Why do some suffer so much? Why should anyone suffer at all? Some people and animals suffer to such an extent that most all of us have said at one time or another:

“If there is a God then surely he doesn’t care about us”


Well the first thing in figuring out whether or not there is an intelligent cause for the universe is to just figure out whether an intelligent cause is a non-negotiable requirement or not. You have to take your emotions, ethics and biases out of the picture for a little bit. Just look at the data on its own. Let it speak and follow it. Then you can decide if its fair after that point … but not before.


But lets say we all agree that a human that is born with a disease where their skin looks like it is melting off their body and every movement and breath is torture is difficult to justify. So we say God should not allow that. So we all agree lets say that in that case this is the worse. And the least that God could do is to not allow for that to happen. So that is gone from existence. You wouldn’t know it ever even existed. As a side note I have seen this first hand in Thailand and it struck me to the core. But in our new universe this wouldn’t even have happened. Well now we could all agree on what is now the worst possible thing ever … maybe its someone that can not walk (but skin is not melting off body) and breathing is painful. We now all agree this is beyond reason and elect that it should not be allowed. And so it is. In our new universe we wouldn’t even know that was ever a problem either. And we go down the list until we hit the jackpot. But of course some would say this is perfect and others would say that it isn’t and that there should be … no physical ailments. Whats next? Well how about no evil scummy politicians? No swindling lawyers. How about we can all be rock stars. Where does it end? We would in each incarnation of these new universes want more. We would demand nirvana.


So why not just have nirvana?

Whats so bad with that?

Why should animals have to eat each other in order to survive?


Well lets go to the movie the matrix. In the movie humans rejected the first program because it was too perfect. They couldn’t accept a universe that was “too perfect” because it didn’t feel like the real universe. If life is a game would it mean anything if there were no consequences for playing it bad? Would you play a game that you always won? No one would. Anything worth anything has consequences and anything worth trying has an element of chance. If everyone won every single time? What would be the point?


What makes you or anyone think that this physical life is all there is anyways? If there is something beyond this and its duration makes this look like the loading time of COD before the map loads then maybe its not so bad. You have 15 seconds load time (ok its a bit longer but …) and then an endless real time of living. If this is all you get then yes it seems pretty pointless, tragic, unreasonable.


Not fair.


If this physical life is just part of the journey and not even a significant (time wise) part of the journey then its not so tragic.


Even if the universe was made in a way that people started off with no serious hardships people would find ways to make that happen anyways. Sometimes these would be due to no fault of there own but sometimes ….


Sometimes life just bites you:


Sometimes however people just can’t help themselves and do things they shouldn’t do:



Even if we start off with perfect bodies and lives we’re still going to do stupid things. Its in our nature. We will from time to time hurt ourselves to the point where the rest of our lives are wrecked or challenging to say the least. So now we have to take out our ability to even wreck our own lives. Remember if every other bad, horrible, disgusting injustice is removed you would never know it existed. And so we would all collectively look at the situation with all those things removed and then say “why would a god allow someone to take a selfie on the train tracks?” Or a child do something that could alter their lives before its even begun.


I know a girl who is very pretty. When she was a child her mom and dad told her not to look at the sun or it would hurt her eyes. What did she do? She lay-ed on the grass and stared at the sun. Nearly went blind. To this day she must have bi-focals. She wanted to be rebellious. She wanted to do what she wanted to do. As you remove each layer of horribleness you also remove consequences, randomness, chance, and free will. Even from the Universe itself. If the Universe must not allow for the chance of a person starting off with a seriously horrible disadvantage then the whole thing is rigged and it may never end. Maybe the Universe is the way it is because this is the way it must be in order for the greatest balance of freedom/beauty/chance/life to flourish. As we demonstrate in other sections the Universe itself is so finely tuned that its possible that taking a single atom out or adding a single atom may make it impossible in the first place. It is a precise symphony of energy/matter/life that is all interconnected and yet … there is that nasty word:




If there is no freedom what is the point? You take freedom out and you take the ability to experience the universe as it is. With no chance of sadness how would you appreciate happiness? You can’t possibly know happiness until you have experienced and I mean seriously tasted ...hell gulped from the glass of sadness. You can’t appreciate what you have until you loose it in an instant. Many of us have been there on different levels. Lets say you have an accident and breathing, walking, functioning is difficult, do you think you would appreciate it when your able to do those basic things again? Let me tell you from experience YOU WILL. You can’t appreciate the Universe unless there are stakes involved. You could feel like you won the lottery just by breathing normally if breathing is painful.


