Can One Decide To Be An Athiest?

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580748' date='Jun 23 2008, 08:03 PM']Talking about that last post on AIM...

(7:02:41 PM) me: i should've just responded with 42
(7:03:00 PM) me: because p_c is asking for the answer to life, the universe, and everything, without giving me a specific question[/quote]

Do you have your towel?

[rckllnknny]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1581016' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:51 PM']I don't see your point.

truth (trūth)
n., pl. truths (trūTHz, trūths).

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. Reality; actuality.[/quote]

[peach_cube]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1581011' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:48 PM']Thank you very much for correcting me of my errors; somewhere between my reading the material and my memory, many details got overly simplified or omitted. Unfortunately, they don't teach these things in high school, nor do they even try to push kids to get that far, and my college experience was cut short when my money supply was likewise cut short.

If you know of any places I could find further reading (preferably free resources; as stated, I don't have a lot of money) to explain this more fully, I would be greatly appreciative.[/quote]

Your local library may have titles by Dr. Ferris that I mentioned before, "The Whole Shebang" was a pretty decent read. "The Extravagant Universe" by Dr. Kirshner is fine title and may also be available at a local library. Other titles: "The Runaway Universe" (there was a nova documentary, but the book is deeper in content), "The Inflationary Universe," "Quintessence," and "The Universe at Midnight." Multiverse theory will be touched on in each of these titles (if I recall correctly).

Best online resource is Astrophysical Data System at Harvard. [url="http://adswww.harvard.edu/"]http://adswww.harvard.edu/[/url] (There will be some weeding through the articles to get after specific things, however many are very interesting even if they are not what you are looking for)

[JustJ]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1581944' date='Jun 24 2008, 06:52 PM']Do you have your towel?[/quote]
i never leave home without it.

[Socrates]

In answer to the poll question, of course one can decide to become an atheist. This doesn't mean that it's a good or wise decision, but it is a decision, nonetheless. (I really don't see the point of the question - is the alternative that people are [i]forced[/i] into atheism?)

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580363' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:43 PM']Because it's an inanimate object and doesn't reproduce. [img]http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4663/e10256ql4.gif[/img]

Was that even a serious question? I'm being very serious when I ask that.

Of course not. However, we're not talking about blind chance. We're talking about natural forces that are explained in just about every science class you'll ever attend, from physics to chemistry to biology. You are using an outdated and disproved creationist argument that can be easily put down by saying that comparing a nonliving thing, which really is engineered by artificial forces, to a living thing, engineered by natural forces (if you need to know more about this, ask your mother where babies come from), and these two processes are in no way similar. Therefore, saying that an artificial object cannot come into existence without intelligence (duh) in no way says that a natural process (such as life) cannot come into existence without intelligence.

Stop using inanimate, artificial examples, then.[/quote]
Atheism still does absolutely nothing to explain where these "natural forces" came from, and their origin has not been "explained."
Natural laws imply a Lawgiver.
Claiming that the universe was created by "natural forces" explains nothing, and does nothing to disprove the existence of a God.

As for "using lifeless inanimate examples," the truth is that living things (even the simplest living cells) are far more complex than anything created by human intelligence, and scientists are still trying to figure out the mysteries of their workings.

So far, human beings have been unable to create or even reasonably approximate living things (genetic modifications of existing creatures don't count), much less anything like human consciousness.
The point still stands.
Atheists would have us believe that blind dumb chance can create things with far more complex functions than anything created by human intelligence.

[quote]Well, there is no life for me other than this one. I don't feel this is wasting my time, though. I'm trying my damnedest to make sure other people do question their faith, so that future generations might not have to worry about these false religions ruling over them.[/quote]
Given the track record of atheistic regimes, I'd be more worried about having atheists ruling over me, but that's another issue.

And yeah, there is a definite family resemblance between JustJ and Alycin. They appear to be Stephen Colbert's long-lost illegitimate twin children - but I'll leave that to the Lame Board.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1582328' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:30 PM']In answer to the poll question, of course one can decide to become an atheist. This doesn't mean that it's a good or wise decision, but it is a decision, nonetheless. (I really don't see the point of the question - is the alternative that people are [i]forced[/i] into atheism?)
Atheism still does absolutely nothing to explain where these "natural forces" came from, and their origin has not been "explained."
Natural laws imply a Lawgiver.
Claiming that the universe was created by "natural forces" explains nothing, and does nothing to disprove the existence of a God.

