Atheists and Atheism (Little Upsilon)

Serpent: Everything I have posted is written by my own fair hand. I have never cut and pasted. Such a thing would be plagiarism. Of course, I am not claiming to have taught myself everything, I stand on the shoulders of giants. But I dont pretend that any of their knowledge is my own, or write their words in place of my own. In fact I have referred to various people when making my arguements (Stenger, Dawkins, Adams etc).

Also, evolution is about as far from 'random undirected chance' as you can get. Natural selection is not about chance. Evolution is not life from lifelessness, that is abiogenesis. You must choose one to discuss, evolution or abiogenesis. Acceptance of evolution is not acceptance of life from lifelessness.

Either way, how does arguing against evolution make theism any more valid? Even if you were able to prove evolution was not accurate, how would that make theism any more likely than invisible pink unicornism? You must address this issue.

The 'credible scientists' you quote mine from are not claiming the things you think they are claiming. Fossils showing transitions between phyla is not the same and fossils showing transitions between species, as the author well knew, but which you and the author of creation seem to have missed. Besides, being credible is not the same as being correct.

Please reread the card example I provided. If I look at a hand of 13 cards and say: 'There is a 1 in 13^10 chance of this happening'. Would I be right to conclude that I could not have got the hand by chance?

Returning to this forum after an extended period away, this is a fascinating thread. So many points I would like to pick up on, but this post would be extremely long and boring if I did, so I will just make a few of my own.

While I resist pigeonholing myself, I wish to engage (see below) so, in order of coming to them, I would describe myself as an Atheist Existentialist Taoist.

Atheist (age 12) because I believe there is no god. There is absolutely no reason to think that there might be, no evidence to suggest that there might be ... the only reason the concept even exists is down to humanity's desire for someone else to be responsible and the need for a guaranteed way to 'get it right'.

Sidenote: I have every respect for people who disagree with me, so long as they respect the fact that I disagree with them. My main problem with those belonging to organised religion is that most of them believe that because they are 'right', everyone else is 'wrong'.

Existentialist (age 16) because I believe that it is supremely important to proactively engage and to take responsibility for every choice you make. In order to engage, you have to decide what is important and act upon it. You also have to rid yourself of external influences that might colour your judgement.

Sidenote: Meursualt had no external influences but only engaged when he murdered the Moroccan. That was when he became a true exsistentialist. He followed through by taking responsibility. However, I prefer the juxtaposition of Oreste and Electre in Les Mouches as an illustrative example.

Taoist (age 29) because I believe in balance and harmony, and working with the natural flow of energy rather than wasting energy trying to push against it. I also love the fact that the meaning of Taoism is different for each of its adherents and can accommodate any other beliefs (religious or otherwise) that a person has.

Sidenote: I am right, but I am only right for me. What is right for someone else is likely to be subtley or entirely different. As a Taoist I can, I have to, respect that

I hope I have obliquely responded to a lot of what's above. Any other Athiest Existentialist Taoists out there?

Hugs and respect

Jo

Hi Jo,

I have read about taoism before and it seems practically atheist. I might describe taoism as spiritual (to use the term in a Sam Harris sense) but not religious.

I find that existentialism is missing in many sects of the monotheistic religions, particularly (even doctrinally) in Calvinist/Baptist christianity. The belief that we are merely pawns and that our actions in this world matter only in that they might be judged after death is, i think, quite damaging. I think we should do good for goodness' sake and not for the sake of an all powerful supreme overlord/father.

I have not heard of the names you refer to in the existentialist italic section. Although this will change soon (thank you wikipedia!).

Maxwell

Taoism is atheist ... or not ... depending on the taoist. Taoism does not admit the existance of a god. Neither does it deny it.

The Tao is everything, and everything that is not and everything that does not fall into either of those categories, plus everything else. Therefore every god, and every denial of god is part of the Tao. Interestingly, everyone is therefore a Taoist, whether they admit / know it, or not ... (or any other form of perception not already covered )

If you like reading, you may also enjoy Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. It's off the wall and ridiculously biased, but introduces some interesting ideas.

Hugs and respect

Jo

Taoism can definitely be a religion. In some interpretation, it can even be a monotheist. You can consider the Tao as the god and Lao'zhi as the messenger. I personally accept Taoism as a philosophy of life not as religion.

However, the main problem for me to understand J/C/I family of religion is the claim that one has ability to obtain "favor" from said all powerful God. Just as discussed in Jozism. For the topic of Jozism, what if Jozi exists but he chooses not to interfere with your boring day to day operation?

