If I were an Atheist

[The Valkyrie]

Holy crap. Is this still going?

[Drew_2013]

Jörmungandr  

I thought we'd been over this already.  As Don Tow observes in his review of Rees' book:

We have been over it but atheists continue to claim there isn't a shred of evidence that would lead one to believe we owe our existence to a creator.

So in other words, it's only fine tuned if you only look at it from one side.  From the other side of variation, life indeed could exist.  That's not fine tuning.  That's selective vision.

I read the entire review you cited. I don't see anywhere that he is disagreeing with Martin Rees other than Martin Rees conclusion. Martin Rees (who is an atheist) subscribes to interpretation C that this is one of an infinitude of universes the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps explanation. Don Tow on the other hand, the person your citing subscribes to interpretation B, that we owe our existence to a Creator...


III.   Interpretation

The above six numbers provide a recipe for a universe. They govern the outcome of the recipe, i.e., the formation and evolution of a universe, including the existence and type of life in that universe. It seems that the outcome is remarkably sensitive to the values of these six numbers. It seems that these six numbers were tuned so that our current universe and life can exist. If any of these six numbers was untuned, there would be no stars or life as we know it in our current universe.
There are at least three interpretations of the fine tuning of these six numbers.
Interpretation A: These numbers just so happen to take these values. They could have taken other values, then the universe and life as we know it will not exist. But another type of universe, perhaps without life, could exist.
Interpretation B: There is a Creator who purposely designed the universe in this way so that we could exist, i.e., there is intelligent design. It is important to point out that this type of intelligent design is not the same as those intelligent design advocates who claim that Darwin’s evolution theory cannot be correct.
Interpretation C: There could actually be many universes, with each having a different set of values for these numbers. This is the viewpoint of the “multiverse” advocates. Depending on the particular multiverse theory, the different universes may or may not interact with each other, and it is not clear how these different universes were created. The multiverse (or many-world) concept actually has existed for more than 50 years. It was first formulated in 1956 as the Many-World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in Hugh Everett’s Ph.D. thesis at Princeton (under Professor John A. Wheeler). In quantum mechanics, we cannot predict the exact outcome of any experimental observation; but we can predict only the probability distribution of multiple outcomes. For example, in the famous double slit experiment when electrons (or photons) pass through two slits, the only way to explain the interference pattern obtained is that the waves associated with the electrons went through both slits, and not just one slit. However, when you try to experimentally detect the electrons, you will always find that the electrons end up in one spot and not two or multiple spots, or saying it in another way, you don’t find part of an electron. So it seems that when you make an experimental observation to determine the location of the electron, you end up in one particular universe (out of many possible universes), i.e., you are put in the universe in which the electron ended up on the spot on the right or the spot on the left. [5] Both universes exist, but the different universes do not interact with each other. I should add that even if this could be a possible interpretation of quantum mechanics, most physicists do not accept this interpretation, including Professor Wheeler later in his life.
Martin Rees, the author of this book, believes in the multiverse interpretation of the fine tuning of these six numbers. Personally, I do not agree with his interpretation. I favor Interpretation B.

And while we're at it, Victor Stenger has run simulations in which the parameters of the universe varied by up to two orders of magnitude, and half of those universes yielded long period universes with heavy elements capable for the support of life as we know it. A point that was brought up early in your first run at this argument (this is round 4). So while the parameters in this region of parameter space may be sensitive to variation, it's clear that there exist in that entire parameter space other viable solutions which could support life. It would seem things are not so fine tuned as Martin Rees would have us believe.

Victor Stenger is not without his critics...

Professor Victor Stenger is an American particle physicist and a noted atheist, who popularized the phrase, “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings”. Professor Stenger is also the author of several books, including his recent best-seller, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity (Prometheus Books, 2011). Stenger’s latest book has been received with great acclaim by atheists: “Stenger has demolished the fine-tuning proponents,” writes one enthusiastic Amazon reviewer, adding that the book tells us “how science is able to demonstrate the non-existence of god.”

