Cosmological Football

[Dunecat]

This is intended as a light-hearted (but still poignant) thread. Here are the rules:

Post in this format:

(Point)

(Score)

So, for example:

The argument that an omnipotent God is illogical because God can't make it rain and not rain at the same time is invalid because omnipotence is a measure of power, and is not falsified by incoherent, incompatible contradictions.

Theists: 1
Atheists: 0

We shall keep a running total, whether or not there is a counter point. You may post that point, but the whole purpose of this thread is not to measure truths because we will never all agree on what they are, but merely points, which must be defended and countered. Silly, but interesting and made to keep the debate fresh.

Agnostics don't believe in competition so they won't be playing Cosmological Football.

You may begin where I left off. If you wish to make a point for Atheism, such as:

The traditional dogma of eternal punishment is in the very least immoral because an omnibenevolent God would not create eternal punishment for mere temporal grievances, and at the very least that God is responsible for the welfare and destiny of those who would be punished because he is omnipotent. Therefore either he is not omnibenevolent, he is not omnipotent, or the traditional dogma of eternal punishment is false. (We'll chalk this one up for the Atheists)

Theists: 1
Atheists: 1

See how this goes? Ok, BEGIN. *blows whistle*

[Zenith Darksea]

Hey, you follow British football! My respect for you has just shot up.

I suppose that I might as well kick off with Prof. Richard Swinburne's argument. Prof. Swinburne, incidentally, is recently retired from the post of head of Philosophy of Religion at Oxford University, and is one of the more famous British converts to Orthodox Christianity (I see him every week in church, which is quite cool, but I digress).

In short, the atheistic view of the universe is inherently improbable while the theistic view is rather more probable. An atheist, being unable to admit to a level of reality on which cause is unnecessary, is trapped into admitting a regression of cause and effect that goes into infinity and actually becomes more complicated the further back it goes (atheist theories such as M- and String theory look back towards multiplying universes, multiverses etc. etc. without ever tying up the loose ends for the simple fact that it would be impossible to do so). The only alternative for an atheist is to assert that the issue of causation does not need to be addressed or cannot be addressed. In my own view, such an assertion would disqualify someone from the whole debate anyway.

The theistic view however is much simpler and more probable. Whereas the atheistic view of the universe and its causation becomes more complicated the futher back you go, the theistic view becomes much simpler - you end up with God (with the exception of some pagan religions that have more than one God, though I don't follow any of those anyway so it's academic) and nothing more. The theistic view asserts that only the physical universe need definitely conform to the laws of cause and effect; we haven't properly witnessed the metaphysical universe and are unable to say for sure that God would need to be caused.

The only real way to break out of the infinite regression of causation is to admit that there is some level on which causation need not or cannot occur. For a theist it is to admit the existence of God, whereas for an atheist it is to attempt to claim the existence of an ultimately random and vastly complex multiplicity of universes that leaves open a key question - why does causation affect some matter but not other matter?

Theism therefore is considerably simpler, more coherent and more probable in its ability to deal with cosmological causation.

Theism: 2
Atheism: 1

[This could get unfair if people are allowed to score it themselves!]

[wilting]

In the first instance, Zenith's argument strikes me intellectually lazy - it suggests that we shouldn't bother looking for a 'first cause', that we should not seek answers. We simply do not know a 'first cause', so why assume one?

Furthermore, assuming a cause does not validate a particular set of assumptions about what that cause might be, specifically the concept of a deity, specifically the concept of a deity that has an active role in our universe, specific notions about aspects of this deity, specific notions that alternative first causes with specific assertions are false and specific rules about how society should behave and should be run; all because we don't know what the 'first cause' might be, but there 'must' be one?


Theism: 2?
Atheism: 2? 3?

This thread seems odd. People can use the most ridiculous argument to "make a point".

You broke it... but I agree. Who decides on the score? We can't agree on what are valid points in the first place... hence the disagreement.

[Irishman]

This thread seems odd. People can use the most ridiculous argument to "make a point".

I will play defender here (play right back in real life too )

First, for Zenith...