For many people I have met who departed J/C/I faith, the existence of god is not the problem. The problem is the various organization who claim to have the only "right answer".

I dream of becoming a butterfly or my life is the dream of a butterfly?

Live long and Prosper

Just Spock

Spock: I hear similar comments; essentially against organised religion or claims of absolute knowledge. The term 'spiritual' is often used in such comments.

It seems to me that if one does believe in the existance in a theist god than the most sensible thing is to try to determine what he wants and do it rather than risk damnation etc. This generally involves abiding by the strictures of some form of organised religion. I would argue that the bible is a compilation of such strictures. Therefore, it seems to me incongruous to claim to be against organised religion and believe bible is, at some level, a guide to god's will.

The apparent non-interference of god in the case of evil is a powerful arguement against the existance of a theist god. All counter arguements that come to my mind basically come in three forms: god chose not to act (pray more/better etc), god was powerless to act or the event was part of the greater good. In the first, god is no all loving (love is dependant on faith). In the second, god is not all powerful. In the third, which is essentially the idea that bad things happen to good people in order to stop them doing more bad things later on, god is not all knowing or the bad thing could be avoided.

The Bible is sadly the least understood book in human history.


Perhaps a slight demonstration...

King James Version:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

1.In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2.And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.<!-/Quote-!>

Which is where we get the people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Understandable according to this particular translation...

Now the literal translation from Hebrew.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2.the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,<!-/Quote-!>

How long did it exist waste and void? How did it become waste and void? Why was God preparing the universe? It does not say...Nor does it contradict our scientific observations about the age of this planet we inhabit.

What it does show is the Earth existed in the Universe for an uncertain period of time before it was given its current state.


If people actually read the Bible instead of listening to others variations on it the world would indeed be a better place.

It is one of several books that must be read and understood for a more complete understanding of the Creator and his master plan for humanity and the Universe as a whole.

Assuming one accepts the nature of this creator as a genuine deity, rather than a primitive form of social control.

God is a personal entity. Debating his existance seems something of a moot point, as its all about perspective.

What I will say is that I find the insistant forcefulness with which organised religion attempts to imprint itself unto our lives both repugnant and distressing - especially those faiths of Abrahamic descent.

I care not for anybodys' gods but my own.

My thought proviking reply was lost! Curse you, authentication error! If you dislike anything I write, then clearly its because the bettwer version was lost. Anyway a brief synopsis:

Pope: You seem to claim that it is translation rather than interpretation that causes doctrinal differences.

I would argue that you are interpreting 'void'. Indeed, the claim, that a void exisited before the earth (ie a space, into which the universe expanded: Big bang) is inaccurate. The big bang theory involves an expansion of space itself. Really, it all depends on how you interperet 'void'.

I would also argue that if your aim is to transfer knowledge, especially really important, eternity affecting knowledge, then relying on text which must be interpreted is a method which will result in failure a vast majority of the time. It seems to me immoral to damn the majority for eternity because they did not interperet the words in the right way. Surely, an all knowing, all powerful god can do better than that.

Klarina: I agree that god is a personal entity. It is clear that two people who read the same text can come away with a radically different idea of what god is like. I would argue further that in the world there are no two identical god concepts.

It is an entirely plausible and rational response to many doctrines to want to convince others that your morality and philosophy is the most appropriate. I will readily call myself an evangelist of rational materialism.

If there is no God, if he is just a personal entity, does that mean this life of 70-80 yrs really all that there is? Although I do enjoy life, is this all that there is? If there is no God, then who is it that determines what if any are the 'moral' constraints that is acceptable?

If there is a God, that did indeed create everything we now see and experience, then would he not also have the power to intervene and make the world a better place? If so, why hasn't he? And would it be reasonable to conclude that a person could choose to have their own 'morality' and he still approve of it?

Those are simple questions with complicated and often 'insightful' answers either way you choose to answer!

As a wise old gypsy once told me:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

An undocumented hell blackmails atheism. Atheism utters an unfortunate blade. Our remaining frown misrepresents the rubber heterosexual. Atheism maximizes the sole kitchen on top of any ridden lawn. Atheism worries god after the sketch. A falling shot values atheism.

<!-/Quote-!>

"The apparent non-interference of god in the case of evil is a powerful arguement against the existance of a theist god."

Your ensuing argument is that God is not simultaneously all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, therefore God does not exist. That's not a powerful argument.