Well, it seems that the great Stenger has finally met his match. Dr. Luke A. Barnes, a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, has written a scathing critique of Stenger’s book. I’ve read refutations in my time, but I have to say, this one is devastating.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112...4647v1.pdf

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...a-fallacy/

Changing the Laws of Nature

What if the laws of nature were different? Stenger says:

… what about a universe with a different set of “laws”? There is not much we can say about such a universe, nor do we need to. Not knowing what any of their parameters are, no one can claim that they are fine-tuned. [FOFT p. 69]

In reply, fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is suitably (and robustly) small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset. It is easy to find examples of such claims.
* A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws “all the way down” (i.e. with no quantum regime at small scales) will not have stable atoms | electrons radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus | and hence no chemistry (Barrow & Tipler, 1986, pg. 303). We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that life in such a universe is plausibly impossible.
* If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be no chemistry.
* If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures. Remember: your density, thank gravity, is 10^30 times greater than the average density of the universe.
* If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be no atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and incapable of complexity.
* If, in electromagnetism, like charges attracted and opposites repelled, then there would be no atoms. As above, we would just have undifferentiated lumps of matter.
* The electromagnetic force allows matter to cool into galaxies, stars, and planets. Without such interactions, all matter would be like dark matter, which can only form into large, diffuse, roughly spherical haloes of matter whose only internal structure consists of smaller, diffuse, roughly spherical subhaloes. (p. 18)

[Surgenator]

Changing the Laws of Nature

What if the laws of nature were different? Stenger says:

… what about a universe with a different set of “laws”? There is not much we can say about such a universe, nor do we need to. Not knowing what any of their parameters are, no one can claim that they are fine-tuned. [FOFT p. 69]

In reply, fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is suitably (and robustly) small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset. It is easy to find examples of such claims.
* A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws “all the way down” (i.e. with no quantum regime at small scales) will not have stable atoms | electrons radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus | and hence no chemistry (Barrow & Tipler, 1986, pg. 303). We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that life in such a universe is plausibly impossible.
* If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be no chemistry.
* If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures. Remember: your density, thank gravity, is 10^30 times greater than the average density of the universe.
* If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be no atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and incapable of complexity.
* If, in electromagnetism, like charges attracted and opposites repelled, then there would be no atoms. As above, we would just have undifferentiated lumps of matter.
* The electromagnetic force allows matter to cool into galaxies, stars, and planets. Without such interactions, all matter would be like dark matter, which can only form into large, diffuse, roughly spherical haloes of matter whose only internal structure consists of smaller, diffuse, roughly spherical subhaloes. (p. 18)

The fine-tuning argument is an argument from ignorance, a fallacy. The whole argument boils down to
1) Look at all these (maybe) independent variable that are tightly constrained to get the universe I know of.
2) Life is in my universe
3) So these parameters determine what life-permitting universe are possible (another fallacy)
4) I cannot understand how these variables came to be what they are (ignorance)
5) God did it.

All the fancy science concepts that you can throw out doesn't prevent the main problem of the argument, ignorance.

[Mister Agenda]

In short theory 2 states we owe our existence to happenstance.

So does hypothesis 1. If the Creator has free will and the power to create anything, the things it could have created are infinite. The odds that we and the universe we are in would be exactly what it wanted to create are one in infinity, effectively zero, if one is consistent about working backwards they way you do for a natural explanation of the universe.

This is the advantage of arguing on a primarily atheist board, you can say something truly absurd and no one calls you out on it.

I see you are just reduced to claiming absurdity without a clue as how to demonstrate it.

---

Are you trying to suggest something intentionally purposely designed to operate in a certain way is ultimately the same level of happenstance as things that  without plan intent or design just haphazardly turn out in some fashion?

