean spirit in order to create division, chaos and hate; this is when I shake the dust.

The most important of the scripture scenarios is when we are told that we are held accountable when we do not spread God's Word, in order to make His saving grace apparent to all we know. It is not only a command, but one that Christians take very seriously, especially in light of our own family and friends.

I just wonder where the inspiration comes from for atheists to try to stop Christians from obeying God in trying to at least inform others in love, of what is being offered. And yes, we will get those who believe they are some elite club, better than everyone else, but this is not the core element of Christianity, but I believe you know this.

I'm just wondering what atheists believe is harmful within Christianity that they feel they are some sort of 'watchman' for the human race when, if truly evaluating the truth of the matter, that God is love, light and it is His best interest and hope for mankind to live as He meant, with Him in eternity. And that we cannot even try to fathom His ways from a human perspective in such ways as is done on this forum and the many others on the net.

We are here to inform, support and edify those who are truly seeking God, His son and the Holy Spirit. We are also here to defend His word when it is being trivialized, misconstrued and being used as an arsenal against us being able to help someone who is truly in need. We get pretty fired up because we take our faith very seriously; it is the pivotal and most important thing in our lives.

I suppose, since I haven't read any of your other threads or posts, I wonder if you support these other atheists in these attacks and if not, why aren't atheists, who truly support the freedom of belief, religion and worship, not supporting and defending Christians' rights here and elsewhere when such immaturity and hate is used against them. I see them all gathering together as if for the slaughter and it is quite the sight. There is no love for their fellow man and they act as if they are fighting a war and it is confusing when we all know, even atheists, what the Word of God states.

I know we are told we will be hated because we love Jesus Christ and I suppose I also wonder you intentions and heart towards us.

I leave you in peace and with the freedom to believe and live as you choose. I also leave you in love and hope that these conversations will be enlightening to your spirit and that one day God will grab a hold of you with all the love He has and fill you with His light.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Hello, again!

I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't directly using that scripture toward my questions or atheists. I listed those three scenarios as the justification as to why Christians even say or do what they do: defend the Word of God, spread the Word of God and eventually having to 'shake the dust'. They are all commands given to us by God.

I see. Were you then adding to my discussion with Tucansam as to why I might not have felt welcome in Christians circles in the past? I do have to say that it was not dust-shaking after a discussion that was the problem. It was the name-calling and saber rattling right out of the gate that caused me such sorrow.

I by no means meant that I was inciting this scripture with you or anyone else. It is always quite apparent who the trolls are and when they come here with a mean spirit in order to create division, chaos and hate; this is when I shake the dust.

The most important of the scripture scenarios is when we are told that we are held accountable when we do not spread God's Word, in order to make His saving grace apparent to all we know. It is not only a command, but one that Christians take very seriously, especially in light of our own family and friends.

I am aware of this and that is why I created this thread. I know that whatever topic I propose to discuss so as to explore Christianity, there will be those among the Christians who feel, upon seeing my atheist icon, that it is their duty to evangelize me, question my motives, challenge me to a Apologetics duel or condemn me in some fashion. That's fine. I understand. I really do. I just don't want my every topic to immediately devolve into that so that I can never discuss anything else about Christianity that interests me.

So, that's what this thread is for. Everyone is welcome to bring those sorts of discussions here, which is exactly what you have done. So thank you.

I just wonder where the inspiration comes from for atheists to try to stop Christians from obeying God in trying to at least inform others in love, of what is being offered. And yes, we will get those who believe they are some elite club, better than everyone else, but this is not the core element of Christianity, but I believe you know this.

I'm just wondering what atheists believe is harmful within Christianity that they feel they are some sort of 'watchman' for the human race when, if truly evaluating the truth of the matter, that God is love, light and it is His best interest and hope for mankind to live as He meant, with Him in eternity. And that we cannot even try to fathom His ways from a human perspective in such ways as is done on this forum and the many others on the net.

We are here to inform, support and edify those who are truly seeking God, His son and the Holy Spirit. We are also here to defend His word when it is being trivialized, misconstrued and being used as an arsenal against us being able to help someone who is truly in need. We get pretty fired up because we take our faith very seriously; it is the pivotal and most important thing in our lives.

Well, I think you have asked a very big question. It is obvious that the members of the two groups can at times perceive one anther's motivations and the potential ramifications of their beliefs and actions in very different ways. So, it is good to talk about it, if for no other reason than to see ourselves from a different perspective. It can be tremendously instructive when that happens. If you page up a little, you will see that oi antz and I both had to step back and look at ourselves from the others' perspective in a previous topic.

I suppose, since I haven't read any of your other threads or posts, I wonder if you support these other atheists in these attacks and if not, why aren't atheists, who truly support the freedom of belief, religion and worship, not supporting and defending Christians' rights here and elsewhere when such immaturity and hate is used against them. I see them all gathering together as if for the slaughter and it is quite the sight. There is no love for their fellow man and they act as if they are fighting a war and it is confusing when we all know, even atheists, what the Word of God states.

