religious debate

[Guest]

If you firmly believe there is no God - prove it. Show me evidence of His non-existence. Show me why He cannot and does not exist. In doing so, you can't use doctrines of any particular religion unless they are common to ALL relgions, because it's established that some who profess to "lead" relgions do so for their own benefit- therefore these things are not of God and are usless ad hom attacks. Show me your proof. And good luck with proving a "non-existence."

and I wish you good luck proving an existence

we shouldn't be coming back to this

although it is easier to prove an existence than a non-existence.

You still cannot prove either of them, unless God shows himself to us all, then we can't really prove he exists

and there's no way, really, to prove he does not exist.

so I don't think we should still be talking about proof

I had something else to say but I totally forgot it...

I'll get back to you on that

oh yeah, this wasn't what I was going to say, but I'm glad that the attitude so far in these posts has turned around

I was considering requesting having the thread locked

but I don't think I'll have to do that anymore

[Guest]

Again, all I see here since my last post are attacks ad nauseum on one particular point of view. You demand evidence and I give it. You reject the evidence based upon personal belief and nothing more. What is the point? If we are going to discuss the existence or non-existence of God, why doesn't someone give a coherent argument as to why NOT to believe? I've yet to see it.

As to "the way the brain works" and "delusions" and all that - assume there IS a God who is the creator. Doensn't it make SENSE he would "wire" us for communication? This is where all the athiest arguments are breaking down. The staunch "we don't have to assume" attitude is what I have been talking about as closed mindedness and improper framing. To pose YOUR arguments, you ask the theist to start with the proposition there is NO God and then prove from there. It's uneven footing and nobody has come close to offering a different framework, yet you REFUSE to start from the proposition that there IS a God.

As to ancient texts - first of all, the closer in time to an event a recording is made, the more likely its accurate. Second, you can't seriously compare the Bible to any work of fiction. That's assinine. These were men who valued what they wrote above all else as a sacred manifestation. Even if you eliminate the doctrine, you have to give credit for the authors wanting an accurate historical record. IF you go back and study a little, you'll find that all modern fiction sprung from creation plays. There WAS NO FICTION before the bible in the western cannon. There were allegories, and there were myths, but no fiction as we know it. So yes, ancient texts DO carry more weight than modern fiction, no matter how old the fiction gets.

"Zeus is real. Allah is real. Odin is real"

Not quite. Any particular God is not the focus here. I suppose they ALL could be real and qualify. For me, I assume they are all different names for the same manifestation. It's not the point to prove any particular God. In fact, I've said from the beginning that the whole thing is moot because of the framework of the discussion. You can't prove or disprove ANY God. You can only discuss personal experience and define terms. Nothing else makes sense in this context.

As to Martini's discussion of Scraff's posts - Go back and read what he wrote in his original post to me. He DID make assumptions and DID use fallcious reasoning. I listed them, I'm over it. It's irrelevant to the overall discussion. This thread isn't about me. Unless we want it to be, then I'll go back and maticulously support my arguments. Otherwise, nobody should care. Again, if I missed an important question he or you posed to me, I'm sorry - post it again and make it obvious and I'll address it.

I didn't misunderstand your post at all. Your questions about why we are here, why did this or that thing happen to me and my loved ones and how this relates to God's existence, must have meant more to you then "Why is the sky blue?".

Here YOU are making assumptions. Why can't you accept that when I started exploring this, the question of God really DID NOT mean any more to me than "Why is the sky blue?" other than I figured out one answer when I was 4 and the other when I was about 22? That's my statement. You either call me a liar or accept it. It's irrelevant and arrogant to project your assumptions on to it.

I wish you good luck proving an existence

This is incorrect framing. I've already come to a "positive" point of veiw using experience and logic. Your point of view is that I am wrong. Therefore it's incubant upon the point of view that I am wrong to propose an alternate answer, accept mine, or dismiss mine out of hand with no counter point.

Good discussion so far. I still am waiting for the athiest "proof."

[Guest]

Again, all I see here since my last post are attacks ad nauseum on one particular point of view. You demand evidence and I give it.

No, you didn't give evidence for God. You told us about an overwhelming feeling that came over you as you prayed. You gave no evidence that a god was responsible for this feeling.

You reject the evidence based upon personal belief and nothing more.

Absolutely false. And later in your post you say to me "Here YOU are making assumptions."? Again, you gave no evidence that your experience was caused by a god and you continue to not answer the question raised concerning why you don't give credence to alternate theories.