Free will means you have choices. Having choices means having the option to choose something else. Being omniscient and omnipotent means having infinite choices. Out of an infinity of choices, there will be an infinity of intentional designs to choose from. No  haphazardness required for the odds of our particular universe to be one in infinity if made by a 'capital c' Creator.

---

Chance or inevitability, to name one other possible alternative off the top of my head. And neither of those amounts to an argument that they aren't actually the case, just a repetition that you personally find it hard to believe, so it must not be true. 

I'll get to the 'possibly' the universe had to be as it is red herring later.

Of course you will. And it will be as much drivel as everything else you post. I'm sure it will be as on target as your posts usually are.

---

Its not just me who finds any alternative explanation hard to believe you yourself appear to find any specific non-god model or theory hard to believe.

I don't find them hard to believe. I find many of them plausible. I merely possess sufficient humility to know that believing any particular one is not yet justified by the facts. I know the limits of my knowledge and understanding of this subject. I've made this very clear multiple times, yet here we are again.

---

Do you believe we owe our existence and the universe to something called quantum foam? To save time I'll short circuit the process and assume you believe the theory has merit, but not enough evidence to warrant actual belief. The reason it has merit is because it falls under your general world view of a naturalistic explanation which automatically gives it merit. But you lack belief in the actual theory just as you lack belief in theism.

It would save more time if you didn't post the conversations you have with me in your head. I don't know why you think you had to assume that when I've stated it plainly. Of course you added the part where the reason that I think it has merit is because it automatically gets merit if it's a naturalistic explanation. No explanation gets merit automatically. But putting words in other people's mouths is a weasel's speciality, isn't it?

---

True. But why are there any laws of physics never mind specific ones that allowed for the existence of planets and life?
Why wouldn't there be?

You answer my question first...

In the face of the laws of physics existing and the absence of any reasoning why they shouldn't, the question of why they should is  moot. Maybe it's not properly a 'why?' question.

---

No, its not sheer speculation, its an controvertible fact that several constants are in a delicate balance with one another to allow a star, galaxy, planet and a life permitting universe to exist regardless if they 'had' to be that way for some unknown reason or whether they just happened to be as they are by sheer chance.

Without knowing whether they could be different, speaking of odds is just an interesting 'what if?' exercise.

---

Even if for some reason they 'had' to be that way minus plan design or intent it was still happenstance that they had to be that way. Moreover the notion they had to be as they are smacks of design.

If our universe's origin was a runaway quantum vacuum fluctuation, an event like that can only produce a universe with a net energy of almost exactly zero...like ours. That imposes huge constraints on what the physical laws could possibly be. It's not happenstance, it's math: anything you derive from zero has to add up to zero.

---

Why do printed circuit boards come out just so? Because they are designed to specification.

No kidding. Why do snowflakes come out just so? Entropy.

---

I'm not assigning odds. However it is scientists who are postulating this is one of an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics to account how a life permitting universe could exist by chance.

Accounting for the slightly life-tolerant properties of this universe had nothing to do with any of the multiple universe hypotheses. Quantum alternates explain certain problems in quantum physics. Any origin hypothesis that isn't constrained to originating one universe will probably go on initiating others. What justification do you have for believing that your proposed Creator only made one universe?

---

If it had to be as it is...that's too close to design for scientists...

Well, that came straight from you ass, no detours.

---

Omnipotent is a theological attribute some religious folks attribute to God. I'm not advancing any theological notions. However even if God is omnipotent God could choose to create the universe as we observe.

Or any other. But for some reason, he picked one that is, if anything, too easy to come up with natural explanations for.

---

If this is the only kind of universe in which we can live naturally, we are in the only kind of universe in which supernatural intervention is NOT required to explain our presence.

Assuming a Creator isn't necessary and that in fact natural forces without plan or intent could cause themselves to exist you would be right. In other words...if you're right then your right. If I'm right, then I'm right right?

