Really? I would like to hear that evidence. 

Dating back to the time of Plato and Aristotle at least, it has been theorized that the Universe began, and that the beginning logically had to be due to a divine creator. Simply because there was no logic to the idea that there was a necessity for the world to exist, or that it all just happened by chance.

The Platonists were not superstitious pagan ritualists, they were some of the greatest intellectuals of human history. Aristotle came up with the original cosmological argument; and this stood without much questioning until the modern era. During the modern era, it became questionable as to whether or not the universe indeed did have a beginning. This is where the original strand of atheists emerged from; essentially those who felt that without a beginning, there was no justification for the first premise of the cosmological argument, and it followed that other arguments (like the teleological) didn't have any basis either.

Now for the evidence:

In the early half of the 20th century scientists discovered a shift in the light spectrum of red light; the redshift (think of this as being similar to when a car drives by, and the quality of sound changes; the redshift is that except with light waves instead). This led scientists to hypothesize an expanding universe; and thus far, all of our evidence has pointed to this; the universe is expanding, and it expanded from a single point approximately 13.7 billion years ago. So we go back to the Cosmological argument:

1. Everything that begins has a cause.
2. The Universe had a cause.
3. Therefore the Universe had a beginning.

There are three possible reasons for such a beginning to occur: 1. A creator, 2. Chance, 3. Necessity (we're getting into Teleology now).
Astrophysicists have studied the universe a great deal, and have discovered that in order for a universe consisting of solid matter to exist, we need very precise ratios and physical constants; for example, the gravitational constant and the electromagnetic constant. Another example is the nuclear constant, if this one constant is off by 2 percent, then hydrogen atoms would fise into diprotons instead of heavier matter - in other words, just examing this constant alone, our Universe with solid matter has a 1/50 chance of existing with solid matter; and a universe where any form of evolving life could exist. 

So could the Universe be the result of physical necessity? The answer is no, these caustants and ratios are independent of the laws of nature; they were arbitrarily present. So perhaps it is by chance? Mathematical Physicist Roger Penrose (an agnostic atheist I might add) has calculated that a life permitting universe to be 1 in 10 to the 1280th power; that is not just a slim chance, but an astronomically slim chance. So that rules out both chance and physical necessity.

The teleological argument:
1. The fine tuning of the universe is either due to a creator, chance, or physical necessity.
2. It is not due to chance or physical necessity
3. The Universe had a creator.

I should also bring up that the two most intelligent people of the modern era had theistic views: Newton was a Christian extremist largely due to his discoveries, and Einstein was an agnostic theist who felt atheism was both childish and an arrogant viewpoint. 

But on the subject; there is very strong evidence that we now have to confirm the claims for ancient arguments for the existence of God. But I have not heard any evidence in regards to a spaghetti monster.

I would imagine that God would be able to come up with various probabilities based on the absolute level of knowledge available. I see no problems with this interpretation.

I do, however, see a problem with assuming omniscience grants the ability to predict the the future with 100% certainty. Take a 6 sided dice for example, would someone with infinite awareness be able to predict what will be rolled with any more accuracy than me? Perhaps once the dice is tossed, an absolute knowledge of physics, the heat levels, density of air particles, etc... could conceivably predict how it would land; but there is no way they could have predicted how a person was going to throw it; how each and every joint and muscle fiber will act, because that knowledge does not even yet exist in the mind of the person who is throwing the dice. Someone with infinite understanding would understand that rolling a dice would give a 1 in 6 chance, and this would be true of someone with universal and complete knowledge.

Last post for tonight.

Yes. They would be aware of how your entire brain is composed and how it would make you use your arm/body to throw the dice. Then they simply add the laws of physics to get a 100% accurate answer.

With complete knowledge, our entire universe is predictable.