What is the point? If we are going to discuss the existence or non-existence of God, why doesn't someone give a coherent argument as to why NOT to believe? I've yet to see it.

Then you are simply being stubborn since the extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims line was used many times. Do I have to have any better argument for not believing in flying pigs or pink unicorns? The little boy next door to me behaves as if his invisible friend is real. Do you have "a coherent argument as to why NOT to believe" his friend exists?

As to "the way the brain works" and "delusions" and all that - assume there IS a God who is the creator. Doensn't it make SENSE he would "wire" us for communication?

Interesting. If the brain works in such a way to have delusions it makes sense that there is a god because delusions aren't delusions but a god speaking to us? That's some evidence!

The staunch "we don't have to assume" attitude is what I have been talking about as closed mindedness and improper framing.

So we should assume?

To pose YOUR arguments, you ask the theist to start with the proposition there is NO God and then prove from there. It's uneven footing and nobody has come close to offering a different framework, yet you REFUSE to start from the proposition that there IS a God.

That's the logical way to go about proving the existence of something. You tell me there is a new species of whale and it is up to you to provide evidence it exists. It's not up to me to assume it exists and attempt to drain the oceans to prove that it doesn't.

As to ancient texts - first of all, the closer in time to an event a recording is made, the more likely its accurate.

The first problem with this is that it assumes there actually was an event in the first place. If the event is fictional or mythical or allegorical, then this claim is meaningless. Beyond that, people were just as capable of lying back then as they are now and they did so frequently. As far back as written history goes, we find people lying about it, exaggerating things, making supernatural claims, etc. all the way back to ancient Egypt.

Second, you can't seriously compare the Bible to any work of fiction. That's assinine.

Special pleading and methodological baloney. How is the Bible any different than say, the Bhagavad Gita or the Talmud or the Koran?

These were men who valued what they wrote above all else as a sacred manifestation.

Cite? We know this how? Even if its true, we still don't necessarily know genre or intent and there is such a thing as pious fraud. Plus, the same claim can be made about the authors of any sacred text in any religion. Even Christianity has loads of apocryphal gospels, pseudoepigraphical works (works falsely attributed to more famous people by the authors) and forgeries. The authors of the Gnostic Gospels were no less pious than the authors of the Canonicals.

Even if you eliminate the doctrine, you have to give credit for the authors wanting an accurate historical record.

No, we don't. We know for a fact that Bibles' "historical record" is frequently and demonstrably a-historical. The fact of the matter is that the authors usually did not know much real history and often didn't care about literal history anyway. That wasn't the genre they were writing in. The Bible is horrible as a history text. There was no flood, no six day creation, no evidence at all of a jewish slavery in Egypt, no census, no plagues, nothing about Jesus was written down until thirty years after he supposedly died for cryin' out loud!

[Guest]

IF you go back and study a little, you'll find that all modern fiction sprung from creation plays. There WAS NO FICTION before the bible in the western cannon. There were allegories, and there were myths, but no fiction as we know it. So yes, ancient texts DO carry more weight than modern fiction, no matter how old the fiction gets.

Huh?

This is complete nonsense, of course, and is irrelevant in any case. I suppose you're talking about fiction as an entertainment genre, but that discussion is irrelevant since the Bible is not generally alleged to be "fiction" in the strictest literary definition of the word, but consists of a variety of other genres including seemingly "historical" narratives which are better classified myth, allegory, propaganda and folktales than as fiction. That doesn't make them any more historical.

All these arguments are kind of mooted by the fact that so much of the Bible can be proven to be a-historical (in a literal sense) by irrefutable physical evidence.

I guess you think the epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Bible, was true?

Not quite. Any particular God is not the focus here. I suppose they ALL could be real and qualify. For me, I assume they are all different names for the same manifestation. It's not the point to prove any particular God.

Then provide evidence that they're all the same and that they actually exist. With many gods having limited powers and the Abrahamic god having no limitations, that should prove to be quite a task for you.

In fact, I've said from the beginning that the whole thing is moot because of the framework of the discussion. You can't prove or disprove ANY God. You can only discuss personal experience and define terms. Nothing else makes sense in this context.

If you can't provide evidence- there's no reason to assume any god exists. Even accepting your personal experience as true, it is not evidence for an all knowing, all powerful being, or any being at all other than yourself.

