Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?



We are asking if the main religious claims are a priori false.   A priori false means that you don't need experience or evidence or anything to know it is absurd. You don’t need evidence or experience to tell you that a square circle is absurd.  Or that the whole is lesser than the part.

A miracle is best defined by examples such as Jesus rising from the dead, or his being sinless and perfect or God telling him things.

Miracles never define themselves anyway.  People report them and decide what they are though they can do nothing to show that it is a naturally unexplainable, paranormally unexplainable or supernaturally unexplainable occurrence.  They impose a definition on them and it is always the supernaturally unexplainable.  We don't impose a definition on anything else.  We really let it describe itself what it is.

The definition is definitely a priori nonsense for it is not a definition but an interpretation.

Anyway for now we will treat miracle as if the definition does fit.

A miracle according to many philosophers - some of whom are on the Christian payroll - is not a priori false. A miracle that is a priori false would make no sense and be a contradiction and therefore it cannot be real. People often have a hidden premise, “Those miracles are absurd so if the evidence shows they have happened the evidence is fake.”  This is wrong.  The idea is that if something is a priori false then logically the evidence could say it is true.  In the real world the evidence is fake but we are talking logic here.  The evidence is irrelevant to showing a miracle is logical.

If a miracle is absurd then logically it can have excellent evidence. A miracle then is beyond logic.  Evidence and testimony have nothing to do with showing a miracle is logically possible.

A sub-set of miracle is the evidence miracle.  This is done as a sign or proof or evidence. This then by definition is a priori false.


Is a miracle that which is supernatural but just happens to carry a message?  Or is it a message that just happens to be delivered via a miracle?

God has many definitions but one meaning is, "That which may tolerate evil but works against it in favour of the best good under the circumstances."

God supposedly makes all things 100%.  This is another way of expressing that all things supposedly are called into being from nothing at all.

If God is good then evil is not a power but good failing to be what it should be.

A parasite can last forever. The thing it grows on being stronger does not mean it will do anything about it. The Christian religion says God who is goodness itself has done all he can about evil and yet it happens and can be hard to get rid of.

I said that good being the default and evil the parasite does not necessarily mean the evil has to expire. Do you need to extinguish the creature doing the evil then?



Love is a choice to value another, hate is a choice to deny value to another and so is indifference so this makes love the default.


Indifference can be a weapon.  When you act some reasons for acting can be hate, some can be indifference and some can be love.  An act


Indifference is a choice.


God cannot and does not stop evil coming back or reproducing or growing or changing.  Pure evil that pretends to be good would be the most dangerous form and nothing is done about it.


Religion saying evil is a mere lack sounds thin when it talks as if evil has an intelligence of its own and a mind of its own.  Religion does not really believe what it says.


Quote about evil in supernatural is wrong and fix morality section in evil people.  Need to finish unconditional love.



People have to reason if a revelation could be from God.  So even if God gave it is not the point.  It still comes back to human assessment.  And human nature would pretend that its deliberations are from God.

Is natural evil only evil that hurts somebody?  Or potentially could?


A leg appearing where a man had no leg before is a miracle.  But nature going on after this as if he never lost his leg is not natural.  That is why Lewis is wrong to say that when a miracle happens nature just takes over again.


Love the Lord – that means love the one you are to give unconditional obedience to and love his lordship. It implies that to love him you must obey him.

The idea of God presupposes that logic, a thing being a and not non-a, is to be discovered. You don't create logic. You discover it and use it. God is logic for being the absolute that means there is no law that he is subject to. He is the law. It is similar to why religion says that God is not ruled by morality but is morality.

We can err in what we think is logical. So doing anything to harm logic is a sin. Logic is not morality but you cannot violate it without violating morality.

If logic is higher than us then if we use our logic to work out the existence of a God

So the thinking work is what shows it to be nonsense and unworthy of any credence or investigation. This would seem to imply that no miracle story from whatever source should be rejected a priori. It does not. A miracle that is clearly a contradiction would not mean that all miracles are or try to be. Such a miracle would be a priori rejected. If God said that he took away your past and it never existed that would be an a priori contradiction. It is impossible to tell what is being claimed in a miracle account. What if Jesus rose from the dead? What if he did not but God just wiped out the reality of the crucifixion and the burial meaning Jesus never died? Nobody has any way of distinguishing a priori false miracles from their counterparts. You cannot say, "I don't reject the miracle stories of Jesus a priori for maybe some day we will understand what made people come up with the stories or we will get evidence that they are true." A priori does not care about evidence period. Evidence cannot support a contradiction.


Energy in the universe pursues the path of least resistance. It should do that. And experiments show it does that. If God is energy even spiritual energy you would have to say it also takes the quickest and easiest road. You cannot experiment but you don’t need to for a smart God will naturally do things that way.

Christians spend a lot of time trying to show there is no logical contradiction between God and the existence of evil. Think of evil as unjust random suffering. Think of evil as how we can do what we want but we cannot really make ourselves want what we want. If you want to hurt somebody the want appears and demands a response. We are faced with a possible proof that God does not care about our bodies. And it is undeniable that he created the wants we have so we are forced to conclude God asks us to sin against him!

The bad wants are the biggest natural evil of all if your focus is trying to become a better person with the help of God or faith in God. Earthquakes and things trigger a temptation to rage against God. God creates temptation. He cannot say we are getting help from him to past the test for that is not us passing the test. The point of a test is that you face it yourself without help.

Philosophers say that things such as God preventing the 2004 Asian tsunami were logically possible or that if it did not happen then you can say God prevented it and there is no self-contradiction in saying so. But they assert that such actions would be physically impossible. So they are not logically impossible but they are physically impossible. By impossible they are saying God ordered nature so that nature cannot fix some things. So it is impossible for nature and because God makes it impossible. Yet he has the power to fix it. Would logically possible or physically possible (or if you like logically impossible or physically impossible) be equally important? Many say physical impossibility is more relevant to us than what is logically impossible and more about the world the way it is.

1229 ‘The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the
years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian
theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view
imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural
verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann

Christian logic says that God can be and is more than one person.  They are assuming God must be love and they cannot see how a God who does not have to create anything can be love for he cannot be a relationship God if he is on his own.  They say then that God is one being and there are three persons in God who love each other.  So God then can be summed up as the perfect relationship.