If the physical is all we get then I agree … this place can be cruel at times. But if this just part of it then I think most of us would roll the dice again to have another shot at life. Even with the serious possibilities of calamity that could befall us we would roll the dice and go right back in after death. Why? Because even just the physical (which may be a small fraction) its fascinating.


For me I see beauty in what others think is ugly. Its amazing to hear an atheist like Richard Dawkins talk about how awesome the universe and life is and then trash it the next second in order to make his point about how horrible a God would be to allow the universe. Do you see a contradiction? You say hey wait he is saying that the universe is amazing but why have suffering. No he is saying the universe is ugly. Everything that is in the universe is part of the universe.


By the way just for the record some of the people that people feel sorry for are more happy then the people feeling sorry for them. You don’t need a perfect body, tons of money, and everyone telling you how awesome you are to be happy. I have seen many that I felt sorry for that I later realized were far happier then I am … it was in those moments I realized that they were richer then me and yet they were third world poor. I lived for awhile in third world country in third world conditions and it was easily the happiest time of my life. Some of the richest most successful people on the planet kill themselves in misery. Robin Williams killed himself and He seemed to have it all. The man that founded Lake Havasu City killed himself in his own hotel room and he seemed to have a lot going for him. Does perfect health and wealth guarantee happiness? (By the way I don’t know that either of those two had perfect health but it wouldn’t be hard to find plenty of examples of those that had both and were still miserable).


When the atheist demands perfection they are basically saying they want to skip the physical world and go straight to nirvana/heaven or something. Why even be born at all we would all just stay as energy or consciousness and never experience any of this because its traumatic if you don’t win the lottery of life. Why take a chance on anything? Have a baby???? Hell no … do you know all the things that could go wrong: the baby could have problems, the mom could have problems, the couple could split up and on and on. And of course many of them don’t.


In the situation above where we see the atheist will demand what seems like the least that God could do: eliminate the worst disease and then we go down the path until we are not even born. What the atheist is asking for is not only everything that they want … but also everything they don’t even know they want yet. Because as we saw, each step leads to the next step. The moral argument against God assumes that there are morals in the first place. And that the atheist knows these better then the designer. And even as each step is granted to the atheist and more and more is guaranteed would they even be happy? Some people have everything and still kill themselves.



There is a scripture that says to whom will you compare me to.

Well the answer is the atheist will compare god to himself lol. How dare you “God” not live up to my standards. They become bio-critics, the judge of the judge the ultimate moral authority. They know how everything is supposed to work and how everything should be. Just ask them. After telling you how the universe is supposed to work they will then tell you that morality is subjective … truth is relative. They don’t even have a firm grounding for what truth or morality is and yet they are going to proclaim judgment and tell you how it all works.


Lets look at a great example of an Atheist that has no idea of how morals work for a minute. But first let me ask you a question:


When is it ok to kill a 2 year old?


Richard Dawkins is ok with killing 2 year olds. Why? Because they may have been born with a debilitating condition and so he thinks they might be better off … well if we just kill them.


And this is the danger of Atheism. There is no moral grounding there is no need to protect the unprotected. To hell with them. What he is doing is making an excuse to get rid of something that he doesn’t think is worthy of being around. Or its inconvenient for him. So he will come up with a moral argument to do the unthinkable. A righteous way to do the unrighteous act. Is it an excuse for himself or is it a way to justify doing something beastly without appearing beastly? In the end I don’t think Richard Dawkins gives a flying Camels fart about a 2 year old. That’s why its so easy for him to pronounce “ehh we’re doing it a favor”. When your ok with putting down a 2 year old then your thought process is all jacked up.