In short, the atheistic view of the universe is inherently improbable while the theistic view is rather more probable. An atheist, being unable to admit to a level of reality on which cause is unnecessary, is trapped into admitting a regression of cause and effect that goes into infinity and actually becomes more complicated the further back it goes (atheist theories such as M- and String theory look back towards multiplying universes, multiverses etc. etc. without ever tying up the loose ends for the simple fact that it would be impossible to do so). The only alternative for an atheist is to assert that the issue of causation does not need to be addressed or cannot be addressed. In my own view, such an assertion would disqualify someone from the whole debate anyway.

In summary, atheistic positions lead to an infinite temporal regress, which is impossible.

The theistic view however is much simpler and more probable. Whereas the atheistic view of the universe and its causation becomes more complicated the futher back you go, the theistic view becomes much simpler - you end up with God (with the exception of some pagan religions that have more than one God, though I don't follow any of those anyway so it's academic) and nothing more

Here is where the argument fails. God acting (or being) is predicated on a temporal nature.
1) If God created the universe, then he must be a temporal being in order to act and create the universe.

2) If god is subject to time, then it matters not that this universe did not exist, and only God did, because time still applies to God, and therefore for as long as God has existed, time has too, leading to an infinite temporal regress.

Therefore, either way you end with an infinite temporal regress and Occam's razor finishes off the notion of God after that...

*SHOT GOES OFF THE CROSSBAR!!!*

The only real way to break out of the infinite regression of causation is to admit that there is some level on which causation need not or cannot occur. For a theist it is to admit the existence of God, whereas for an atheist it is to attempt to claim the existence of an ultimately random and vastly complex multiplicity of universes that leaves open a key question - why does causation affect some matter but not other matter?

God in order to be a Creator, must be subject to time, causing an infinite temporal regress.

Theism therefore is considerably simpler, more coherent and more probable in its ability to deal with cosmological causation.

Wrong

Orange,

The argument that an omnipotent God is illogical because God can't make it rain and not rain at the same time is invalid because omnipotence is a measure of power, and is not falsified by incoherent, incompatible contradictions.

Utter nonsense. The law of non contradiction is a prerequisite for an existence (or any being in existence) to exist. In philosophy, we call these possible worlds. It is literally impossible that such a being exist. There is NO being which holds the power to cause a contradiction because such a being, by definition would not exist.

This is not a point, much less an argument.


Finally to move to striker, Problem of Evil. Need more be said (if yes tell me).

[Zenith Darksea]

1) If God created the universe, then he must be a temporal being in order to act and create the universe.

Why? I myself wouldn't necessarily envisage the creation of the universe as being a specific event relative to some timeline of God's. I don't think that we really know enough to make any specific claims about the relationship between the physical and metaphysical.

2) If god is subject to time, then it matters not that this universe did not exist, and only God did, because time still applies to God, and therefore for as long as God has existed, time has too, leading to an infinite temporal regress.

Again I would question the need to think that God is subject to time. After all, the creation of the universe would only be a temporal event from our perspective. It doesn't tell us anything about God's perspective.

Wrong

No, right, actually. Let's see - a single God that logically entails infinity, consciousness, originality etc. vs an atheistic worldview that finds it impossible to reconcile the intrinsically finite nature of the physical cosmos with the necessary infinite nature of existence (and as a result goes groping after more and more 'multiverses' etc.). I tend to think that theism is the simpler of the two here.

Finally to move to striker, Problem of Evil. Need more be said (if yes tell me).

I think so, because the so-called 'problem of evil' is generally taken out of its original theistic context. In its proper context there is no problem at all, because the gift of free will is entirely positive. It allows people to show genuine love and good feelings, while at the same time any 'bad' use of free will does not have any lasting or real effects, since those who commit transgressions must take the permanent consequences of their actions whilst those who suffer the effects of those transgressions have their experiences counted towards their own righteousness and suffer no actual evil outside of their physical position (and the physical world has no intrinsic value anyway). Hence the 'problem of evil' is merely an issue of perspective and subjective personal values, and could only pose a problem to a secularist.

In the first instance, Zenith's argument strikes me intellectually lazy - it suggests that we shouldn't bother looking for a 'first cause', that we should not seek answers.

On the contrary, it is merely realism to acknowledge that a 'first cause' in the physical sense is a contradiction in terms and that it is necessary to look beyond the physical.

You broke it... but I agree. Who decides on the score? We can't agree on what are valid points in the first place... hence the disagreement.

I also agree. It's nice to end a post on a point of agreement, don't you think?

