Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

[highwaystar101]

Allfreedom99 said:

highwaystar101 said:

Allfreedom99 said:

Final-Fan said:

Freedom, I take it from the fact that you have completely dodged answering any of highway's points, in favor of vague "meaning of life"-type rhetoric, that you in fact have no answer to his points, but cannot bear to admit it. 

I won't presume that the same is true of my post; perhaps you just ignored it since I wasn't the one you originally responded to. 

 Do me a favor and answer some of the questions I asked the user,highway. Can you explain to me why murdering someone is wrong if we are all just properties of mathematics and chemical reactions? If in the beginning there was chaos then why do we have gravity?

The point he's getting at is that you can't just ignore parts of the argument if you don't have a valid reply, and then replace them with another unrelated argument. It's not sporting play when debating.

When debating it can become very tiresome and frustrating very quickly for the other side if you ignore their best points.

Personally I don't care, I'm not going to chase you down for a rebuttal. But I do think it is not good form.

(I can admit that at times I do become frustrated with another debater's behaviour. But in these cases I will outright ignore them, not just answer a portion of their points.)

...

Also, it is not acceptable to ask someone to answer a rebuttal aimed at someone else. Final-fan may not support the same hypotheses as me. He may even agree with some of your points and not mine. Just because we're on the same side does not mean that it is appropriate for you to request his answers to questions that were addressed to me.

If you wanted your rebuttal to me to represent answers to his points as well, you should have said so.

If final fan wants to answer those questions, then that is his choice.

Highwaystar, the main reason I did not rebuttle to your reply is because you did not ask me any questions. You simply made statements about what I posted. I could have chosen to expand on what you stated, but instead since I saw no questions that needed answered I moved on. If you want me to answer something pose it in the form of a question and I will be more likely to answer it instead of taking the time to expand on everything you make a statement about.

I will, however go ahead and rebuttle on one statement you made in point 1 part 2 I believe. You were saying that colours can be better explained by biology and physics rather than by God. I do not see how you can even have physics and biology without an intelligent being that causing those methods of study to come about. I sound like a broken record but I just simply dont see how you can get complex thought and logic that starts from a singular point. How can Physics and biology suddenly come about with out the intelligence it takes to understand them?

I made many points, just because they were not in question form does not mean they are not intended to be replied to, especially when they are a response to your points. Does every statement addressing one of your points really need to end with a question saying "what do you think of this?"

...

Again, you're coming up with another false dichotomy - Either the Universe has a creator to create physics, or there is no Universe.

Physics does not require a creator, if it did you would not be making the statement "I understand there is no way to measure "God" with science, because it is something in the supernatural realm" because physics would be proof of supernatural intervention. Heck, you could throw the conservation of energy out the window straight away.

How about a third option. Physics is a consequence of infinite chance. If an infinite (or incredibly large) amount of Universes existed, then there would be an unimaginable amount of combinations. Some would have the same laws of physics as us, many more would have different laws of physics than us and some may even have no laws of physics. It's just a coincidence that this universe is suitable for our type of life to observe it.

It's just a thought. There could be any amount of hypotheses.

The origin of the laws of physics themselves is an intruiging question, maybe one that may never be answered fully. But it certainly does not require one to immediately jump to baseless conclusion that God did it.

...

Just another thought, surely any kind of entity needs physics to exist, otherwise it can't exist. So what physics does God adhere to, and what was the origin of those physics.

...

Ack I've been drawn into a theological debate now. This was not my intention. I originally wanted to stand up for atheists against being seen as boring grey emotionless machines.