You are welcome to read some of my other topics. Most of my posts have been deleted from this website as forums that I frequented were closed and purged, but there are a few here in "Exploring Christianity" that are easy to find and are probably typical of my approach. I don't know how you will feel about what you see there, but I can assure you my motive is not to trivialize the topics I've brought up. I'm not gathering with anyone for the purpose of slaughter. I am against slaughter, whether it is actual or virtual. I am for freedom of religion and freedom of expression. My own as well as yours.

I know we are told we will be hated because we love Jesus Christ and I suppose I also wonder you intentions and heart towards us.

I leave you in peace and with the freedom to believe and live as you choose. I also leave you in love and hope that these conversations will be enlightening to your spirit and that one day God will grab a hold of you with all the love He has and fill you with His light.

I leave it to you to discover my intentions and heart, such that I can express on a website, if you wish.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Well, you do bring up some good points and I believe my last response did have some errors in it. Nonetheless, I still think your point of view is wrong, so please allow me to explain.

From your point of view (so far as I understand it that is, please correct me if I'm wrong), God is the product of our own imagining. We try to imagine a God to "solve our problems" (or whatever other reason), and thus He bears our image. He mirrors us, so to speak. Your view actually is falsifiable (I wrongly claimed the opposite in my last post), in order to falsify it, we must discover some trait in God that we as humans don't have (I will address this further down).

You have piqued my interest...

My point of view, puts God first. We are God's creation, therefore we bear His image (thus we are His mirror, to some extent). As it turns out, my view does indeed appear to be non-falsifiable. As God is infinite, He bears more traits than we do. Thus, any trait that we find in ourselves, we will automatically find in God. If God does not exists I would be unable to prove it because my own view prevents my from attributing anything to God that I don't have. Such an attempt is impossible. Nevertheless, I do not abandon my view. Why? Because non-falsifiability is not a necessity for truth. It is necessary for good science, but that is the only place where it is necessary. For instance, my own existence is non-falsifiable to me. I can't prove that I don't exist. If I cease to exist, I also cease to comprehend anything, thus I would never realize that I didn't exist. Does that mean that I really don't exist? Of course not! "I think, therefore I am!"

I like how you've put this.

There is a expression that goes, "Everything in the Bible is true and some of it really happened." I think it captures the gist of what you're saying. The Truth in the matter and the facts of the matter may differ because they are placing the matter in two different arenas of the human experience. For instance, when I read the story of the Ascension of Christ, I could snarkily ask if he reached escape velocity, but if I did I would be missing the point. I might actually ask that if I ran into someone who was being militantly literal about it to shake them up a little, but I don't ask it when I read the story devotionally. I ask an entirely different class of questions, such as what the ramifications of the spiritualization of the disciples' experience of their teacher might have been. The answer to that may contain an important truth.

So, while you can't prove me wrong, I can try to provide evidence which may prove you wrong. However, I have never really tried this before so may not do that well. Still, I hope you will humor me while I try to do so and hopefully we can both learn from this. I will make several arguments below and you are more than welcome to comment on them as you see fit. Note, however, that I am writing in the understanding that you were once a Christian, therefore some things will be assumed that you understand them (if you don't please indicate so in order that I may clarify), and once believed them. Thus, you may find that some of my arguments are an attempt to prove not so much your present position as false, but that your transition from belief to disbelief was flawed. I may not succeed in any of these attempts, but I'm still going to try because I still believe that this is the truth. Okay, here we go; and one final note, these are not in any particular order.

That sounds fair.

1: Complexity. It is clear from the Christian perspective of God that He is far more complex a being than we are. While we bear a limited number of traits, he bears an unlimited (i.e. infinite) number of them. It is thus very easy to imagine Him creating a being that is less in complexity. On the other hand, your view makes this impossible. A finite being cannot project infinite qualities onto another being. Why then do we have a concept of the infinite? How is it that we can conceive of the impossible? Granted, we cannot fully picture such a concept in our minds, but most everyone knows what "infinity" means. Besides, as finite beings, it is logical to conclude that we would not understand something that we are not. Likewise, it is logical that we cannot fully comprehend God because we are not God. Nonetheless, even little children understand the basic concept of God. In fact, studies have been done that indicate a natural tendency to believe in God. How could this be a normal natural thing to do if God does not exists? In any case, if God has but one trait that we don't have, then I believe it is safe to assume that we were made in God's image, not vice-versa. Thus, despite the inherent weakness of this argument (so far as I see it), it does help support a couple others below.

But complexity in the universe is the result of entropy, as are death and the one-way arrow of time that together make us non-infinite.

