Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

Now I am really confused Cinette. Did Atheist pray for your son and his family? To what God?

Yes, I did pray for her and her family. I merely referred to him as God. I prayed that if there is a God he would make sure that her family would get through everything okay.

On rare occasions I have prayed for someone when they have asked me to. Even though it doesn’t have the same meaning to me as it does for Cinette, I knew that it was meaningful for her, and it was the least I could do. It just felt right, and I think I was able to do it very sincerely. I really do hope that if there is a God, he does help make sure they are all able to recover from the horrible ordeal that they’ve been through.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Cool! I see some science experts.
Can someone show me a link or explain how evolution & natural selection come up with the pattern on the wings of the butterflies that look like an eye and how animals developed skin patterns that camouflage their environment?

I wouldn’t call myself an expert, but it’s something that interests me.

Well we don’t have perfect knowledge of the entire evolutionary history, but we know a great deal. Here are some links concerning butterfly eyespots:
thefreelibrary.com/Butterfly+wings+it+with+a+few+genes-a018928306
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_7_163/ai_98172040/
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025125134.htm
plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000037

Here are some links that deal with camouflage:
animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/animal-camouflage1.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=4I1-Stl1D94
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_03.html

According to some love and religion is a product of evolution. How does the love for the same gender(lesbian & gay relatioships) connect to evolution? What benefit does such a relationship have to our species? PS I respect gays and lesbians and even have severals friends who are such. Thanks and peace to all.

I hope that you also support their fight for legal equality. A lot of Catholics seem to think that because homosexuality is immoral according to the Church, it’s okay to deny homosexuals some of the legal rights that we enjoy. I understand that the issues are not identical, but when someone says that they have gay friends but are opposed to equal rights for gays, it makes me think of someone during the 1960’s patting themselves on the back for having black friends, but still opposing equal rights.

There are a variety of evolutionary explanations for why homosexuality exists. Here are a couple articles that discuss some of these reasons:
newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html
newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If you had mentioned that Steven Hawking is/was an atheist all I would have said was “So? What does that have to do with whether God exists or not”.

Which really is all that anyone should have commented about my post or Cinette’s. Just point out the illogicallity of it.

And I would have replied “Absolutely nothing”. End of story…

But unfortunately you and Surfmeister decided to take it to another level. A level it did not deserve

Surfmeister calls my post dishonest apologetics and shoots himself in the foot in the process

Again, I don’t think I “decided to take it to another level”. I wasn’t making much of it, but after page after page of the discussion of it, I thought I should weigh in with my opinion, even though I didn’t care that much about it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There are instances that “argumenting” were simply a construction to propose publicity among peers. Sometimes, these what they consider themselves as good debaters were as abstract as to their knowledge, they seek world achievements rather than seeking the truth. They are like the modern stoics. A qoute from Socrates: “scio me nihil scire”, in english: I know that I Know nothing, the humility and honesty of this verse is well profound for those who I considered as the true lovers of wisdom.

I’m not sure if your comment is directed at me, or at someone else on this thread. However, I do think that you bring up a very insightful quote, to which we should all pay head.

 

[jargon631]

Way to go Surfie. … And that is certainly no small God. :clapping:Nice to see you put jargon in his place.:

***me…***hmmm…what place would that be?..why does that bring you such joy?..why the animosity?..is your animosity deliberat or unintentional?..its just that kind of attitude that makes me glad i’m not a christian…

One thing you have not grasped so far is that the Creator God IS the Christian God. God’s soverignty rests on the fact that He is Creator. That is one humongous chunk of how we perceive God

***me…***that makes no sense…it is presupposing that i am not very, very, very familiar with christianity…that assumption is incorrect

The only thing is that Christian’s see Him more clearly with many more facets. Love being the biggest facet of all

me… i’m confused…you really have no idea just HOW i see god…fd

 

[Sinner82]

Thanks a lot for all the links!

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Is it intuition or plain good sensible rational thinking?. Nothing is nothing. It cannot cause something into existence. From zero cannot come 1. Causa sui as I have said before is a contradition. Now before you say I have not explained myself again, I am assuming that you know here what I mean by causa sui, that the thing is the cause of itself.