Why are you even here if you're going to post drivel like that? We are in a universe in which we can live naturally. It is your position that it is so enormously unlikely that a universe could exist that is not 100% inimical to life, that Someone must have planned it. But if we found ourselves in any of the supposed infinity of possible hostile universes that don't allow for life to exist, our presence would be proof positive of supernatural intervention. But we live in the ONLY one (according to you) where we can exist without any laws of nature being bent for us. Something that is not only irrelevant to an omnipotent God, but irrelevant to a simulated universe programmer.

[Mister Agenda]

Lets take a moment to look at this from the forest level. Unlike most atheists who falsely claim there isn't a shred of evidence not one single fact that is simpatico with belief in theism I don't deny there are facts that support the notion we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to naturalistic forces that somehow came into existence, somehow became a universe and somehow had the characteristics to cause sentient life to exist.

Of course there are facts 'sympatico' with theism. The problem is that they are equally sympatico with atheism. They are facts, but they are not evidence that favors either conclusion. It takes more than a fact not contradicting something to make it evidence that supports that something.

[Ravenshire]

Drew, you ever going to answer the blatant intellectual dishonesty I pointed out or are you going to ignore me so you can keep using it, making yourself blatantly intellectually dishonest?

[Mister Agenda]

If my opinion we owe our existence to a Creator is wrong it leaves only some mechanistic explanation so if nothing else, it is a second runner up. However, even if it were true is the runner up belief any less miraculous?

Not to someone as determined to put 'God did it' on the same level with serious scientific inquiry as are you.

---

The counter belief is that natural forces minus any plan or intent or to the best of our knowledge any necessity to exist somehow came to exist.

It's not a 'counter-belief'. It's the only thing that we have any evidence for at all. No scientist is going to turn down the Nobel Prize if they find evidence of your Creator. It is not the fault of science that the being you believe in, if it does exist, chooses to hide its existence from the only tools we have for discovering the nature of the universe.

---

1. Some unknown forces caused the natural forces we now observe to exist.
2. Natural forces we observe bootstrapped themselves into existence uncaused out of nothing.

If 1 the unknown forces operate outside of time and the laws of physics we familiar with don't apply to these unknown forces then by definition they are supernatural relative to us, they are also transcendent to us.

By your personal definition. Which no one else here accepts, despite how enormously convenient your personal definition is for you.

---

If 2 we owe our existence to a supernatural magic act. But I suppose for the sake of argument you'll push the goal posts further back and call matter and the laws of physics popping into existence uncaused out of nothing natural.

My guess is like with theism you lack belief in 1 or 2.

Because I have no way of knowing which scenario is actually true, it would be stupid of me to pick one. I try not to be stupid. You should try not to be stupid, too. If it happened and it didn't involve magic and it wasn't artificial, then it's natural. If the evidence ever points to the universe being artificial in the sense that it was deliberately made by something, magic or no. I shall have to accept it.

---

I have provided several reasons why it is a reasonable belief compared to any counter theories. There isn't a lack of evidence to support the belief we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to a Creator.

You've had it explained in detail why none of those reasons actually support your position and have failed to refute those rebuttals but instead carry on repeating over and over that you've succeeded in the task you set for yourself. It's okay to think you're justified in your own mind, but it's just tedious for you to keep pretending your efforts carry more weight than that. You sound like a record player that keeps repeating the same few seconds over and over.

---

In order for theism to be possibly true (the belief the universe and sentient life were intentionally caused by a Creator) certain conditions must be true or there would be no reason to suggest a Creator is involved. In contrast, there isn't one fact that needs to be true for atheism to be true (the belief (or lack of belief) no Creator exists or was involved in the existence of the universe or sentient humans).

Well for starters, if there is no God, then we must live in a universe whose physical laws allow for the possibility of our existence and for lack of belief in any god or God to be rationally tenable, we must live in a universe where the existence of such beings is not verifiable.

