Comments after my answer to:
By no means was God gambling, for He that inhabits eternity and can see all things from that perspective (and knows what your choices will be, without forcing you against your will) knew what Job would do.
In contrast, it was the devil who was gambling (and induces you to). For his major premise (as manifest in other places) was that God was unworthy of being Job’s God - the ultimate source of security and object of spiritual affection and loyalty (thus the devil’s original sin of presuming he should sit as God, that God needed to “share the wealth” so to speak: as he also essentially told Eve: Is. 14:12–14; Gn. 3).
Therefore the devil’s minor premise was that Job only loved God
because of blessings Job enjoyed. Thus the 2-stage challenge was,
take them away and Job would reject God (and likely commit suicide),
with the only restriction being that the devil could not take His
life (which his wife recommended that Job take).
However, while
Job certainly expressed his bewilderment at his lamentable condition
which he protested, asking at least at least 66 questions, yet he did
not deny His Creator or foolishly verbally charge Him with
iniquity.
And after God reminded Job by asking him (some count
77) rhetorical questions, such as “Canst thou bind the sweet
influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?” (Job 38:31)
then Job realized that God did care for him and was in control, and
had a purpose, where Job stated,
I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:2-6)
Thus the devil lost again, and will yet do so, for he will be done gambling until the very end:
And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:8-10)
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)
Comments have been deleted by Quora, but not before I copied them, and the anti-theist charges, which are basically typical and repeated atheistic objections, have been overall summarized per content, though responded to them as verbatim in my replies. And additional comments by me are in [brackets].
[anti-theist[ So a god that claims to be good destroys the life of a poor man, kills his whole family simply to make the devil lose a bet? Yet your god is the one that created the devil and evil in the first place! Why is this not absolute proof that the god of Abraham is XXXXX if the bible is true?
No, God did not destroy the life of a poor man and killed his whole family just to make the devil lose, much less would be even any sort of proof (unmentionable) if the bible is true. But which comments are typical of ignorant atheism, and which often seems to be driven by an animus toward the idea of an ultimate authority.
First, the issue was whether faithfulness to God is warranted or not, with the devil (and atheists) on one side and the likes of Job on that other. Who showed that his faith could endure loss, that his faithfulness was not simply due to the blessings he received but was deeper than that. Many POWs (Jeremiah Denton, etc.) suffering torture for their country likewise proved their love for country could not be defeated by atheistic Communism.
Secondly, the trial also for the sake of the character of Job, who came to essentially see what atheists typically refuse to see, that if God is omnipotent and omniscient (as was conveyed by the many rhetorical questions), then He alone knows what all the effects will be of even your next breath or the flap of the wings of a butterfly, not only for this life but for Eternity. And who alone can and will make it all work out for Good, for the good of those who love God and thus love the Good. (Rm. 8:28).
Thus Job realized that God knew exactly what Job was going thru, and was in control (His hand on the thermostat s to speak), and would make it work out for good. Which God did even just as regards this life, blessing the latter end of Job abundantly more than his beginning in every respect relative to what He had lost. (Job 42:12)
Thus - going by just what the Bible says since that is the God you are opposing - your objection cannot be that the sufferings of God were not worth it, and that taking away family and good was unjust.
Which charges are illogical and absurd, for we are simply not omnipotent and omniscient and in no position to tell the One who gave life that He cannot take life, or charge that the relatively momentary losses of this life are unjust in the light of eternity. Unless we are omnipotent and omniscient.
We do not know if the children of Job were fit to be destroyed due to what they were doing and would do, or that (most likely) they held to the faith and character of the Godly father, and are in glory right now. In either case you cannot logically charge God with being unjust since you only have a fraction of the knowledge of the past, present and future and the scope of it, or the ability to determine it.
Going back to the devil; his original presumption) was essentially that the created is fit to be as God, and that God is unjust in requiring obedience in order to obtain blessing, and in punishing disobedience or bluffing about it; but that it is the right of the created to have the power and position of God. Which premise also eliminates mercy (not getting the evil you deserve) and grace (getting the good that you do not), since it presumes that having what other’s merited is the right of those who have/do not.
Thus the devil presumed in self-exaltation to put himself in the place of God, (Isaiah 14:12–20) and (being cast down for his unholy presumption) in Gn. 3:1–5 essentially told Eve that God was unjustly keeping something back from her, which was her right to have, and which would be hers by disobedience, rather than this resulting in the opposite, as God had forewarned. Gn. 3:1-7
For man will always makes someone or something his/her god, their ultimate source of security, and object of spiritual affection and allegiance, ultimately either the created or the Creator. And while God does not need anything (Psalms 50:7–12; Acts 17:25) it is only right and to man’s benefit that he choose the omnipotent and omniscient to be his God who is able to make all work out for the Good.