Entropy causes the destruction of order. The destruction of order releases energy. The introduction of energy into a system increases its order plus heat loss. The interaction of many of these processes creates more and more complex forms of order. It would take vastly more data to describe the universe today than it did at its beginning (What's this? Hydrogen. And this? Hydrogen. And this? Hydrogen. LOL). And, this may all be leading to heat death, in which the entire universe becomes perfectly dispersed and of the same temperature throughout, such that nothing can ever "happen" again. Why would we conclude that God is complex rather than that complexity is a trait that requires a universe in order to emerge?

2: Mistakes. "To err is to be human." I don't quite remember where I heard that before, but I'm willing to gamble that either you've heard of it or at least you understand (and most likely agree with) what's being said. We make mistakes; it's as simple as that. Nobody is perfect and I dare say those who disagree only prove the point. That said, from your perspective, how can we successfully attribute perfection to God? The Bible makes claim to His perfection, and I believe it defends that premise well. You can make any argument you like against His perfection, I'm quite certain that I can produce a plausible counter argument. This is not to prove definitively that He is indeed perfect, but it does allow the possibility for Him to be perfect. If it is possible, the you must grant that it is equally possible that we are made in His image (minus the perfection) rather than the other way around (which cannot account for said perfection).

Well, I'm not convinced that human beings can imagine absolutes such as infinity and perfection. We tend to attribute the effort to imagine then to having imagined them. And we may not be able to imagine them because they do not exist. (Entropy is pretty darned implacable in this poor old universe.)

I don't know. What I do know is that our efforts to apply them tends to be inimical to the human experience. It's one of the things I sort of keep an eye on when it comes to religion. Is it applying a so-called absolute in order to crush real live people? If it is, then I tend to be against it. What I like about Jesus is that he said things like, "So what if it's the Sabbath. This woman is suffering."

3) Miracles. Coming from a Christian background, you undoubtedly are aware of the presence of miracles within the Bible. I will focus on one because I'm not arguing for their existence so much as their validity as evidence for us being made in God's image. Basically, I'm arguing that if God is made in our image, how did people in Jesus' time account for miracle? Take, for instance, the immaculate conception. Now, whatever may have actually happened (I believe in its truth, I'm guessing you don't), Joseph believed it really happened. Now, whatever you might believe about history prior to this event, we both would agree that, at the very least, about 6000 years of procreation had been going on. This means that Joesph knew very well where babies come from. This was not a 1st century misunderstanding of a basic law of our survival (sex makes babies), he literally believed that not only was Mary pregnant, but she became so without having sex. Not only that, but people in general from that time on continued to believe it. Why? How does your view account for this? How can we, who cannot perform miracles (at least from your perspective), project this ability onto someone else? Where does such a concept originate save from experience?

I think, in Joseph's case it originated from love. Love can trump logic. A dream can trump the evidence of our senses. A story can trump history. Used in moderation and with wisdom, that can be a good tendency.

4) Change. When a human being goes through a particularly moving or traumatic experience, what do they often say about it? "It changed me." Whether or not they admit it, people do change over time. Sure there are some aspects that don't, but no human every retains their exact character and preferences over a life time. How then do we come up with a God who does not change (Numbers 23:19, Psalm 102:27, Malachi 3:6)? Throughout the Bible, we see a God who remains the same. He is not affected by what we do, His character and preference are no different in Genesis than they are in Revelation. If we were truly projecting our image onto God, then He would change in some way, shape, or form of the term.

I don't know how to say this without launching a whole topic with a horribly long OP, but when I read the Bible, I find a constantly changing God concept. It is so obvious to me that I can't understand how anyone can miss it. Trying to make all the pieces and parts seem unified takes a huge amount of explaining and expounding and sweeping under the rug. God changes as the people who believe in him change. One nation's notions of God effects another's when they rub shoulders. The God we have now feels good to us because the whole process colors everything, so that our entire culture and our sense of ourselves within that culture are bound up with our God concepts. Try to change them and everything feels as if it is shifting, because it is.

If we want a God as God who does not change, we are back peering into the void.

5) Origin. If you are correct and God is nothing more than what we make Him to be, then where does our "image" come from? Better stated, if God's character originates with us, where does our character come from? What gives us personality? You can say it came from evolution, but then, where does evolution come from? What started that process and made it work in such a way that gave it the ability to produce personality? There has to be a beginning somewhere. This is not just a philosophical consideration, there is scientific evidence that there had to be a beginning (see the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem). I would make the argument that it started with God.

The mind was as much a surprise to evolution as it is to us.

I'm actually out of time right now. I'll try to think some more on the question though.

That's all I can come with at present and I may come up with more later, but I'm sure that's enough to get a good discussion going. Please also take your time in responding, I would rather a delayed but well thought out response than a quick one that is formulated poorly. This is not a matter of winning or losing for me (I'm assuming that's the case for you as well), I am well aware that I have little chance of truly convincing you. If anything this will help me confirm my own views (which it already has) and help me when I face this issue again.