If Hitchen's challenge is correct, then why are there ethical lapses?

[_mevildan]

BenVTrigger said:

Jay520 said:

BenVTrigger said:

No not really.  The Universe obeys by its own laws.  Just like the figures in thw drawing do.  No where in the known Universe do we see examples of creation out of wholly nothing.  It has laws.  Just like the figures in the drawing coildnt suddenly become 3 dimensional beings or jump out of the paper.  One law we observe in the universe is matter is pretty much a constant and cant just self create itself.

A God however would exist outside of the Universe and wouldnt have to obey by its laws.  Just like you yourself can be 3 dimensional and capable of things your 2 dimensire onal drawings could never imagine as being real.  The belief the Universe created itself also hinges on the belief that from chaos naturally things gain order, another non observable trait that defies known science and logic.

observable universe =/= Universe

We have no idea what goes on outside the observable universe and thus have no idea of its laws. So no, we don't know what laws it obeys by. 

So you have nothing against the universe that can't be applied to religion. Religion has all the problems of the universe creating itself +1.

Also, I hope you have found out what atheism encompasses since we aren't talking about atheism.

Most Atheism believes the Universe is self replicant.  Something I just cant behind when weve never observed it. we HAVE observed someone creating something however and logically speaking it just seems like a more sound choice.  Again Ill use another thought experiment to illustrate my point.

Imagine you take 2000 bricks, a couple pounds of cement, and a bunch of TNT.  You put them all into a pile and blow up the TNT.  You repeat this process every time for 1 million years.  The pieces after the explosion never come together to build a house. In fact there is always pure chaos withpieces strewn everywhere without order.  The big bang (something most people who believe in Universe self creation believe) is this on an unimaginably bigger scale.  We never even get a house after a small explosion and Im expected to believe something as infinitly complex as the Universe is possible after the same senario?

If you walk up and see a house which is more logical.  That the house built itself or that a carpenter built it.

Your analogy of blowing up a stack of bricks and other materials is really just a form of Hoyle's Fallacy.

Also, Big Bang is just a name. Big Bang theory doesn't describe an explosion of any kind, but an expansion of a singularity. Nobody knows what was before the singularity. After the singularity we know quite a bit. Also, nobody in science thinks anything complex came together almost instantaneously, but rather through lengthy periods of slow increases in complexity.

PS: Are you really doubtful of Big Bang Theory and it's supporting evidence?