Unnecessary suffering is only a logical problem from the theistic point of view. Which is why people probably bring it up...... seeing as you are a theist. There is no confusion about suffering from an evolutionary point of view. Which is why the atheist worldview is more consistent with reality. It requires mental gymnastics to try and logically explain why an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator, created a world where people suffer unnecessarily. If you are not familiar with what unnecessary suffering is; I would be glad to assist with informing you. P.S sorry for the long delay in my response.

Thanks for the info on the spell check, however when i get rolling on a train of thought i have the habit of screwing up several spellings in my haste. Hopefully the meaning isn't lost by being distracted with grammar, though from examining your comment, it appears it was.

I suspect you find me to be arrogant for stating my opinions about the origin of the universe. Thank you for assuming that these are conclusions are based on my own logical deduction, very flattering, though you should relieved to know that I am only the middle man reformatting existing concepts of natural origins. I simply am trying to show the inconsistencies in the creationist's clever word-play on scientific matters.

Besides just popping in to tell me that i am arrogant, perhaps you'd add something worth thinking about to the conversation. Maybe instead of just disagreeing, you could offer some points of contention, or perhaps a line of logic that makes more sense than an EXPLANATION by natural means.

Thank you ;)

You are too funny about the dentist! so true...... I think the argument i recently sent you may have over-lapped into this area of discussion. But when we finish discussing morality, we can certainly pick-up on any topic you'd like. As always, thanks for your comments!

Caveman,

What show was that i wonder..........
Well, i'm no physicist, but allow me to explain, as i understand it. Mass and energy are the same. Remember Einstein's famous equation? E=mc2.... Energy equals mass x the speed of light squared. What this means is that mass and energy are the same thing as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned. Maybe you could give a value to the amount of mass in the universe, like "1000" and the amount of energy at "500", totaling ="1500", this number remains constant, while the number of mass or energy may be in flux, the sum of the two remains constant. However, i am not sure how gravity plays into all that math, but i do know this. A force is a term that we give to describe dynamic change in an objects motion. If i throw a ball, and no other force acts on it, then it should continue to travel in a straight path infinitely. Any thing that causes change in its path of motion is called a force. Gravity warps space and simply changes the path of objects in motion that pass through that space. LIke a putting green that warps toward the hole. You may hit the ball past it, not directly at the hole, but the slope will seem to "pull" the ball toward the hole. Now i realize that I'm using a gravity analogy to describe gravity, but a 2 dimensional model is the best way to explain warping of space that is essentially a 3D event. Gravity is a force, but really, in context it is a word that describes what is happening to space. Would you call a hill or a slope an unrelenting force? Implying that it takes a sufficient sustained energy to keep the hill sloped, as if something was constantly trying to make it return to flatness, and only constant energy could keep it distorted and curved? I don't think that is an accurate model for describing what gravity is and does. Thats the best i can do for you caveman, hope that helps. On a closing note, i don't think the universe would be possible without gravity, it is not something that can be taken away or added after the fact. Or leaked in, I'm not even sure what that would mean, feel free to elaborate on what the universe would be without gravity, and how it could be "leaked" in and/or how a new characteristic of the universe could be added after the fact. One more thing: The "laws of thermodynamics" have been evaluated for many many many years, and validated through many many many experiments, i trust that if there is any inconsistency in the theorys/laws/evidence behind any scientific claim it will be identified and corrected according to the newest and most consistent data. So the far though, the overwhelming consensus is that the laws of thermodynamics are an accurate model for explaining how the universe and its physics work.

Thanks for the comment Caveman.

Welcome back Rae, yes i'm definitely in! I though you were bored with me. :) Ya, i'll gladly answer some questions for you. It's rare to communicate so well with someone who has an opposing point of view. Thanks again for all your thoughts on the subject, i respect your position as well. How would you like to proceed? You can email me if you like, or i can start a new post here on my blog on the subject of your choice.

Skaggz, No i think i understand what your trying to express: The virtue of Blind Faith that is so proudly supported by many religious persons. Blind Faith is practiced by many. Accepting an idea in the face of conflicting evidence is considered being a good Christian. What i am trying to express to you, is that we should be skeptical of embracing a virtue that in any other situation is not valid, and in many situations is down right irrational or dangerous. Remember that what you're talking about is belief without justification. Also remember that it was belief without justification that makes people strap bombs on and walk into crowded buildings. I don't mean to compare you to a terrorist skaggz, but honestly if we ignore evidence, how is one to make rational decisions about what to believe. How can you even choose Christianity over Islam or Buddism if you don't factor in some evidence? I think we will most likely agree to disagree. All i can ask is that you consider the things i have said, blind faith is either all good or not good at all. If it only occasionally good, then we must use some evidence to decide when to use it and when not too. Such a scenario, would be self-defeating. It would be like saying i use evidence to decide when to use blind faith.

Skaggz, I really feel that in this situation its not just a lack of evidence for, it is an over abundance of evidence against. Remember, that as i have pointed out: When the claim is that a cause is a supernatural one, then evidence for a natural explanation is evidence against a supernatural one. Now, this is new to me, you are claiming that the abundance of evidence against Gods existence is really evidence for? In what other area of life is this acceptable skaggz? IF there were a pile of evidence leading you to believe that you cannot fly, would you say: "this is really evidence for my ability to fly, because if god didn't allow me to chose what i believe then i would not have free will." ;;and therefore you would jump off a building? This thought process is inconsistent with every other area of life, everything you believe is based on evidence in favor of an idea, why does belief in God receive special exception?

Now if you are arguing that what the bible means when it states 'God gave us free will', that it only applies to belief in him, i would have to disagree as well, and you would be hard pressed to find a group of Christians to support that concept. How can your sun/heat analogy not disprove the biblical concept of free will, but accepting evidence for God does? The free will supposedly given by God lies in our choice of actions. I cannot deny that i exist, i think therefore i am, therefore i have no biblical free will? If that is the case, i would say such a "forced belief " would be evidence against the WORD OF GOD, which states that God gave us free will. I would argue that our free will, from the theist perspective, means freedom in action. Thank you for your comments Skaggz. I'm looking forward to your reply.

Skaggz,
I don't think there is correlation between changes and beginnings. I think your point that a thing cannot exist in two separate states at once is valid, however you did use "time-terminology" to prove that time exist. If i say "How can you prove time exist?" you cannot respond by saying "because a thing cannot be in two different states at the same time." It is improper to use term you are defining, in the definition. I think what your statement proves is that time is linear, and moves forward. Also i think you are confusing eternal with infinite. A thing can be unchanged forever and be called eternal, and thing can change forever and be called infinite. Again i would recommend that you read through the replies and comments between Rae and I, if you still object or need clarification, i will gladly explain as best as i am able.

Skaggz, Thank you for your kind words. However i think i have addressed the infinite loop scenario. And the conclusion between myself and Rae, is that an infinite loop is a very probable scenario based on the observed natural progression of cause and effect. I am stating, and have been stating, if you read through all these replies between Rae and myself, i think you will find that we have more reason to assume there was no beginning than to assume there was.

I would like to point out that i know where you are coming from, i have struggled to understand what it means to not have a beginning. But ultimately one must show why a series of cause and effects MUST have a beginning. Look at number analogy i presented to Rae, i don't think i can present my argument any better than that.