I was trying to explain why your assertion that  "You have to believe to see, not see to believe" looks stupid and I was not comparing snow to a higher power as much as comparing the belief in two unobserved phenomena, one of which happens to be a higher power and the oher happens not to be.

Also, when I wrote it I took it you meant it literally but reading another post by padib where he said "even though the bible is clear that without faith one cannot see God" made me realise that you probably meant see the spiritual world, not see physical things. It still look stupid when taken at face value given that it is unqualified but I understand where you come from if that restating is what you meant: "You have to believe to see spiritual things, not see to believe".

Assuming that I now correctly understand your assertion, my rebuttal would be that if it is your faith itself that causes you to see spiritual things then a muslim's faith or an hinduist's faith is sufficient for each to see spiritual things which leads to the logical conclusion (based on your premise) that every religious faith's spiritual world must exist as they all see it through their respective faith.

On the other hand, if their faith is not enough to conclude that these religion's spiritual worlds exist then their faith only gives them the illusion of seeing the spiritual world, in which case so does your faith gives you an illusion of seeing a spiritual world.

Your assertion was:

I only needed to mention one to disprove it.

Your argument sounds like blame the victim to me.

Regardless, the fact is that atheism was frowned upon in those time (and still is in America nowadays, I believe* that it would be easier to get elected whilst being gay than whilst being an open atheist).

*yes, it is an irrational belief because I can't prove it, though an educated one. If I were to guess I would say that your religious belief, while irrational by definition, is also quite educated.

Not knowing the exact details of your religious beliefs I was generally talking about religion in the abstract and getting more concrete in specific cases.

Religions in general do include statements about the world, and that is why they tend to clash with science if/when science sees the world differently. If your religious belief does not include such things then your religious belief cannot clash with science.

Also, within christianity your belief seems to be erroneous as Jesus said "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." (Matthew 5:17)

And the old testament says "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you" Deuteronomy 4:2

So while Christians may not need to obey the old testament laws because they are fulfilled in Jesus (supposedly, I don't see how as they are quite contradictory with the new testament but what do I know) they are still relevant and their edicts are still considered moral (even the ones we would find immoral today).

Incidentally, while I am agnostic technically speaking (I hold no belief as to whether any god exist) and atheist practically speaking (I live my life by and large like if no god exist) I am philosophically neither because I consider such religious labels (as well as christian, muslim...) to answer the wrong question and to have a wrong assumption.

The wrong question answered is "Does god x exist". My answer for all value of x is not yes, it is not know, it is "who cares". The truth value of a particular god's existence is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether the moral code expounded in its name is actually moral. If it is not and said god was proved to exist I still would not follow it (that would be like following lucifer if he had created the world and would thus be god instead of following yahweh if he had not created the world but had been created by lucifer and had rebelled and thus wasn't god). And if the religious code of a non-existant god is good then the lack of his existence should not prevent one from following it. 

I guess you could say that I view the idea of "it is moral because god said it was" as the epitome of the fallacy of argument from authority.

I do understand what you mean because believe it or not I used to have faith back when I was a kid and before I started questioning it. My argument is not that you can't feel like you know god's existence. My argument is that it is an illusion. If it is not then every religion's gods must exist for in all of them you can find people with enough faith that they just know that their god exist, or so they (and you) think.

Somebody having hallucination without knowing that they are hallucination (like a paranoid schizophrene as opposed to someone knowingly taking LSD) won't believe in the hallucination because for him they are not hallucinations; he will know that they are real. But his knowledge of their realness does not make it so.

Now I am not making the argument that religion is akin to paranoid schizophrenia (though I am not making the argument that it isn't either; I am simply silent on the subject) but the same principle apply.

Do you mean self-realisation? Or, to use a christian term, epiphany?

If so, not only do you not even need faith for it as you can also gain it through meditation and even sleep can suffice (hence the old advice to sleep on things) but I would argue that it is not so much the gaining of new knowledge as it is our brain analysing what we already know without our conscious input (which can often get in the way).

