I recently read a book titled Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens.  The mainstay of the argument seems to be that a personal god who rewards or punishes human beings is hard to believe in.  If God is omnipotent and all activity happens according to God’s will then how can humans be held responsible for their actions.  And if humans have free will then God is not omnipotent (as humans have at least some control).  Einstein repeatedly talks about how hard it is believe in a anthropomorphic God.  The order or nature is God for Einstein.

The other major stream of argument is around complexity of creation which implies an intelligent creator.  However, the argument against it is that creator of anything should be by definition more complex than the creation.  Therefore creation of God becomes a bigger mystery.  The alternate is Darwin’s evolution theory to explain the creation of complex structure.  The creation there is explained by selection of form appropriate for survival (“being”).  Others may have been created but do not survive.

Most writers agree that a personal god who intervenes in human affairs is not believable.  They all agree that moral and ethical code is required in a religion.  However, for such a code to exist we do not need an authority of God.

This blog seems to fully agree with the position.  Does that mean we are atheists?   The one thing that the book does not address is what do we call the free will of humans.  They agree that we need an ethical and moral code, which implies that we do believe that humans have free will.  This free will is GOD!