As to Martini's discussion of Scraff's posts - Go back and read what he wrote in his original post to me. He DID make assumptions and DID use fallcious reasoning.

This is the third time I'm saying this: point out where, other than the places I provided rebuttals of your accusations showing how he didn't.

I listed them, I'm over it.

And I provided a rebuttal for each accusation showing that he didn't.

[Guest]

It's irrelevant to the overall discussion. This thread isn't about me. Unless we want it to be, then I'll go back and maticulously support my arguments.

It's not a matter of the thread being about you. You make accusations about another poster and it's your obligation to prove them. You're expected to support your arguments in all debates, not just in threads that "are about you".

Again, if I missed an important question he or you posed to me, I'm sorry - post it again and make it obvious and I'll address it.

I responded to this already. It's not my job to determine what you will find important. That's your job. I find all of the questions posed of you to be relevant. In just my last two part post before your last response I asked several questions and asked you to back up statements and I was ignored.

Here YOU are making assumptions. Why can't you accept that when I started exploring this, the question of God really DID NOT mean any more to me than "Why is the sky blue?"

I already pointed that out. You had "several things happen to people around you that drew your thoughts and attention toward the question of God". No reasonable person would believe that the answer to the question of God's existence was as inconsequential to you as "Why is the sky blue?"

This is incorrect framing. I've already come to a "positive" point of veiw using experience and logic.

But asking an atheist to prove no gods exist is proper framing? We've already come to the conclusion that there is zero reliable evidence for gods.

We heard about your experience. What sort of logic have you used that concludes with God existing?

Your point of view is that I am wrong. Therefore it's incubant upon the point of view that I am wrong to propose an alternate answer, accept mine, or dismiss mine out of hand with no counter point.

Our point of view is that your experience is not evidence for your god or any other god or that your experience is being recalled exactly as you remember it. You were praying to a "god" when you had that experience, remember? If you were calling out to telepathic aliens instead and had a similar experience, should we conclude that space aliens were necessarily responsible for the experience? We've all heard of hundreds of supposed supernatural experiences involving ghosts, fairies, witches, etc. According to your logic, whomever claims to have the experience has the wisdom to determine what the source of the experience was. That's not very logical at all.

We don't have to provide an alternate possible answer, even though we have. I already gave you my 'lightning' example. If one were to propose to me that God creates lightning and I reject this proposal due to lack of evidence, me not having an alternate theory for where lightning comes from does not make "God did it" the default answer.

Good discussion so far. I still am waiting for the athiest "proof."

You are ignoring everything that's been told to you about atheism.

[unreality]

(Here's a little atheism proof, maybe, or at least something interesting to think about)

Here's a question to all theists:

Ask yourself how your god (he, she, it, them, doesnt matter) came about.

1) Has it always been there? If so, is it so hard to believe that the universe has always been there? No god needed.

2) Was it created? If so, by whom? And thus what created that? And that before it? Infinite regression, thus the answer is that something was always there.

***

On something similar but different, if you argue that life and everything in it is too complex to just have evolved that way or been here, then whatever created everything would have to be, by default, just as complex, if not more complex. Going by your definition, too complex to just be there or to have evolved that way. So how did it get there? It would have to be created as well... infinite regression.

***

For both of these, you come back to the point that something complex or at least something in general has to have always existed. No creator is needed.

Thus the only answer to this for theists is something I haven't thought of ("god created himself" doesn't work, I'm afraid) OR the theist must accept that the proof of life's complexity is no proof for a creator.

EDIT: fixed grammar (change to to too)

[Guest]

Don't have time to hit all that I need to, super busy are work, but I'll be on maybe this weekend to respond.

Quick question though - when did this become about the need to prove God? I've said from the start that is a futile argument either way. Some of you asked for mere evidence, but didn't like my evidence, so I posed the question "what would it take for you to believe?" I still haven't seen any response to that...

[unreality]

Martini did. You need to prove that your experience was somehow caused by god. As Martini put it:

Again, all I see here since my last post are attacks ad nauseum on one particular point of view. You demand evidence and I give it.

No, you didn't give evidence for God. You told us about an overwhelming feeling that came over you as you prayed. You gave no evidence that a god was responsible for this feeling.

[Guest]

I've said from the start that is a futile argument either way.