I’m not saying that something can create itself; I am saying that I see no reason why it would be impossible for something to come from nothing. It happens all the time in our world in quantum physics. I don’t see why a particle couldn’t similarly appear if there was no universe. I think the main problem is that it seems weird because it doesn’t happen at the larger scale to which our intuitions are trained. Now I recognize that if anything appears in our universe, people can say it was not truly from nothing because it appeared out of space-time. However, imagine that in our world, dogs randomly popped into and out of existence for no apparent reason. Would we then consider it so weird that the universe may have started when a particle popped into existence? I have examined the possibility of an eternal universe more than I have the possibility of a universe coming from nothing naturally, but I know that there are physicists who believe it to be possible, and I do not currently know enough to say that they are definitely wrong. However, if you have some good reasons why it would be impossible, let me know.

Do you believe that the universe is eternal, that it is pure being not dependent on anything for its existence? If the universe is that which is eternal, then you are saying that the universe is the cause of your existtence?

I believe that it’s possible that the universe is eternal. I wouldn’t say the universe is the cause of my existence any more than I would say that my existence is the cause of my lung’s existence. My lung wouldn’t exist if I did not exist, but I did not cause my lung to exist.

So you think the complexity of the cells is purely by chance?

This depends on how you define chance. It might help you to understand my perspective if you took a look at an earlier post I did on the design argument: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5221264&postcount=100.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Thanks a lot for all the links!

No problem.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

No I do not mean what you think I mean. When I say universe, I mean the entire natural world. But to further clarify, when you say temporal what exactly do you mean by this term?

Glad to finally get that cleared up. So in this thread when we say universe we mean the natural world. By temporal I just mean relating to time. If the natural world has always existed, I would say that the universe has always existed, even if we only know what the universe was like after a certain point. If you only use the word universe to describe the part of the past that we know about, then saying that the universe had a beginning doesn’t have any implications for whether there was a creator.

Finally we get that cleared up. So you agree with me that the big bang is the going accepted theory? If this is so then why did we go through all that tango of whether the big bang is the accepted theory or not.

Unless there is some other theory that you believe holds sway more than the big bang?

I have always said that the Big Bang theory is fully accepted. I was saying that your definition of the theory is different. When someone talks about the theory, they sometimes mean the theory of what happened after Planck time, and sometimes mean the theory that the universe came from a singularity. The former is extraordinarily well supported by science, and the latter does not have good evidence in support of it.

You keep saying that when you just have no way of knowing whether that is true or not precisely because we do not know anything (conditions included) before Planck time. You cannot at the same times say that the laws will not apply when we know zilch about anything before Planck time.
You map analogy does not work because you are assuming that there is a completely unexplored island when because of the fact that our knowledge is zero, there may not be an unexplored island at all. Put it this way, if we do not know anything before 1930 we cannot say that what applies now will not have applied before 1930. When you know zilch about anything, you know zilch period.
But as I have mentioned above, since we you know nothing about what happened before Planck time then you know nothing. It’s not only that we do not know whether the universe will expand or contract or what theory of quantum gravitation will work. We plain do not know anything at all about anything before Planck time.

Well perhaps I was being overly dramatic when I said we know absolutely nothing. We have a pretty good idea that something existed before Planck time, and we know what physical laws would still be applicable, and which would have been different. The main problem is that we do not know what theory of quantum gravitation is correct.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist;5347371:

As long as there is something, there will be some regularity in how things work in that universe (as pure randomness itself is a kind of regularity).

Aaah! As long as there is something. To extend that is to say as long as there has ALWAYS been something. There has to have been something that has always been there for the universe to be here. You said in another post that the universe may have been eternal Do you think that that something that has always been there is the universe?

I think that the universe may have been eternal, but I am also not prepared to rule out the possibility that it began naturally. You have given no reason for me to think that something must have always existed in order for the universe to exist. And regarding my earlier comment, you could say that if there was absolutely nothing (no matter, space, time, or regularities), then there would be no natural law which would prevent something from coming from nothing.

Actually, I think Joe is right that your view requires faith. If you are an atheist as you claim then you have the faith on the god called chance. And that require a lot more faith to believe in than the Intelligient Designer we call God.

