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

[Final-Fan]

Allfreedom99 said:

Ok, so going backwards on your reply in that im alex trebek demanding questions or else I refuse to respond to everything. Which by the way you did give me a laugh remembering all the saturday night live skits of will farrell doing Alex Trebek. But thats completely random and besides the point :). To answer you on this, I simply don't have time to spend every moment reading everyones posts. I do admit anything that is addresse to me I read everything. Other posts I may pick out pieces from posts and then read the ones fully that intrigue me. I also simply dont have time to try and answer everything in a reply especially the long replys you sometimes give. to be a little more personal, I work full time, have a pregnant wife, my mother law is currently living with us (YIKES!) since her husband died last year, and I try to get my video gaming in when I can of course :). Yes Im a married gamer nerd soon to be daddy. (although if you saw me I dont have the nerd look. honestly.) And yes we are all nerds here. lets admit it. Not to say everyone else on this forum dosn't have busy lives, but I personally will reply to the things that I think need to be rebuttled with the amount of time I want to spend on them. I could answer everything on your post if your willing to wait a day and a half. Your current post here has a wide range of topics of rabit trails I could go down and if I responded to everything you would probably be reading a small book. I don't want to put you through that as Im sure my beliefs are nonsense to you as well as probably commical just judging from your posts and beliefs.
I will try to make this a brief as I possibly can:

1. to answer your first paragraph. of course I saw beauty. that just shows me the capabilities of a creators design. Fractals are indeed very beautiful. It still dosn't prove that mathematics is somehow outside the concept of God's nature. So im not sure your of your point is in bringing these up.

2. Second,third,fourth paragraph. Of course I will admit that you can't always use common sense on everything. Some things in life you surely cannot make sense of. This may not be the best example, but my mind cannot comprehend infinite time but I understand what its property is. infinite time dosn't make sense to me. Neither an infinite universe, of which I understand there is a debate whether the universe is infinite or finite. I don't know for sure how far the universe expands, but we definately aren't close to finding an end and there may be no end. My mind can't comprehend something with no end to it, but I know infinite space could possibly exist. Also gravity is something that I know is hard for scientists to even comprehend. The video was very interesting as it does show that some things just dont make sense to us. I still don't see how this disproves that there is so much evidence for creation by an intelligent being.

3.fifth and sixth paragraph. The laws of physics rely on the laws of mathematics. If in our universe 1 plus 1 did not equal 2, but 3, then our universe would be a chaotic one in which physics could not transpire. The laws of mathematics say that 0 equals 0 and 1 plus 1 is definitley 2. 1 plus 1 is not sometimes 3 or sometimes 0. Excuse me but did mankind create the laws of mathematics? no. Mathematics existed in the universe before mankind existed. Physics without the laws of mathematics could not be possible. The laws of mathematics can be understood by the laws of logic no doubt. We cannot imagine the laws of logic could be any different than what they are. You cannot have both "A" and "not A" at the same time in the same relationship. The laws of logic do not contradict itself. With no laws of logic you and I could not have rational thinking and therefore would not be speaking to eachother rationally. If you change something in the laws of say mathematics or the laws of logic then all of the laws could not work in unison. They all have certain laws and properties and therefore work together perfectly. So we see laws of consistency. In consistensy and logic we see an intelligent creator. its not that hard to comprehend.

4.eighth paragraph: every human being on this planet indeed has a conscience. Indeed there are people who just kill and rape and appear to have no remorse for their actions. Those people are sick and have mental illnesses no doubt. Those people don't even know or understand what they are doing. They dont understand what life even is. You admitted to me that you have personal morals. If we truly are just properties of chemical reactions then absolutely no morals should exist. If I steal your wallet and you say I was wrong to do that then I could say my morals say that I can steal people's wallets. chemical reactions does not have morals that they live by. From this standpoint if I was to say "murder is wrong" then it should be no different than saying, "my favorite color is blue". these would all just be opinions and not accepted morality in society. Answer me this, if human beings are simply chemical accidents then why should any of us be concerned about what eachother does?  We dont get mad at baking soda for reacting with vinegar do we? This is just how chemicals act. Do you understand this?

