LOL since I usually stay on the engineering side of things most of my stuff isn't as cool as determining how the universe works. Right now I'm applying for a couple patents with one of them being in layman's terms a 3D tv without glasses. It's most similar to http://www.holografika.com/ in terms of the result but my solution is roughly 75% cheaper to manufacture. I'm also getting close to patenting a new graphics engine that gets rid of everything we know about cgi and takes a different approach. It is designed for weaker processors such as phones being able to replicate the results of middle ground PC graphics. Everything else is either boring or is still in hiding.

All the best to you ;)

Atheists don't kill people. States do.

I still go further than just to say we exist, because the conditions for life exist. The conditions for life exist because of matter, energy, laws of physics, ect. Those exist due to their establishment through intelligent means without which I do not see the possibility for any form of order to exist whatsoever. I do not see any real possibility for any order whatsoever without an intelligent intervention to set the foundation for it.

To answer your question of course I cannot give you the answer of God since I do not know the mind of God. Nor does any religious text explain full detail a reason for an expanding universe, although even if it did I think you would likely question it.  I see it as a vast expanding universe that is a representation of the Creator's attributes to show how unimaginable He is.

As for a need for anything beyond our solar system He obviously knew that he was investing in very explorative creatures (humans). Ones that would be very intrigued by such a vast expansive space outside our solar system. He knew we would be creatures of discovery. And who is to say we are the only intelligent life that exists. Granted it takes a great deal of factors to be in place for even a small life form to exist on a planet, but there are many possibilities (planets) for all of the factors to come together in just the right way. Its possible we are alone in the universe and for whatever reason the Creator simply chose to only create us and an immense universe for his most intriguing creation (humans) to discover and explore what it entails in one of the ways that show His character to us.

As for our planet's coming destruction, there are still many years to pass by for that to occur. we will likely either have the technology to make other habitable arrangements, We destroy ourselves, or what I see is that our fate simply will be determined before that.

There however is one major point I disagree with in that, "nature is God itself." No, in order to be able to establish all that we observe before us, the ability we have for communication, our thought processes, our emotions...Our Creator does indeed have a character. Just by observation our Creator is not nature itself, but a real true entity with a character and of limitless knowledge. I see no other way for us to exist than for an intelligent being to have brought all of the universe, nature, and life itself into existence.  The thought that we have what we have today just from a beginning set of laws and simple calculations is foolish to say that somehow those set of laws and simple calculations with the means to materialize matter have always existed without any means of intelligence to establish them.

Yes, we have the ability to understand the realities and processes by which our universe operates. If we have the ability to understand physics, mathematical equations  and therefore that is what has led us to what we know and understand today about how the universe operates then one must address where we obtained the ability for that knowledge.

In the beginning of the universe if one uses evolution as the basis then the calculations in order for our life forms to eventually have the ability to understand our universe and how it operates was surely present. If it wasn't then none of us in our current abilities would be here today. In the Science community's current explanation through mathematical calculations, energy, time, development of matter, ect everything we see now came about. But the very tool of mathematics must take intelligence to understand it. Therefore, the ability for us to have intellect, knowledge and ability to understand the use of mathematics would mean that intelligence must have existed at the start of the universe in order for us to have the ability of thought process today.  Intelligence can't be created by a mathematical process. Intelligence is what allows us to understand the use of mathematics/physics and therefore unlock the processes of our universe.

Matter, energy, laws of physics are conditions. You're separating identical things for some odd reason, probably to suit your own argument.

These exist because of the result of an action, not an intelligent action. The laws presented themselves after the resolution of the Big Bang, not prior. That's ludicrous. 

You missed the point entirely in regard to the size of the Universe. Why wouldn't there be simply a Universe the size of the solar system? There is no need for billions of other stars and planets. It's pointless. It's wasteful. 

You see intelligent design because that's what you're looking for which detracts from your ability to be objective.

It is possible that life is only present on Earth, but the odds of life existing elsewhere are VASTLY superior to this notion. See the Drake Equation for this confirmation. 

I do, however, agree that by the time the Sun is large enough to destroy our planet, we'll have the means to leave, and perhaps become a nomadic space species, but this in no way ties in with biblical teachings.

Proviso: I’m only speaking about Christianity in the following.

Regarding you first paragraph, John 3:16 is probably the most well know verse in the Bible, “For God so LOVED the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” If you know anything about Christianity, as you claim you do, you would know that the whole of Christianity is based on God’s love for us, in that we cannot save ourselves because of human nature, that he sent his Son Jesus out of love to help bring us salvation from ourselves. Analogy, some people use knives to kill, some people use knives to cook, but that doesn’t change what a knife is. Similarly Christianity is love, no matter how people use it. It’s the people that are wrong not Christianity.

Regarding your second paragraph, so where has all this fighting religion gotten you? You sound quite bitter and broken to me. Maybe you should stop fighting, and start loving.

Regarding your third paragraph, I agree that it is wrong to simply say that God doesn’t like homosexuals. Again I say God loves everyone. However it is the ‘unnatural’ sexual act that, IMHO, God has a problem with. For example, Murderers and Homosexuals are no different, as it is not the person that is the problem, but the act that they commit. Thieves and Liars, etc, are in the same boat, sin is sin, wrong doing is wrong doing, God doesn’t single out Homosexuality.  So while you were right stand up against those ‘Christians’, I assume because of your lack of knowing what the Bible says, you could argue except out of hatred. For example, why did you recite John 8:1-11 for them?