If you define an atheist as someone who has faith that God doesn’t exist, then by definition atheists would have faith. But by that definition I would not be an atheist. My level of certainty about the nonexistence of God depends on how you define God. If you define him as personal, loving, omniscient,…, then I think it is very unlikely that such a God exists. Without evidence in support of such a God, I think the large number of traits make it unlikely that that definition of God gets everything exactly right. If by God you just mean some kind of creator outside the observable world, then I have no idea how likely it would be that such a God exists. I do not believe that there is such a creator, but I do not see it as exceptionally unlikely.

Even if I did have faith that there was no such thing as God, why would that require more faith then believing in God? I think that given the progression of science (we now know the answers to questions that we once had no clue about), I don’t think it would take more faith to say that there is some natural explanation for the universe (either one we’ve thought of but haven’t proven, or a new one entirely), than to say that there’s such a thing as a “supernatural” entity that can influence the natural world. At least we have evidence of discovering new natural laws.

Atheist, you replied to another post of mine, which I saw before I left to go to Mass but now I can’t seem to find it (maybe because it is late and I am beginning to see double). If you think I need to address it, can you let me know. I will see if I can log on tomorrow to locate it.

I hope you can find it, but if not it’s okay. I’m having enough trouble right now trying to keep track of every post I still need to respond to.

 

[theistgal]

Even though it doesn’t have the same meaning to me as it does for Cinette, I knew that it was meaningful for her, and it was the least I could do. It just felt right, and I think I was able to do it very sincerely. I really do hope that if there is a God, he does help make sure they are all able to recover from the horrible ordeal that they’ve been through.

Just wanted to poke my head into this thread and say I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed - and appreciated - your kindness to Cinette.

 

[Angie_Baskin]

Wow, that’s a powerful story. Thanks for sharing that. Although I think that you could have had an experience like that even if there wasn’t a God, I won’t try to explain it away. I understand why you’d believe based on your experiences, but I haven’t had those same experiences. Maybe if I had had experiences like yours I would feel differently. I just don’t consider people’s subjective experiences of God to be good evidence that he exists because different people have different and often contradictory experiences, and because those experiences are explainable even if there is no God. I consider it possible that there’s some kind of creator, but I just think that if he exists, we don’t know anything about him. I could be convinced by evidence, but I still don’t think I’ve seen any good reasons to believe.

Thanks for your post though. I like to try to understand why people believe the things that they do.

I CAN understand why you say this and I can’t explain why my experiences seem to me without doubt. I have read enormous scientific literature on all subjects as well as quantum theories and ancient philosophys etc,etc,etc,etc. Just the fact that man has a yarning TO KNOW ‘where,who,what,and why we exist’ tells me that there is MORE than we know. The theories that time has a begining and an implied end. WHY?? or more importantly WHEN?? and why is there a ‘when’? is coincidence random?? or is it a projection of our own minds? if so Why? Where did it all begin?? How?? These questions are all answered clearly (if not credibly) in ACIM which I’ve been studying. Christian Tradition supply answers but as if one is an illiterate child. When met with pointed yet valid questions, the rehersed answer is always straight our of the cathecism. quote un-quote. No real thought by the ‘common people’ is tolerated though I’m sure the theologens have ripper discussions. We already know that we use only a small percentage of our mind. Why does this patential ALREADY exist?? Why not grow as we evolve?? Let me tell you another story, My husband (a VERY conservative thinker) and myself were in a book store browsing. He picked up ACIM (A course in Miracles) and pointed out that it seemed interesting. As I am the opporsite to him in everything, I glaced at it, dismissing it and moved on. Down the shelf I pick up another book “The disappearance of the Universe”. I bought this book as it also seemed interesting. Although bazaar and silly in some parts, I could not put it down and was surprised that half way through, professed ACIM as being compulsory reading. I enjoyed ‘disappearance’ but realised it was (for me) only a preparation to reading ACIM. As for my husband, in another book store, on another day, I pointed out to him other book ‘God Actually’ (more scientific in approach). I had no interest in reading it myself but he has lapped it up. It’s like we were meant to read the books CHOOSEN for us. And as I progressed with daily reading and applied the daily lessons (not always to schedule), it was explained to me that this is EXACTLY how the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) works. ACIM is NOT a religion OR a following, so there is no THEM. It is a school of thought. It’s not for everyone at the same position in time (My husband would be freeked out by it). Although I can’t convince anyone that there IS a God, I do believe that what the course saids ABOUT God and Man’s RELATIONSHIP to God, IS POSSIBLE, and given the way the world thinks, PROBABLE. It is Waaaaay out there (like some of Aristotles theories). Enough so, to believe there IS something in it. IF it’s true, then it explains EVERYTHING, without stepping on anyone toes. The KNOWLEDGE that a creative eternal God exists is within all creation BECAUSE He created us and therefore CANNOT be non existant. It can be disassociated from (Athiests) it can be denigned (gnostics / buddists) it can be misinterpreted (christians,muslams,etc) but it can never be totally radicated because it’s TRUTH. The yearn TO KNOW will always be a drive deep within us. Eventually we will find Him because THAT is His promise to all of us. Every last one of us (that includes Athiests). Seek & you WILL find. So I encourage you to continue your search and I will be VERY interested in YOUR story WHEN you DO find God. It’s only a matter of time. How Long?? that’s up to you. You’re making the discisions. Angie

