Quote:

I have infact heard of string theory @JCL, and I don't know if you ever heard of M theory which is the modern conclusion to string theory, but it would mean that membrains in the multi-verse would have had to also be created by something


I assume you refer to Gabriele Veneziano's theory. According to him the Big Bang was caused by the collision and penetration of 11-dimensional branes. Those branes were not created, their existence is just a consequence of string theory. Of course, you can now ask "Who created string theory?".

However, it's a myth that a law of physics prevents the creation or destruction of matter or energy. There is no such general law; energy conservation only applies to specific situations, and is violated for instance by the expansion of the universe, or by the uncertainty principle.

Quote:

You are comparing fairness merely by your own frame of reference. While God created us in His image, this does not mean to say that we share the same moral frame of reference. Sure eating an apple is no big sin if your using your own behavior as a frame of reference, but how would you have any concept of the "moral frame of reference" which God uses?


This is certainly correct. I agree that it completely explains all acts that God commits. God just uses his own moral frame of reference. His moral standards are just different from ours, so who are we to consider our moral system more relevant than God's?

However, does the mere fact that God's acts don't violate his own moral standards already justify them?

Are fairness and morale totally relative and just depend on a frame of reference?

If it were so, we also could just kill anyone when he deserved it according to our personal understanding of fairness and morale. Saddam was justified to kill people. He considered himself so powerful and perfect that even small disobediences against him had to be answered with death.

Nevertheless, we consider Saddam's acts unjust and crimes.

I am aware that many fundamentalists believe in moral relativity and consider everything that God does justified just because he's God. However this way of thinking would also justify the crimes of a Nero, Hitler, or Saddam. None of them violated their own moral standards. This is why dictators often love fundamentalists and hate atheist freethinkers.

Atheists (and also most Christians in Europe) believe that fairness and ethics are not relative and replaceable. Sure, it might depend on the society you live in whether for instance homosexuality is a crime or not. But every society - religious or not - has the same fundamental understanding of fairness. In every society, it is normally considered wrong to kill people for something they haven't done, or to kill innocent women and children. This "frame of reference" does not depend on the society you live in. It's in your genes. It developed during evolution. People who did not share that fundamental fairness concept could not well get along and live together with others. This was a survival disadvantage and eventually led to their extinction - except if they were gods.

It is one of the ugly sides of fundamentalism - and one of the reasons why fundamentalism, in my opinion, is not a harmless folly - that it tends to distort the moral frame of reference that is natural and common to all humans. If you begin to justify God's crimes, you end up with also justifying men's crimes. This was the reason for all the crimes and atrocities committed by fundamentalists in the name of their god.

And for this reason such institutions as the ICC exist. Their principle is that to some extent fairness, justice and ethics are not relative, but absolute values. Killing innocents is always wrong, regardless of whether a dictator makes a law that allows that for him. It would also be wrong for extraterrestrials, and even for gods.

This is why God is still standing before the court and his lawyer knows that claiming total relativity of fairness and morale would not be a good defense.