But lets explore this a bit further. Why stop at two? Why not move on up to three? Or four? Or fifteen? And the conditions that Hes talking about for this two year old that he wants to put down, that he wants to snuff out … well why stop there? Why not look at other conditions? And who gets to decide? He is saying that this particular condition is just so horrific that your doing the child a favor by putting it down. But He doesn't have the ability to ask the child what it would like. Makes it a little convenient. But whats to say that some other condition wouldn’t warrant killing a child? How bout an extreme food allergy where this human will only be able to eat 3 things for the rest of its life? Or what about someone that will have to suffer frequent extreme migraines? Why not put that child down? What about paraplegics? I guess we could put them down as well.


Now while he’s busy putting all these kids down later on in life there may have been cures that could have solved their problems or made their lives much better. What an unimaginative way to think about a challenge. What a shallow dismissive way to look at life. We can’t solve their problems right now so they are inconvenient to us and to themselves so lets just discard them.


Who gets to decide these things? What if the parent is strong willed and says no I believe in life. I’m going to protect this child and I don’t care what you say. Well then maybe the government should step in and decide. In fact wasn’t that what happened in Britain. The parents wanted to protect their baby but the government said no and killed it. Wouldn’t even let the parents take the baby home to die with them. So now the government gets to decide whether or not your child lives or dies based on their morality or their needs or efficiencies or whatever they will factor in to it. To hell with the parents. In fact why should parents be allowed to make any decisions that are against the great Richard Dawkins? Or some panel of other high minded Atheists? Obviously Atheists know whats best for everyone.


Do you know how many times I have seen on someones profile on Twitter that Religion ought to be age restricted. In other words parents shouldn't be allowed to infect their kids with Religion because its child abuse. That is where this is heading. Parents should not have these rights. Its up to the government to make these decisions. Its up to the Atheist to decide. After all the Atheist is just doing whats best for the child right? But lets talk about a young Christian. Lets talk about Karin.


To me Karin is an inspiration to what humanity should be. What we should all strive to be. She is very intelligent with a good sense of humor of very high strong moral fiber. Just a strong human being inside. Well Karin had a child. And that child is exactly what Richard Dawkins is talking about. Her child is exactly the thing he wants to snuff out. And people told her … the doctors told … everyone told her to snuff that child out in the womb. Just snuff it. She said no. She resolved within herself to do something different. She said I will defend this life. This is my daughter and I will protect her. By the way I have held her daughter in my arms. I was quite shocked when it happened she just kinda handed me her daughter and I held her daughter in my arms. To think that she is something useless or better off not here … that never crossed my mind. What a horrible outlook on life. What a horrible way to operate. I think Karin’s daughter is beautiful just the way she is. And holding her did something to me. I felt a connection. This was a human conscience being and I felt her presence. This was not a bag of random molecules this was life! But lets get back to Karin.


Karin cares a lot about her child. And goes through unbelievable obstacles to make her daughters life as best as she can. I won’t even get into it but its amazing. And its inspiring. Is there good that comes out of it? Absolutely. It touches other peoples lives. I can tell you this I know her daughter is grateful for what Karin does for her. Even a dog at a dog park that is missing a leg is grateful for its master. Grateful that He didn’t give up on him. Do you know how many 3 legged dogs I have seen. They all looked very happy to me. Where do you draw the line at when your going to snuff these things out? When we look at these lives as just things its so easy to do … to just put them down. We don’t even look at them as life … there is nothing special or unique about any of it. This is the Atheist thinking to the core. But I can tell you something about that 3 legged dog. When he looks up at his master he looks grateful. He looks happy to be alive. Happy that someone gave a damn and didn’t give up on him. Didn’t look at him as useless or just better off gone.


And the same with Karin’s child. Even more so because this is a human being. This is a higher life form and a much higher life form at that. I don’t care how someone else will try and define this child. Or degrade her. Or devalue her. I don’t see it that way. But more importantly Karin doesn’t see it that way. And if not for Karin that child would not have any chance at experiencing anything in this universe.


This is the danger when we reduce life down to random processes and accidents (evolution). This is the danger of the Atheist mindset. Its all just mechanical and not all that special. Where does this lead to? Who gets to decide anything. How bout doing some experiments on the 2 year olds before we put them down … get some use out of their flesh. How bout tossing the fetuses in the incinerator to heat the hospital … well that actually happened didn’t it? After all they are headed for the trash can anyways … they are trash they just don’t know it yet. Who cares? Its just trash. Where does it end?