If such epiphany is about the material world or philosophy then you can test such newfound understanding to check if it is correct.

If such epiphany is about knowledge of supernatural things then it is derived from your former belief and is nothing more than a rearranging of same into a coherent whole. As it still has its foundation in beliefs it cannot be termed rational (whereas the case in the preceding  sentence can be verified or disproved and if verified is rational).

I agree that theism and science are different, but it does not follow that theism's axioms are necessarily true. As for true and righteous faith to be necessary, many (including me incidentally) go through the same process with similar results through mediation which does not necessarily require faith (just ask an ardent atheist like Sam Harris).

Such things help us organise our thought and can lead to new thoughts but it is not so much the gaining of new knowledge as much as the revelation into our consciousness of things we already knew inconsciously (whether on their own or as a synthesis of unconscious thoughts).

To reprise my example of the boy in the desert (sorry), he could imagine the concept of snow without seeing any or being told about it (no need of faith or meditation for that, just imagination) and could through such a meditative process convince himself that there has to be such a thing as snow somewhere in the universe but that perception of knowledge would not be actual knowledge until he travels to a place where there is snow.

Of course he would believe that he know that there is snow just like you believe that you know there is a god because from his subjective view it is knowledge even though it objectively isn't.

As for all religions delivering the same message I would say that a lot of them deliver the same core principles (peace, love...) but they often contradict them; which is why you can have a situation where some christians (not all) believe that it is logical and moral that unbelievers be sent to hell by a loving god to be tortured for eternity for failing to believe in a religion's subjective beliefs (like the deity of Jesus).

If god was so just and loving he would at worst send to hell those humans who have an evil heart and send to heaven those that have a good heart regardless of whether they believed in Jesus, maybe with a purgatory period before acceptance where he would correct them in their incorrect beliefs about the world and morality.

Yeah, I retract that as I did not understand that you are claiming that it could lead to spiritual knowledge but that you are not claiming that it can lead to physical knowledge.

It is a scientific theory which means that it will never be proven. It is however highly unlikely to be disproven because of the huge amount of evidence supporting it. I think the loudness of scientists on this subject is simply a reflection of many religious people's attempts to replace it with their beliefs. You would not see such vehemence with respect to the theory of gravity or to insist that the earth is an oblate spheroid because hardly anyone would bother to claim that there is no such thing as gravity and those few who claim that the earth is flat are not taken seriously.

The strong defense of evolution is because it is under an attack that may succeed, not scientifically because it can't, but politically; and such a political defeat would not be a defeat of evolution as much as a defeat of the scientific principle, the corruption and perversion of science for religious ends and the start of a new dark age.

Right now I don't really know. I grew up Christian but I'm starting to waiver a bit in beliefs.

I think it's either:

A) God created the universe (including people and everything) many years ago and after that evolution made us what we are now. Or;

B) The Big Bang could have happened but some kind of God put everything in place for it to happen.

I can't get my head around the idea there is no God, or some kind of supernatural force that created the universe, or put things into place. If there is no God how did everything necessary for the big bang come to be?

The thing is, such a question cannot be answered by starting with the premise that there is a god as in such a case the question collapses.

So if we (humanity) want an answer to the question we need to start without the premise of a god (which is different from the premise of no god) and work from there. Creationists (including ID) arenot scientists because they do not want an answer to that kind of question but want the answer to be "becaused god made it that way".

The first part isn't science because you're presenting an assumption without proof. You tell us that complex information requires an intelligent designer but you haven't given any proof for that statement.

As for the second part - the age of the universe is not 6 billion years, it's approximately 13.75 billion years. It is scientific as it is based on prediction, measurement and repeatability built on known scientific laws. If you're vaguely interested in how the calculation is done it's based on Hubbles laws.

(1) All objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other

(2) This doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies.