---

In fact there are conditions that if true would significantly favor atheism. For example suppose no universe or humans existed. Not only would atheism be a slam dunk position, there would be nothing existing to attribute to a creator.

Lack of a universe or humans only implies no Creator, not 'no God'. There is no reason why a God couldn't be self-sufficient and complete without making a universe.

[Whateverist]

Jörmungandr  

---

I thought we'd been over this already.  As Don Tow observes in his review of Rees' book:

We have been over it but atheists continue to claim there isn't a shred of evidence that would lead one to believe we owe our existence to a creator.

So in other words, it's only fine tuned if you only look at it from one side.  From the other side of variation, life indeed could exist.  That's not fine tuning.  That's selective vision.

I read the entire review you cited. I don't see anywhere that he is disagreeing with Martin Rees other than Martin Rees conclusion. Martin Rees (who is an atheist) subscribes to interpretation C that this is one of an infinitude of universes the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps explanation. Don Tow on the other hand, the person your citing subscribes to interpretation B, that we owe our existence to a Creator...


III.   Interpretation

The above six numbers provide a recipe for a universe. They govern the outcome of the recipe, i.e., the formation and evolution of a universe, including the existence and type of life in that universe. It seems that the outcome is remarkably sensitive to the values of these six numbers. It seems that these six numbers were tuned so that our current universe and life can exist. If any of these six numbers was untuned, there would be no stars or life as we know it in our current universe.
There are at least three interpretations of the fine tuning of these six numbers.
Interpretation A: These numbers just so happen to take these values. They could have taken other values, then the universe and life as we know it will not exist. But another type of universe, perhaps without life, could exist.
Interpretation B: There is a Creator who purposely designed the universe in this way so that we could exist, i.e., there is intelligent design. It is important to point out that this type of intelligent design is not the same as those intelligent design advocates who claim that Darwin’s evolution theory cannot be correct.
Interpretation C: There could actually be many universes, with each having a different set of values for these numbers. This is the viewpoint of the “multiverse” advocates. Depending on the particular multiverse theory, the different universes may or may not interact with each other, and it is not clear how these different universes were created. The multiverse (or many-world) concept actually has existed for more than 50 years. It was first formulated in 1956 as the Many-World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in Hugh Everett’s Ph.D. thesis at Princeton (under Professor John A. Wheeler). In quantum mechanics, we cannot predict the exact outcome of any experimental observation; but we can predict only the probability distribution of multiple outcomes. For example, in the famous double slit experiment when electrons (or photons) pass through two slits, the only way to explain the interference pattern obtained is that the waves associated with the electrons went through both slits, and not just one slit. However, when you try to experimentally detect the electrons, you will always find that the electrons end up in one spot and not two or multiple spots, or saying it in another way, you don’t find part of an electron. So it seems that when you make an experimental observation to determine the location of the electron, you end up in one particular universe (out of many possible universes), i.e., you are put in the universe in which the electron ended up on the spot on the right or the spot on the left. [5] Both universes exist, but the different universes do not interact with each other. I should add that even if this could be a possible interpretation of quantum mechanics, most physicists do not accept this interpretation, including Professor Wheeler later in his life.
Martin Rees, the author of this book, believes in the multiverse interpretation of the fine tuning of these six numbers. Personally, I do not agree with his interpretation. I favor Interpretation B.

And while we're at it, Victor Stenger has run simulations in which the parameters of the universe varied by up to two orders of magnitude, and half of those universes yielded long period universes with heavy elements capable for the support of life as we know it. A point that was brought up early in your first run at this argument (this is round 4). So while the parameters in this region of parameter space may be sensitive to variation, it's clear that there exist in that entire parameter space other viable solutions which could support life. It would seem things are not so fine tuned as Martin Rees would have us believe.

Victor Stenger is not without his critics...

