I also welcome the explanation of how crystals, slime, or whatever form of matter existed, evolved into spiders, sharks, (pick any insect or animal of the millions), stars, trees, (pick any existing thing), and human beings with our complexities that are unmatched by any other being; yet many of you are calling the possibility of a Creator absurd. That negation is most unreasonable.

Have you been watching Expelled lately?

So you can prove that the big bang theory occured and explain what allowed it to take place?

Prove is the wrong word here. We have evidence that we use to infer that the big bang is the best explanation. In all likelihood, we will never know anything to 100% certainty, so if that's what you are looking for, you'll never find it for anything. Of course, I note that you don't demand the same level of proof or evidence for your assertion of god.

You can explain how matter came to exist of itself?

In all likelihood, matter was always there, mostly in the form of energy. There are many competing hypotheses, I doubt you are interested in them.

I welcome those thorough explanations...

No you don't. You simply want to sneer at our answers and then re-assert your unevidenced god. It would be a simply matter for you to look up "big bang theory" in wikipedia and get a quick summary of some of the evidence that we use to infer the big bang took place. Yet, once again, I doubt that you really want to do that. You want to act as if your god should win by default (without evidence) and complain that we aren't taking your god seriously enough and that we are unfair for not simply accepting your god as a serious hypothesis. Yet, I've already told you (as have others) that if you want your god to be taken seriously, then you have to provide some evidence. Else, it's just as likely as invisible, pink unicorns and fairy dust.

I also welcome the explanation of how crystals, slime, or whatever form of matter existed, evolved into spiders, sharks, (pick any insect or animal of the millions), stars, trees, (pick any existing thing), and human beings with our complexities that are unmatched by any other being...

Once again I find myself saying that you don't really want to know any of that. If you did, there are numerous resources that you could check out, like talkorigins.org (check our the common descent page and the 29+ evidences for macroevolution). You could pick up Ernst Mayr's book "What Evolution Is" at your local library and read it. If you really wanted to know about human complexity (which is not as great as you think) then you could look up any number of evolutionary books or studies on the topic. I believe Pinker has done some work in this area. But, my guess is that you'll simply sneer and complain some more.

...yet many of you are calling the possibility of a Creator absurd. That negation is most unreasonable.

Once again, who said that a creator could not possibly be? No one. You are inventing strawmen. No one has said the possibility of a creator is absurd. Positing your creator as the "answer" to life, the universe, and everything (which I have on good authority is actually 42) with no evidence to back it up is what is absurd. Once again, if it is not absurd to say that goddidit, then it's equally not absurd to say that invisible,pinkunicornsdidit or leprechaunsdidit. Without evidence, you can't simply make assertions and then say they are reasonable. Worse yet is to call others unreasonable for not simply accepting your proclamations.

So you can prove that the big bang theory occured and explain what allowed it to take place? You can explain how matter came to exist of itself? I welcome those thorough explanations...

You're assuming there was a point at which matter/energy did not exist. Just because we don't know what came before the big bang does not mean nothing did. As for what allowed it to take place, you ask as if there needs to be something allowing energy to exist and for the big bang to happen. Your questions are founded on assumptions that I see no reason for being true, so until you can demonstrate that premise I'd say they're silly to ask.

But when you explain where a conscious, personal, immortal, all-powerful, and all-knowing god who's son on earth was Jesus Christ came from (not just some vague creator you seems to be mentioning) I'll welcome that explaination too.

I also welcome the explanation of how crystals, slime, or whatever form of matter existed, evolved into spiders, sharks, (pick any insect or animal of the millions), stars, trees, (pick any existing thing), and human beings with our complexities that are unmatched by any other being; yet many of you are calling the possibility of a Creator absurd. That negation is most unreasonable.

First bad attempt here is to talk as if because we haven't figured it out yet that we won't. We've had only a handful of years of serious scientific inquiry and it's yielded mountains of results; religions have had many thousands of years and have not got us an inch closer to any truths. Give it another 100 or 200 years and expect the wealth of our knowledge to grow by leaps and bounds.
Second, you talk as if by mentioning these current unknowns followed by the idea of a creator somehow validates it. You've done this time and again, but by actting as if your idea of god (not just some random creator) is the default position until other people can prove you wrong is simply bad logic. There is no negation here; simply because we are unable to provide you with every single fact yet does not suddenly make what we know wrong, it merely means we have to add to it because that's how science works.

We call the creator idea absurd because:
1) You have no evidence for it
2) There's no reason to believe the idea except through assumptions
3) No questions actually get answered without more questions being added until, as I mentioned before, the whole thing descends into how we can't understand god or some paradoxical nature of religion, which might as well be a simple "I don't know and that's your answer".
4) You think life is too complex to just happen, yet your assumption begins with the most powerful and complex form of life one could imagine just happening
5) You have in no way demonstrated why such a creator should be as you imagine it to be. Why one god and not 2, or 5 or more? Why should this creator be all-powerful, or intelligent? What if this creator accidently created the universe? One can speculate any number of possible different scenerios and all share percisely the same evidence.