The only real assumption made in determining the age of the universe is that time is linear.

Also how the hell is the age of the universe related to evolution? One's cosmology and the others biology - they're working on way different scales.

Edit: @Padib. There is already more than enough proof of evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics etc, that the Genesis account is clearly wrong. The earth simply isn't a few thousand years old. I find it hard to believe that you have an open mind to science if you still believe that it is.

Evolution requires millions of years, the universe is billions of years old - as I said they are on quite different scales.

Also the acknowledged assumption that time is linear does not make your postulate any more correct, even if time is distorted the evidence still clearly points to everything originating in a big bang from a single point. Also carbon dating is calibrated because of the acknowledged variations of carbon in the atmosphere - to do this calibration they use things like uranium-thorium dating that cannot be done as universally but do not require calibration. Unless you're now going to claim without evidence that the half-life of uranium has changed massively over time so that it can fit in with your world view?

Finally a biblical flood would have left clear and obvious signs all over earth - notably a single large universal layer of strata matching up all over the globe. Such a strata does not exist - just like the flood that is supposed to have caused it.

Gah seperate posts are too hard to quote.

"I know. I understood Rath. What I meant was that the numbers have constantly grown over the ages, so it leaves breathing room to the theory. Remember, we're all human. So anything you pretend I have, such as wanting to fit things into my worldview, or bias, you'll find the exact same thing on the other side, hence the constant need for more time. If the universe is on a different scale, then that's much more breathing space.

If you're fair you'll understand what I mean. People have started out religious and have become atheist, some started out atheist and have become religious. Did they get smarter or dumber one way or the other? I don't think so. We're all just looking for answers. Why the prejudice? Remember, I have lots to learn, and will be the first to admit when I'm wrong. I'm looking at both your posts and you make great points. Keep in mind, I graduated in Software Engineering, not physics, not biology, not chemistry. But the topic is important to me, so I'm trying my best to understand both sides. My strength is not in technicalities, but in the big picture, though I am making an effort."

The universe being 13.75 billions years old is based on the assumption that something we have observed as a constant has always been a constant. The universe being in the thousands of years old is based on.... what exactly? To me it seems that you're taking it as fact that the universe is much younger and then twisting the evidence so that it can fit into that world view. As I said the big bang is not based upon the age of the universe, it's based upon the observable fact that all matter in the universe originated from a point and that it is now travelling away from that point. Also I do not believe that creationists are any more stupid than atheists - indeed some of my creationist friends are amongst the smartest people I know (and boy do we have fun drunken arguments on this very subject), I simply believe that they are not being scientific in their approach.


"See? Great use of scientific reasoning on a biblical account. So it is possible to use science to verify biblical claims. Why when using it to counter it's legitimate, but not in defense...

So, apparently there has been a lot of research done on that on the creationist side and in fact they have found many anomalies in the fossil record, things that shouldn't appear in one place appear there in masses. It can mostly be explained due to the washing out by massive waters and depositing them in an unusual region, where you would not expect them (e.g. mountaintops, sea creatures in deserts). Did you also know that the process involved in the flood is an excellent means of fossilisation, if not the best? Apparently, there's a way to make fossils using home appliances that you can do at home (I think it's part of a kid's program or something). You make a mix of mud and water and make it tumble in a drier or washing machine, I can't remember which. The other mechanisms explained by the secular model leave place to erosion and predation to destroy the bones and structures found in fossils. Enlighten me here again, I'm limited on the secular explanation of fossils (for now)."

Fossils are relatively rare compared to the number of creatures that have existed because fossils do not form particularly easily. If the biblical flood did happen a single distinct geological strata with mixtures of fossilised flora and fauna of all types would be found. Instead there are distinct geological eras with distinct flora and fauna - you will never find dinosaur bones at a Cro-Magnon site for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY

Sri Lumpa said:
Science wasn't always science but evolved through time to be come what it is today. It could also not be the same thing in the future if religious literalists had their way (granted it wouldn't be science anymore but they still would use the name to deceive people). Like freedom, science requires eternal vigilance to prevent its corruption.