As for "using lifeless inanimate examples," the truth is that living things (even the simplest living cells) are far more complex than anything created by human intelligence, and scientists are still trying to figure out the mysteries of their workings.

So far, human beings have been unable to create or even reasonably approximate living things (genetic modifications of existing creatures don't count), much less anything like human consciousness.
The point still stands.
Atheists would have us believe that blind dumb chance can create things with far more complex functions than anything created by human intelligence.
Given the track record of atheistic regimes, I'd be more worried about having atheists ruling over me, but that's another issue.

And yeah, there is a definite family resemblance between JustJ and Alycin. They appear to be Stephen Colbert's long-lost illegitimate twin children - but I'll leave that to the Lame Board.[/quote]


Well, with the stephen colbert comment aside, and the fact that you obviously didn't read the...oh, i dunno, 4 or 5 or 10 times where J said it is NOT blind chance, I think you bring up really good points.

Hmmmm...

*waits for J's response.*

[JustJ]

I'm very low on sleep and kind of cranky. I will remove all arguments that bring up chance because I've already explained that about a million and one times.
[quote name='Socrates' post='1582328' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:30 PM']Natural laws imply a Lawgiver.[/quote]
Says you, because you are used to the law of man, which comes from men.

The laws of nature. Well, to follow the pattern, might just come from nature.

Of course, that's not to say that there [i]wasn't[/i] some law giver. I'd just like to see you prove that it's your god.
[quote name='Socrates' post='1582328' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:30 PM']Claiming that the universe was created by "natural forces" explains nothing, and does nothing to disprove the existence of a God.[/quote]
It was created by natural forces. If you would like to read some really detailed explanations of how it led to the world and universe as we see it today, read some science books. Ask physics professors to explain the natural processes that directed the universe to where it is today.

And no, it doesn't disprove god. However, Occam's Razor is a good tool here. The universe could have come naturally without divine intervention. Therefore, there need be no god to push things towards large bodies of mass, for example, because gravity does that.
[quote name='Socrates' post='1582328' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:30 PM']As for "using lifeless inanimate examples," the truth is that living things (even the simplest living cells) are far more complex than anything created by human intelligence, and scientists are still trying to figure out the mysteries of their workings.[/quote]
YOU BET THEY ARE MORE COMPLEX!

That has no bearing on the argument.

If natural processes tend to make things complex, that works. Especially because life started relatively simple compared to anything we have today, and the beginnings of life, while far more difficult for us to produce than a car, are much easier for nature to work with, because it doesn't have factories to help get all of the molecules of cars into just the perfect position.
[quote name='Socrates' post='1582328' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:30 PM']So far, human beings have been unable to create or even reasonably approximate living things (genetic modifications of existing creatures don't count), much less anything like human consciousness.[/quote]
So fine. Humans can't do it. What else is nature really good at that humans smell of elderberries at? What are some things humans are good at that nature smells of elderberries at?

Gee, it's almost like one of them is an intelligence and the other is a set of rules that is carried out mindlessly without need for intelligence. (Hint: because it is.)
[quote name='Socrates' post='1582328' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:30 PM']The point still stands.
Given the track record of atheistic regimes, I'd be more worried about having atheists ruling over me, but that's another issue.[/quote]
Excuse me?

Well, judging by Catholic track records, I would rather have an atheist. At least we wouldn't have a crusade or a holocaust.
[quote name='Socrates' post='1582328' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:30 PM']And yeah, there is a definite family resemblance between JustJ and Alycin. They appear to be Stephen Colbert's long-lost illegitimate twin children - but I'll leave that to the Lame Board.[/quote]
You figured us out! Quick, Alycin, Run!

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1582328' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:30 PM']And yeah, there is a definite family resemblance between JustJ and Alycin. They appear to be Stephen Colbert's long-lost [b]illegitimate[/b] twin children - but I'll leave that to the Lame Board.[/quote]
Whoa, Whoa, ease up there Soc! Doncha know that you can't say [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81431"]Ilegitimate[/url] anymore???

[Deb]

I think you can find whatever argument you want to prop up your atheism. You haven't said anything that lead anyone to believe that God does not exist. God would exist beyond the limits of our universe in order to create it and according to the law of physics, we cannot make measurements beyond the limits of this universe. Just because God has not revealed himself to you, does not mean that he does not exist.



Designed Universe

[center][b]Robert C. Newman, Ph.D.

