The question of deity is scientific.  Either the notion of God fits in with our knowledge of processes in the universe, or it does not.  There is no metaphysical layer of "existence" where God can retreat.

In short, unscientific claims Xn, n in {1,..., N} are usually followed up by the auxillary claim Di, i in {1,...,N} such that anyone who disagrees with Xn is automatically included as the substance of Xn.

(1) I make a universal claim A

(2) I state that anyone who disagrees with A is automatically an instance of  the universal claim A

This is basically the schema followed by all who proselytize their emotional needs and traditions over science.

So what can we do?  We simply turn their formula against itself.

Example:

(1) God is the universal ground of all existents

(2) Therefore God does not exist.

QED

N/A - I always know when I am at fault.   Someone else "finding" me at fault without my knowing would imply a greater nexus of cause/effect to justify the myopic bottle-neck model of "failure."

When I apologize to someone, I do it spontaneously without thought.   If someone askes me for an "apology" what they will get at best is insincerity.   Asking for an apology is like looking at yourself in the mirror of another's soul and asking yourself to make amends.

Perhaps I am wrong and one can pull another's pinocchio strings hard enough to get them to express their fake repentence.

Knight,

How can you speak about a "flood" when the Bible, Quran, and God/Allah/Elohim is a blunderbuss of complete mythical nonsense?   Your shotgun against mine.

"I see sin in a rather different way . . . which may be eluded to in that last addition there. To my mind, sin IS when you do something you know on some level or other, ain't the right thing to do." -- John Knight

Glad you see it this way, Knight.  But what happens in a situation when someone is forced to commit a "lesser" wrong act?  The choices can vary by the situation, but lets imagine that the act of doing nothing is also wrong.  One might later realize that a different vector of choices would have occurred had they substituted some prior and seemingly (at the time) innocuous act for another.

It would seem that a better notion of sin is grounded in intentions, not in some fantasy make-believe metaphysical world-nexus of "wrong" and "right" threaded into every human soul.

God apparently made a mistake creating humanity--destroyed them after some of the fallen angels (war in heaven) mated with Adam's progeny (or so some have interpreted).   A mistake that led to the deluge and some mystical plan of redemption involving vampirism and cannabilism (eucharist).  So God died, and people dined on the remains.

Now I understand that the real vampirism involves subjugating other human wills to the whims and fantasies of others who like to talk about crime, sin and judgement day. And in your discussions with others, you cannot keep yourself from judging others:

"Then I think you are very confused."

I think that was the whole point, John.  We aren't omniscient, unlike god.  And yet God gets to give himself a free pass (creating monsters, destroying them, recreating more monsters, etc...spawning countless violent religions each sparing for the same holy acreage ) While we have to wallow in guilt, remorse and suffering.

I however remain unapologetically judgemental.

"Well, I submit that there is a perfectly logical reason most humans have always believed there was some sort of "supernatural" force at work in their world; There is."

Well, John, there may be a "perfectly logical reason"--but that does not imply that the reality matches up with our beliefs.  Psychologist find "perfectly logical" reasons why a person could end up a psychopath, but psychopaths don't have a very "logical" world-view, do they?   There may be a "logical reason" for someone to be delusional, however their own "logic" may convince them of a belief in the supernatural.

And what is "supernatural" anyway?  Isn't it just a code word for something which we "know not what" or "how?"  I can't just invent words to make up for my own ignorance, then try to convince myself that my ignorant view of the universe is somehow "logical" due to my ignorance.   There is nothing logical about the belief in a "supernatural" -- a vacuous term at best.

There is a perfectly logical reason to believe that human beings are ignorant about a great deal of *natural* and so they invent categories of being that appear "logical" to those who are deeply wedded to their own delusions.

Simply put, it is one thing to have a logical point of view -- it is an entirely different matter to say that someone's belief is "logical."

This topic is too heavy and depressing for me to add anything intelligent or meaningful to the discussion.  So I will try to tie up some remaining questions related to my earlier comments at a more appropriate time.  

If I am not mistaken, I have some outstanding obligations to Aniko and Dave from the earlier thread.   Please remind me at a later time. 

Knowing is a limiting notion derived from raw percepts.  Without awareness, there is no "knowing."   This structure is deeper than the common semantics we are used to.  But I have spent some time writing about this subject in another article.  Feel free to take a look. 