 My Response:

I was not implying that Science was  the same as it is today as it has been in the past. I was stating the fact that science will always be changing in with new information we obtain through it and with new tools we aquire IN THE FUTURE. Humans back close to their beginning knew that if a rock hit them in the head it caused a sense of pain based on what we refer today as evidence through scientific methods of studying of the effects of a rock making contact with someones head with substantial force. We know through experience, and study that getting hit in the head with something hard and with a fast motion will cause pain. The first Humans knew that their bodies required food or else they get hungry and can die.

 Science can be described as; The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The early humans did this, but didn't know what science really encompased. They could study what their eyes observed, their ears heard, their nose smelled, and what they bodies could touch.

Sri Lumpa said:

 Science doesn't know anything; it is a process by which we can gain knowledge but knowledge is the result of science, not science itself. Also, we mostly don't study science (except in epistemology) but we use science to study a given domain.

 It may seem to be pointless semantics but it is important because most people do not understand what science is and they subsequently expect it to do things that are beyond its purpose and, when it fails to do so, claim it as a shortcoming of science; which is like complaining that a hammer makes a rubbish screwdriver. 
 

My Response:

Agreed. Science is not living and breathing. I could have used better wording in this instance. A more appropriate explanation of my point is that there is an absolute truth that exists, but man on his own will likely never be able to prove it without any doubt.It is true that some form of faith at some point must be required to accept the absolute truth in our origin and in our meaning of existance. 

 Sri Lumpa said:
A perfect example of what I just said. It is not science's role to prove or disprove whether a higher power exists. In fact, it can't do either because a higher power implies something that can break the laws of this universe (miracle) and generally is claimed to have come from outside it (and to have created it).

 Science is concerned with discovering how this material universe works. Anything outside of it (and thus any higher power) is outside of science's purview so expecting science to prove or disprove that a higher power exists is expecting a hammer to drive a nail.

 Now it doesn't mean that science cannot make the existence of a particular god less likely; for example the greek used to believe that lightning was cast by Zeus so having science help us understand lightning makes that particular belief much less likely though it wouldn't prevent anybody with ehough faith to believe that Zeus is the god casting lightning.

 When a scientist (like Dawkins for example) tries to answer the question (whether in the affirmative or the negative) of a god's existence they are not so much using circumstancial evidence as exapounding on their faith in the existence or non-existence of a god/gods. Granted, their belief is informed by their scientific knowledge but in the end, that last jump between evidence and belief or disbelief is a leap of faith.

 For example, Richard Dawkins will readily admit that the existence of god (of any flavour) cannot be disproved at 100% but he base his atheism on the probability of any god's existence being so small that it is virtually indistinguishable from zero (of course, religious people will have a different idea of that probability) so you might has well take that last little step away from belief or agnosticism to atheism. Of course, as small as it might be it still is a leap of faith. 

  My Response:

The entire problem here is the premise in which you seem to be implying and how other atheist scientists approach science. You come from the premise of, "our Universe and its properties exists by means which we cannot fully explain with sure confidence, however they exist outside of any real possibility of a creator or higher being." This is the same approach as saying, "My car has absolutely no maker, or designer. That mass of metal, rubber, frabrics, ect just became a car on its own." The universe is full of space and matter just like a car is. We see the universe contains planets, stars, galaxies, and at least one planet that is supporting complex life. That life requires everything its planet provides including position from the sun, the correct tilt of its axis and rotation, water, oxygen, nitrogen, correct gravitational pull, ect. The universe as well as our planet is a product. It is a product with certain laws and certain aspects of order. Using science one can determine by examination that a car was designed and made by an intelligent maker. So too using science one can look into our universe and through examination see that it too was designed by an intelligent being.