Let me ask atheists out there a question. Is this who you want deciding your health care when you get old? When you are vulnerable? Do you want Richard Dawkins making the decisions about whether you would be better off gone or not? You don’t want Richard Dawkins in charge. You want Karin.


You want Karin to be caring about you.


Contemplate for just a moment the dystopian vision of a generation of human beings believing in their hearts that they are nothing more than bestial accidents fending for themselves in a world where morality is a fiction, and you begin to grasp the true stakes. Douglas Axe Undeniable PG54


Atheism teaches us that there is no point, truth is relevent as are morals and where do you think this would lead?

The school system that was meant to open minds is now placing them in a dogmatic prison with no room for questions. Is it any wonder they come out pissed off, disillusioned with no sense of purpose? Atheists have had control of the children in western society for decades and what is the result? Suicide rates are exploding, Opiade use is epic, Physchotropic drugs are the norm and everyone is busy hot-swapping each others therapist couches in a desperate attempt to flee the mental anguish that plagues them. Society is not more moral. Its not more noble. We have made many advancements in science but none in morals. We have an atheist calling for the killing of a 2year old. That is not going forward that is going backwards.


Finally (at least for now) I would like to leave you with this little gem. There is this atheist argument going around that at first glance seems fairly strong but on further inspection completely falls apart:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

  1. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

  2. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

  3. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Antidote: I believe the biggest thrill that Atheists get out of quoting this is that they're impressing themselves by quoting Epicurus. So, let's respond, point by point, and wow, maybe somebody will quote ME to impress people some day! Oh boy!

Ok, maybe not. But here goes...

  • 1,2. God is both willing and able to prevent evil, provided a way to escape it, and will, in the future, eradicate it from the universe. Man is able to prevent evil, but he doesn't always do so, now does he? Did Epi have anything to say about that? Apparently not. Nor did he provide for us his definition of "evil" which, without some standard upon which to base our judgment, varies from person to person. For example, apparently some political leaders did not consider mass murder to be evil if it justified their goals. We all have an easy time justifying our own actions, don't we?

    God permitted evil to enter the world because that's exactly what man wanted. He forewarned our first parents, Adam and Eve, of the consequences of disobedience, and they wound up paying the price, "knowing good and evil," just as He said they would (which gives us confidence that his promises, as that to eradicate evil in the future, are sure). Every one of us would have made the same choice as Adam and Eve, as also Epicurus and the Atheists certainly demonstrate very well, because we don't like God telling us what to do or not to do. So, Epicurus and the rest of us are reaping the consequences of our bad choices, and our rebellion.

    The fact that evil exists in no way limits God's omnipotence. The fact that He allows evil demonstrates His omnipotence. Strike One for Epi.

  • 3. Evil cometh from our rebellion and refusal to listen to God. Strike Two for Epi.

  • 4. We call Him "God" because that's what He is, regardless of His will. If I start a fire and am neither able nor willing to put it out, that doesn't change who I am one iota. However, God did not start the fire. We did. And until we come to terms with the fact that WE are the problem not God, we will continue to spout off ignorant accusations like those of Epicurus, because it makes us feel intellectually superior to do so. Strike Three.




(my Words)

If you only believe in the physical world then science is the only way to truth. Since science is the primary way we gain understanding about the physical world this is a natural thing. But there is more to life then just the material world and life itself is something apart from the sum total of its material.


These are the thoughts that seriously sparked my imagination. I was always interested in science but when this information became available to me I was seriously charged with something. Imagination. Questions. The ability to test my own beliefs. The ability to test anything coming before me. It was then that I knew I was hooked and that I wanted in. I wanted to know more. Could it be that there is some type of “detection” that is possible for the “designer”? Would something like that be possible? What if I simply started to think objectively and began testing everything? No one has a hold on me I owe nothing to anyone I will make my own way … type of thing. And no theory would be considered “true” until it can be proven. Sounds crazy but that's what I did.


Natural selection and the complementary idea of how genes, individuals and species change over time should be as much a part of developing critical thinking skills as deductive reasoning and the study of ethics.


Just kind of thought I would actually end on that … so learning evolution is as important as learning morals. Why?


Because evolution is a religion. It is false, dangerous, and destructive as is atheism!