The quote says that the universe and the stars dont care. well thats true, because they have no conscience and therefore no moral obligation to us. If a meteor falls from the universe and crushes someone it has no conscience to care indeed.I don't see how this trys to prove that there is no creator. Are you happy now that I answered virtually everything you said and had comments on them? I hope so.

0.  I understand that you have a life and may not be able to spend all day on VGChartz reading and writing responses.  But when you DO respond to someone's post, and it's not on topic at all but goes off in some random other direction without addressing the other guy's points, that is seriously aggravating.  Do you realize that that is not the way to have a discussion? 

On the other hand, it's totally reasonable to try to rein the discussion in and keep it from going on too many tangents, or even to say "I don't know too much about that and don't want to research it just to argue you" or whatever. 

1.  Actually I guess I was bringing that up due to misremembering what you'd said about you vs. atheists appreciating the universe aesthetically, so you could say I didn't really have a point.  But while we're on the subject, mathematics is in fact a human creation.  See point 3. 

2.  And what evidence is there for creation by an intelligent being?  I'd say none.  All we know is that something happened to cause the Big Bang, that cause is still the source of much speculation.  It could be something caused by another universe, either a natural occurrence or intelligent action (accidental or intentional).  Just because the universe turned out the way it did, having physical consistency and makeup that allowed life to form, isn't proof of anything. 

3.  (A)  PHYSICS doesn't rely on anything.  Things happen in the universe and that's that.  They generally can be counted on to happen in consistent ways, but according to highwaystar that may not be universally true (heh heh).  The "laws" of physics are just theories that have stood up so well that people consider them so basic, and so surely right, that they are called laws. 

(B)  I'm not a mathematician, so someone might correct me on this part, but I seriously doubt I'm wrong:  1 and 1 make 2 because of the definitions of 1 and 2.  It's all just playing with numbers.  Humans have the numbers in their heads and put them together and take them apart, and recently we've taken to doing it in REALLY fancy ways that can teach us a lot of things about the mathematical relationships, but it's all just us.  There is no universe where adding one and one make 3 because the rules of mathematics are definitional, not contingent on reality.  God didn't "make" the laws of mathematics any more than the people who went around discovering the theorems. 

(C)  Again, physics being consistent isn't proof of God.  Mathematical consistency certainly isn't, because the consistency is inherent.  For all I know, and for all you probably know, the universe's physical consistency, if it is consistent, is also an inherent property of it. 

4.  "If we truly are just properties of chemical reactions then absolutely no morals should exist."  This is completely wrong.  It is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint and from a society's standpoint that people have morals against killing etc. except for good reason.  A species, or a society, would not survive if they went around doing the equivalent of "knifing each other for giggles".  This has been explained to you before but you apparently did not pay attention, or if you did you have not seen fit to argue why we are mistaken.  Therefore those morals would develop for good WORLDLY reasons without God's involvement at all.  (Keep in mind that to a primitive culture, "the sun god needs sacrifices for a good harvest" may be a good reason to kill someone.  Even today some cultures justify killing people when someone feels their honor has been insulted.) 

When you say stuff like, where's the morality in baking soda reacting with vinegar?, it just seems ridiculous.  In fact, I think you say it because it's ridiculous, and you're trying to claim that if people are solely physical beings (electric currents included), then we would be just as amoral as that chemical reaction.  Well, whoever fed you that line of bullshit, you should go back and throw it in their face because it is completely ignorant.  I've explained above (briefly) why evolution of purely physical beings, without God implanting rules in our brains with heavenly microchips, is perfectly sufficient for the development of morals.  Animals are unimaginably more complex collections of chemicals than baking soda and vinegar, so it makes sense that our behavior would be as complex as it is.  If you want to discuss that in more detail then we can do that. 

5.  The quote was what I thought was a really good statement of why the universe is not as bleak for an atheist as lots of religious types seem to think.  I guess it rolled off you like water off a duck's back, but whatever.  It wasn't trying to "prove" there's no God, and I really don't know why you thought that's what I was trying to do with it.  It was another way of answering the question, "if there's no God what does it matter if we all murder each other?"  You don't need God to have right and wrong, and behave accordingly, believe it or not. 

6.  Yes, I'm glad that we're having an actual discussion instead of ... well, I'm glad.