So my friend, Im sure you will try to counter this, but indeed when discussing the origin of our universe the premise of a scientist should be to use science to try and prove whether the universe can sceintifically exist without the existance of a designer, which they have yet to do even though you and some scientists claim they have. The current mindset of the scientist is to say, "The existence of our Universe required no intelligent maker". They might as well say,"The existence of my car required no intelligent maker". The universe exists with certain laws just like a car was made with certain laws of what its designer made it capable of doing for specific reasons. Do you not see the truth in this? 

 Sri Lumpa said:
Point number one is an incorrect summation of the big bang theory. First, there wasn't space as it is the whole point of the big bang theory that if the universe (space) is expanding and you rewind the clock then space itself must have been smaller and smaller the further back in time you look, until there was no space at all. Also, some theories of the big bang posit that time expanded during the big bang (like space did) so there wasn't necessarily time in the beginning either. As for gravity, I would make no difference whether it existed or not given that there was no matter to project a gravitational field. Zero from non-existence or zero from no matter projecting a field is still zero.

 The biggest problem I have with your summary though is that you say that the big bang started from a singular point, which is not quite correct as the big bang actually happened everywhere. It was a singular point only because there was no space.

 To see the difference imagine a cake with raisin. A typical explosion would be like having all the raisins in the center when the cake already exist and exploding outward to wherever they end up. The big bang is more like the raisins are distributed throughout the cake before it swells up during the baking process and as the cake itself becomes bigger the raisins expand too and move away from each other.

 Also, I wouldn't say that we have two options to choose from. I would say that option 1 is the best explanation (or group of possible explanations) advanced by scientists to explain the facts as we know them but it is subject to change and revision as we gain more knowledge. But any theory that want to replace the big bang will at a minimum have to explain all the same facts that the big bang does. Sri Lumpa said:
It implies that you believe that the existence of logic is dependent on the existence of a god, which is highly ironic as an awful lot of people whose livelihood depends on the existence of such a being tolerate logic up until it undermines their belief (and thus their livelihood) at which point they will say that reason is not enough and you must also have faith. Or worse, a lot declare reason to be contrary to faith, like Luther.

My Response:

I agree I may have articulated the big bang theory not percisley accurate. I have some relative understanding of it, but the problem is I have read so many different views on it from different scientists that there can be slight differences depending on who you read or talk to. Now, first of all I could easily punch a huge hole into your theory right off the bat. The farther back in time we go you say the space would be smaller and smaller until there is no space at all. So you are essentially saying space came about from no space at all...

 How does that theory even get discussed in realm of science? you have no space which then becomes space. Essentially you are saying that at the farthest back that time can possibly go there was "jack Sh1t" in existence and then eventually you have space, matter, gravity, elements, laws, chemicals, stars, planets, life, ect. How does that get even considered in science, which teaches that in order to have certain matter there must be something to make the matter in the first place? Even the ones who argue for infinite universes, what brought about any matter space for those universes to even have an existence at all?

 It is of course logical that it should be so as when confronted with logic undermining their faith (or part of it) either they abandon that particular faith (say belief in a flat earth because of Matthew 4:8) and are thus not a believer anymore (at least for that part of their faith contradicted by logic and knowledge) or they keep believing in their now discredited belief but do not do so with reason but with faith and in spite of reason (what some call blind faith).

 My Response:

You either don't seem to get what I am trying to say here, or you are just simply rejecting it entirely. How could beings such as us have the ability of understanding and the ability to use logic if in the beginning there was no intelligent force to allow us to have the ability to understand. According to a scientist with no belief in God life began as chemical reactions. chemicals do not possess the ability to understand or use logic. If there is no intelligent force to input the code of understanding to eventually arise in more complex life, then how would the first cells of life obtain that code of knowledege and intellect to appear later in more complex life forms?

