From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   >>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100   
   >>>>> MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   >>>>> []   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began.   
   >>>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> What if, in reality, God did it?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any   
   >>>>> worshipper feedback.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?   
   >>>>> e.g.   
   >>>>> Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'   
   >>>>> to comfort you?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Marx's "opium of the people"?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias   
   >>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I   
   >>>> can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and   
   >>>> beliefs?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Similarly, do you reject God   
   >>>   
   >>> You mean reject the idea of God.  After all, there's no God there to   
   >>> reject.   
   >>>   
   >>>> because the idea of moral accountability is   
   >>>> uncomfortable?   
   >>>   
   >>> No, that can't be it.  There's no reason to be morally accountable to   
   >>> some Cosmic Designer.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> On what basis do you assert that?   
   >   
   > The lack of  a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the   
   > God of the Bible.   
   >   
   >> A creator may well have expectations of their creation.   
   >   
   > Or "they" may not.  So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy   
   > away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists   
   > (which you haven't demonstrated, of course).   
   >   
      
   You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way   
   (theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence.   
   For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a   
   potential recipient of those); for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm a   
   God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)