What I will say is this:  our awareness of our own existence requires something to not show itself completely--which is to say that time plays an important role regarding the limit points of perception and awareness. 

Dave: Who needs God (in order to describe the nature of being and its origins)? - I think that was where you started out, and since then you've redefined the issue as "Why isn't science sufficient to answer all our questions about the nature of being and its origins?" We can work on either or both questions, but I'm not dodging either--you just need to let me know when you are changing subjects.

As far as my brain can compute, I have not changed the subject matter under discussion.  But I will continue to read your last post(s) to see if I am in error. 

Perhaps.  We can of course ascribe mystical qualities such as transcendance and immanence to deity, and then try to flesh out the results.  But arguments for or against pantheism, panetheism, etc., probably leave us with an ultimate tautology rather than answering any question regarding the origin pertaining to the distinction of being (and nothingness).  Keep in mind I am staying within the bounds of "god-as-hypothesis" of origins. 

If God is within ourselves, then God is a part of the same universe of being as we are.  Our existence would mean God's existence -- however the loss of attributes such as consciousness and awareness would result, because consciousness and awareness require that we not know something.  Awareness is a state of waiting to know, or readiness to resolve the existence of things.  This readiness state would be impossible if one were omniscient.  A "greatest being for which there are no greater"--or say a maximal element of sentience within this universe (or multiverse if you wish) does not imply omniscience or omnipotence.   I cannot concieve (with any logic) how a deity is aware of anything if it knows everything.  A maximal consciousness (or group) would exist, and probably might reveal itself to others as "a god" to other lesser forms, without realizing that its own fate depends on a greater structure (which is not conscious). 

JK: IF there was a real God (in the "Abrahamic" sense of the term) that would mean such a God was aware of me, whether or not I was aware of It. Also, such a Being, if real, could respond to my request for a response, if It chose to. This would be true regardless of what I, or any other person or persons, believed to be true.

How do you know that the one answering is really God?  Any sentient being can respond to a request, this includes possible sentients which lie beyond our perceptual realm.  IF God exists, I reasoned, then so do ghosts, jinns, warlocks, goblins, and unicorns--so what if another imaginary being from another plane of existence is pretending? 

This argument may sound rather shallow, but if you consider the entire framework of anthropomorphic (and theriomorphic) beings created in the minds of men, including the numerous  gods, goddesses, etc. found in religions throughout the ages, then you might want to validate that the "response" you are experiencing is genuine.  

You also leave open the possibility that God (whatever that may be) will not answer.   The late Harvard psychiatrist, John Mack, studies hundreds of cases of individuals who believed they were abducted by aliens (and he had no reason to deny their sanity)--so these "experiencers" no doubt of their beliefs that aliens are visiting and abducting them, performing experiments and sending them on voyages across the local neighborhood of stars.   Certainly we have more circumstantial and anecdotal evidence for alien abductions than that of "god experiencers."  Perhaps those who "experience god" should ask themselves if an alien is on the other end, playing with their minds.   Just a thought.  And they don't have to be humanoid--they can be insects, reptilian, or some highly advanced silicone based lifeform completely different from ours.   Your God may be setting you up for a grim "harvest"--or the coming of the "lord."  Certainly, the Bible doesn't play when it comes to the grisly details of those who do not fall in line. 

Michael,

I fail to grasp the point of discussing the need or ability of "Science" to be consulted on questions of "first cause", ultimate origins of the universe, or anything else it cannot possibly investigate. It don't matter how you slice the thing; Here we are, and there is no way to explain how so much "stuff" can exist. There is no more logical a basis for saying God did not make it, than saying He did.

It would appear as though you have a priori condemned the question unanswerable by investigation.  Instead you will continue your research by proclamation.  Which of course sums up the entire corpus of proclaimers known as the Bible. 

Science can hypothesize things like a "singularity", Big Bang, and so on, all the scientists wish, but the "impossibility" remains exactly the same, no matter what anybody says. What is less impossible about saying; In the beginning an infinitesimal point created the heavens and the earth ?

There is nothing impossible about the existing universe--a mind may feed its vampiric incredulity with mysteries requiring "answers" -- or to use a different metaphor--we may spin our own webs of fantasy out of reality and then get hung up on them--either way it is absurd to say that the reality of the universe is impossible.  What is impossible is our own fortress of incredulity regarding simple existent things.  

There is no more logical a basis for saying God did not make it, than saying He did.

Ok.