Professor Victor Stenger is an American particle physicist and a noted atheist, who popularized the phrase, “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings”. Professor Stenger is also the author of several books, including his recent best-seller, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity (Prometheus Books, 2011). Stenger’s latest book has been received with great acclaim by atheists: “Stenger has demolished the fine-tuning proponents,” writes one enthusiastic Amazon reviewer, adding that the book tells us “how science is able to demonstrate the non-existence of god.”

Well, it seems that the great Stenger has finally met his match. Dr. Luke A. Barnes, a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, has written a scathing critique of Stenger’s book. I’ve read refutations in my time, but I have to say, this one is devastating.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112...4647v1.pdf

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...a-fallacy/

Changing the Laws of Nature

What if the laws of nature were different? Stenger says:

… what about a universe with a different set of “laws”? There is not much we can say about such a universe, nor do we need to. Not knowing what any of their parameters are, no one can claim that they are fine-tuned. [FOFT p. 69]

In reply, fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is suitably (and robustly) small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset. It is easy to find examples of such claims.
* A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws “all the way down” (i.e. with no quantum regime at small scales) will not have stable atoms | electrons radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus | and hence no chemistry (Barrow & Tipler, 1986, pg. 303). We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that life in such a universe is plausibly impossible.
* If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be no chemistry.
* If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures. Remember: your density, thank gravity, is 10^30 times greater than the average density of the universe.
* If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be no atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and incapable of complexity.
* If, in electromagnetism, like charges attracted and opposites repelled, then there would be no atoms. As above, we would just have undifferentiated lumps of matter.
* The electromagnetic force allows matter to cool into galaxies, stars, and planets. Without such interactions, all matter would be like dark matter, which can only form into large, diffuse, roughly spherical haloes of matter whose only internal structure consists of smaller, diffuse, roughly spherical subhaloes. (p. 18)

---

I'm pretty sure Drew just committed the wall of text fallacy.  Only thing is, I'm not willing to wade through it to make sure.

[Mister Agenda]

Suppose a universe did exist, but it was utterly chaotic with no laws of physics no rhyme or reason and obviously no life (exactly what one would expect to be the result of mindless mechanistic forces that some how came into existence).

There is no reason to believe such an utterly chaotic universe is possible. In fact, it is impossible for chaos not to contain any order at all unless Something is preventing any occurrences of order...which itself would be a sort of order. Chaos one can rely on.

---

I'm pretty sure Drew just committed the wall of text fallacy.  Only thing is, I'm not willing to wade through it to make sure.

It's not true that someone has to do it, but I will. Maybe not again, circumstances have required me to limit my internet use considerably.

---

Again there would be no reason to raise the question of theism (or anyone to raise such an idea but this is a thought experiment). Again in order for the possibility of theism to be raised certain conditions and facts must be true.

Likewise for atheism, as shown, without even raising silly scenarios where there's no one to raise any questions at all.

---

1. A universe has to exist

2. The universe must be such that life can occur and be around long enough for sentience to occur

3. Sentient life must exist

4. There must be stable laws of physics that allow for stars, galaxies, and planets to exist.

Sigh. Those are all things that have to be true for the question of atheism to be raised. A deity doesn't require any of those things to exist. We do, but only in a context where there is no powerful being that could and would keep us alive despite us not having any of those things.

[robvalue]

I'm not sure if Drew has addressed this point:

I don't give a monkeys if your God or any God exists, I'll continue to live my life exactly as I do now. I'm not grovelling to anyone, especially not someone demanding it of me or holding my happiness hostage. I try every day to be the best person I can be, to look after those around me and do my bit to make the world better. If God would rather I spent some of that time kissing his ass, he can forget it.

If a crazy person with a gun was in my face and demanded worship, sure, I'd pretend to worship him until I had the opportunity to get away from him.

But there's no gun in my face from God. Not even a toy gun. Next time you talk to him, ask him if he wants to be friends with atheists, to come see us and have a chat. Then we could have a sensible relationship with him. But I don't do long distance relationships with people who refuse to demonstrate they are even getting my letters.