[Ruin]

Why? I myself wouldn't necessarily envisage the creation of the universe as being a specific event relative to some timeline of God's. I don't think that we really know enough to make any specific claims about the relationship between the physical and metaphysical.

Indeed, in fact we know so little we cannot make any viable claims about the metaphysical, hence why any speculation as to the nature of beings such as Gods is inherently flawed by the fact the most we have is a collection of contradicting books, each saying different things about them. Hence why Deism is altogether more reasonable then Theism.

No, right, actually. Let's see - a single God that logically entails infinity, consciousness, originality etc. vs an atheistic worldview that finds it impossible to reconcile the intrinsically finite nature of the physical cosmos with the necessary infinite nature of existence (and as a result goes groping after more and more 'multiverses' etc.). I tend to think that theism is the simpler of the two here.

What gives you the right to decide what happened at the beginning of the universe and that you can just slot your God into that gap. It is altogether possible we will never find the answer to what began the universe, or that we are incapable of understanding it when we do find it. Why can you not be happy with this ignorance in the secure knowledge that you know very little if anything about it, just like the rest of us.
Sorry if that sounded very agressive, but the arrogance of such gestures astounds and irks me.

I'll not comment on free will, as we have already discussed it and found it all comes down to a different perception of what free will is.

On the contrary, it is merely realism to acknowledge that a 'first cause' in the physical sense is a contradiction in terms and that it is necessary to look beyond the physical.

And that is why I understand Deists, however you go on to associate this metaphysical first cause with personality, feelings and purpose, completely beyond your understanding or rationality.

[Irishman]

Why? I myself wouldn't necessarily envisage the creation of the universe as being a specific event relative to some timeline of God's. I don't think that we really know enough to make any specific claims about the relationship between the physical and metaphysical.

Simply using the definitions of what it is to act.

Again I would question the need to think that God is subject to time. After all, the creation of the universe would only be a temporal event from our perspective. It doesn't tell us anything about God's perspective.

Wrong. In order to act, there must be time. Time before, during and after an action, and as such, God is subject to time IF you have him act.

The only other option is that God is an unchanging metaphysical force which sustains the world, which doesn't solve any problems because for this to happen the world must be in existence for as long as God, forever.

Let's see - a single God that logically entails infinity, consciousness, originality etc. vs an atheistic worldview that finds it impossible to reconcile the intrinsically finite nature of the physical cosmos with the necessary infinite nature of existence (and as a result goes groping after more and more 'multiverses' etc.). I tend to think that theism is the simpler of the two here.

I gave argument as to why it is wrong. The only evidence that you offered was that atheistic views led to an ITR and I have shown that theistic views do too.

I tend to think that theism is the simpler of the two here.

Technically it is more complex, yet I know what you are trying to say. It is easier to comprehend.

In its proper context there is no problem at all, because the gift of free will is entirely positive.

And yet it is entirely possible to have free will without the level of suffering in this world. IE- Heaven.

Hence the 'problem of evil' is merely an issue of perspective and subjective personal values, and could only pose a problem to a secularist.

No, there is NO reason why a loving God would not simply create an existence in which we all had free will and lived without suffering. For instance, only creating heaven (or an existence like heaven.)

[Irishman]

Indeed, in fact we know so little we cannot make any viable claims about the metaphysical, hence why any speculation as to the nature of beings such as Gods is inherently flawed by the fact the most we have is a collection of contradicting books, each saying different things about them. Hence why Deism is altogether more reasonable then Theism.

Yet the problem with both is you are claiming that we cannot criticize your notion of God because you say we can know nothing about it, and yet, you use it as an answer for life's questions.

It is a dishonest debating tactic. If you do not allow people to criticize your points by claiming "logic doesn't apply" or "faith", then you have no right to posit it as an explanation in the first place.

[Ruin]

I'm an Atheist... just because I say I have sympathy with the Deist viewpoint does not make me a Deist. As an Atheist I have no notions of God therefore cannot use him as an answer to things (as you would see later in my post).

[Irishman]

Sorry, that post was also directed at Zenith, who proposed the idea, and I just quoted you as you seemed to accept that as an answer.

[Zenith Darksea]

It is a dishonest debating tactic. If you do not allow people to criticize your points by claiming "logic doesn't apply" or "faith", then you have no right to posit it as an explanation in the first place.