May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
The devil was urged on by god who ruined the mans life and and killed his family, which less remained even though in the end the man got a new family.
No matter how you spin it, this is a huge wicked act by the biblical god.
Instead of a good and loving god the Bible god is shown to be a a cruel jealous one that by any normal standards would be considered clearly evil, telling his people to be happy as they kill kids and killing people without reasons or for such not wanting to have sex with his dead brothers wife.
You need to engage in mental gymnastics to accept such as anything less than evil :)
Just what is behind your fallacious charges and inability to reason objectively and see anything but what is read into the text (and refrain from angry vulgarity)? You conclusions are simply not warranted by the facts.
God did not tell people to be happy as they killed children (but foretold that the slayers of a wicked people would be: Psalms 137:9), nor did He kill or do anything “for no reason,” or one for simply not wanting to have sexual relations with his dead brothers wife (versus refusing - and possibly repeatedly - to provide her a child due to his own utterly selfish reasons, contrary to God’s command and that of Judah: Gn. 1:28; 38:1–10).
And just how is it unjust for a Creator to take away the lives of people the He created and gave life to, while replacing them with even more and better (at least in beauty)? You can only assume that Job as well as all involved would not now say that this was right and best in the light of all the facts, past and future.
Which means that you indeed must presume omniscience or that God is not, nor omnipotent, who makes all things work out for the good who choose the Good.
Which would mean that such angry unreason-able atheist tirades flows from either ignorance or is directed to a god that is not of the Bible.
But your response indicates that have been indoctrinated by such, and insist on reading into Scripture what anti-theists can only contrive to actually teach, in context.
But such a caricature serves a malevolent purpose.
People that you claim to be “wicked” are only wicked according to the bible. [atheist goes on to basically just double-down on his ranting accusations) He turns Lot’s wife into salt for no reason, for she is never told to not look back .
“People that you claim to be “wicked” are only wicked according to the Bible.” And? If you are going to attack the God of the Bible then you must go by what the Bible says. Thus if the Bible says that the people slain were wicked, you simply cannot change that to mean there were not wicked in order charge God with injustice. That is simply illogical and untenable.
And contrary to your next instance of changing the Bible to serve your purpose, “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones,” (Psalms 137:8,9)
This is not “Telling his followers to be happy as they kill children” as you charged, but that those (not the Jews) who executed what was just retaliation to Babylon would be happy. It would be like Jews in Hitler’s camps foretelling the satisfaction of Russians in executing just retaliation upon their persecutors.
Then you try to charge God with injustice as concerns Job, and selfish Onan, despite my showing you how your charges are fallacious and untenable in the light of the facts about the situation and of God. And which again shows you refuse to be reasoned with.
Then you example blindness with
“He kills Lot’s wife, turns her into salt for no reason given. She was never even told to not look back. so she is not even breaking any rules,”
Yet the text plainly states that the angels laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters” and commanded them, “Escape for thy life; look not behind thee,… (Genesis 19:16,17)
Thus contrary to you, she is indeed told to not look back. yet she clearly disobeyed the expressed command of no less than manifest angels, and by looking back she evidenced she longed for that wicked place.
But of course they do not tell you that on anti-theist web sites whose lying charges you parrot.
Then we have your next charge:
“Your omnipotent god chose mass extermination all because humans sinned. That included plentyof innocent children and multitudes of innocent animals. Yet as omnipotent he could chose another way to punish the sinners and exclude billion of innocent creatures.”
Yes, the Creator who gave life can take it, and here He punished people whose wickedness was great and every imagination of their thoughts was only evil continually, (Genesis 6:5) while delivering the innocent from becoming like their elders and perpetuating itself. And would include delivering animals [and children] from the perversions they were subject to.
Yet when God allows evil then atheists find fault with Him, as if they were omniscient and omnipotent! Which brings us to your next judgement on God:
“Instead of a Good and loving god the bible is showing a cruel jealous god who driven by ego”
Which is simply the logical fallacy of assuming what you have not and cannot establish. Which is that “a Good and loving god” is contrary to judging what is not “Good and loving,’ and which instead means that being Good and loving means that the Creator should not finally exterminate a people whose wickedness was great and every imagination of their thoughts was only evil continually.
But as said, if God did not, then atheists would object to that. You can argue that God should have rehabilitated them, though He gave them 120 years of Noah’s preaching before the Flood came, but that is also presuming that you know better than God what all the actions and effects are and will be of man. Which is indeed would be arrogant presumption.