Further, your definition of all-loving seems to be circular.

Finally, it's not difficult to think of other possibilities besides the three you presented.

Serpent: I do not know the answer to your first question for certain. I personally think that living forever would be terrible. I would get bored after a million or so years and then there is still infinity more years to come. Eternal bliss sounds vegetative to me.

As for the origin of morality, I argue that morality is subjective and not objective. I live my life to the fullest and help others to do so too. I determined that moral by a combination of upbringing and personal experience. If I was brought up differently or had different experience, it is quite probable I would use different morals. When I look at the bible or the quran I see some stuff I regard as moral, some stuff which could be improved and a lot of stuff which is downright immoral. By immoral, I mean against my, subjective, morality (such as killing for lack of faith, treatment of women & children).

In your next paragraph you seem to say that an all powerful god ought to be able to intervene. I emphatically agree with this. An all powerful god who does not intervene is not all good. A god which cannot intervene is not all powerful. Are you making an arguement that people who have good morals are essentially are in agreement with god? How does this square with the apparant change in what has been popularly regarded as moral over time?

Princess: I hope you didnt grace their palm with silver, I could give you better in my sleep.

Jojo: We have to be careful about what we are defining as god. My arguement was meant to show the logical fallacy of a *theist* god (omnimax) given the presence of evil. My arguement does not go to the deist god or the uncreated creator, just the omnimax theistic god.

An all powerful god which chooses not to act when harm occurs either does not love or is not powerful. Of course, the counter could be that a little evil is allowed in order to prevent a bigger evil. The counter-counter is that why is a little evil necessary, besides, intervention has to be observed and/or has dire implications for free will. I do not see the circularity, if possible, can you be more specific?

The arguements are, i feel, sufficient but not exhaustive. I am sure there are other situations which show that god cannot be omnimax.

I apologize for my ignorance, but what is 'Omnimax"?

Why get so hung up over one particular characterization of God, to the point that if you think you've shown God is not that way, then you think there is no god, period? Like getting obsessed with circular orbits when there are thousands of ways to construct ellipses. What in the world do you mean when you refer to God being omnipowerful, or omnibenevolent, anyway? Just for example, let's say you found out for a fact there was a being that had created the material universe, and in a very particular way so as to make beings like us possible, then just left it alone, would you say "Nope, not omnibenevolent, can't be God"? Would you refuse to say "God" if it turned out the creator of the universe could only intervene in it in limited ways, without completely messing it up? Use the old coconut, don't restrict yourself to one or two traditional pictures.

"An all powerful god which chooses not to act when harm occurs either does not love or is not powerful." This is not a true statement. Love includes a whole range of attitudes and responses. The obvious example, a parent has to, not just may but has to, allow a child to get hurt at many times in order for the child to develop its independence. Always catch the child before it falls, the child won't learn to do the things it needs to do. Why is this necessary? Answer that yourself, it's simply true and can't be ignored because you don't like that it is that way. Does that mean the parent doesn't exist??

Maybe circularity isn't the correct term for your meaning of "all-loving;" I mean that it's tailored to suit your predetermined conclusion. You seem to imply that "all-loving" necessitates ameliorating all the pain and suffering one can. So sure, by that definition no being active in our world can be called both all-loving and all-powerful. But that's saying very little about God of the world in which we actually live, because it's a poor definition of what loving means.

Also, you never spelled out why you believe cats are atheists.

Omnimax is a shortning of omnipotent, omnipowerful and omniscient. It also takes care off the logical impossibility of being able to make something so heavy you cant push it. It is a quality of the theistic god.

Jojo: I am not claiming that because I can argue against one god character, that I can argue against them all. I would say that the uncreated creator god is a deist god and not the theist god. I must make it clear that I argue against the theist god, rather than the creator god. Although, I have yet to be presented with convincing evidence of a creator god.

You make a fair point about a parent allowing hrm to a child in order for the child to learn from the pain and then drawing an analogy to god and humanity. I would argue that god is quite a neglegent parent by that analogy. Not only does the god allow us to fall down, it never picks us up or, in fact, ever makes any (demonstrable) attempt to avert falling down despite the fact that falling down might translate to mass murder or child rape. Besides, why should some (apparantly) innocent people suffer so that the majority of people learn? If the parent exists, then it does a good job of hiding the fact. In lieu of evidence to the contrary I choose disbelief.

