My rationale behind why I don't like putting more than a few minutes at a time into any religious discussion (it's not a debate) can be summed up in a quote from House:



as mentioned earlier, I spent 7 years of my life under constant scrutiny by religious types including my family, peers, teachers, and even my girlfriend. I had to bring it all together to argue against religion, and I was unable to find a counterpoint that wasn't grounded in a logical fallacy or three, so I gave up. There is no debating religion with the religious because no amount of evidence that their religion is wrong or at least illogical or directly in opposition of established scientific truths will make them even go "Wait, maybe I've put too much stock in this belief system."

As far as the religious are concerned, they have the truth and no amount of arguing will make that persistence waver, even if you conclusively prove everything in the bible as wrong, scientifically impossible, and/or contradictory. as long as they have the "Well you can't possibly know there is no god" or "Something had to come before" arguments, they will never let go of this irrational thought process.

Or maybe they just are scared of the prospect of there not being an afterlife and NEED to buy into the entire deal if they want that sliver of hope.

Either way, unless you can prove God exists, prove that your religion is right, and prove that your interpretation of your religion is right, the entire doctrine should be treated as the theological mythology it is until proven otherwise. a great thing to discuss or even debate philisophically, but not something you should base your life around or take as absolute, infallible truth. At best, Religion is the structure we as a people can stand out hope and unity on, but as a defining theoretical origin story, it fails miserably.

I agree, if there is a God it is an amorphous one. 

Your argument, however, is very wrong. We exist because the conditions for life exist. Not vice versa. We actually know this to be true through evolution. 

The relatively stable condition of our Universe is a settling of an initial event, but there really is no stability. It's an illusion at best, there is mass chaos at an atomic level and even more instability at a quantum level. 

Let me pose question to you. Why, if this was all created by an omniscient being, would there be an expanding Universe? Why would there be a need for anything beyond the solar system itself? Why is there so much wasted space? Why will one day the Sun destroy the very planet we live on? Nothing but questions with not a single answer in religious texts.

The answer is obvious, if there exists a God, it is nature itself. 

If nothing established the laws of physics then how would they even be laws in the first place? there has to be a catalyst for a law to exist, or else the law would not be able to materialize on its own as a reality.

And you say why isn't the laws just naturally part of the universe? Well then how did the universe get its code to form the way it has in the order that it displays? You say it was physical laws that have always existed. But if all you have are just laws with nothing to materialize then all you have are just laws in a dark void with no purpose, therefore the laws are mute with a lack of any effects. To get what we have today you need laws and something that can materialize.

Laws establish order. Order cannot be created by itself if no intelligent influence exits, or else all you  have is void.

What observable and reproducable evidence is there for the existance of god?  What experiment can I do that leads to that hypothesis being valid?  There is none.  There is no scientific evidence that even hints at a possibility of a god. Any conclusion needs to be reproducable.  That is how science works.  So yes, it is self evident.  You are operating under a base assumption that god exists and then expect science to disprove it.  That is not how it works.  Science assumes nothing is true until it is shown to be likely through the scientific method.

Howeve you visualize your god to you is irrelevant.  Why is the assumption that a god exists and is eternal is completely fine to you yet the posibility of eternal matter is insane?  

You keep making these claims as things being only from intelligent sources and I dispute that conclusion.  What evidence is there that laws, or products, can only come from intelligence.

I also don't view the universe as all that complex.  I just feel its simplicity has yet to be understood.  All of matter is composed of small elementary particles that interact with each other (and space-time) in very specific ways.  All complexity is just natural consequences of the properties of those molecules interacting with each other on a grand scale.  Think of an ocean of water with turbulent waves spread out over thousands of miles.  It all seems very chaotic and complex, yet the way two individual water molecules interact with each other is not all that complicated.  Its just that interaction taken to a massive scale.  throw in some forces from wind, gravity, and lunar pull and poof, you have some seeming complexity.

Complexity is also largely subjective.  What we deem complex is simply so because of the limits to our intelligence.

EDIT: I can give a better example.  Check out the "Mandlebrot set"

It is a fractal image of infite scalability, self-similarity and seemily endless complex patterns.  However, this apparant complexity arises from some very simple interactions:

use the function Xn = (X(n-1))^2+c
c is an imaginary number defined by a point on the cartesian coordinate system.
If the function does not escape to infinity while iterating, it is part of the set.

From those simple rules you get things like the following.  Perceived complexity from actual simplicity:

Well unless you consider the secret German Documents about plans after the war... which were "Destroy and replace christianity and replace it for "Worship" for the german state....

and all the public denounciations of christianity.

The Mein Kampf Statement was just something so he didn't lose support of the relgiious until after he had power.  Anyone who's even remotely studied WW2 with any seriousness should know that.

Okay, that wasn't really relevant to my point. You're late to the party. Maybe read the thread prior or something? Thanks.

What? Why has there a catalyst to exist? It makes no sense it all? You BELIEVE that there is a catalyst, and that may or may not be so. But to claim there MUST be a catalyst has nothing to do with logic.

The laws of nature need not to be materialized. If they materialized, after which laws worked the universe before that moment? And where came that laws from?

Why need the laws of nature a purpose? That is completely illogical. Some of us may hope there is a sense in the existence, but hope is no proper proof, that there is a sense. Also the laws itself probably can establish something. Go into the details of quantum physics.

One of the most important laws of nature is, that the order of the world reduces (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics ). So your statement that laws establish order is flawed. Also you state, that order cannot be created without intelligent influence. And that assumption is based in what?

Get me right here: I don't want to attack religions. But you state, that the existance and the working of our world show, that an intelligent influence exists. But to support your claim, you make one unproofed assumption after another. I do not claim, that there is no such intelligent force, but I say your arguments do not proof the existence of one.

So the plan was: to install a religion. But not christianity. So far I thought it was a discussion about theism and atheism. Now you put a 'germanity' against christianity. But both are completely theistic.

Not a real religion no.  As in, the plan was to turn peoples worship and devotion to the state.  Like extreme nationalism.

The most obvious example that comes to mind is the "USA!" USA!" chanting people.