Sri Lumpa said:

Science is actually quite close to proving the opposite (not close as in in the next few days but close as in it took us centuries to get to that point of understanding and it probably will only take us a few decades to finish the work on abiogenesis).

 We do not know what happen at instant zero of the big bang but we are reasonably certain of what happened right after, from a few seconds after the big bang until the universe cooled enough for baryons to form, then atoms, then stars, then planets (you need the first batch of stars to exist so they can manufacture heavier elements found in non gas giants planets and then to explode in a supernova to release those elements before you can have an earth like planet)...

 We know how we evolved from mono-cellular life forms to intelligent life forms. We do not have all the details yet (for example there are a number of competing theories on how sexual reproduction initially evolved, though the later break of symmetry between males and females is quite well understood) but we have the big picture.

 The biggest remaining piece of the puzzle would be abiogenesis: How life started out of non-life. We do have theories on how it might have started and there were experiments that simulated the conditions on the primordial earth that produced molecules that are necessary for life to form (but not life itself).

 Not only does science not prove that you cannot obtain intelligence from non-life but it is likely to prove the opposite (that life can begin and evolve toward intelligence without intelligent design) in the coming decades.

 The problem with that approach of your is that you basically believe in the god of the gaps. That is, before science knew as much as it does today, it was easy to believe in a superior being that was the cause of all those unexplained phenomena. As science progressed and explained more and more phenomena beyond a reasonable doubt religions started retreating from ascribing those phenomena to gods, leaving god-as-an-explanation-for-natural-phenomena to smaller and smaller pockets that science did not explain yet; i.e. god exists in the gaps left by science.

This is basically the reason why there is such a debate about teaching evolution in school, with young earth creationists trying to pass off their religious beliefs as a scientific theory so that it will be taught in school. They are basically drawing their line in the sand and do not want to concede that explanation of where today's species come from.

 I think that if one wishes to believe in god it is the wrong approach. Remember that god is supposedly this omnipotent being, so it is completely possible (under that assumption, of course) that he caused the big bang so that it resulted in life and intelligence as we know it without further intervention. It is equally theologically sound to believe that god created the world 5 seconds ago and made it look like it is billions of years old, including the cosmic background that is the best evidence of the big bang, including the light from galaxies receding away from us; light that appear to be thousand of years old but might have been created 5 seconds ago to look like it comes from a galaxy thousands of light-years away. Oh, and including all the posts in this thread that were written more than 5 seconds ago.

 Of course, such a position is not based on logic, it relies purely on faith in an omnipotent god.

 My Response:

The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include (a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, (b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, (d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and (e) eventually evolution into the first cells.  This process requires multimillions of links, all which either are missing or controversial.   Furthermore the parts required to provide life clearly have specifications that rule out most substitutions. Not once has abiogenesis produced any form of DNA in all studies done so far. It has not even produced nucleotide which is the basic building block of DNA. abeogenesis is therefore not close to unlocking any mysteries of how the first living cells. Most of it is just speculation from some scientists thinking they are close when abeogenesis has failed to even produce anything basic for building DNA.

 Also more species are dieing off than the amount of new species we are finding. The new species we are finding isn't due to new ones evolving, its due to an already existing species existing that we have just newly discovered. The other explanation is species A mates with Species B and is able to create Species C. No scientist that Im aware of has yet to prove that a certain species has evolved from another species without natural means of reproduction.

Sri Lumpa said:

 Scientists do not try to take god out of the equation, quite the opposite, god is not in the equation to start with (otherwise it would be theology, not science) and they have no need to put him in the equation. Like Laplace replied to Napoleon when the latter remarked that his scientific book did not mention god: "I had no need of that hypothesis".

You might want to google Occam's razor if you want to understand why scientists do not add god to their theories when they do not need it.

 It is your belief but it is not based on facts.

My Response:

Occam's razor suggests to use the most simplest method when it applys in science. The most simple explenation is often times the correct one. Well, I dont see how the big bang without a creator is more simple than the universe with a creator. The more simple and logical choice as I have laid out is a universe is a product. A product requires a maker. You cannot start with nothing and get something as the phrase goes.  