I chose the definition of all loving because it is what I understand it to mean. I did also take account of the idea that there is some kind of 'greater good' which is more loving then what I can observe. This latter concept seems strange, because I cant see the greater good in child rape/murder or indiscriminate mass murder (natural disaster). The argument seems to say that there must be some greater evil which can be prevented by some minor evil. In fact the ONLY wy to prevent the greater evil is by doing some minor evil. I find it hard to believe that an all powerful god would not be able to manage without the minor evil.

I believe cats are atheist because I have never heard a cat espouse another point of view. I define atheism as a lack of belief in a god or gods. Something without a concept has, in my opinion, a lack of belief in the something. I dont claim to know for certain, but I think it is more than likely true that cats, rocks, planets etc are atheist.

I have another interesting implication regarding a theist god is the question of what the purpose of teh universe is. We all have souls and are apparantly judged based on our performance etc in this world. God created everything including our souls. What need does god have for souls? Is this world simply a cosmic sorting machine which sorts the good souls from the bad? How come god cant know this already? Eventually, the world will end there will be a big battle. God, being all powerful, will surely win. In which case, why does the devil even fight? How can it win against a god?

Ok thanks for the definition, Omnimax = Omni-everything!

From a biblical standpoint all of those questions that have been presented are answered, of course, if you do not view the bible as an authority, it is little use. But for those that are interested in those answers, here are some of them (according to the bible that is).

But first as for living for eternity, would that really be boring? I mean how many times have you seen a sunset, a mountain, or a vibrant colored flower? No doubt many times. Each time you see it does you appreciation and enjoyment diminish a bit, cause you have already experienced it before? What about food? I typically enjoy the same kinds of food. And I enjoy them as much now as I did several years ago. Even with learning games and such, even tho I understand the concept of them, I still enjoy trying to master them. On top of this, there are people that spend a lifetime in study of ONE thing, and at the end of their lives, they remark that there are now more questions than answers.

But as for why does God not act because of the wickedness and injustice that is so prevelant today this is a very good question. According to the bible, back when the first human couple was created they were given free will, meaning they could choose to do right or wrong. After all what is so grand about a robot or machine doing what you designed it to do, is that robot or machine truly intelligent?
But after God had given them everything they needed, even giving them fulfilling work to do, he did ask a simple thing from them. Not to eat of the one tree in the middle of the garden. Why did he do that? Well it was a simple test to see if they would obey his one law that he gave them. For them, if they obeyed, it would show that they trusted and respected him. But then the devil entered the picture.
The bible says that the devil was originally created as a good creature, but he rebelled in a quest for worship and power of himself, in fact he even influenced others to follow him. The devil made the statement that no creature would worship and respect God, if given the choice.

So the devil tempted and seduced Eve into eating of the tree. She knew exactly what she was doing because she even stated the command that she had been given to not eat of the tree, so it was deliberate. Then she gave some also to Adam and he likewise deliberately disobeyed that one simple command. The devil even said that if you eat of this tree that your eyes will be opened and you will know good and bad, meaning that now they could make those choices for themselves and not allow God to have any say so as to what was good and bad. It was as if he was accusing God of witholding something from Adam and Eve. Gen 2:7-3:6

Now if God would have destroyed them completly along with the devil right then and there, what would it have proven? It would have proven that God is all powerful for sure, but it would not have proven if the devil was right, and humans and other creatures could make choices for themselves independent from God. But he has allowed humans to try to manage themselves. He has allowed them to rule themselves independent from him.

But he didn't just leave humanity to grind itself into the ground, which it has been doing at an ever increasing rate. But he made provisions (Gen 3:15, which is the first bible prophecy) that those who choose to are able to avail themselves of the possibility to get back, what the first human pair lost, which is everlasting life. God had already stated his purpose for humans (Gen 1:27,28), so ask yourself, if Adam and Eve would have never chosen their own path, where would they be now?

That is what the bible really says about that subject. Of course there is alot more information in there, but that is basically what it says of the matter as to why has God allowed suffering.

And as for souls, notice what the bible says about souls in Gen 2:7, Does it say he was 'given' a soul, or that he 'became' a soul? This is important, there is a difference, because then look at Ezekiel 18: 4, 20. So are souls, according to the bible, immortal?

Serpent: You didnt seem to get to making a point about living for eternity. Are you implying that it would be like all the things we enjoy, but that never get old? If so, my experience of these things would be vegetative or become profoundly boring after ETERNITY has passed (and I still have another infinite number of eternities to pass). Basically, the offer of heaven (eternal bliss) is my idea of hell.