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EA.,

Just got a note from Joe, saying that there is an interesting conversation going on here…

I think the subject we’re discussing is pretty interesting. But so many people have made so many complicated posts that it’s taking me a while to reply to all of them. Your post took an especially long time because you raised a lot of issues and because I like to look up the quotes people use to get a good idea of the context in which they were used.

** From Dr. Stephen Hawking**

In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

As I have said in earlier posts, different people use different definitions of the word universe. I agree with Stephen Hawking that the observable universe stated approximately 15 billion years ago.

Hawking does not say that it is impossible for there to have been something before the Big Bang, he merely says that it is currently impossible for us to know anything about that period:
"Stephen Hawking:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency.

He also explains the problems with the steady state theory and the oscillating universe theory. Both of these models are not consistent with our data. I agree with him that these theories are untenable. However, he does not discuss more modern cosmological theories. I am not sure exactly when this speech was made, but a lot has changed in recent years. Hawking’s collaborator, Roger Penrose, now recognizes that the cyclic universe model is a very viable contender (like me he realizes that we can’t currently know what happened, but he recognizes that the cyclic model fits the data as well as any other).

The evolution theory regarding the formation of the earth has the same problems as the cellular theory. There is no beginning proposed by evolutionists that can be proven, just disproven. Where did the matter come from?

Why does the sun move around the earth? Why do the seasons change? For thousands of years, humans had no answer to questions such as these and assumed that they could only be explained by a supernatural being. We now have good scientific explanations for these. Fortunately for the families of scientists, there is still more work to be done, more that has yet to be discovered. Just because we currently don’t know exactly what happened, doesn’t mean that they must have been caused by God. On both of your questions, science has general theories about how things could have taken place, but we don’t yet have enough data to figure out exactly what did happen.

***“The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws. The sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing…It represents a true miracle.” ***

(I thought the acknowledgement of miracles was exclusively a creation belief.)

Paul Davies, physics and evolution, The Edge of infinity 1995.

Suspension makes it sound like the laws were in place both before and after except for an instant in between. This isn’t quite what the old version of the Big Bang model teaches. And just because a scientist used the word miracle doesn’t mean that he meant the word in the same way you use it. Scientists often use allusions to God or a creator metaphorically. Both Einstein and Stephen Hawking talked about God and a creator in their works, but if you read their private thoughts on the subject, they both appear to be either agnostics or atheists.

But main problem with using this quote is that it is extremely outdated. His view may have been common in 1995, but quite a lot of recent research shows that an eternal universes is indeed just as possible as a universe that began in the Big Bang.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

"The universe burst into something from absolutely zero…nada. As it got bigger it became filled with more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."

Discover magazine, April 2002.

"It is only fair to say that we still have a theory without a beginning."

]Joseph Silk, Phd. and professor of astronomy, University of Oxford.

The Big Bang, 2001.

You are still relying on quotes from outdated sources. While there did not used to be viable theories for how the universe could be past-eternal, there are currently quite a few. In this decade, there have been the discoveries of a number of different possibilities (for example: the Steinhardt-Turok model, the Baum-Frampton model, and the loop quantum cosmology model).

"… Astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness."

Sten Odenwald, Phd. and chief scientist with Raytheon STX corp. at the Goddard Space Center.

The Astronomy Cafe, 1998.