Now let's not go overboard. I didn't claim either of those things. Indeed, I don't think that admitting a certain degree of ignorance in this matter is any worse than when an atheist says some such thing as, "I assume there is a materialistic answer to the problem" or the rather more sophisticated statement of, "There doesn't need to be an answer to the problem, I assume."

I'll happily admit that one of the great benefits of theism is that it is vague and uncertain in that we can only make definite statements about what we have seen, and not many people can honestly claim to have seen God. However, when it is clear that one point of view - atheism - produces irreconcilable logical difficulties while the opposite point of view may well not (and we can't say for sure either way, because we haven't directly observed God, if such a thing is possible for us), then the opposite point of view starts to look a lot more attractive.

I don't claim any definitive proof of God here (to do that I would need to go on for much longer, if I could), but rather a case for a sort of 'weak theism', if you will.

Technically it is more complex

I don't know how you can claim that.

And yet it is entirely possible to have free will without the level of suffering in this world. IE- Heaven.

Heaven is the state of being (in Orthodox Christianity, at any rate) for those who have already made their choices. It is possible to have such a world, but for most of us we haven't reached it. In the meanwhile we must play out our freedom in real time, if you will.

No, there is NO reason why a loving God would not simply create an existence in which we all had free will and lived without suffering.

Again, it depends entirely on your definition of suffering. With free will comes the logical caveat that some people will like some things less than others. Yet, in Orthodox Christianity at least (I won't claim to speak for other religions), the only real suffering is that felt by the person who has knowingly tried to isolate themselves from God.

The problem with the 'problem of evil' is that it is far too subjective an argument to use against theism, frankly.

Hence why Deism is altogether more reasonable then Theism.

Yes, I agree that, on this level of purely abstract debate, Deism does seem more reasonable than Theism. But if one admits that Deism is at all reasonable, then it opens the door to another phase of the debate in which it is possible to employ different arguments for specific theistic religions.

[Dunecat]

"...Aaaaand the players continue to duke it out after the ball was kicked into the stands. Apparently that was their last one. First time I've seen this, John."

"Right you are, Ken."

(Score?...)

[bspiken]

I agree, there should come out a new "ball" so to speak, so here goes attempt number two:

Theism claims the omnipotence of God, yet if so why would he constrict himself by creating a set of rules in order to affect the world(namely nature and phsysics)? I always assumed this would fall short of Occam´s razor.

Theism: 0
Atheism: 1
(neither of the past points are quite finished, were probly gonna end with a regular score regarding soccer )

[Irishman]

Indeed, I don't think that admitting a certain degree of ignorance in this matter is any worse than when an atheist says some such thing as, "I assume there is a materialistic answer to the problem" or the rather more sophisticated statement of, "There doesn't need to be an answer to the problem, I assume."

At least an atheist can back it up with experience saying that every other claim that religion has made has turned out to have a physical answer.

The issue is that you are making the claim that God can serve as an explanation, you must be open to speculation as to how. You cannot say "GOD IS MORE SIMPLE, GOD IS THE ANSWER", and then deny to respond to any query as to how. Like I said, it is dishonest to use such tactics, and I am not claiming that these fallacies are limited to theists or atheists.

However, when it is clear that one point of view - atheism - produces irreconcilable logical difficulties while the opposite point of view may well not (and we can't say for sure either way, because we haven't directly observed God, if such a thing is possible for us), then the opposite point of view starts to look a lot more attractive.

I have shown very clearly that in order for your god to have done what you claim, the exact same "logical impossibilities" occur in your theory. - To which you replied I was looking too far into the nature of God.

If you are going to try to use a fallacy to avoid criticism of your statements, I suggest you stop stating things you refuse to debate.

I don't claim any definitive proof of God here (to do that I would need to go on for much longer, if I could), but rather a case for a sort of 'weak theism', if you will.

I offered a proof that your "case for weak theism" is flawed.

I don't know how you can claim that.

Simple, however the universe happened, whether it was by infinite regress or infinite regress (yes, your "God" theory results in infinite regress, which I showed above) and you are stipulating more unproven facts than the atheists.

Therefore, more complex.

Heaven is the state of being (in Orthodox Christianity, at any rate) for those who have already made their choices. It is possible to have such a world, but for most of us we haven't reached it. In the meanwhile we must play out our freedom in real time, if you will.

