Grey Acumen:

"Arguing against the existence..."

The better safe than sorry does not prove gods existence

"Man, by nature is imperfect, but must also strive towards perfection."

Que, by what standards?

"God is no longer a source of perfection and man loses a critical incorruptible role model that is necessary for society to flourish."

Nietzsche discusses this, Habermas and Foucault too. I don't think any one of those guys believe(ed) in god, but they are discussing the need to anchor morals, ideas and ideals to absolutes. Postmetaphysical approaches are about this kind of issues, but it shows not that god is needed in anoher way than as guidance.


"So on one side, you have the fact that God does exist, and thus it should be accepted that he exists, and on the other side, whether god exists or not he NEEDS to exist, and thus is should be accepted that he exists."

There are no evidence that he exists, and there is no way to disprove his existence, so the discussion about god existense is from a popperian perspective not science at all, since it's nothing that you can falsify.

Grey Acumen:

"Arguing against the existence..."

The better safe than sorry does not prove gods existence

"Man, by nature is imperfect, but must also strive towards perfection."

Que, by what standards?

"God is no longer a source of perfection and man loses a critical incorruptible role model that is necessary for society to flourish."

Nietzsche discusses this, Habermas and Foucault too. I don't think any one of those guys believe(ed) in god, but they are discussing the need to anchor morals, ideas and ideals to absolutes. Postmetaphysical approaches are about this kind of issues, but it shows not that god is needed in anoher way than as guidance.


"So on one side, you have the fact that God does exist, and thus it should be accepted that he exists, and on the other side, whether god exists or not he NEEDS to exist, and thus is should be accepted that he exists."

There are no evidence that he exists, and there is no way to disprove his existence, so the discussion about god existense is from a popperian perspective not science at all, since it's nothing that you can falsify.

So how did this person thing, that is now dead, come to be before the creation of everything?  Spontaneous generation?

I didn't infer that only religous individuals have morals.  My point was if you don't start with a religion how can you say anyone is wrong in their beliefs?  Assume no God.  I go kill person B because I wanted something of his.  How can you say this is wrong?  If you impose some sort of group theory you could argue that said individual is valuable to the group and thus I shouldn't have killed him.  But what if he wasn't valuable to the group.  Then maybe it was good that I killed him.  Either way, without religion individuals are only held responsible to themselves, not the group.

And you are very wrong if you think natural selection weeds out the morally bankrupt.  Are all millionaires moral?  Do only the animals that don't attempt to eat their children survive?  If Germany would have won (they were close) World War II, would that mean they were moral?  Even if you say that they didn't most "great civilizations in the world were extremely immoral, even most around the world would say the same thing about todays US.

Did you even read the link?

Philosophers still have debates today about the existence of God.  You brought up a few good points but none as conclusive as you believe.  The chances of proving the non-existence of God is just as likely in this thread.

 Did you even listen to anything I said? Why are you going through and saying "this doesn't proveanything, that doesn't prove anything" i'm not proving anything, that part about the parachute was meant to point out the pointlessness of arguing agaisnt god's existence. There's nothing to accomplish by arguing it.

And your last statement is innacurate: There is no PROOF of the existence of God, there is plenty of evidence

 Almost every animal in the wild only kills for food. They don't kill for fun (ironically, that's just humans, and a very select number of animals).

So why don't animals just go kill for the hell of it? They never had a god tell them it's wrong.

I have never believed in god, but I would never kill anyone. I would realize how my family would feel if it was done to me, and realize that there families would feel the same way with him gone. I would not want to be responsible for the misfortune on anyone. 

Humanity teaches me this. Not religion. There are many other reasons not too kill another man. Are you telling me that in your view of the world that the only reason you don't do so is because God would be mad at you?

I hope that's not the only reason you don't kill people 

The very end of this is the most interesting, so skip to that if you would like. 

A ton of inacuracies in the original post so I will go over them:

1. The Existence of the DNA CODE

You contradict yourself here.  You say all *list* that we know the origin of.  If DNA were a code (which it really isn't) you are using that fact that we don't know the origin to prove the origin is from a god.  We don't know the origin therefore you can't say it comes from a mind.

DNA is not a code or a plan or any sort of intelligent design.  It is just the way proteins interact with one another.  These interactions (trillions of them) are fairly simple and straight forward at the microscale (though protein folding is still a bit of an unknown) but when you view it from the Macro scale it seems very complex.  DNA's behavior is not one of design but of eventuality due to the nature of the proteins.  We interpret it as a 'code' because its the easiest way for us to understand the grand scheme of what happens in all DNA processes.

2. The Existence of Objective Moral Standards

There is no moral standard, if there were all animals would follow it.  Do we consider cats immoral because they kill for pleasure?