This one is not outdated. We still have no data supporting the theory that the universe came from nothingness. We have a variety of theories which are consistent with the data, and we need to wait until we collect more data until we determine which theory is correct.

Here is a question for you.
How was the universe created?

The most honest answer is that I just don’t know.

There are only 3 possible answers:

It created itself-
Obviously not possible since nothing can create itself, and it goes against the Law of Cause and Effect.

Experiments with quantum physics seem to contradict the “Law of Cause and Effect”, and it is no longer assumed to be true. There is evidence that it holds for larger objects, but not at the atomic level. Even if it did, this law would not necessarily apply to the Big Bang. If there was no universe, no matter, no energy, and no time, we have no reason to assume that all the laws that hold in our universe would still hold.

It is eternal-
This would entail no molecular movement which in turn creates a virtual heat death. Life would be impossible. Plus the conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You should more closely examine some of the current cosmological theories which are consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It had a Creator.-
Well, we have run out of other possibilities.

Although I don’t see how a being outside our natural world could actualize our universe merely by willing it so, I am willing to accept this as possible. So we’re left with three possibilities. I have no idea how to assign odds to each of them. But unless we can know something about what this creator would be like, even a 100% chance of there being a creator would not cause us to live any differently.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I CAN understand why you say this and I can’t explain why my experiences seem to me without doubt. I have read enormous scientific literature on all subjects as well as quantum theories and ancient philosophys etc,etc,etc,etc. Just the fact that man has a yarning TO KNOW ‘where,who,what,and why we exist’ tells me that there is MORE than we know.

Or that the desire to better understand the world was an evolutionarily advantageous trait.

The theories that time has a begining and an implied end. WHY?? or more importantly WHEN?? and why is there a ‘when’? is coincidence random?? or is it a projection of our own minds? if so Why? Where did it all begin?? How?? These questions are all answered clearly (if not credibly) in ACIM which I’ve been studying. Christian Tradition supply answers but as if one is an illiterate child. When met with pointed yet valid questions, the rehersed answer is always straight our of the cathecism. quote un-quote. No real thought by the ‘common people’ is tolerated though I’m sure the theologens have ripper discussions. We already know that we use only a small percentage of our mind.

We do not know that. It is a common myth that we use only 10% of our brains. I suggest reading these articles:
snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-we-really-use-only-10

Why does this patential ALREADY exist?? Why not grow as we evolve?? Let me tell you another story, My husband (a VERY conservative thinker) and myself were in a book store browsing. He picked up ACIM (A course in Miracles) and pointed out that it seemed interesting. As I am the opporsite to him in everything, I glaced at it, dismissing it and moved on. Down the shelf I pick up another book “The disappearance of the Universe”. I bought this book as it also seemed interesting. Although bazaar and silly in some parts, I could not put it down and was surprised that half way through, professed ACIM as being compulsory reading. I enjoyed ‘disappearance’ but realised it was (for me) only a preparation to reading ACIM. As for my husband, in another book store, on another day, I pointed out to him other book ‘God Actually’ (more scientific in approach). I had no interest in reading it myself but he has lapped it up. It’s like we were meant to read the books CHOOSEN for us. And as I progressed with daily reading and applied the daily lessons (not always to schedule), it was explained to me that this is EXACTLY how the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) works. ACIM is NOT a religion OR a following, so there is no THEM. It is a school of thought. It’s not for everyone at the same position in time (My husband would be freeked out by it). Although I can’t convince anyone that there IS a God, I do believe that what the course saids ABOUT God and Man’s RELATIONSHIP to God, IS POSSIBLE, and given the way the world thinks, PROBABLE. It is Waaaaay out there (like some of Aristotles theories). Enough so, to believe there IS something in it. IF it’s true, then it explains EVERYTHING, without stepping on anyone toes. The KNOWLEDGE that a creative eternal God exists is within all creation BECAUSE He created us and therefore CANNOT be non existant. It can be disassociated from (Athiests) it can be denigned (gnostics / buddists) it can be misinterpreted (christians,muslams,etc) but it can never be totally radicated because it’s TRUTH. The yearn TO KNOW will always be a drive deep within us. Eventually we will find Him because THAT is His promise to all of us. Every last one of us (that includes Athiests). Seek & you WILL find. So I encourage you to continue your search and I will be VERY interested in YOUR story WHEN you DO find God. It’s only a matter of time. How Long?? that’s up to you. You’re making the discisions. Angie

I still don’t think that there is a God out there for me to find, but I guess I’ll see.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Yes, this was a powerful story - we wee all enriched by reading it.