You are right to assume that I would not regard the bible as entirely factual in nature. But this shouldnt affect either of our decisions as to whether the content is moral. Unless you believe in absolute morality. In which case, if god ordered you to commit murder (as it apprantly has, many times) then you would have to regard that murder as moral.

Now we have come to the question of free will. The crucial point to the story you related is the free will of Eve (and lesser, of Adam). Basically, was the devil necessary? If so, then Eve wouldnt have taken the apple and no damnation. Therefore, why did an omniscient god create a thing (devil) which would do the tempting? If the devil is not necessary, why did god stack the odds?

In short, it seems immoral to me to give someone 'free will' to choose either way but then (all but) kill them (cast out of eden) if they choose the wrong way. Really it doesnt sound so 'free' at all. It seems that the devil was right after all about his claim about respecting god if given the choice.

In any case, I dont really understand what this has to do with suffering. Is it the case that god allowed mankind to suffer because we exercised our free will and choose not to do what it said?

I was under the impression that the idea was that god created everything. Therefore, god created souls. If god didnt create souls, what did? If god did create souls, what purpose did it create them for? What does god gain from having souls? I would prefer if you would answer these questions rather then refer me to scripture (feel free to use whatever scriptural quote to back up your arguement).

Many religious people have different takes on what the Bible is saying. It is open to interpretation in many respects...perhaps contributing to its popularity and durability. For example, some take every word to be literally true. Others take it all to be allegory. Many, perhaps most, take it that some is literally true, and some allegory, and take upon themselves the difficult task of trying to decide which is which. Not necessarily as a formal, organized endeavor, but piece by piece, as it comes up or as they think of it, over the years, they just naturally take it that some parts make more sense if seen one way, and some the other way.

While science seems to be pointing to the fact of an "Eve," a common homo sapiens mother to us all, I see the Adam and Eve story as an allegory, an insightful story of some event in human development, when we developed or recognized we had developed this thing that we call free will. Was it the result of some genetic mutation? Was it a cultural development? Was it some physical change caused by something outside the material universe? Did an evil being literally tempt our ancestor, successfully, and in that action cause a recognition and shame of the sin? Something else? I don't know.

Our culture, our language, our laws, acknowledge that an adult has a sense of responsibility for his actions that a child and an animal do not. We have an ability to recognize, however it comes to us, what is wrong and what is right, and to choose one or the other. With that responsibility comes culpability for choosing wrong. We can sin, and we all do so often enough.

Anyway, who would rather give up their free will and be an automaton? Ignorance is bliss, but I think most of us prefer the more difficult way, with all its downside.

Does God know what we are going to choose before we choose an action? I don't think there's any contradiction, or any blasphemy, to say that perhaps "no," we truly have free will, undetermined and unpredictable, even by God. That it is not a function of the material world, but something different. Certainly that is what my own experience tells me. That would make God less than omniscient in your book, but so what?

Maxwell, do you think differently, do you think that everything you do is physically determined and in principle predictable? Or do you think that you have free will?

The point I make about eternity is that all because you may have experienced something before, does that mean it looses it appeal? And there are many many things that we can learn about and do that we can not do in our limited lifespan. I don't understand how somebody can get bored, or tired of living, but oh well, that's just me I suppose!

As for the devil, the bible says that at one time the devil was a good creature, but then rebelled and sought worship for himself. Then he tempted Eve. She choose to follow him, instead of the simple command of God. He had given them everything, so how did he stack any odds? If anything the odds were stacked IN their favor, not against them. The devil did not have to succeed in tempting Eve.

Free will of course does not mean that you are not accountable for your actions, I'm sure you understand that. I have free will to jump off of a cliff, but there will be consequences of that action, so is that 'free'? No, it just means you can choose, you are not forced to do it.

What this has to do with suffering is that God has allowed humans to try their own way of rulership or government apart from him, and that is what has led to much suffering. Although the scriptures do say that this will not last forever, and there will be an end to it, for now he allows it to happen.

The bible says that humans are souls, not that they have souls, as if they were different things. Thats why the bible says that when a man sins and dies, his soul dies as well. The soul, being immortal and living on after death is NOT what the bible says.

Jojo: I find this process very interesting. Every individual has a different take on what is literal and what is not. This is the essence of the personal god I talked about earlier. I have less respect for this kind of cafeteria (pick and choose) christianity then I have for entirely literal (ala Fred Phelps) readings. Disclaimer: I am in no way endorsing the Phelps world view.

