>Non-fundamentalism-errancy-poses problems about God. Here Schellenberg's hiddenness problem and Dranges argument from non-belief enter the skeptical scene. That He would use what John Hick calls epistemic distance that He figures ambiguously in the Cosmos so as not to oeverwhelm our free will to have a relationship with Him. That is absurd, because what counts is what is good for us animals rather than His ego! He, were He to exist, would have no claims on us as per Lamberth's argument from autonomy we are free beings rather than His clay as that pervert Paul [ He dislikes sex!]. Show your mettle here as a gnu atheist or as a inquiring believer! I hope for viewers to outpost me.
Lord Russell of Ga. 
>Non-fundamentalism-errancy-poses problems about God. Here Schellenberg's hiddenness problem and Dranges argument from non-belief enter the skeptical scene. That He would use what John Hick calls epistemic distance that He figures ambiguously in the Cosmos so as not to oeverwhelm our free will to have a relationship with Him. That is absurd, because what counts is what is good for us animals rather than His ego! He, were He to exist, would have no claims on us as per Lamberth's argument from autonomy we are free beings rather than His clay as that pervert Paul [ He dislikes sex!]. Show your mettle here as a gnu atheist or as a inquiring believer! I hope for viewers to outpost me.