Biblical Theological Seminary[/b][/center]
[center]©1997 by the American Scientific Affiliation[/center]
[indent][i][size=1]Since Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), many have felt that "survival of the fittest" is the source of apparent design in nature rather than God. Yet recently, serious objections have been raised against the ability of evolutionary theory to explain either the origin of life or its diversity.[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note1"][sup]1[/sup][/url] Consequently, the force of design as evidence for a supernatural alternative is strengthened.[/size][/i]

[i][size=1]In any case, biological evolution can hardly explain design in the nonliving part of nature. And it is just here that recent advances in science have uncovered far more evidence of design than was known in Darwin's time, or even in the 1970s. Let us consider some of this evidence.[/size][/i]

[/indent]
[b]The Right Chemistry[/b]
All life on earth depends on the cooperation of many complex biochemicals, each containing thousands or even millions of atoms. These include DNA and RNA, which store and transmit information by which living cells operate; and proteins, which provide structural material and speed up chemical reactions so that plants and animals can respond quickly to external changes. These molecules are enormously complex and detailed structures carrying on particular, specialized tasks. Such organization presents a serious challenge to the idea that life arose by chance rather than design, but that is not our subject here.[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note2"][sup]2[/sup][/url]

On a much simpler level, such chemicals as carbon, phosphorus, and water suggest that life didn't just happen. Carbon is the only element in existence which forms chains of almost unlimited length, needed for DNA, RNA, and protein. All the carbon in our universe apparently formed inside stars and was scattered over space as stars exploded. Yet by two coordinated "quirks," carbon is a common element rather than a very rare one. Carbon is formed by a rare collision of three helium nuclei. It happens that the temperature inside stars is right at a "resonance" for carbon, an energy level at which these nuclei stick together unusually well. If this resonance energy were only 4% lower, carbon would be very rare. On the other hand, carbon easily combines with another helium nucleus to form oxygen. But it [i]just so happens[/i] that the energy of the combination is just above an oxygen resonance, which is thus out of reach. If this resonance were only % higher, nearly all carbon would convert to oxygen. In either case, carbon would be very rare and life itself rare or nonexistent.[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note3"][sup]3[/sup][/url]

Phosphorus is unique among the elements in forming compounds (ATP, ADP) which can store large amounts of energy. Without these compounds there would be no higher animal life since such an efficient method of energy storage is needed for mobility. Yet only phosphorus, of all the elements, has this capability. It looks like phosphorus was [i]designed[/i] for this purpose.

Water is at least as unusual as carbon or phosphorus. Its molecule (two hydrogens and one oxygen) is lighter than molecules of nitrogen or oxygen, and thus should be a gas at temperatures suitable for life. However, water forms polymers, combinations of two or three molecules joined loosely together, so that it is actually a liquid at these temperatures. As a liquid it is the basic fluid of animal blood, tree sap, and cell plasma. Yet when water evaporates, it no longer forms polymers. This allows it to disperse in the atmosphere so it doesn't stifle life by lying on the earth's surface as an unbreathable gas. No other substance has this property.

Water is also a universal solvent, dissolving the necessary solid chemicals so they can circulate in the bloodstream, plant sap, and living cells. All other liquids which can dissolve a comparable number of chemicals are highly corrosive and deadly to living things.

Water is unusual in being able to absorb a large amount of heat for a given change in temperature. As a result, it moderates the climate of the earth and helps stabilize the body temperature of animals. Like few other substances, it expands rather than contracts on freezing. This prevents oceans and lakes from freezing to the bottom (killing marine life), and it aids in the formation of soil by splitting up rocks. Truly water is a most amazing substance. Together with the thirsty traveler on a hot day, the chemist can say, "There's nothing like it!"[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note4"][sup]4[/sup][/url]


[b]The Right Environment[/b]
The earth's environment is unique in the solar system and at least very rare in our galaxy. The temperature varies substantially from pole to equator, summer to winter, and from the Dead Sea to Mt. Everest. Yet it exceeds the boiling point of water only near volcanoes and geysers. Temperatures below freezing are more common, yet our oceans never freeze up completely, even in arctic regions. By contrast, the temperature on Venus, our nearest neighbor sunward, is about 900 degrees Fahrenheit. On Mars, the planet just beyond us, it barely gets above freezing even in midsummer at the equator. Earth alone has the right temperature range for life: warm enough for water to be liquid, cool enough that complex life molecules are not destroyed.

A substantial amount of water is needed to support life, though a few organisms have techniques for living in arid conditions. For the earth as a whole (center to surface), the fraction of water is small. But this is all concentrated at the surface, so that our globe is two-thirds covered by water to an average depth of three miles. The water on Venus and Mars is infinitesimal by contrast.

