Yet here we are.

Where once before, entire populations adhered to the decrees of the priests, the printing press freed mankind. Free thinkers had to publish under pseudonyms, but word got out. The only limitation of print was its cost. The powers that be dominated the medium, just like today. While the cost of a phone and monthly service is not free, it has found its way into a lot of hands. Your smugness is laughable.

for god, the pope, the Catholic church and other similar entities are becoming more and more marginalized on DU..and in the world at large..as they should be.

Thus saith a voice wafting from the far edges of civil discourse.

Perhaps you also missed this data.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/

True, an increase of 800,000,000 people is easy to overlook.

Progress has been made.

out with an explanation for god being good.

Clement . . . . I'd better stop. Some people may be offended by a Litany.

Particularly to a Non-Theist?

From what I can gather, Basil, Athanasius, and Hilary were and are famous and revered for defending orthodoxy and the trinity against heresies. Not sure about Nektarios, I've at least heard of Basil and Athanasius, Nektarios, when I google them, comes up with several possibilities.

Irenaeus: At least there's a developed argument that can be found and researched, and I find it rather lacking. Humans are imperfect, simply because "perfection" is a meaningless phrase, we are best adapted to this planet, no more no less. The idea that we were made incomplete, and need to suffer to reach moral perfection and contain a likeness to God, makes God no better than Jigsaw in the Saw movies. Actually it makes him worse, Jigsaw, from what I remember of the first movie, didn't demand that you worship him. There's also an argument that this is the best of all possible worlds, but frankly that just shows a lack of imagination. Quick rundown, what if we had a world where viruses didn't exist and bacteria cannot invade multicellular organisms? That's it, just those two would have alleviated a LOT of suffering, and wouldn't have violated free will or moral choice.

John Chrysostom: So he had a sermon, a speech, called "On the Devil" that talks, generally, about how evil entered the world and theodicy. First problem, the Fall of Man introducing evil into the world, I don't really care how many analogies are used, including the sinking ship one here, nothing Adam or Eve did justifies what came after. Not to mention it created a generational punishment, which makes God intrinsically unjust. Yet we are supposed to be thankful that he is so "charitable" to forgive us for the actions of our supposed ancestors?

The second problem, saying natural disasters that afflict the innocent and guilty alike are "...the sources of good to us, chastening our pride, goading our sloth, and leading us on to zeal, making us more attentive." I didn't know having kids die of disease was chastening there pride, well that makes it alright then!

Please bear in mind, I'm reading his sermon, which says little with a LOT, and I mean a LOT of words.

My last point from his sermon, is that he appears to justify God's acceptance of evil as simply the meting out of punishment, that God, not the devil, rules the world. He used the Book of Job as an example, Satan having to ask permission to torment Job, on orders from God. Of course, I then have to ask, how does this make God good? Indeed, the Book of Job was one of the many WTF? moments I had when I actually decided to read the Bible in my late teen years. Add in all the other atrocities, which Chrysostom also tried to justify, and I'm starting to wonder who would worship this monster in the first place?

Sorry, got side tracked. Anyways, next guy!

Grennadius, I'm assuming of Constantinople, yes I know how to Google! Anyways, not many original writings survive, he probably has a zinger of a quote or two that are relevant, and the reason you brought him up in this conversation, but I'm too lazy to look for them.

Tertullian introduced something totally unique to this argument, a surefire way to convince those cursed unbelievers! Oh wait, its the fucking free will argument again! May I just interject and say this doesn't account for suffering at all?

From what I can gather from Clement, his argument is best a rehashing of Irenaeus and Origen's arguments for the existence of evil. Though, I think he is slightly more justified in that he takes a more Stoic approach to reality, viewing it as merely a reflection of sorts, so the suffering here is, to him, less important.

Actually, this brings up a good point, a consistent theme is the primacy of the afterlife over this one, that this one is simply a testing ground, that all our lives, loves, etc. mean little to nothing if they don't bring us closer to God. The problem is there is no evidence for the afterlife, just this one. Not to mention, as I said before, this doesn't make God good, just a sadist.

But I do feel that these Fathers of the Church do make a huge, and I do mean HUGE mistake, the just world fallacy. Basically that every good and evil action has a consequence, whether felt in this world or the next. It is also reversed, so if someone suffers a consequence, let's say, childhood polio infection that lead to lifetime of disability and pain, then they must have done something to deserve it, and if nothing can be found, you have original sin to fall back on. Its an atrocious way to view the world, but a necessary consequence of believing in a Omniscient, Omnipotent God, just don't call this God Omnibenevolent, for they are anything but.

... that he/she/it is real... that would seem to be far more important, no?

the religionistas here would poo-poo the notion of actually providing convincing evidence that a God exists as silly and old fashioned. They know if they actually tried, they'd embarrass themselves, so they pretend that the "debate" has moved beyond that with lots of laughable hand waving and tacking against reality. They instead advance the vapid and intellectually empty notion that since nothing can be "proven" to an absolute, 100% certainty, evidence is irrelevant (except when it isn't).

... actual verifiable evidence would be a start...

supreme creator. Something about the universe, which we CAN see, CAN touch, CAN examine, CAN test, that required the intervention of a supreme supernatural doo-dad to come into existence.

There are plenty of things that we can't always test, or examine directly, that can still be evidenced and tested, and verified by examining the effects of that thing/force/phenomena upon things in reality that we can test and measure.

Then again, we both know you can't provide that either.

Or bringing someone back from the dead?

And that's perfectly fine.

I require evidence.

Weren't you asking for evidence of the very existence of God?

Those and other miraculous claims may or may not be debunked (how those specific claims could be tested 2,000 years later, I don't know) but it won't answer your question.

I take it that by verifiable evidence you mean evidence subject to the scientific method. That starts with defining the parameters of the experiment.

Verifiable evidence means exactly that. Evidence that is verifiable.

So I say again, design the experiment that will test for God.

given the amorphous nature of God, it would be an impossible task.

Instead, we should test for specific claims about actions of God, for example, many theists hold that God guided evolution on Earth, so much so that Humans are special, made in the image of God, even if we evolved. There should be plenty of evidence, both in the fossil record, and in the DNA of current species, especially humans, of adaptations/changes that can't be accounted for through natural selection or random mutation, things that look, for lack of a better word, designed.

The most cogent arguments against a god are philosophical, such as that of Epicurus, and ideological rather than scientific.

The specific claims that flow from the notion of a god and that can be tested are certainly fair game.

As to your comment about evidence, or lack thereof, in evolution and fossil records, the glib answer is that evolution itself is as much a creation of God as gravity. The only path ultimately is to go directly into the nature of God and see what's there or not. The best tool for that imo is philosophy.

But, if it's more comforting to believe that's what people say, go for it.

I'll be quite surprised if you can guess what it is.

Right?

... but there isn't a single shred of evidence to back it up...

Right?

You may start with post 24.

.. that he/she/it is real.

...

a coherent reason why. Especially since claims that "god" can influence and be influenced by event in our physical reality are rampant.

Fuck the religious who want to censor or attack the people who point out their emperor has no clothes.

Not a one of them could hold a candle to Fry intellectually.

or even daring to proclaim that they exist, are "aggressive", "in your face" atheists who are "hurting the cause", and who should be ashamed of themselves and STFU, according to the smug and superior faitheists and apologists who inhabit the internet.

What's wrong? Ran out of deflections?

Tool bag empty, at long last?