And yet God, an all loving and all powerful being lets this suffering continue and created it for his own sick pleasure. As you have well admitted, perfect existence with free will is possible (heaven).

With free will comes the logical caveat that some people will like some things less than others. Yet, in Orthodox Christianity at least (I won't claim to speak for other religions), the only real suffering is that felt by the person who has knowingly tried to isolate themselves from God.

And if God simply chose not to create those who would deny him? It would be no different and we would never know, (not that it is entirely certain that we have free will to begin with).

The problem with the 'problem of evil' is that it is far too subjective an argument to use against theism, frankly.

It most certainly is not. In its weak form, it is devastating to most theistic religions. It says that it is reasonable to assume that there is some amount of suffering not caused by free will which could have been avoided without causing greater or equal suffering.

This takes into account animal suffering, humans afflicted by natural disaster, and anything which causes pain and is not the result of free will.

All it takes is ONE instance in the entire history of the world to destroy the idea of an all loving omnipotent God. This makes it rational to believe that such a God does not exist.

[Vladimir Lenin]

God... a being who's only definition is that he is beyond man's brain to comprehend.

God is a loving god, who if you don't do what he tells you to do he will torture you for an eternity. Not a year, but forever. Your soul will be in agony.

Worshipping gods, like playing russian roulette in opposite, every chamber has a bullet except for one. You just hope you picked the right one.

How many points is that for atheists?

[Zenith Darksea]

God is a loving god, who if you don't do what he tells you to do he will torture you for an eternity. Not a year, but forever. Your soul will be in agony.

Funnily enough, this is only ever true if you're talking to an atheist...

The reason is of course that it is just atheistic propaganda. The idea that God either requires certain actions from a person or that God deliberately tortures a person is not a Christian one, at any rate. I can see that I'm going to have to explain this again. God is the source of life. Anyone who (voluntarily) isolates themselves from God cuts themselves off from life. The result is that they die, but entirely as a result of their own decision. But this is something that atheists generally like to twist and take out of context.

At least an atheist can back it up with experience saying that every other claim that religion has made has turned out to have a physical answer.

I don't think they have, actually (at least, I don't see why I should just take your word for it when I could probably mention religious 'claims' that you haven't even heard of). It's especially bad for atheism in fact when it claims that it is capable of providing a satisfactory framework for cosmology when it knowingly entails such great logical impossibilities that it can't even provide physical answers to all its own claims.

You cannot say "GOD IS MORE SIMPLE, GOD IS THE ANSWER", and then deny to respond to any query as to how. Like I said, it is dishonest to use such tactics, and I am not claiming that these fallacies are limited to theists or atheists.

I can say that, and it's not dishonest in the slightest. The whole point about this question is that it is open-ended. Unless you can radically alter the way we view the issue, you are literally presented with two assumptions, and no more - both atheists and theists are going to reach a point where no more can definitely be said based on physical evidence. The difference in positions is that an atheist is limited by the logical constraints of physical evidence and hits a brick wall, whereas the theist is limited by the constraints of ignorance.

Now, as to whether or not God is bound by time, I don't think that that needs to be the case at all. Firstly, we are not able to see things from God's perspective, and secondly, we don't know at all if the creation of the universe was a temporal action in the sense with which we are familiar (especially since it would only be temporal from our perspective). Yes, this is overly speculative, and yes, it doesn't provide any firm answers to anything. But, if you want to indulge in pure philosophy, then frankly you're going to have to get used to the fact that both theism and atheism hit this problem. The difference is that theism is open-ended enough to potentially pursue further.

I could start talking about what God has revealed about Himself, but then of course I would be accused of bringing the teachings of the Church into the discussion, various assumptions would be brought in to rule them out (generally along the lines of, "God doesn't exist so the Bible can't actually reveal anything" etc.), and it wouldn't be productive.

you are stipulating more unproven facts than the atheists.

I'm not aware that I am, actually, and besides, I at least am not stipulating something that I know to be impossible.

And yet God, an all loving and all powerful being lets this suffering continue and created it for his own sick pleasure. As you have well admitted, perfect existence with free will is possible (heaven).