Earth has the right atmosphere. At a few per cent less oxygen, animals would not have enough to breathe. A few per cent more, and plant life would burn up. Mars and Venus have virtually no free oxygen, so necessary to most kinds of life.

Earth's gravity is just right. If the earth were only one-fourth as massive, the atmospheric pressure would be too small for life. If the earth were twice as massive, its atmosphere would work like a greenhouse in summer, raising the temperature enough to kill us all.

Earth has the right kind of sun. A sun only 20% larger would burn up its fuel in just four billion years. By now, such a sun would have expanded into its "red giant" stage, and the earth would have burned up in the sun's atmosphere. On the other hand, if our sun were only 20% smaller, it would not produce enough blue light for plants to make sugar and oxygen efficiently. Both sugar and oxygen are needed by animals, and they can produce neither themselves.[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note5"][sup]5[/sup][/url]

The sun cannot vary much in brightness or life will not survive. In fact, our sun's luminosity already has varied "too much" over the past four billion years, increasing in brightness by some 25%. But the creation of plant life appears to be timed just right to save the day. As the sun got hotter, plants removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, replacing it with oxygen at just the right rate to turn down the greenhouse effect and keep temperatures in the range safe for life.[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note6"][sup]6[/sup][/url]

This performance by the plants only worked because the earth was at the right distance from the sun. If it had been 5% closer, the greenhouse effect would have been too strong early in earth history, the plants would never have gotten started, and earth would now be a furnace like Venus. But if the earth had been only 1% further from the sun, the cooler temperatures about two billion years ago would have produced a runaway ice age, and the earth would now be like Antarctica elsewhere.[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note7"][sup]7[/sup][/url]


[b]The Right Universe[/b]
Not only do we live in a universe having the right chemistry to support life, and on a planet with the right environment for life, the basic forces in our universe are just right. Without the precise balance which exists among these forces, life would be impossible anywhere in our universe.

There are just four basic forces presently known to mankind: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. The balances between these forces are precise, making possible life as we know it. Consider the delicate balance between gravity and the expansion speed of our universe. Since the 1920s it has been known that our universe is expanding, apparently from an event known as the "Big Bang" which occurred some 15 to 20 billion years ago. Whether our universe will expand forever or eventually collapse is still debated among cosmologists. In either case, the actual density of matter in our universe is within a factor of ten of the so-called critical density, the point of exact balance between permanent expansion and eventual contraction. But to be so close to this critical density after some 20 billion years of expansion, there must have been precise tuning in the earliest moments of the Big Bang. At 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang, for instance--the so-called Planck time--the density must have been equal to the critical density to one part in 10 to the 60. If it had been ever so slightly higher, the universe would have collapsed quickly and there would have been no opportunity for life to form. On the other hand, had the density been ever so slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded rapidly and no galaxies, stars or planets would have formed. Again, no life. Thus, life is the result of [i]fine tuning [/i]the density of matter-energy at the Planck time to one part in 10 to the 60![url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note8"][sup]8[/sup][/url]

Life depends on a number of the heavier chemical elements, especially carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, but only hydrogen, helium and a few of the very lightest elements are formed in the Big Bang itself. The rest are formed inside stars. The strong and weak nuclear forces control how stars operate. If the strong force were weaker than it is, there would be no life. If it were only 50% weaker, not even iron and carbon would be stable. Even if the strong force were only 5% weaker, the element deuterium would not exist, and stars could not burn as they do. On the other hand, if the strong force were only 5% stronger, the diproton would be stable and stars would burn catastrophically. The strong interaction has to be [i]just the right amount [/i]to have stable stars and stable elements for life chemistry.

The weak nuclear force is important too. All but the lightest elements are formed inside stars as they grow old. Were it not for the weak force, these elements would remain trapped inside the stars and be of no use for life. But when a star has used up its fuel, it begins to collapse, becoming very hot inside and producing large numbers of neutrinos. The neutrinos cause the star to explode and scatter its heavy elements through space. These elements later become part of the next generation of stars, forming planets which accompany such stars. As a result, the earth has the heavy elements so necessary for life. If the weak force were much smaller than it is, the neutrinos would escape quietly, the star would not explode, and the heavy elements would stay inside. If the weak force were much stronger, the neutrinos themselves would not be able to escape from the star, we would again have no explosion and no heavy elements would escape. So if the weak force were much different than it is, there would be no heavy elements outside the stars.