There's a short list.

we do have evidence that a big bang occurred and that evolution is real.

So you can prove that the big bang theory occured and explain what allowed it to take place? You can explain how matter came to exist of itself? I welcome those thorough explanations...
I also welcome the explanation of how crystals, slime, or whatever form of matter existed, evolved into spiders, sharks, (pick any insect or animal of the millions), stars, trees, (pick any existing thing), and human beings with our complexities that are unmatched by any other being; yet many of you are calling the possibility of a Creator absurd. That negation is most unreasonable.

OK, I get that point. Sincerity can be very dangerous if it is insecure, immature and unfair. What makes us equal is not the particular belief but the right and freedom to choose. I get that.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

I'm not sure I understand. Please explain. Are you talking about those who are genuinely sincere or just those who give the appearance?

I'm saying that the genuinely sincere religious believers are the ones who are the most dangerous, far more dangerous than those who are just using the religion as a way to get power for themselves.

The people that are just pretending to be really religious because it gets them votes will also tend to only give the theocrats token gestures that don't really mean anything while those who really are really religious will tend to go far beyond token gestures and into full on theocracy.

The sincere ones are the ones that truly scare me, those that are just using religion as a personal power grab are far less dangerous

I'm not sure I understand. Please explain. Are you talking about those who are genuinely sincere or just those who give the appearance?

Yes, Christians are privileged and I can see how that would seem unfair to those of an opposing opinion. I don't think I could question the sincerety of those who enacted the laws which created those privileges and I would never argue that Christians deserve them (although many come across that way).

The sincere ones are the ones that truly scare me, those that are just using religion as a personal power grab are far less dangerous.

Ennis:

What disturbs me is that Christians tend to absorb the benefits of privilege on "self" rather than use it for the good of others.

A large part of Christian privilege seems to be about making the religion more attractive to potential converts (i.e. lowering the cost of being a Christian) and keeping those who are already in the religion.

Seen that way it becomes obvious why Christians tend to use their privilege on self, because that's what it is intended for.

Arch:

You have no idea how the big bang or the beginning of matter took place, yet you vehemently refuse to askowledge the possibility that God, an eternal being who is not confined by space, time, or a human mind, created the universe and us.

You state the possibility without any evidence, ∴ we can dismiss it without evidence.

OTOH we do have evidence that a big bang occurred and that evolution is real.

OMGF:

The thing about Arch's questions is that he will continue to ask them as if they've never been answered. I've answered in similar ways as you Ebon, to similar questions and Arch plows on ahead as if we've never said anything, or says something along the lines that our answers aren't serious enough.

Arch, if you are serious about having a reasonable discussion, I suggest that you stop your previous tactics and actually engage the answers that have been supplied to you. I also suggest that you provide your answer to this question and tell us how it is any answer at all, considering that "goddidit" isn't an explanation for anything.

From what I have seen so far this is a very good description and I'll second (or did someone else already do that?) the advise given.

To bestonnet:
Yes, Christians are privileged and I can see how that would seem unfair to those of an opposing opinion. I don't think I could question the sincerety of those who enacted the laws which created those privileges and I would never argue that Christians deserve them (although many come across that way). What disturbs me is that Christians tend to absorb the benefits of privilege on "self" rather than use it for the good of others.

To Christopher:

You may want to read the user names a little more closely before you begin to question points that were never raised in the first place...

Apologies

This is part of the problemn right here... why are you so anti anything or anyone who recognizes the possibility that God exists??

Suppose I said, "We don't know how our dog got out of our yard, therefore invisible, pink unicorns came, sprinkled fairy dust on her, and she flew away." You would probably find that to be fallacious, right? So, why is it OK, for you to say, "We don't know how X happened, therefore god?"

Notice, I never said that god didn't do it. I merely said that it is fallacious to assert/conclude god based on a lack of knowledge or the inability to come to a conclusion based on a different hypothesis. In order to conclude god, you have to present some evidence for god.

You have no idea how the big bang or the beginning of matter took place, yet you vehemently refuse to askowledge the possibility that God, an eternal being who is not confined by space, time, or a human mind, created the universe and us.

I am more than willing to acknowledge this possibility so long as you give me some evidence that makes the possibility rational to be included in the list of potential causes. Until then, it remains a possibility still, but I don't rationally include it. Note again, nowhere have I claimed that it is impossible that a god did in fact do it.

And to say evolution just naturally worked things out this way is an absolute cop-out... it fails to account for far too many elements of creation including the complexities of human life.

To say evolution worked things out would not be a cop-out, it would be incorrect. Evolution does not strive to "work things out." It is simply a process. It is not, however, insufficient to explain the complexities of human life, and it is by far more parsimonious and a better explanation than anything out there. In fact, there are no competing hypotheses. Your idea (it doesn't rise to the level of a hypothesis) of "goddidit" is not even in the same league until you can provide some evidence for this hypothesis and explain how it explains anything, how it makes sense. Until then, it's simply a non-answer, and it's fallacious for you to default to it and throw out all the questions that have been answered simply because there's a question or two that is still left unanswered.