Then why do you continue to engage in an argument you consider futile? It's futile for you, because you claim you KNOW an unusual experience was from "God", all the while giving zero weight to other possibilities that your experience was caused by natural means, possibly stemming from within your own mind, some other supernatural means, or even some natural means that is just as far out as an omniscient, omnipotent god existing such as space aliens being responsible, yet you claim that it is the atheists that are closed minded.

If you have no evidence for your god other than a feeling that came over you while praying, then yes, it is futile for you to try and convince rational skeptics like Ploper, Scraff, unreality and me that there is no other possible explanation for your feeling other than the god of the Old Testament being responsible.

There is, however, NOTHING futile about skeptics reinforcing in others that in order for one to accept extraordinary claims it should come along with some extraordinary evidence. I'm also hopeful that an open minded lurker that is on the fence and hasn't before heard about the atheistic point of view after a lifetime of being indoctrinated into religious beliefs may come over to the side of the fence that is the rational one. Overly optimistic of me maybe, but not futile.

Some of you asked for mere evidence, but didn't like my evidence, so I posed the question "what would it take for you to believe?" I still haven't seen any response to that...

Mere evidence, eh? You're asking for specific evidence that your god of the Old Testament exists? I can probably come up with a few examples, but what's the point? So far all I've got is a concept of God I find to be inherently illogical and I consider the "Holy Books" of these religions to be a naive collection of myths cobbled together from preexisting ideas and texts and a feeling that came over you when you prayed.

A feeling that comes over you while you pray is evidence for God as an unexplained noise in my house is evidence for a ghost. I don’t find jumping to supernatural conclusions for unexplained occurrences prudent. My sister swears that she heard a dog bark in her house on two occasions and that the bark definitely originated in the house. Of course there was no dog in her house, but she is positive she heard it and unfortunately, her mind jumped to the supernatural. What would it take for you to believe that my sister has the ghost of a dog residing in her house?

[Guest]

Martini, you misunderstand me.

The one experience I related is not the sum and substance of my religious foundation. It was merely the beginning of a long period of searching, studying and thinking that lead me to beleive in God. Many, many experiences added to the first have me convinced. None of them, however, will ever convince you, or any other athiest probably, that I could possibly be right.

Then why do you continue to engage in an argument you consider futile?

You are absolutely right. It's pointless so I drop it. I hope you can continue to proselytize for athiesm with success.

As for something else related that many of might find an interesting discussion - see my new thread "Bible Code."

Peace.

[unreality]

(Here's a little atheism proof, maybe, or at least something interesting to think about)

Here's a question to all theists:

Ask yourself how your god (he, she, it, them, doesnt matter) came about.

1) Has it always been there? If so, is it so hard to believe that the universe has always been there? No god needed.

2) Was it created? If so, by whom? And thus what created that? And that before it? Infinite regression, thus the answer is that something was always there.

***

On something similar but different, if you argue that life and everything in it is too complex to just have evolved that way or been here, then whatever created everything would have to be, by default, just as complex, if not more complex. Going by your definition, too complex to just be there or to have evolved that way. So how did it get there? It would have to be created as well... infinite regression.

***

For both of these, you come back to the point that something complex or at least something in general has to have always existed. No creator is needed.

Thus the only answer to this for theists is something I haven't thought of ("god created himself" doesn't work, I'm afraid) OR the theist must accept that the proof of life's complexity is no proof for a creator.

eh I guess this means nobody's gonna answer this... lol...

[Guest]

cuz it's such a hard question to think of, I'd be reluctant to answer to

but I think it's a vital point in an argument

[Guest]

I'll give it a shot since nobody else did Ploper.

Here's my personal take:

We are all eternal beings. We have all always existed as far as time in this universe is reckoned. I believe we are interdemensional beings, with the potential to become exactly like God. I think God is a physical being (call that an alien if you want) after whom the basic structure of humankind was modeled. I believe this being organized energies into the universe we know in this reality and organized energies into intellegences and seeded this universe. I believe he cares about what he created. I think he exists outside of time, and so does heaven, so that the concept of a linear timeline is irrelevant when talking about God. Everything that has and will ever happen in this universe are the present to God.

As to where HE came from? Don't know. Because we are talking about realities outside of time, maybe origins aren't the same for God as it would be in our universe.

I also believe the creation story as 7 "periods" of indeterminate time, not 7 "days" or 7 "periods of 1000 years." I believe that this world was prepared for humankind and that includes hundreds of thousands of years with dinosaurs, etc. I believe that the creation story and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive.