Consider one more crucial balance. Gravity is much weaker than electromagnetism (by 37 powers of 10), yet gravity dominates in the realm of astronomical distances. Why is this, since both are long-distance forces? The reason is that the positive and negative electromagnetic charges occur in equal numbers, so that at large distances they cancel each other out. But why should they occur in equal numbers? Scientists don't know. The main negative charge is the electron, a very small particle compared to the proton, the main positive charge. In modern cosmological theory, as the universe cooled down from the Big Bang, protons would have "frozen out" much earlier than electrons, and there is no obvious reason why the two should be equal in number.[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note9"][sup]9[/sup][/url] In fact, the numbers of electrons and protons left over must have been the same to within one part in 10 to the 37th power. If this had not happened, our universe would be dominated by electromagnetism instead of gravity, and there would be no life as we know it.

In summary, it appears that very slight changes in the strength or balance of these forces gives a universe which will not support any life we can imagine. What are we to make of this? The simplest explanation is that we live in a [i]designed universe.[/i]


[b]Explaining the Design[/b]
Scientists have been discussing the problem for several years now. As Stephen hawking has pointed out:

[indent]The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous<|>---<|>I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note10"][sup]10[/sup][/url]

[/indent]
In shying away from religious explanations, some have suggested that this apparent design is merely an [i]accident of observation[/i]. Admittedly, life would be impossible unless all of the factors come out just right. But if life were impossible, then we wouldn't be here ourselves to observe such a universe! Conversely, there will only be observers in a universe where all these factors work out just right. This explanation, that the order in our universe is just an accident of observation, is called the [i]anthropic principle[/i] (more precisely, the [i]weak[/i] anthropic principle).

This is certainly clever, and true in some sense. Yet it postulates that our universe is a fluke of astronomically small probability. As an explanation, it is methodologically much inferior to any other theory in which a universe such as ours would be likely. But if the God of the Bible exists, then a designed universe such as ours would be a [i]likely[/i] result rather than the surprise we have in an accidental universe scenario.

Not all who favor the anthropic principle are satisfied with the weak form sketched above. Some have moved into Eastern mysticism, pantheism or something equally esoteric to propose a [i]strong[/i] anthropic principle: man has somehow caused the world to be just right for life and humanity to exist, whether because man is part of God, or because causes can produce effects [i]backward[/i] in time. Such suggestions attempt to provide some adequate explanation for design, a serious defect in the weak anthropic principle. In evaluating such views, we should look at how evidence for each compares with that for the existence of the God of the Bible. To me, these views pale in comparison.[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note11"][sup]11[/sup][/url]

What to make of all this? I suggest that we have here just one more line of evidence showing that we live in a supernaturally-created universe. Evidence of design, of a universe that had a beginning, of organization in living things far beyond what random processes can produce--these conspire with biblical evidences[url="http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Newman.html#note12"][sup]12[/sup][/url] to indicate that this God is the one revealed in the Bible.

But according to the Bible, God wants us to do more than just understand the world we live in. He wants us to love him with all our being, and to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves. We all fail these continually. If we must one day stand before God to answer for how we've lived, what will we be able to say?

In his love and mercy, God has provided a solution. Some two thousand years ago, God became man; the author entered his own story. As Jesus of Nazareth, he lived a life of complete obedience such as we never do. If we trust in his representative work done on our behalf, it is considered as though we ourselves had done it. In a few hours on a Roman cross, Jesus suffered such punishment as would take us forever to suffer. By trusting in him, his suffering takes the place of ours.

This is the kind of God that really exists. Each of us--yourself included--is extended this opportunity to turn away from a life of empty self-gratification and find the real joy of personally knowing the God who made the universe. You can choose to enter this relationship right now.

[Didacus]

sort of...

One can deny the presence of God to the point of forgetting.

However, please note, no matter how much one denies His presece, His presence shall remain regardless.

[rckllnknny]

i find it ironic j how you use the Catholcism specifically by the purpose for your reasoning in your debates. as in truth being 'indefinite.' you use Catholicisms own argument to testify against it. i find it in error. your innocence has become shallow. and your so-called faith considerably unbelievable.
(may just be me tho )
do keep in mind however, Christianity, regardless, (by definition off what is 'truth') expresses the effort to only strive for a greater peace for all mankind. (not really a 'bad' motive!)

[rckllnknny]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1582912' date='Jun 25 2008, 12:27 PM']sort of...