Regarding you fourth paragraph, too many points for me to tackle, so I will just focus on Faith. Again, I say that it is clear you have a lack of knowledge about the bible. For example, if I ask you what is faith, you probably give me some crap you pulled from the internet. But the bible clearly tells you what faith is at Hebrews 11:1 that “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Now if you were study and dissect just that one verse from the Bible you will see that ‘Christian Faith’ has substance and is based on evidence. Then there is the word ‘hope’, which the bible also explains in great detail, but it’s not the kind of hope that people commonly use. Christian faith and hope has a sense of surety about it, for example, I hope that when I go to the bank I can get 20 of my 30 dollars put in. Not the same hope that I will win the NY lottery someday.

Regarding you fifth paragraph, God will not force you to believe in him, so neither should anyone else. The choice is yours. However, the evidence of God is all around you. For if you can believe that airplanes, cars, buildings, bombs, etc, in there perfection were all created, why would not believe that, humans, animals, water, mountains, in there perfection were also created? In the same way computers where created and didn’t just spring from the ground, same way humans didn’t just sprout from the ground. Bible talks about the evidence of God in Nature J 

Sixth paragraph, Christianity hopes to save all and that all come to the recognition of God. But it also says that MOST people will not believe. Hopefully you would be one of the MOST that don’t believe.

And finally, your last paragraph, I welcome you challenge, but please just post one or two. I really can’t tale these long posts J 

But that's the issue, dude, the 'for god so loved the world' stuff is only the new testament.  Half of the bible.  the revisionist edition.  There's a whole series of books about judgement and hellfire and sodom and floods and all this stuff about burning people and sleeping with animals.  I respect and appreciate that you chose to believe the parts that are about love and unity, but let's be honest here, you can't honestly think that's all there is.  That's one of the reaosns I dismiss religion:  its members tend to pick and chose what they want to believe in, explaining away what doesn't coincide with their own beliefs.  

I'm not broken and bitter, I'm actually a very happy, positive guy.  I have done more to help than most people I know, I don't need religion to tell me to be kind to others, I just really, really dislike what religion has done to the world.  I have a problem with religion becuase you don't NEED a god to tell you to be good, but it's a damn good excuse for judging others and getting away with it.  if I was to go on a hateful rant about how homosexuality is wrong becuase it doesn't make babies and is unnatural, I'd be laughed at and rightfully persecuted for my ignorance.  But if I say GOD says homosexuality is a sin, I'd have people worldwide backing me up, and the media would ignore me becuase I have a 'freedom of religion.'  This goes for anything from restricting science (stem cell research, refusing to teach evolution in schools), to the judging of others.  Nobody complains when someone does something good in the name of god, but when you do something terrible or say something terrible you're defended for your religious rights, and that's a double standard.  

This is another thing, what's wrong with homosexuality?  it doesn't actually harm anyone, provided the right precautions are taken (lube, condoms, etc), but the same thing can be said about building a house or going skydiving.  There is absolutely no harm to engaging in homosexual behaviours, so there's no reason to have a problem with it.  It's unnatural?  says who?  animals hump their own males, and that's okay.  We make computers and houses and plastics and vehicles and that's all unnatural, so why doesn't god have a problem with that?  Is it a matter of not making babies?  who cares?  the world is overpopulated, it wouldn't kill us to have a few fewer babies.  by that statement, condoms should be against god's law too, and anyone with a brain can tell you that's just plain stupid.  

I do not lack knowledge about the bible, I've read it front to back three times in my life and have idly been doing research on its lessons, judgements, and inconsistencies.  And don't lecture me on faith, I know precisely what faith is, and nobody likes my assessment of it.  Faith is, for all intents and purposes, the belief in something not based on proof.  And therein lies my issue.  you cant possibly know that god exists or does not exist, you can'tpossibly know if there's an afterlife, yet people are dedicating their lives to this belief, and that saddens me.  If you want to believe something or have faith in god, that's fine, but that's why I think you should keep it to yourself.  As soon as you put it out there for all to see, you should be expected to withstand logical criticism.  

WE created buildings and airplanes, of course they were created.  the difference between a wheelbarrow and a beaver is that beavers are natural and wheelbarrows are man-made.  This is an inherently flawed argument from three diffferent angles.  To make it worse, who made God?  if you have to believe everything was created, why doesn't god need a creator?  what's that?  he doesn't?  He defies conventional laws of physics?  Well gee, that's awfully convenient of him.  Who's to say the creation of the universe isn't just something equally beyond our understanding?  There's no NEED to apply a grand creator to the whole ordeal, that's just silly and desperate.  

I'd love to meet your challenge, but there is no challenge in place.  Your one thing about 'we believe things are created, so why can't we be?' argument is flawed right out of the gate.  it's a return to that faith thing, faith that what you believe is true despite there being no evidence.  we have evidence buildigns are created, we see them being created.  There is no actual argument for human creation beyond "Well, we might have been created, we don't know."  Yeah, and a giant might have molded mountains from rock and dirtbecuase he was bored, we don't know, but that's certainly not significant evidence to claim that it is the truth.  

it is nice, however, to speak with someone who is capable of writing something that can actually be deciphered, so thanks for that. 

little something for the people claiming I can't debate or am full of shit:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=151401&page=1#

Wow,when in doubt attack grammar? Should point out all of your grammar mistakes? 

My writing was coherent its probably you are slow.

Please tell how it was incoherent?

Quote me and don't make claims.

I formatted my responses to the quotes to keep everything organized. My responses relate to everything being quoted and my responses in them go in order of each issue presented from first to last. And to the issue of grammar I just read everything over and there really is some grammar mistakes because I didn't go back and proof read, but then again you had some grammar mistakes yourself.

If you need me to organize even more with sub-quotes (which I was trying to avoid so it wouldn't be to long). Then ok, I will gladly do. I want to give you no reason to avoid my points.