I DO think that everything in this universe was modeled first, so I think there is a male and female God (thus we are patterned). I also believe that there is an eternal cycle, so that God was once a mortal being with his own God. But it smokes my mind to think too far about that.

I think the purpose of life is to learn as much as possible and to perfect control over our appetites. Once we accomplish that in a mortal state, we will be given an opportunity to learn more.

[Guest]

None of them, however, will ever convince you, or any other athiest probably, that I could possibly be right.

To quote you again, "Here YOU are making assumptions". And pretty bad ones at that with your belief that atheists are closed minded. "Of course I've got evidence, but I'm not going to show it to you because you'd only dismiss it." Is it evidence that would normally convince the average person, or is it evidence that would only be accepted by someone that was already religious? Skeptics aren't averse to changing their minds based on new evidence. Unchanging ideas about how the universe works are for the religious, not us. We generally have no allegiance to this or that being true. With evidence, I will gladly change my mind about any previously held conclusion.

As for something else related that many of might find an interesting discussion - see my new thread "Bible Code."

Peace.

Well, it is related in that the Bible Code is not valid evidence for the divinity of the Bible.

Peace.

[Guest]

To quote you again, "Here YOU are making assumptions". And pretty bad ones at that with your belief that atheists are closed minded. "Of course I've got evidence, but I'm not going to show it to you because you'd only dismiss it." Is it evidence that would normally convince the average person, or is it evidence that would only be accepted by someone that was already religious? Skeptics aren't averse to changing their minds based on new evidence. Unchanging ideas about how the universe works are for the religious, not us. We generally have no allegiance to this or that being true. With evidence, I will gladly change my mind about any previously held conclusion.

Well, it is related in that the Bible Code is not valid evidence for the divinity of the Bible.

Peace.

You're right. It was a cop out. Like I've said before, I think the whole framework of the discussion is flawed. I don't want this to be about me trying to convince anyone else about my personal beliefs. I developed them over a perod of about 4-5 years and there were a lot of different things in that period that gelled into a semi-cohesive belief structure. I frankly don't want to throw every experience out there and have to defend my thoughts and feelings on every point. No single part is overwhelming, but the whole is much, much greater than the sum of its parts.

I also think we define "open mindedness" differently. Here's mine: When presented with something new, the open minded says "maybe - let's look at this and see." The closed minded says "no way - prove it." I never said that athiests are closed minded. I have said that (using my definition) most athiests THAT I PERSONALLY KNOW (none included on this board) are of the latter bent when it comes to new ideas. An antecdote by way of example: Myself, friend A, and friend B are at a party (real story). Friend B is a staunch athiest. He's very educated and a philosophy major who works in computer security. Friend A is very intellegent, only has a B.A. but is "smart" when it comes to real world things. He's also a bit of a hippie. I have a head cold and A says to me as we all stand together "you should try chiropractic - it will cure your cold." I respond "really? I've never heard of that. I should try it out." Friend B responds "You guys are fools. There's no F-ing way that someone cracking your back will cure a cold. The common cold takes 7 days to run itself out, no more, no less." Now, friend B wasn't wrong. He is firmly within modern scientific evidence in his assertion, but he's more close minded by my definition than I am concerning new ideas.

And I agree on the Bible Code. I'm really curious though as the the phenomena. I've seen some people get "coded messages" from other works too, to debunk the theory, but it is pretty interesting to me how several descriptive phrases from one major event can corrospond so closely using their techniques. Again, I think it's a pirate ship in a cloud, but it's still cool when you see a really bad-a** pirate ship in that cumulonimbus.

[Guest]

BTW, I'm getting NOTHING done at work today.

[Guest]

I never said that athiests are closed minded.

Well, you implied it more than a few times and my last post where I accused you of believing that atheists are closed minded was based on you saying that we were, just not in so many words:

"Many, many experiences added to the first have me convinced. None of them, however, will ever convince you, or any other athiest probably, that I could possibly be right."