How does awareness of how an entire brain is composed grant the ability to predict what someone will be thinking? Particularly a thought that does not yet exist? At best, the only thing that can be extracted are probabilities, and the probabilities are very very large in number when making a prediction on how the brain interacts with the rest of the body. Even if this were the case, a random number generator in a computer would completely eliminate this problem since values are arbitrarily chosen (that means, no knowledge even on the sub-atomic scale of how things are working would be of any value), there is no further mechanism that even someone with absolute knowledge of the workings of the system would be able to predict the value between 1 and 6 as any more than either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

The materials (memories) are all there though, all it needs is something to trigger the thought such as saying "throw the dice".

The brain never sleeps and is constantly busy doing something. If you find out why the brain is doing what it currently does (by studying the past, which God most definitely should be able to do flawlessly), you should then start assuming that present will be the upcoming past and that the future is already determined (simply because the past is always determined and cannot change).

The past never change, and present is also the past as time never stops.

That's a really good argument you've but forth presumably about there being a creator (God). For a while I was agnostic, then decided atheism was the way forward but now after reading this I think I might call myself an agnostic atheist.

Still I'm not entirely convinced there has to be a creator. The human brain can't comprehend  everything so I guess coming up with a creator is the easiest option. But then who created the creator? How far back does it go? There are some interesting theories being thrown around such as a chaotic inflation multiple universes, big bang/big crunch never ending cyclic universe and the white hole universe theory (each black hole singularity creates a universe on the other side).

My other criticism would be mentioning Aristotle and Plato as both were the greatest intellects of the ancient world but that's not exactly saying much as such time was full of superstitious beliefs and pseudo science, beliefs which Aristotle and Plato both held. And Netwon may have been a Christian Fundamentalist but I guess the 17th Century was a lot more religious then now. I could make a list of atheist scientists...

First, don't presume for a minute I care about what you think or don't think, or others do.  People have their own agendas responding to you like they do, for their own amusement.  This is entertainment for them.  In my case, because I am fairly certain you are wrong in your thinking in this area, my corresponding with this thread is practice for my part, to refine issues and thinking on these issues.  As something to strengthen my resolve, it works.  As an attempt to change my mind, it is an abysmal failure.  

Anyhow, if you want to have the purpose the thread to be something, it should be on what you want to discuss.  In your case, it would be a whole lot simplier, if you would just come out with a thread in support of gay marriage.  Since your agenda for abolishing sin is to clear the way for gay marriage to be ok for everyone, it would be just plain easier to just do a thread on that.  When you don't get close to your original subject, and go WAY out there in the realm of metapbysics, or now the case of ethics, you will get a many paged thread that won't get to what you want to talk about.

But, if you want to do something on sin in general, well, let's look at your view there is no sin:

* Sin, by definition, is a violation of standard set by a certain code of conduct or ethics, that transcends personal preference or and desires, or arbitrarily determined sets of laws.

* If you argue there is no sin, then you argue for a case of there being no set of standards that is a universal set of rights and responsibilities.  In short, you have reduced ethics and morals to nothing more than just personal preferences, either by a person of power and influence, or voted on by the greatest number in a crowd.

* By reducing ethics to personal preferences, you cannot argue that people have rights.  Without standards that are above and beyond humans, then everything is preferences, either by elites who have power, or the masses.  

* If, for example, a community finds homosexuality icky, they have the ability,  becasue ethics is nothing more than personal preference, to block individuals from being couples in their area.  They can also chose to kill anyone they like and disagree with, and come up with laws to support this view.  In short, anything goes.

* Oh, you can argue, "But, one can use reason to show the right way".  Since you have reduced ethics to nothing more than personal preference then reason is nothing more than a personal preference as an approach for determining what one prefers.  

So, there you go.  No sin, and you end up having no basis for arguing for gay marriage, which is your intention anyhow.  Because, just because you get rid of God and sin doesn't mean you end up getting your agenda met.  As can be seen, Marx wasn't supportive of homosexuality, and you have nothing to be able to argue in support of your agenda.  Freed of a set of standards that can be appealed to, you have nothing to argue for the moral high ground.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality

Early history

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels both to some level expressed anti-homosexual sentiments in their public and private writings.^{[citation needed]} In their private communications to each other, they mocked the writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and, after he was charged with homosexuality, the sexuality of Jean Baptista von Schweitzer.^{[citation needed]} Yet, they said very little on the subject in their published works.