With regards Eve as a 'common mother': There would not be one person who was the 'first human'. It is more like a small band (<1000) strong, which was the separate population which evolved into humans. This is what mitochondiral DNA studies are telling us. This claim is an example of the marksman's fallacy. If the genesis story is referring to this, then it is incredibly vague. Why doesnt the bible refer to antibiotics or atoms or anything else infinitely more useful?

You then give a list of possibilites. I do not regard these possibilties as equally likely. Particularly two: The first invokes supernatural and the second invokes 'an evil'. I will assume the 'evil' is also supernatural. I have never observed anything supernatural, I will go so far as to claim I dont believe that anyone has observed anything supernatural. Therefore, why claim something which has never been observed to happen, for which there is no evidence to indicate, as an explaination of an occurance? I posit another possibility: That the bible stories are all made up from folk lore at around the time of the start of the CE. They never represent what really happened so much as what story tellers then imagined what happened. Somehow, the most popular where written in a book. I think this possibility is more plausible than knowledge from a supernatural source was misinterpretted.

Now we go on to free will. Apologies if my comments here and below are a little disjointed, I wrote the below reply before this.

You are arguing that there is a gap in god's omnisicent capability: it cannot read our minds. Further, it cannot act on our minds. Therefore, god is not fully omnipowerful. I would argue that a god of this type falls short of omnimax and is special pleading with no reason.

I will, anyway, endevour to answer the questions posed. Are you saying that free will is not a function of the material world? I think it would be more useful to use the word conciousness here. Really, free will is a product of a concious mind. Conciousness is the product, necessarily and sufficiently, of the brain. Without the brain there is no conciousness, by impairing function of parts of the brain, aspects of conciousness can be lost. Total impairment, total loss. Conciousness is an emergent phenomena of the complex processes of the brain. Sensory responses + memory = comprehension. Comprehension + experience = prediction. Prediction is evolutionarily very useful. I see nothing supernatural in conciousness, I see no soul. Because I have never seen evidence which indicates that anything other than the natural is necessary. Do you regard free will as a property distinct from conciousness and/or the brain?

As for ultimate predictability. I will say one thing and then, perhaps, seemingly say the opposite. Bear with me. Everything is knowable, but not everything can be known. For instance, it is possible to know both the position and momentum of a particle, just not at the same time. If one, somehow, did know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe (~10^60) and one was capable of performing the calculations necessary to determine their interactions faster than the interactions occur (this is like using a silicon computer to calculate the motions of the elections in the computer which are doing the calculations, it may well be impossible) then one would, indeed, be able to predict the future. Therefore, everything is, in principle, predictable but it is apparant that such atomic level prediction is technically impossible to achieve (H'sUP). I dont see how free will has to be unpredictable. I can predict what my friends will order in the restaurant and be right 60-70% of the time. Does this mean they dont have free will? Free will is not necessarily unpredictable.

Serpent: If this is free will then it is the free will of a slave. God is the master who makes the rules and humanity the slave to his whim. It seems we apparantly had a choice: Either do everything as commanded by our master or make our own decisions. Personally, I am glad that we chose the latter.

What I dont understand about suffering is this: If god is all loving, why would he allow us to suffer at all? Apparantly because we brought it on ourselves by exercising free will. But what kind of a god punishes so completely for such a minor and arbitrary crime?

The point I made about the odds is this: If god knows everything, it knows the future. Therefore, it knew that the devil would tempt, successfully, Eve, causing the fall of man. Therefore, god knew, from the moment of creation that man would fall: it stacked the odds. Why do you set a test if you know the outcome? Or is free will a special case?

I have actually not heard that souls die before. What, if not the soul, goes on to the afterlife? Our bodies dont, we bury/burn them. Either way, what is the point of creation humans? Moreover, what is the point of creating a universe? In short, why?

I dont think youve really grasped how long eternity is. I get bored of doig things if I do them repeatedly. There is only so much stuff to do. Eternity means I would do everything enough times to be bored of them (however many times that may require). Therefore, living for eternity would be boring. Eventually, I would be bored of living, but unable to die. That is hell.

Could somebody offer me a proof of God please?

and proof of the so-called free will too while at it.

We first need to define both.

What type of proof do you mean? How about giving an example...say, prove that Jozi exists, from in-game information only. Or, real-life, prove that William the Conqueror existed. Or prove that grass is green. Show what kind of proof you will find convincing, that will refute the skeptic.