Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Grand Nudger]

We already know the agent, Kloro.  It's called genetics.  God isn't painting the roses red....even if there were a god...which, there isn't.

Genetics, just like physical laws, describe some pattern. You repeatedly admitted that natural laws and processes are descriptive. 

Sure?

And a description can't also be an agent.

That's an interesting rule - does it also hold for gods?

[LadyForCamus]

In order to sidestep the obvious problem of not having any evidence, theists must necessarily place god “outside” the realm of the material world. But this move is no less problematic, because theists need their god to have the very specific characteristics and attributes of a person who does, in fact, exist in the material world. God must be able to do things. He must be able to think, feel and behave; plan, design, and create; make choices, communicate, and intervene - in short, exist - in an almost identical fashion to human beings within the material world. Otherwise, they’re only arguing for deism at most. They want to allow their god to reap all the benefits of a material existence without being held to any of the natural consequences of god actually existing, i.e. any evidence of his existence whatsoever.

[The Architect Of Fate]

In order to sidestep the obvious problem of not having any evidence, theists must necessarily place god “outside” the realm of the material world.  But this move is no less problematic, because theists need their god to have the very specific characteristics and attributes of a person who does, in fact, exist in the material world. God must be able to do things. He must be able to think, feel and  behave; plan, design, and create; make choices, communicate,  and intervene - in short, exist - in an identical fashion to the way a human being exists within the material world. Otherwise, they’re only arguing for deism at most. They want to allow their god to reap all the benefits of a material existence without being held to any of the natural consequences of god actually existing, i.e. any evidence of his existence whatsoever.

Also, epistemology becomes a bubble of self-reinforcement of belief.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In order to sidestep the obvious problem of not having any evidence, theists must necessarily place god “outside” the realm of the material world. But this move is no less problematic, because theists need their god to have the very specific characteristics and attributes of a person who does, in fact, exist in the material world. God must be able to do things. He must be able to think, feel and behave; plan, design, and create; make choices, communicate, and intervene - in short, exist - in an identical fashion to the way a human being exists within the material world. Otherwise, they’re only arguing for deism at most. They want to allow their god to reap all the benefits of a material existence without being held to any of the natural consequences of god actually existing, i.e. any evidence of his existence whatsoever.

Not exactly. An interventionist god only requires a physical universe that is not fully deterministic or causally closed.

[LadyForCamus]

In order to sidestep the obvious problem of not having any evidence, theists must necessarily place god “outside” the realm of the material world.  But this move is no less problematic, because theists need their god to have the very specific characteristics and attributes of a person who does, in fact, exist in the material world. God must be able to do things. He must be able to think, feel and  behave; plan, design, and create; make choices, communicate,  and intervene - in short, exist - in an identical fashion to the way a human being exists within the material world. Otherwise, they’re only arguing for deism at most. They want to allow their god to reap all the benefits of a material existence without being held to any of the natural consequences of god actually existing, i.e. any evidence of his existence whatsoever.

Not exactly. An interventionist god only requires a physical universe that is not fully deterministic or causally closed.

Along with some will or desire to intervene and interact, otherwise it either wouldn’t intervene in the first place, or its intervention would be completely arbitrary. No?

[Astreja]

If an eternal past is impossible, then wouldn't a god existing in an eternal past also be impossible?

[The Architect Of Fate]

If an eternal past is impossible, then wouldn't a god existing in an eternal past also be impossible?  

They will just whine that god is timeless as if that helps them 

[Deesse23]

In other words, a system can't give some energy it doesn't already have.

A very ambiguous way to describe a fact (and i am not sure at all you even know at all what you are talking about, or if you are only reading from a script). Probably indicative of your shallow understanding of the topic.  
So ill explain: Out of the total energy of a closed system, not all can ever be used, due to ...*drumroll* entropy.

Energy and mass are interchangeable (in theory) and can only be transformed, but never destroyed or created.

No only in theory, but in praxi. Try to google "particle accelerator".
How do you think our sun is able to "generate" all the energy it radiates into the solar system? How do you think nuclear friction or fusion are working (based on what mechanism/s)?
How do you think two colliding black holes / neutron stars are able to create gravitational waves?

---

They want to allow their god to reap all the benefits of a material existence without being held to any of the natural consequences of god actually existing, i.e. any evidence of his existence whatsoever.

Eating the cake and still have it.
Age old problem of apologists who are trying to be "reasonable" instead of just pointing to their holy book.
Personally i find this effort to be quite transparent, comical and ...unreasonable. At times i find the latter (apologists) more sympathetic, because they dont try to engage in as many argumental contortions than those who are trying to be "reasonable".

---

If an eternal past is impossible, then wouldn't a god existing in an eternal past also be impossible?  

*insert special pleading here*

[Jehanne]

In other words, a system can't give some energy it doesn't already have.

A very ambiguous way to describe a fact (and i am not sure at all you even know at all what you are talking about, or if you are only reading from a script). Probably indicative of your shallow understanding of the topic.  
So ill explain: Out of the total energy of a closed system, not all can ever be used, due to ...*drumroll* entropy.

It is widely held that the total energy (potential, kinetic, fields) of the Universe is zero, as if the Universe came from nothing. Entropy has SI units (Joules/Kelvin); enthalpy is Joules/kg.

[Mister Agenda]

Is there anything about a universe that extends infinitely into the past from having a 'now'? Doesn't if have to have one? If there can be a 'now' in a universe that is past infinite, that's 'when' we are. If there can't be a 'now' in a past infiinite universe, why not? Is a past infinite universe one in which nothing can ever happen?

I think this is like Zeno's paradoxes in the sense that we perceive a seeming paradox that doesn't prevent the thing from actually existing. In any instant of an arrow's path, it's motionless, but it still reaches the target; there are an infinite number of points before Achilles passes the tortoise, but he still passes the tortoise.