Sri Lumpa said:

 It goes both ways. In my experience a lot of people believe in god because they are afraid of their own mortality (for example claiming that "there are no atheists in a foxhole" which is false) and cannot bear the thought of their own annihilation at death, hence a convenient belief that doesn't require them to really die and even promise them rewards (I do not mention the threats of hell because every believers knows that hell is for other people, not for them as they are believers).

 My Response:

Sri Lumpa, I believe it because it is the simplest explanation that makes sense and that offers the best evidence based on what information we have available. The big bang still does not offer enough explanation even though some evidence could support it. There are some deep flaws in it. And a universe that exists without some form of intelligent intervention goes completely against any scientific principal out there, and yes the scientists who subscribe to it without questioning the its validity are just denying the obvious. Do you not see the evidence?

Sri Lumpa said:

A lot of people believe in god because they are afraid of the unknown and prefer to fill it with unicorns, leprechauns, dragons or god(s).

As forthe second part of your sentence, once again, it is your belief, nothing more.

 My Response:

First part, it is likely that some believe in God because they are afraid of the unkown, but I would argue for many its because the evidence gives it a lot of weight. Also the belief in a creator is much different than the belief in unicorns, leprechauns, dragons ect. You cannot put them in the same category. There is absolutely NO physical evidence that suggests unicorns exist. It is based on stories and fairytales. There is however some heavy evidence that a creator/ higher intelligent being does exist. Im like a broken record, but the proof is in the pudding. We can see, observe study, and examine our planet, other planets, our sun, the stars, and the universe and see a PRODUCT. a product that has laws. LAWS CANNOT JUST BE IMPLICATED BY NOTHING! Can a rock create laws on its own? answer me that, please. You cannot deny there are certain laws in place that make everything work the way they do. If not then science would  not be reliable as so many variables would constantly be changing without laws. 

Sri Lumpa said:

Like snowflakes: Emergent behaviour. Every snowflake is a highly organised pattern and there are millions (at least) of different patterns. It could be argued that such order cannot emerge from the disorder of water droplets and that it require intelligence to create them. Do you believe that god creates every single snowflake or that there are some simple rules that create all of that complexity.

Yeah, it's turtles all the way. Somehow you think that it is more logical to believe in one turtle (god) than in an infinity of turtles (gods) but your position is actually the least logical of all as either the world needs the support of a turtle (god) and thus logically that turtle (god) needs the support of another ad infinitum or the turtle needs no support and if it doesn't then why does the world need support? 

 My Resonponse:

Have you given thought to why the snowflakes come out of the clouds the way they do with that particular pattern? yes the cloud develops them to appear in that fashion. Here si something interesting about snowflakes: As the snow crystal grows, it's often blown about in the sky. The air and temperature around the crystal are consistently changing. Snowflakes are very sensitive; even a small change in these conditions can lead to different growth patterns.The final shape of the crystal reflects these growth conditions in what it endured. The longer the snowflake is blown about in the air above, the more complex the resulting snow crystal. No two crystals have the exact same history so they don't grow in the same way. no two have ever been the same, or ever will be.

It is more logical to believe in one God rather than a multitude of gods, if you look at our universe and its properties in the correct prism. If you observe the universe and come to the realization that it is a product with certain laws in place then you will see it has a maker. One maker makes more sense than a multitude of makers to me, because of how many things work together and in a uniformal manner. A universe with conflicting laws cannot exist. For instance in a setting you cannot have the law of A and also not-A in the same time and same relationship. It would be like me saying, "My house is by the street, and it is not the case that my house is by the street". that contradicts itself. The universe incorporates certain laws that just work together. In light of that it makes the case even more that it was one Designer that formed the product of the universe together with the laws that all work together. Also if the Designer of the universe is the ultimate being that incorporates all knowledge, power, eternity and energy then the need to support that being is null. That being is self sufficient. Yes there is a dose of faith that has to be used in this instance, but also it is evident that a scientist also MUST use a dose of faith when try to explain that the universe originated with NOTHING, because that defys what science can prove. That goes against science at its core. Both view points MUST require some form of faith to believe them.

