Atheism

[fr0d0]

A basic tenet of Christian belief? Would you not agree that for most of early Christian history the definition was some what different? And that your definition has had to retreat against the advance of science and naturalism? So it is now at the point where you (Christians that is ;-)) have had to simply place your thesis outside the scope of science?

Science has never been the realm of Christianity, nor Judaism, nor any of the major religions IIRC. You're chasing your own tail with that one.

I have also yet to see any compelling reasoning as to the neccesity of these traits as part of 'Gods' existence.

Then you fail to address my belief at all.

Example #1

I presume only that Christians didn't start with a Non-Temporal idea of God, and that this idea has had to be generated overtime to accommodate modern science.

I apologise if this is ignorant of me, but to what 'reasoned nature' do you refer? I haven't seen any such claims in the Catechism of the Church or any other works I have read so I assume this is the work of either yourself or someone else? I'd be interested to give this reasoning a once-over if you can point me to it? Untill then I will reserve my thoughts.

You're unfamiliar with Augustine then? What I address is reasoning as presented in scripture and other sources.

How have I assumed something 'Not God' I am running with your definition and presenting a problem with it that you have completely side-stepped! Perhaps then you would care to succintly lay out your God hypothesis for consideration and we can move on?

As you are supposedly attacking my "God hypothesis" I would expect you to be familiar with what is globally accepted definition. Try this

I am almost certain that my examples would go beyond the explainable and hence prove 'Gods' existence.

Please demonstrate how so then precisely and beyond reasonable doubt.

I base my disbelief in God on the fact that I can't rationally accept your idea of a being who is arbitrarily non-temporal yet able to act within the temporal; omnibenevolent, yet unwilling to ease the suffering of his 'favoured creations' and alot of other philosophical differences. As well as the fact that there is no evidence.

You continue to present the straw man that is not the Christian God. You seem to have little to know conception of the Christian God, so your rational position is hardly surprising. I haven't claimed that you should be supernaturally informed.