Next,
“Many Christians find at these difficult and troubling texts and engage in mental gymnastics to defend them”
Which is irrelevant, for i provided you sound refutation of your ignorant and fallacious and presumptuous charges, and it you who must resort to mental gymnastics in order to read what you want into and out of Scripture.
Yet as you continue to demonstrate unreason-able intransigence should i continue?
If find it strange for you try to justify killing innocent children and billion of animals.
Which response is simply the “argument by outrage” tactic, which effectively has as its premise that it is outrageous for the Creator who gave life - and knows what all the effects will be - to also take it, exterminating the wicked and delivering the innocent.
Which means that it is your premise that is outrageous.
As has been and will be further shown, by the grace of God, despite your blind stubborn and absurd attempt to indict God as if you were omniscient and omnipotent.
Next:
“let us presume that those people were indeed wicked.”
No, there is nothing hypothetical here: God says the “wickedness of man was only evil continually.”
Let me remind you of what I said before, that since you are attacking the God of the Bible for what the Bible says He did, then you must actually stick with what it says, and not attack or impugn the integrity of the Bible, which would be a different debate.
“Do you really actually believe the infants were wicked also?”
Do you honestly read what I had said? “He punished people whose wickedness was great and every imagination of their thoughts was only evil continually, (Genesis 6:5) while delivering the innocent from becoming like their elders and perpetuating itself. And would include delivering animals [and children] from the perversions they were subject to.”
Both were most likely subject to sexual and physical abuse, and yet when God does not deal prevent or judge such promptly I am sure you would find fault with Him for that.
Next:
“Being omniscient and omnipotent means he could chose ANY way to annihilate the sinners. Vaporize the, sickness, etc. or even compel them to repent. Instead, he wanted to kill billion of innocent creatures”
Meaning you find fault with the method God used to deal with man (who misused what God gave, and broke His good laws), based upon the premise that He could have acted differently in His omniscience and omnipotence.
But which presumes you know better than God, that somehow toasting them alive (thus having no space to repent) or dying of sickness would be better than drowning (not much of a choice), or force them to repent and thus deny man the freedom to make choices (see Theodicy).
And as for billions of innocent creatures, aside from drowning what loss did they suffer? A lion missing out their next meal chomping down a zebra, or the latter missing out on being part of the food chain? Or do you suppose the only-evil people took care of pets? Man is the reason of their pain and abuse, and they are not to be abused but are here to provide for man.
All of which postulations presume you know better than an omniscient and omnipotent God - who knows what man will chose and the consequences of even your next breath, for this life and the next - which means (once again) that you must presume omniscience.
Consider further the utter irrationality of your argument: The Creator gives life, breath and all good things, but He has no right - based upon what He knows and can do - to take the same?
Really?
Without the Creator there would be no life, and value to it, nor even the moral sense that taking innocent like is wrong, and thus nothing to take nor even the moral sense regarding the taking of it!
Thus you should thank God for your moral revulsion to God taking innocent life. However, this revulsion is based upon the premise that life is valuable and thus (in the Bible) those who take innocent life must lose theirs (based upon multiple eye-witness and executed at the hands of all the people via stoning), as man has no right to take innocent life. But why?
Knowing how many lives have turned out today, then if we could go back in time and then we might not only justify preventing the conception of some lives (as proabortionists do) but also the taking of the same (Stalin, etc.), since they would turn out to be destructive of life or greatly suffer.
However, the reason man is wrong for taking innocent life is because he neither,
*created life nor can give it in the eternal realm,
*can foresee, in all depth and detail, how a life will turn out,
*has the power to orchestra all the actions and works that man is allowed to engage in to work out for Good.
Thus you cannot rationally impugn iniquity to God for taking innocent life or man and animals unless you as establish that,
*God does not know in all depth and detail what all the effects will be of our actions for time and for eternity;
*God is not able to make all work out for the good of those who love God and thus love the Good;
*It was not better in the light of all that can be know that God acted as He did, including delivering the innocent from becoming like their damnable parents, and rehabilitating the earth. And making animals to be fertilizer and fuel for man.
*Man is omniscient and omnipotent and knows and can do the above
*The creator who gave life and all good things has not the right to take it, and cannot recreate it.
Next,
“Also,a omniscient and omnipotent being can also NEVER claim he did not know this evil condition would result, thus this judgment of the evil means he planned to drowned the evil and the kids and billions of innocent animals.”
God did indeed know what would happen, as has been continually affirmed, yet knowing what man will do does not translate into forcing man to do it. [Again, see Theodicy and response to another poster after this one].