The Communist Manifesto does not address the issue of sexual orientation or gender identity. Some anti-homosexual notions are apparent in Das Kapital.^{[citation needed]} Engels seems to be condemning homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading".^{[citation needed]} Later Communist leaders and intellectuals took many different positions on LGBT-rights issues.

The German Communist Party, during the Weimar Republic, generally supported the efforts to legalize private homosexual relations between consenting adults.

In the Soviet Union, homosexuality was originally decriminalized (in certain parts of the Union) by the Communist Party after the Revolution along with no-fault divorce and abortion,^[9] since all old Tsarist laws had to be abolished. In the 1930s under Joseph Stalin, homosexuality and abortion^{[citation needed]} were recriminalised in the nation. Article 121 explicitly criminalised male same-sex intercourse and with five years of hard prison labor as a penalty. The law was condemned by several communists operating in Britain. The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.^[10] Although the Nazis persecuted homosexuals during the Holocaust, Joseph Stalin regarded fascists and homosexuals as the same, and part of a far-right homosexual conspiracy.^[11]

[edit]Homosexuals and communist membership

Homosexuals were sometimes denied membership or expelled from communist parties^[12] across the globe during the 20th Century, as most communist parties followed the social precedents set by the USSR. Today, however, nearly all communist parties accept homosexuals and support the LGBT rights movement.

One thing you fail to consider is the possibility of the multiverse.

Most people, when mentioning "multiverse" do so in passing, as a joke. But what if a multiverse were real?

What if there are separate universes out there for every single possible action, every single possible decision, every tiny little variation off of the next? And what if God knows whats going to happen in every single one?

Doesn't eliminate free will in the slightest, and it still enables God to be 100% omniscient.

You cannot logically argue against Abrahamic religion, because by the very basis of YHWH, He exists outside of human logic. As God created the universe (multiverse?), He also created logic, time, and physics. All of the rules of those concepts cannot rule God, just like something you built with your own two hands cannot rule you. He exists outside of logic, time, and physics.

That isn't to say that God therefore exists, of course. But it's to say that it is impossible to trap God with logic. There will ALWAYS be a way around - and inversely, there will never be a way to prove God, either. Believing or disbelieving God is always going to be fully free will - zero proving either which way.

But by your reasoning not only sins cannot exist but right or wrong moral choices cannot exist either (as there exists no free will).

It's a good thread but it's more about the general consequences of having no free will rather than that Abrahamic religions make no sense.

It's like you have discovered how unlogical it is for religious people to go around and believe they earn a place in heaven by making the right decisions without sinning (when all our choices are already pre-determined and known by God, as we have no free will), but you lack to see how unlogical the moral choices of all human individuals are (when all our choices are already pre-determined, as there exists no proof of free will).

By your reasoning (that there is no free will) no moral choices make any sense. And I happen to agree with that, but that's not a dilemma for Abrahamic religions in particular, it's also a dilemma for everybody who are rooted in science!

What you completely fail to keep in mind is that all atheists believe that there are no sins, making your entire argument fall like a rock. Do atheists consider a society without morals and laws to be the optimal society? No.

Sins are nothing but a couple of bullshit rules with no scientific basis. Laws (in a developed society), on the other hand, always have a reson which is to protect their people and to give all them equal rights, unlike the religious laws where gays are condemned. Sure, some (if not most) laws got their inspiration from the Bible, but at least they removed the discriminating ones once science kicked in.

Let's assume for a second that we wanted the Bible and God's word to be fair, then why won't anyone rewrite the Bible and remove all the ignorant lines so that it reflect most views of today's religious people? Answer: It is the word of God, and God decided what is defined as sins. Therefore, the only way for people to understand that there are no sins is if I make them doubt that God is flawless. That is where this thread comes in.