Why we consider certain things 'moral' and certain things 'immoral' is not a devine blessing, but a subconcious desire not to have pain come to us.  We don't kill because we don't want to kill.  We don't steal because we don't want to be stolen from. etc

Eventually these got tied in to society and culture and became law and were drilled even deeper in to our heads as children.  If any one set moral standards it was our ancestors, not a god.

3. The Existence of Rationality

Again, there is an inherant contradiction here.  If all of our mental capacities are a process of chemical reactions (which they are) then we don't KNOW they are true, we don't KNOW anything.  However this even strengthens the idea that these theories are correct, not discredits them (sorry Haldane.)  Since they are just reactions they are a reaction to stimulus occuring over a set path.  These signals are processed and an output determined. 

This output is replicated and if it is universal it is truely a law. 

Would you say a calculator's results are untrusworthy because it follows a set path and is a simple mechanical function?

Also, your idea seems to be based on the premise that natural facts are only true if humans observe them to be true.  Nature is the way it is independant of human observation.

4. The Existence of Consciousess/Mind

Way too many errors in here to cover them all.

The most grevious being the premise that even if we had enough knowledge to have a complete understanding of how a bat's brain works we would still not know what it is like to be a bat.

How can you possibly claim that.  No one has ever had all that information.  You are basing your premise on the desire for it not to be true.

Let me ask you this.  If said god exists, does HE know what it is to be bat.  and if so, how?  And an excuse of "because he is all knowing" is not valid, as it just strengthens my argument that if you know every thing about a bat you can know what it is to be a bat.

Overall, how do you know you have conciousness that is outside the brain's physical function.  A nueron may not be able to have that ability, but a single transistor does not have the ability to calculate a taylor series, yet in conjunction multiple do.  Same with the neurons.  You can't claim the brain is so complex that we don't understand it fully, and then claim that conciousness is so complex that it can't reside only in the brain.

5. The Existence of the Universe

a. Can that be proven?

b. How do you know the universe has a beginning?  Why is it easier to believe a being existed eternally, but not matter?

The big bang theory, as you have shown, does not presuppose the non-existance of matter or energy (as they are interchangeable.)  In fact it relies on it.  And the big bang theory is not the theory of the creation of matter, but of the creation of the universe (or THIS universe as there is no proof that there aren't further reaches of space where something similar could have occured) as we observe it. 

6. The Universe is fine-tuned delicately

ugh, intelligent design.  What those who follow this theory do not realize is that if the universe was NOT this way, no person would be around to observe it.  Therefore, if these things were to be observed they would HAVE to allow life to exist for them to be observed.  The fact that we can observer these things is in no indication they were designed intelligently to be such.  It just means that the way the universe is allowed for the creation of life and the observance of its nature. 

Proof of the non-existance of a Christian god:

The main issue with a Christian god is all of the classifications christians have given him "Omnipotent, Omnipressent, Perfect, ever lasting"

The problem here is that all these things are inherantly contradictory.  How can a being that is all powerful be classified (or even truely be) anything else.  If something is all powerful, they have the power to do anything, including not existing, not being everywhere, and the power to make mistakes.  If you say "God can't make mistakes" you are limiting his power.  If you say "God can make mistakes" you are saying he is imperfect.

There is one absolute proof of the non-existance of omnipotence that I came up with (at least I have never heard an example otherwise)

If God is all powerful, he has the power to create a person that has absolute free will.  However, upon creating said being, he would not have the power to make that person DO anything without taking his free will away.  If it were possible to take the free will away, the person would not have had absolute free will to begin with.

So it is impossible for omnipotence to exist as it is impossible to force a being with free will to do something it chooses not to.

Almost every group of animals kill for fun.  My dog kills things and carries the animals around like trophies.  My cat kills mice and when they are bored of them they move on.  Animals are extremely territorial and if you simply step on "their" land, if they had the ability they would kill you (see bear, wildcat). 

So you wouldn't kill anyone because of your family.  What if someone killed all of your family (and thus you wouldn't have any one to dissapoint).  And surprise he is caught.  And the judge says I sentence him to life in prison or I'll let you (being the victim) kill him as a retribution.  Do you kill him?  What is your reasoning now?  Further he doesn't have any family and friends so nobody is going to miss him.  Is it now so immoral to kill?

Your parents taught you morals, thus you don't kill.  Humanity has taught us to kill.  As early as the wild west people would have have public executions.  People sat up lawn chairs and watched the civil war.  Humanity is far more violent than you think.   

I'm too religious to envisioning killing a man.  But using your example, if I never experienced the close love of a family, a friend, or a lover, would it then be so wrong if I went around killing individuals?  Can you hold me responsible because I don't have the same background as you.  Most people that commit murders today never had a strong family.  Had to support themselves on the street, can't afford their family and steal to try to make ends meet.  If you eliminated these murders you'd be left with only a few psychopaths that actually like to kill.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

While it is true that there are things that God will not do, it's not that he can't do them.  This point has been debated by philosophers and isn't quite a proof for the non-existence of God.