But regardless, it remains that you cannot rationally impugn iniquity to God for His actions or inactions unless you can establish what I listed above, and presume omniscience and omnipotence for man. Which makes man to be as God, which is simply irrational.
Next,
“Many Christians change the definition of omniscient and omnipotent at will...mental gymnastics .
Which response is that of recourse to a irrelevant diversionary strawman, since I did not do at all what you describe even if some others many.
Instead I showed that it is you who must engage in gymnastics, arguing against God as if He was not omniscient and omnipotent and then arguing against Him for being so, which is all so much railing irrationality.
If fact consistent with what you have argued so far, unless God does what you believe is right and when you demand that He do it then you would judge Him as if you were omniscient and omnipotent.
So it have been good to see your vain arguments exposed as spurious, spurious, which I do hope actually helps you.
However as we are both intransigent in our positions and as this comment section is poorly set up for debates, then instead of much more extended debate here I would rather format this exchange and post this to a forum of my choice (maybe http://www.freerepublic.com) so that others may see it and respond.
So once again we see more intransigent irrationality. You write:
“Your god cannot be omniscient and omnipotent for that means that god created Adan and Eve to eat the fruit. leaving them with no free will, no choice to do anything else”
Yet nowhere does God say that He did not know, yet neither does knowing what man will do mean that man can not choose to do it. [Again, see Theodicy and response to another poster after this one].
IF I know that you are going to continue to resort to such spurious objections then that does not mean I am making you do it against your will, though I provide you the situation to do it.
Next,
“Being omniscient and omnipotent means he wanted to kill the all the firstborn in Egypt.
Indeed God did kill some who were not culpable/guilty of any sin themselves, which was a consequence of man’s actions that God foresaw, yet again, as said, for you to judge it to be wrong for the Creator to take away the life and breath that He gave presupposes that you know what all the consequences would be for them and for others if He did not act as He did.
Meaning once again that you are presuming omniscience omnipotence.
Next,
“The claim that the giver of life has the right to take life still is flawed since it means an omniscient and omnipotent being is evil and cruel when he kill innocent creatures because they act the way he created them to.”
Rather, it is your argument that is flawed, since as said, knowing what man will do still does not force man to do it, and again, you can only presume that you know better than God that giving man the freedom to chose btwn 2 opposites, with consequences (rather than making man like a robot or cloud, or stopping man every time he was going to do evil, or reversing the effects every time man did evil, etc.), was unjust in the light of all that can be know about the past and future effects.
And the “children of the devil “(1 John 3:10) “fitted for destruction” (Romans 9:22) are not judged for what they could not help but choose to do, but they are condemned on the basis of the choices they could and did make contrary to what they knew was right, misusing good things gave graciously God gave them and breaking His good laws — their own works not those of others. (Dt 24:16; 1Kg 14:13; 2 Kg14:6; 22:18-20; 2 Chrn 25:4; Jer 31:29,3)
And as God owes grace to no one, then He cannot be unjust in showing more grace to some than others. Arguing what God could do and did not once again presupposes that you know better than God.
Meaning once again that you must presume omniscience omnipotence in order to judge God. There is no way around this.
Next,
“You can only blindly assert that “everything god does is good j even killing innocent children because he is omniscient and omnipotent.”
Rather it means that when a being is omniscient omnipotent and can this take away life that He gave in the first place, and thus exterminate the wicked and deliver the innocent from becoming like the former, ending up in Heaven rather than Hell, then you as a very very finite being cannot indict Him as doing wrong.
Meaning once again that you are presuming omniscience omnipotence. There is no way around this.
Next:
“According to the bible he is the creator of evil Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things””
Yes, God who made everything good, and who cannot commit iniquity, (Job 34:10) also creates evil, not moral evil but evil in the sense of sending evil/trouble/adversity in judgments. For that is how it is revealed in the Bible, in which context is how you understand the Bible.
But if you just read the prevaricating propaganda of atheist web sites you would not know that.
Next,
“This means your god can only be a good god if you re define evil and good just because god does it.”
Rather, it is God who gives man [the] moral sense that you even need to make a moral argument [and moral judgment must take into account what the actor knew, and intent, and its effects], and God expressly defines the very morality of good and evil in the Bible.
However, atheism has no transcendent supreme standard for morality (as you said, “no teachings, no rules, no ideology, no claims, no answers”), and can itself justify sin while it condemns God for they simply cannot allow that God can be just and merciful such by exterminating the wicked and delivering the innocent from becoming like the former, ending up in Heaven rather than Hell.