Perhaps you might let your righteous zeal settle down for just long enough to stop misrepresenting the situation. I just answered this point in my previous post. Firstly, God doesn't take pleasure in the destruction of man. Secondly, man is responsible for choosing to create this 'suffering'. Thirdly, this 'suffering' to which you refer isn't actually suffering at all, but ultimately brings the sufferer closer to God and the inflicter further away from God. Fourthly, since we are left (for whatever reason) to make temporal choices, we need a temporal situation in which to make them. Fifthly, free will (including the 'suffering') is wholly a good thing, because without free will there can be no genuine love.

And if God simply chose not to create those who would deny him? It would be no different and we would never know, (not that it is entirely certain that we have free will to begin with).

Well, the free will debate is another one entirely (though I think that it is ridiculous to deny it, but anyway). I suspect though that the reason why God chose to create the people who would deny him is to give them the opportunity to make their choice and to give those who would accept him the proper context in which to make theirs. However, since our choice is apparently a temporal one, we all apparently require a temporal context in which to make it.

As I say (and as you do not satisfactorily address), the problem with the 'problem of evil' is that you can't adequately define suffering. In traditional Christianity, what you would call 'suffering' would be seen as a great opportunity and a blessing. To a secularist it sounds silly, but it's true. You cannot adequately define 'suffering' to make this charge stick at all.

[Ruin]

Yes, I agree that, on this level of purely abstract debate, Deism does seem more reasonable than Theism.

Seem? you are dodging the issue, it is more reasonable.

But if one admits that Deism is at all reasonable, then it opens the door to another phase of the debate in which it is possible to employ different arguments for specific theistic religions.

No, I admit Deism is more reasonable, not that it is reasonable. A theist would first have to convince an Atheist that Deism is more reasonable before they can even start on a personal God who they have given attributes to arbitrarily.

Funnily enough, this is only ever true if you're talking to an atheist...

The reason is of course that it is just atheistic propaganda. The idea that God either requires certain actions from a person or that God deliberately tortures a person is not a Christian one, at any rate. I can see that I'm going to have to explain this again. God is the source of life. Anyone who (voluntarily) isolates themselves from God cuts themselves off from life. The result is that they die, but entirely as a result of their own decision. But this is something that atheists generally like to twist and take out of context.

Everyone dies Zenith.
And I think you are placing a little spin yourself here. Although souls which have committed mortal sins (all Atheists, Hitler etc.) simply die and have their soul extinguished. Until recently souls who required repentance and purging went to purgatory, where they would be tortured in a vast manner of ways until their sins were removed and they could enter heaven. At least this is how I think it works in Christianity.

I don't think they have, actually (at least, I don't see why I should just take your word for it when I could probably mention religious 'claims' that you haven't even heard of). It's especially bad for atheism in fact when it claims that it is capable of providing a satisfactory framework for cosmology when it knowingly entails such great logical impossibilities that it can't even provide physical answers to all its own claims.

Here you are equating Atheism to science, which is another theistic twist. Not all Atheists are scientific. Some even go far as to disagree with evolution.
And to be fair, science has answered many religious claims. So many places where God has been placed in a gap of human knowledge the gap has been filled. Why doubt then that the rest will be too?

The difference in positions is that an atheist is limited by the logical constraints of physical evidence and hits a brick wall, whereas the theist is limited by the constraints of ignorance.

Up until here you were fine. Then you made the same mistake as before, assuming Atheists believe everything handed to a plate by science and that science explains everything.
We don't.
Both Theists and Atheists are limited by ignorance. The difference is Atheists are happy in the knowledge they are ignorant and don't pretend to know what began things, and how everything works exactly in certain ways when they actually don't know. Theists are incapable of dealing with their ignorance so they are forced to plug up gaps with their Gods, in the vain belief that this somehow will make life easier for them, comfortable in the knowledge that they suddenly know everything.

Now, as to whether or not God is bound by time, I don't think that that needs to be the case at all. Firstly, we are not able to see things from God's perspective, and secondly, we don't know at all if the creation of the universe was a temporal action in the sense with which we are familiar (especially since it would only be temporal from our perspective).

Exactly, we know nothing about it. Thus it is an action of extreme arrogance to claim "God did it" when you have no evidence to back it. Why can't you just admit you don't know?

Yes, this is overly speculative, and yes, it doesn't provide any firm answers to anything. But, if you want to indulge in pure philosophy, then frankly you're going to have to get used to the fact that both theism and atheism hit this problem. The difference is that theism is open-ended enough to potentially pursue further.