That is an accusation of closed-mindedness, no? We can be convinced you are right if the evidence were actually there. It seems many theists believe that we are AGAINST any gods existing and our lack of belief isn't really based on a healthy skepticism, but some atheistic agenda. Not saying that necessarily fits a description of you- I'm hoping it doesn't. Remember the boy next door to me with the invisible friend? We're probably as open to any gods existing as you are of that friend being real. I think the difference is that you had more of a leaning toward your god existing when you prayed which is why you prayed in the first place. You probably were already a theist for the most part and not on my side of the fence. I'm not judgmental against you for that. I know exactly how strong the ties to belief in a god is because I was brought up with the same sort of- dare I say it?- brainwashing. A child being told from as young an age as he can understand such things that there's a god in the sky that punishes and rewards and allows us to live on after we die is some powerful stuff! I've had some unexplainable stuff happen to me in my life, also. I'm sure we all have. But I learned to be skeptical that these experiences necessarily reflected the supernatural beliefs of my parents and came to realize that men have been using the supernatural to explain the natural for centuries and that pattern is not a coincidence. Learning more about the origins and plain outlandishness of holy texts helped even more. Where am I goin' with this? Ahh, I'm just rambling on at this point. I just hope that you can say "maybe" to your god not existing just as you want atheists to say the same to Him being real. Because we actually already do.

Friend B responds "You guys are fools. There's no F-ing way that someone cracking your back will cure a cold. The common cold takes 7 days to run itself out, no more, no less." Now, friend B wasn't wrong. He is firmly within modern scientific evidence in his assertion, but he's more close minded by my definition than I am concerning new ideas.

I think friend B was spot on. And on the whole it seems you do to. It's not that he's not open to new ideas; it's that he's familiar with the pseudo scientific ideas that cervical spine manipulation can cure most all bodily ailments and wanted to make sure his friends didn't waste time, money and risk possible complications stemming from potentially dangerous techniques. I'm sure he's aware there's no guarantee that these manipulations aren't helpful, but enough evidence is in to phrase his concerns as he did instead of saying something like, "While I'm open to the idea that there's a slim chance that cervical manipulations will cure your cold, the evidence suggests this isn't so and I would advise you not to seek chiropractic help in this instance". Especially since that sounds pretty dorky!

[Guest]

We have all always existed as far as time in this universe is reckoned.

I believe we are interdemensional beings, with the potential to become exactly like God.

I also believe that there is an eternal cycle, so that God was once a mortal being with his own God.

I think there is a male and female God (thus we are patterned).

I think he exists outside of time, and so does heaven, so that the concept of a linear timeline is irrelevant when talking about God.

As to where HE came from? Don't know. Because we are talking about realities outside of time, maybe origins aren't the same for God as it would be in our universe.

Are these beliefs based on some evidence that we also wouldn't accept or are they beliefs based on some other reasons? "Outside Of Space And Time" is a concept without a description-a null term.

You seem to put a lot of stock into the Bible, yet you believe some things that seem to go against Biblical teachings and seem pretty un-Christian, such as your belief that God was once mortal and once had his own god. I'm not only curious how you came to believe that, but how you can reconcile your beliefs in the Bible with your beliefs that go against the Bible's teaching.

I also believe the creation story as 7 "periods" of indeterminate time, not 7 "days" or 7 "periods of 1000 years."

Do you also believe the order of things created in the Genesis account is correct?

[Guest]

You seem to put a lot of stock into the Bible, yet you believe some things that seem to go against Biblical teachings and seem pretty un-Christian, such as your belief that God was once mortal and once had his own god. I'm not only curious how you came to believe that, but how you can reconcile your beliefs in the Bible with your beliefs that go against the Bible's teaching.

I wonder if he is a mormon, because they believe that stuff....that mortals can become gods by recruiting others into the faith and the more they recruit, the more likely they are to get their own planet someday in the afterlife (sort of like a pyramid scheme).

and no, I'm not making that up.

[Guest]

(Here's a little atheism proof, maybe, or at least something interesting to think about)

Here's a question to all theists:

Ask yourself how your god (he, she, it, them, doesnt matter) came about.

1) Has it always been there? If so, is it so hard to believe that the universe has always been there? No god needed.

2) Was it created? If so, by whom? And thus what created that? And that before it? Infinite regression, thus the answer is that something was always there.

***

On something similar but different, if you argue that life and everything in it is too complex to just have evolved that way or been here, then whatever created everything would have to be, by default, just as complex, if not more complex. Going by your definition, too complex to just be there or to have evolved that way. So how did it get there? It would have to be created as well... infinite regression.

***

For both of these, you come back to the point that something complex or at least something in general has to have always existed. No creator is needed.

Thus the only answer to this for theists is something I haven't thought of ("god created himself" doesn't work, I'm afraid) OR the theist must accept that the proof of life's complexity is no proof for a creator.

