It doesn't matter, that was not the point. You said�. "The nature of "God" is such that it is beyond the realm of logic." You now seem to be shifting away from that. Did you mean to say maybe or perhaps The nature of "God" is such that it is beyond the realm of logic? Just trying to get it clear You're right, I shouldn't have stated any absolutes. Maybe he is beyond it, maybe he isn't. If God is beyond the realm of logic, God is illogical. Then along with �makes no sense� I think you also said, here is a difference between illogical and beyond logic. but maybe be is one or the other or both, i don't know. God would be irrelevant and pointless for the role of God too. Why is that? Those don�t appear to be the attributes one might normally associate with a supreme being . Maybe they are maybe there aren't...why does it matter? Mealymouthed nonsenses like "beyond all understanding" render a supposedly all powerful being understandably pointless, if it can't be understood. I tend to hate the "beyond all understanding" premise as well, but like it or not there is nothing you can do about it. It doesn't, as you say, render a supreme being pointless...in fact it sometimes has the opposite affect. Anyways what's your point with all this?
How about this. Someone please explain one logical argument you have against a supreme being existing. Just one.
There is a saying from my poker days; "Lady Luck is a Fickle Bitch and Her Name is Karma"... I don't care to "convert" you (or anyone for that matter) to my way of thinking. I also stand behind my statement. Evertything is either karma based or a product of individual or collective thoughts. When (and IF) you think about (and have life experience) to validate this by careful observation of your own life, you will see this way too. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D5lahcNAmc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D5lahcNAmc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
That's a little too deep for my taste. But I can only imagine what nefarious thoughts, collective and/or individual, the victims of Katrina and the recent tsunami must have held to deserve their fate. And all of the starving and ailing innocent children, not only in Third World countries, but right here at home. And the innocent victims of senseless crimes. And the innocent civilians of military offensives. And those stricken with terminal illnesses. The list goes on. Those bastids all had it coming, eh? (Hey, this self-righteous smugness feels pretty good!) P.S. Some folks just can't accept the notion that they are not in complete control, can they? While implicitly passing judgment, of course. (Ahem.)
Because of your hatred you keep taking the illogical side of the debate. While your dirty harry quote is amusing its is not on point. My statement was science is not on the side of the Atheist. (To make sure you get it - I will spell it out.) That statement does not mean Science is on the side of the Theist. You really should check your emotions - that cause you to make illogical conclusions.
The most classic and often repeated argument of all. Probably the first thing you will learn in philosophy 101 (first thing I studied in that class anyway). This is referring to the Christian version of God BTW. 1) God is all powerful 2) God is all knowing 3) God is supremely good. Then why allow all the extreme misery on Earth? That is a logical argument. The typical theistic response is not. They cannot give a rational answer, which invariably leads to the same crutch, "we cannot understand why God allows all the misery, because we cannot understand God". THAT is not logic, its a cop out. If you do offer a logical argument and state that "who says God is good?" then you would indeed be a rare believer, but you would have a point. My answer would be that I personally don't believe in a supreme being because I don't believe in much of anything that has not been proven by science, or that at least has some scientific evidence. I don't believe in UFOs for example because after all these years, no one has produced one. Same with Sasquatch. One woulda been hit by a car by now.
You are right, that is the most repeated argument, but I asked for evidence against a supreme being's existence. We haven't even gotten far enough to start to ponder the attributes of that being. Lets start at the beginning then maybe one day we will get to the being's nature, but as of right now we haven't even established whether he is exists or not. On a side note there is of course no easy answer to your question, but you should remember that the argument you will get from an intelligent theist will center around the subjectivity of the word "good". What does it mean? Good is such an ambiguous term that it will do use no justice to go back and forth on whether he is good or not, as "good" is likely to be interpreted differently by different people. But like I said, we haven't gotten there yet.