 So I argue you too have to have Faith that the Big Bang transpired with NOTHING. Faith, and belief is required in that instance so you too must say IMB (In My Belief).

Sri Lumpa said:

If we had had that conversation a few thousand years ago you might have argued for the existence of god but claiming that lightning cannot be explained any other way than by a god creating it. If we had that conversation a few thousand years in the future you probably would accept the theory of the origin of life and intelligence (barring a nuclear holocaust, other catastrophe or the end of the world; I doubt that we won't have a very good idea of how life happened in a few thousand years, but that is just speculation) and would then argue another point.

In order to have a code of laws that programmed an omnipotent god to form there had to be some level of intelligence for those codes to form; so why stop where you do?

 My Response:

You and some scientists can continue to try and explain the existence of a universe with laws and order that began from nothing, but through the study of science we know that matter can not just appear when nothing  was there to begin with. If a scientist built an empty room that was impervious to rot, decay, and rust and sealed it off, no matter how long you wait you cannot get the creation of a complex product like a computer in that room.

 As far as your last statement, you make it, because you have the incorrect view of who the Intelligent Designer really is. It comes down to using some logic and I agree a dose of faith to believe that God is self suffiecent and eternal. One who does not need support, or other intelligent beings. Its a much easier explanation than the one you argue, which also requires faith. Obtaining a complex product with the start of nothing requires tremendous faith, because it falls outside of the realm of science in what we know.

Sri Lumpa said:

As for the luck of the draw and it making less snese than a god, the argument against that would be that, from your own admission, intelligence is more complicated than dead matter, so you are taking the problem of the origin of a very complicated universe with some reasonably intelligent life forms (us) and exchanging it with the even bigger problem of the origin of an entity more complicated than the universe itself as it needs to be supremely complicated to be able to create the universe. You are exchanging a difficult problem with an even more difficult one and then you argue that the exchange makes sense.

 My Response:

The argument makes much more sense, because through the sudy of science we see a complex product, which is the universe. The two options are it came about in same way or form by a complex being, or else "magic" has always existed and somehow a universe just spontaneously appeared with the codes to create all matter, laws, and life. a complex being makes more sense than a spontaneous existance of a complex product. How would I sound to a scientist if I went to him/her and said, "hey I was sitting on my bed last night and I saw pieces of metal, transistors, microprocessor, and other computer components form together and they all came together to make a computer right in my lap!" They would ask me if I take medication.

Sri Lumpa said:

Is it though? A volcano is just dead matter but it is pretty lively too. A star is only dead matter but it manages to create things more complicated than what it starts with (it starts with hydrogen and ends with heavier elements).

Just because we do not know the exact process by which the more complicated organisation that we call life first happened from less complicated substances does not mean it is not possible. 

 My Response:

 Stars have not produced any DNA that we have seen. So far scientists have yet to provide create anything that is even basic building blocks for DNA from dead matter. Its looking like even though dead matter can produce some more complex things it has never produced anything even close to the building blocks of DNA. So this  should not even be in the discussion if it hasn't even come close.

That article makes no sense. You find sea dwelling creatures such as the Plesiosaur amongst the dinosaurs and huge lowland dwelling creatures such as the Diprotodon amongst humans and other more recently existing creatures. Once again it's doing its best to make the evidence fit the theory, rather than looking at the evidence and building up a theory around it.

because of some shit that just happened.

i don't think that there's just one answer to this question. to think a god could actually make all this possible is just doesn't sit well with me.

the galaxy expanding is a power that continues to expand for some unforeseen/explainable reason.