EDIT: fixed grammar (change to to too)

I definantely agree that something must have always existed. According to physics, it is impossible for the universe to have always existed, therefore, making necessary some sort of deity.

[Guest]

actually, as scientists have proven, something can come out of nothing

scientists have done labratory experiments where they've created atoms out of thin air

of course, it is under perfect conditions, with huge amounts of energy and even then they're only in existence for a split second...

[Guest]

According to physics, it is impossible for the universe to have always existed

What law of physics would that be? You're saying that science has proved the existence of at least one god? About 100% of cosmologists agree there was a Big Bang (the amount of evidence for it can literally fill libraries) that occurred billions of years ago, so the universe existing forever isn't a problem. You may want to rethink your position.

[Guest]

I will try to prove my point.

First, take the sun and the stars. According to science, they are large globs of gas (I believe it is usually hydrogen) doing fusion. If they are doing fusion, they must be doing it to something and they cannot create material and in fact destroy it.

Second, according to Hubble's law, it has been proven that the universe has been expanding. How can something, that has been around forever, continue to expand if it has always been around? If we follow this backward, it can be seen that the universe, if not created, at one time must have been as small as it could get. But what was it before that?

These are the only physical arguments I know but I am pretty sure that there are more out there. There are also many other reasons to either disprove or discredit evolution or to prove or give evidence for God and creation.

[Guest]

actually, as scientists have proven, something can come out of nothing

scientists have done labratory experiments where they've created atoms out of thin air

of course, it is under perfect conditions, with huge amounts of energy and even then they're only in existence for a split second...

For one thing, as you said it is under perfect conditions which probably didn't exist when there was nothing. Second, it is not really creating it if it ceases to be as soon as it is.

[Guest]

I will try to prove my point.

First, take the sun and the stars. According to science, they are large globs of gas (I believe it is usually hydrogen) doing fusion. If they are doing fusion, they must be doing it to something and they cannot create material and in fact destroy it.

You didn't prove your point. Your point was there must be at least one god. Nowhere is science does it say that stars are creating and destroying matter. Your misunderstanding of how stars operate is not proof or even evidence of any gods.

Second, according to Hubble's law, it has been proven that the universe has been expanding. How can something, that has been around forever, continue to expand if it has always been around?

I answered this already. The Big Bang theory does not propose that the universe has been expanding forever.

If we follow this backward, it can be seen that the universe, if not created, at one time must have been as small as it could get. But what was it before that?

"Before the Big Bang" is about as meaningful as "north of the North Pole": There just isn't any such. Which will probably bring you to ask more questions about how the universe works, right? There are a ton of useful links and books you can order on Amazon that I can recommend, but I doubt you're interested in learning what cosmologists and other scientists have discovered about how the universe works. I have a feeling you're more interested in getting to the point where someone on a message board about riddles can't explain a facet of how the universe works and proudly exclaiming "Aha! You can't explain how this or that happens, so there must be a god!". Sorry, but using your understanding of science to prove a god must exist doesn't work. Almost all cosmologists don't believe in a god and even more don't think a god is necessary to explain the workings of the universe. If you think you've got some useful information to prove how the universe could not exist without a god, maybe you can contact some of them and get them to listen to you.

These are the only physical arguments I know but I am pretty sure that there are more out there.

Oh, there are.

There are also many other reasons to either disprove or discredit evolution or to prove or give evidence for God and creation.

There are also arguments to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. That doesn't mean He does.

The amount of evidence we have that evolution occurs and that we all evolved from simpler creatures is staggering. The amount for creation is not. If you'd like to debate evolution or creation further, please start another thread.

For one thing, as you said it is under perfect conditions which probably didn't exist when there was nothing.

That makes no sense.

Second, it is not really creating it if it ceases to be as soon as it is.

A short time later is not "as soon as it is"; it's a little later than that, so something was created.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/...g.html#firstlaw

The universe was not the same as now a few seconds after the Big Bang occurred. The total entropy at the start of the universe was very low, and perhaps almost zero. The stuff that was the universe then was in vastly different form than the particles that inhabit the universe today.

We live in a cool universe, where the overall average temperature is near zero degrees Kelvin. That's why, according to consensus physics, we see the four forces that govern matter: the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity. In the first instant the temperature was so hot that all four forces were subsumed into one. (The appearance of these forces as temperatures cooled is known as broken symmetry.) Also because of the heat, no particles as we know them today could exist.

Again, if you'd like to make an argument for the necessity of a god, let's start a new thread.