One can deny the presence of God to the point of forgetting.[/quote]

i dont necessarily believe that, (personally.)


[quote name='Didacus' post='1582912' date='Jun 25 2008, 12:27 PM']However, please note, no matter how much one denies His presece, His presence shall remain regardless.[/quote]


absolutely, i do believe that, and it is worded very nicely!

[Socrates]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1582400' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:12 PM']I'm very low on sleep and kind of cranky. I will remove all arguments that bring up chance because I've already explained that about a million and one times.

Says you, because you are used to the law of man, which comes from men.

The laws of nature. Well, to follow the pattern, might just come from nature.

Of course, that's not to say that there [i]wasn't[/i] some law giver. I'd just like to see you prove that it's your god.[/quote]
So who then do you propose [i]is[/i] the law giver? (serious question, and don't just answer "nature" or "natural forces," as that tells nothing, and just begs the question)

[quote]It was created by natural forces. If you would like to read some really detailed explanations of how it led to the world and universe as we see it today, read some science books. Ask physics professors to explain the natural processes that directed the universe to where it is today.

And no, it doesn't disprove god. However, Occam's Razor is a good tool here. The universe could have come naturally without divine intervention. Therefore, there need be no god to push things towards large bodies of mass, for example, because gravity does that.[/quote]
Basically substituting "natural forces" for "God" doesn't solve the problem, as it does nothing to explain where these natural forces came from, or how why all happen to work to make an orderly functioning universe. You speak of gravity, yet ignore the fact that if gravity was any stronger or any weaker, the material universe, much less intelligent life, could not exist

Pardon me for using yet another "artificial machine" analogy, but your argument is like coming across an incredibly complex, functioning computer program or software, capable of creating complex, fully functioning virtual worlds, then scoffing at the idea that there must be an intelligent programmer behind it, claiming that the programming code explains how the program came into being, claiming that Okham's razor eliminates the need for a programmer, and insisting that the code must have somehow written itself, or always existed.

It seems that Okham's razor would point instead more to a single First Cause that is Pure Act being the cause of the universe and all its natural laws, rather than saying that a series of different blind eternal "natural forces" (whatever that means) just happened to work together to create a complex functional intelligible universe.

[quote]YOU BET THEY ARE MORE COMPLEX!

That has no bearing on the argument.

If natural processes tend to make things complex, that works. Especially because life started relatively simple compared to anything we have today, and the beginnings of life, while far more difficult for us to produce than a car, are much easier for nature to work with, because it doesn't have factories to help get all of the molecules of cars into just the perfect position.

So fine. Humans can't do it. What else is nature really good at that humans smell of elderberries at? What are some things humans are good at that nature smells of elderberries at?

Gee, it's almost like one of them is an intelligence and the other is a set of rules that is carried out mindlessly without need for intelligence. (Hint: because it is.)[/quote]
So you're claiming that "nature"--which, remember, is completely blind and unintelligent--is better at creating complex, functioning things that human beings, with all their reason and intelligence??

And that these totally unintelligent "forces" were able to create human intelligence and consciousness itself, which human beings are not able to create themselves?

You are saying basically that non-intelligent forces are smarter than intelligence?

Sorry, but I'll stick to "theism" - much more reasonable.


[quote]Excuse me?

Well, judging by Catholic track records, I would rather have an atheist. At least we wouldn't have a crusade or a holocaust.[/quote]
Apparently, you know nothing of the historical "track record" at all.

Atheistic Communist regimes murdered an estimated 75-100+ million people worldwide over an approximately 75-year period, far, far more than were ever killed in the Crusades (a war started originally by Muslim aggression against Christians in the Holy Land, btw.)

And the Nazi holocaust was not committed by Catholics. Nazism was a neo-pagan movement which was solemnly condemned by the Pope in the early 30s. The Nazis persecuted Catholics as well, once they took power.

It's time you learned some actual history, rather than just anti-Christian atheist propaganda tracks.

[Deb]

If you go through this thread you will note that J doesn't really ever debate anything that has been put to him, he just repeats the same stuff over and over. He will not address anything that he does not have a response to. It is called ignoring any information that may challenge his opinion. The reality is that God exists and he just can't see it.

[rckllnknny]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580973' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:32 PM']It can be observed everywhere, and tested and confirmed on wider scales through scientific thought, helping to accurately predict the truth on further matters in similar cases, so that one need not take every individual case on its particulars.[/quote]


the precise revealing evidence of God.
its obvious you 'tried' the 'Catholic' thing, hence, your insight.