<p>How does my argument violate cause and affect? I am saying that it is impossible for that much random configuration occuring. Thus, god must have created these in such an order to create life.</p>
<p>There may well be, but so much of our "logic" is based on the pretense of randomness. How can this pretense be substantiated and how is it not an explaination for the overall effect of many unknown causes?</p>
<p>
[quote]
How does my argument violate cause and affect? I am saying that it is impossible for that much random configuration occuring. Thus, god must have created these in such an order to create life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am almost absolutely sure that is a fallacious step in logic. Your argument assumes humans are some sort of ultimate? Whats to say we aren't the worst combination of amino acids and the ensuing process? How is what we consider life to be such a great existence?</p>
<p>This is going so fast, make sure to quote whatever you're responding to</p>
<p>I have no proof there is a god, you have no proof there is not, whatever one chooses to believe they will always have to make their decision on speculation.</p>
<p>So you actually believe using your logic that everything we are and this world is, was created bya purely random act?</p>
<p>"Whats to say we aren't the worst combination of amino acids and the ensuing process?"</p>
<p>Have you seen any better creatures than us? NO, and you cannot "speculate" on anything without fact.... So as of now we are the ultimate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Have you seen any better creatures than us? NO, and you cannot "speculate" on anything without fact.... So as of now we are the ultimate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Better."</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you actually believe using your logic that everything we are and this world is, was created bya purely random act?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My logic tells me that any meddling into the issue is purely speculation and my time is better spent focusing on things I have sufficient evidence to grasp.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no proof there is a god, you have no proof there is not, whatever one chooses to believe they will always have to make their decision on speculation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is exactly the point I have been trying to make the whole time.</p>
<p>The supplementary point is that it is okay not to believe either way. That would also be the most logical decision.</p>
<p>Sounds good, I think this forum shows that it is truly impossible to convince people who believe one way or the other, away from their stance because of lack of fact.</p>
<p>It shows clearly the power of belief (and impression), and how much it can effect even the most logical people.</p>
<p>Sounds good? So you agree that saying there is a god is just as stupid as saying there definately isn't?</p>
<p>Everyone who is confused about Christianity should definitely go out and buy "The Universe Next Door: a worldview catalog" by James W. Sire. If you can get past the fact that the author is Christian and the first chapter is all about the wonders of Christianity, it offers tremendous insight into why anyone might choose Christianity over the other types of "religions" out there. This includes things like naturalism, which is the worldview most athiests holds, and its offshoots, existentialism and nihilism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sounds good? So you agree that saying there is a god is just as stupid as saying there definately isn't?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think this our conclusion; interested in what the pious have to offer.</p>
<p>I think we established that there really isn't anything that it truly offers other than a form of comforting delusion.</p>
<p>For those of you who enjoy these type of debates at <a href="http://www.sciforums.com%5B/url%5D">www.sciforums.com</a> there is a good forum for them.</p>
<p>HueyFreeman & cwatson I recommend you two check it out.</p>
<p>I'm not sure you're correctly interpreting the "Christian morality" argument. I'm not so closed-minded that I don't realize different cultures and different people have different definitions of what is moral and what is not. I'm not so closed-minded that I say "the only moral people are those who believe in God." But what I do think is notable here is that even people who don't believe in a god very evidently possess a "moral compass." The concept of right and wrong appears to be universal among the human species. No matter what the conflict, each person appeals to some higher standard of morality. It's easy to think that this morality varies greatly from culture to culture, religion to religion. But from the ancient Egyptians to the Aborigines to the "raging right wing conservatives" to the non-religious folk, similarities are undeniable, just as you say: murder, lying, stealing, rape, and oppression are "bad" while kindness, honesty, and fairness are "good." So the question is, why?</p>
<p>An evolutionary adaptation? We're taught in biology that altruistic acts ultimately support a population. But opposite behavior is often demonstrated in the animal world. Dominant male monkeys have been known to kill others' offspring to clear the way for their own offspring. And humans still commit small acts of conscience that no one ever knows about. We still feel pangs of guilt over things that no one will know about and that will presumably never effect anyone. Why? You say "morality is morality." You're arguing for moral absolutes. This is a pretty darn theistic argument, if you ask me. </p>
<p>So I think your view is a little backward. The morality of "an imaginary man in the sky" that church-goers abide by because they're afraid is not what points to a higher power. What points to a higher power is the very existence of a sense of morality at all, regardless of what "imaginary man" an individual does or does not believe in. Undeniably, there is something behind this. To quote one of my favorite authors, C. S. Lewis, "If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe-- no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or a fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find within ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?"</p>
<p>in philosophy here it is</p>
<p>Assuming God doesn't exists
Everything is created by something, things don't just come naturally in existence. Hence there's a creator(s) of all things.
-> the assumption is wrong!</p>
<p>Therefore God must exist. </p>
<p>Your concept of God depends on what type of religion you're in.</p>
<p>But ... having something to believe and learn from is better than having nothing.</p>
<p>So, ok, lets assume that God exists. Now prove that he is even remotely similar to what any religion on this earth claims. How do you know what he actually wants you to do? Besides guessing. What if in fact, you are now doing the exact opposite of what he actually wants?
Given the fact that you can't actually know anyway, whether he exists or not makes no difference either way.</p>
<p>Just because there's no way to prove that God doesn't exist doesn't mean his existence is as likely as his not existing. To demonstrate (thanks to Dawkins for this example): I cannot conclusively prove at this moment that there is not a teacup orbiting Pluto, with a blue flower pattern on it. It is possible. However, it is much much more unlikely than the situation of there being no teacup orbiting Pluto.</p>
<p>God is a far more unlikely proposition than the other alternatives offered by scientists. The idea of God (in Creationist terms) is similar to that of a crane that hooks onto itself and lifts itself into the sky - while other explanations (evolution, obviously) are more like a crane that steadily builds itself up.</p>
<p>However, this argument is too long to have in depth on a forum. Just wanted to make the point that just because two things can't be proven true or false, doesn't' mean they are both equally likely to be true.</p>
<p>Everyone of us is living in the false world, only god is in the true world..god encompasses no religion or boundaries..he is one with the universe and timeless.</p>
<p>This sounds similar to the Matrix, but this is what I believe.</p>
<p>i'm not a philosophy or theology major, but i know how these scientists prove the big bang, thanks to the lord of physics, einstein</p>
<p>basis of all sciences are on cause and effect. so, one must focus on this alone. "events" (effects) implies time for there must have been a cause; succession of events can only exist in the frame of time. if big bang is the beginning of time, the concept of cause is totally irrelevant since there was no time before the big bang.. (i don't how the exact argument goes)</p>