Ah, but then to get tripped up…

Wow, that’s a powerful story. Thanks for sharing that. Although I think that you could have had an experience like that even if there wasn’t a God, I won’t try to explain it away. I understand why you’d believe based on your experiences, but I haven’t had those same experiences. Maybe if I had had experiences like yours I would feel differently. I just don’t consider people’s subjective experiences of God to be good evidence that he exists …

Now, I can understand not believing individual stories - there is always the chance of bias, and, of course, there is this very limited sample size that could easily introduce distortions into the discussion. Still… there is this large number of people with experiences of God.

In a previous post, you were given a logical argument on how the universe was created: 1.) it created itself - no data to support this. 2.) it always existed - 2nd Law of Thermodynamics strikes this down and 3.) God created it. Yet you did not respond (if you did, I guess I missed it). You appear not to be believing this line of reasoning - and, it certainly appears solid to me.

You were given a very interesting analysis by Benedictus2 involving the alphabet and the generation of letters by previous letters. Things just do not happen - and all of these living things we see before us, replicate in a pattern … and this surly means there is a Pattern Maker.

Wanting there to be a God … shows you are off to a good start… to paraphrase St. Augustine our hearts are yearing for God and will not rest until they rest in Him. There is an abundance of evidence, if you just look.

God bless,

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Yes, this was a powerful story - we wee all enriched by reading it.

Ah, but then to get tripped up…

Now, I can understand not believing individual stories - there is always the chance of bias, and, of course, there is this very limited sample size that could easily introduce distortions into the discussion. Still… there is this large number of people with experiences of God.

But these experiences are often contradictory, and there are evolutionary reasons that people have these experiences (I’ve explained some of the evolutionary reasons earlier in this thread and can try to find the post if you’d like). So I just don’t see them as good evidence.

In a previous post, you were given a logical argument on how the universe was created: 1.) it created itself - no data to support this. 2.) it always existed - 2nd Law of Thermodynamics strikes this down and 3.) God created it. Yet you did not respond (if you did, I guess I missed it). You appear not to be believing this line of reasoning - and, it certainly appears solid to me.

I addressed this argument a couple posts ago.

You were given a very interesting analysis by Benedictus2 involving the alphabet and the generation of letters by previous letters. Things just do not happen - and all of these living things we see before us, replicate in a pattern … and this surly means there is a Pattern Maker.

I’m not sure exactly what post you’re talking about.

Wanting there to be a God … shows you are off to a good start… to paraphrase St. Augustine our hearts are yearing for God and will not rest until they rest in Him. There is an abundance of evidence, if you just look.

God bless,

If you know of any evidence, I’d sure like to see it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

By the way, I’m still a little bit behind with responding to posts. I was away for one day, and there were about 20 posts waiting for me when I got back! I think the only ones I have left are #592, #596, and #599. Please let me know if there are any others that I missed. I’m trying to get caught up as quick as I can, but you all raised some really interesting points, and I don’t want to just dash off responses without carefully considering what you said.

 

[joe370]

Atheist, you said:

Hawking does not say that it is impossible for there to have been something before the Big Bang, he merely says that it is currently impossible for us to know anything about that period.

I agree with Hawking! It is currently impossible, and no doubt, will always be impossible for Science to know anything about that period before the big bang. You said the universe started 15 billion years ago. So, in your opinion the universe did have a starting point?

 

[joe370]

Atheist, you said:

Although I don’t see how a being outside our natural world could actualize our universe merely by willing it so, I am willing to accept this as possible.

**Is it more probable that a being outside our natural world actualized our universe, or, is it more probable that nothing outside our natural world actualized our universe merely by willing it so?
**

**So we’re left with three possibilities. I have no idea how to assign odds to each of them. But unless we can know something about what this creator would be like, even a 100% chance of there being a creator would not cause us to live any differently.

Is it safe to say that, until God presents himself to you, you will never believe in God? If so, then what is the point of debating? I am not say: let’s stop debating; I’m simply saying: no one can win this debate!

No creator, no creation. Is this premise probable or improbable? **