You can also postulate other alternative means of dealing with choices and consequences but that presupposes that you know what all the consequences would be for them and for others if He did not act as He did.
Meaning once again that you are presuming omniscience omnipotence. There is no way around this.
Next:
“the other alternative is that the god of the the bible is just another bronze age myth which takes mental gymnastics defend”
Meaning when all else fails, you must resort to a strawman [the bronze age premise like that of the copycat fallacy] for your gymnastics charge to be valid, and attack the integrity and authority of the very Source that your argument has required. [your myopia would also likely fit in with the jurors initially in 12 Angry Men]
Which is irrational and leaves you without any valid argument, and which means I will do as I said and provide this exchange where public can see it better.
Which would be better taking up more of my time with your specious vain arrogant railings against the very Creator who have you life, breath and all things, and His Son who gave Himself for your salvation, that you may find life thru Him. May you yet do so. Good night.
Related:
God could have,
1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible].
2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices].
3. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. But always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]).
4. allowed us to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of moral consequences].
5. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [restriction of moral consequences].
6. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of eternal consequences, positive or negative].
7. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose from, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice].
8. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for the good of those who want good, and who thus love God, who is supremely Good.
9. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given].
No, that irrational parroted polemic is simply non-sense. Simply put, knowing what a person will do does not require removing his ability to choose, as well as alternatives to choose btwn.
Nor is the above removal required in order to that person to fulfil a role that an omniscient being knows that they will, correspondent to his plan. Being in a script according to foreknowledge does not require one to have no choice scripted
As concerns the latter, due to the character of a person (which character is due to previous choices), I can quite assuredly know how a certain person will react to words of mine, such as a moral reproof, and which could actually accomplish a plan I have, even though that person need not react as I know he will.
In the case of old Pharaoh, in the program of God delivering the Hebrews, then Moses both records that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, (Ex. 8:15, 32) as well as that God stated that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart, (Ex. 4:21) and did, Ex. 14:8) as an example of what not to do, (1 Sam, 6:6)
Yet God did not hardened Pharaoh’s heart by taking away his will or any alternatives, and in fact at some points Pharaoh relented to some degree.
But instead, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart via actions that normally would have moved a person to rationally change his mind, as requested and as others did.
How you react to this reproof is your choice.
Moreover, as an infinitely wise omniscient as well as omnipotent being, then morally speaking, knowing what every single effect will be of every choice of man - immediate, resultant and progressive, not only in this life but the future and in eternity - as well as the motive behind each one, and being able to make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with justice as well as with mercy and grace;
means that you are beyond being judged by manifestly finite exceedingly ignorant man, though anti-theists habitually do so according to nature, thereby presuming omniscience.
Being an omniscient entity means knows exactly what will happen which means there can be no choice for humans. A human can only hopt to predict a response which is not omniscience
Actually, your response examples irrationality, since it presumes omniscience equates to predetermination as requiring the removal of choice, which is simply not a rational conclusion. If I could go back in time to 50 years ago then I could know for certain things that would happen, but that simply does not mean I must make any happen. And yet for an eternal omniscient the future is seen as well as the past.
And I were omniscient and also omnipotent, then I could also know what all the effects would be of any possible choices I made while in the past, and even know what brought them about, and know how to be able ensure man would be able to make choices, and yet, as with Pharaoh, leave him with the ability to make his own choices.
“God knew just what the Pharaoh would do”
Yes, indeed God did know exactly what the Pharaoh would do. But that in no way meant Pharaoh had no alternative choice, not only in the one's at issue, but the previous moral choices he made which left him with a heart that resulted in the character that he had, with its resultant response to manifestly supernatural reproofs.
“means that you are beyond being judged by manifestly finite exceedingly ignorant man,” Really? What do you think happens daily in court rooms around the world? I’ll give you a clue. Humans sit in judgement of other humans.
The exceedingly finite judging the same is simply not analogous to the exceedingly finite, profoundly relatively ignorant of all that can be known, and existing as mere specks in the universe, and in the expanse of time, presuming to condemn an omniscient and also omnipotent being as immoral, which is absurd, seeing as the former is in no position to know all the facts, past, present and future and all the causes, and effects, past and future into eternity...
“Humans may be far from knowing everything yet he is hardly ignorant, especially since the last two centuries.”
Which also another proffered polemic of antitheists, that argues that science has discovered the physical causes of such occurrences as lightning which used to ascribed as purely supernatural. then all else will be, that the universe is a result of purely natural processes, which is a position of faith since it certainly is no proven.
And to the contrary, the more we learn of an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity, then the more it testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that of a powerful being of supreme intelligence being behind the existence of energy and organization of matter.