No, Atheism is. Theism is close-ended, it's solution to everything is "God did it". Atheism is free to explore into the ignorance we have and try to find a solution. If we can't, then so be it.

I could start talking about what God has revealed about Himself, but then of course I would be accused of bringing the teachings of the Church into the discussion, various assumptions would be brought in to rule them out (generally along the lines of, "God doesn't exist so the Bible can't actually reveal anything" etc.), and it wouldn't be productive.

The Bible is a book. There is nothing, apart from its content, which suggests it is anything more then a book. Therefore it cannot, in any sense, be used as a reliable source as to how the universe works.

I'm not aware that I am, actually, and besides, I at least am not stipulating something that I know to be impossible.

That's the point in Atheism. The only thing that defines us as Atheists is that we don't stipulate quite as much as the Theists do. That a God exists.

Firstly, God doesn't take pleasure in the destruction of man.

Yet he did so frequently... for reasons he may well do repeatedly now, but will not do as then people would have actual evidence of his existence. Which is, of course impossible if he does not in fact exist.

Secondly, man is responsible for choosing to create this 'suffering'.

Why are we to blame for the actions of our forefathers? Even human, fallible, legal systems have worked out this is not a cause for prosecution.

Thirdly, this 'suffering' to which you refer isn't actually suffering at all, but ultimately brings the sufferer closer to God and the inflicter further away from God.

Does that mean the Crusaders were driven from God? Sweet irony. Even further, God must therefore be driven from himself, for being the cause of wanton suffering throughout the old testament (even for as inferior a reason as a bet with the devil)

Fourthly, since we are left (for whatever reason) to make temporal choices, we need a temporal situation in which to make them.

We don't need a solution. We just like having one.

Fifthly, free will (including the 'suffering') is wholly a good thing, because without free will there can be no genuine love.

For what? And why? This is entirely speculation.

I will stay out of the suffering and free will debates, as it all winds down to different interpretations of words, in which neither side can actually win, thus is useless.

[Irishman]

I can say that, and it's not dishonest in the slightest.

It absolutely dishonest. You posit an answer to a question as a solution to your perceived infinite temporal regress, and yet, when I show that your God results in a temporal regress too, you fail to even discuss it.

It is one sided debating. I showed that your criticism is unfounded, and you still have yet to show me how a being can act if it is not temporal (in fact it is a widely accepted fact in philosophy that acting is a temporal notion).

Now, as to whether or not God is bound by time, I don't think that that needs to be the case at all. Firstly, we are not able to see things from God's perspective, and secondly, we don't know at all if the creation of the universe was a temporal action in the sense with which we are familiar (especially since it would only be temporal from our perspective). Yes, this is overly speculative, and yes, it doesn't provide any firm answers to anything. But, if you want to indulge in pure philosophy, then frankly you're going to have to get used to the fact that both theism and atheism hit this problem. The difference is that theism is open-ended enough to potentially pursue further.

It is not as speculative as you may think. And here, your throwing in the "lets not look into what I am saying, cause I cant back it up- defense".

We know what it is to act. An action is a change of some sort (in the most loose of terms). Now any change, motion action or event would require time.

If you claim that God CREATED the universe, then there must have been some time at which he had not created. Even the bible says, "In the beginning there was nothing."

If you want God to be more than some transcendental force (IE- a creator) then you have to admit that he is temporal. He can certainly be sempiternal, but not eternal.

Also, please do not say that God might have a different way to act, because it is just faith based mumbo jumbo. We know, through definition what it is to act, they are temporal concepts. We can also imagine what an atemporal existence would be (absence of change).

So unless you actually have an argument to defend your concept of God from my criticism, then your "solution" to the atheist's problem is only replacing it with the same problem.

I suspect though that the reason why God chose to create the people who would deny him is to give them the opportunity to make their choice and to give those who would accept him the proper context in which to make theirs.

Yes, sounds loving. I know what choices you will make. But I am going to create you anyway and punish you for eternity so other people can go to heaven.

As I say (and as you do not satisfactorily address), the problem with the 'problem of evil' is that you can't adequately define suffering. In traditional Christianity, what you would call 'suffering' would be seen as a great opportunity and a blessing. To a secularist it sounds silly, but it's true. You cannot adequately define 'suffering' to make this charge stick at all.

Try actually reading my post. Last segment, I went into this in detail. Repeating yourself without addressing the responses doesn't suit you...