CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It is absolutely logical. Considering how difficult it is to construct complex biological life and considering that this universe is just right for its existence, it follows that an intelligent designer is one possible solution to explain this radically unlikely situation [that complex and intelligent biological life exist].
I suppose certain specifically defined Gods can be ruled out - but others cannot. Therefore a God may very well play a role in the universe!
It is absolutely logical. Considering how difficult it is to construct complex biological life and considering that this universe is just right for its existence
Nu nu nu nu no. WERE just right for this universe, not the other way around. You think this universe is perfect for us? Dude this PLANET even sucks for us. Go take a trip up to space with no suit and tell me how it goes. Or to a star, or 90% of any other planet in the universe. The moon? Andromeda? The universe is a horrible place for life to exist let alone humans. And the earth is 70% water which we cant live in and even then most of the land is inhabitable either too hot or too cold. And even then id like to see you live out in the woods in a perfectly temperate area with no clothing and just nature to live off of. You would die.
Lifes existence is not because of how perfectly designed the universe is for it, but is an example of the stubbornness of life to try its hardest to emerge in the most desolate of areas dispite such adversity.
it follows that an intelligent designer is one possible solution to explain this radically unlikely situation [that complex and intelligent biological life exist]'
That only follows logically if youre willing to do some pretty wishfull thinking. Sure, its a possibility but a very very unlikely one. And biological life existing is not radically unlikely because, guess what, it happened. And all evidence in all relevant fields of science points to natural processes that caused the emerging and evolution of life on earth and probably in other places.
I suppose certain specifically defined Gods can be ruled out
Like that of christianity? I would agree. It is possible, highly unlikely, but possible that a grand creator may exist. However, it is a massive non sequitur ti then declare that it is the specific God of any religion because there is just absolutely no warrant for that jump in reasoning.
- but others cannot. Therefore a God may very well play a role in the universe!
May is a strong word. i would say, a god kinda might possibly but very unlikely probably not play a role in the universe.
You seem quite knowledge on this subject. Can you explain to me how even a single large (maybe 300 molecules or so) formed? The chance of it happening is 1 to 10^390 (to get an idea of this figure there is estimated to be 10^82 atoms in the whole observable universe). Its clearly not formed by a chance collision.
Cartman tackled that first part well but all I have to say is that just because a number is rully rully biig doesn't mean it's absurd or impossible. As you said that isn't even a supported figure.
And think about this. What if that 1 in a billion or whatever chance happened and eventually created life on Gloxborg 6. And the people of that planet became educated and advanced enough to calculate the chance of their existence occurring and it was rully crazy big. What do you think those people would be thinking? The same thing we are. Can't be. No way. Impossible. When that isn't necessarily the case.
And even if I grant you that sure it is very unlikely that it occurred because of chance, that doesn't automatically resort to God as the go to answer. In fact if we could calculate the probability that "god dun and did it" its probably be even bigger than the number you gave. Gaps in science are filled with more science not religion.
Well actually I think the number is so small that it can't be possible. The universe cannot have been created by a series of random collisions. I was just talking about the probability of a protein coming into existence - not even a whole cell. You're right though - this doesn't mean God is the answer. I was wondering if you knew any other theories as to how the first protein was made.
I was just talking about the probability of a protein coming into existence - not even a whole cell.
Yeah, there is the flaw. You want a fully developed protein to be created by chance. If the protein molecule evolved, it would be incredibly ridiculous to calculate the probability of it existing by chance.
Ribozymes are a precursor of proteins and would help catalyze reactions. The chances of a specific ribozyme coming into existence is 4^300, which is probably impossible. But, if there are a bunch of random ribozymes, which was likely to form, together they can start being selected. Once some of the ribozymes start performing better, they become better and the specific ribozyme could come about through the selection process.
Also that number (4^300) is assuming a perfectly homogeneous environment which is impossible in nature. Once substance and energy is distributed unevenly (as when elements have formed into organic matter), probabilities change.
What ever processes lead to life, they took place in a very different and very poorly understood environment. It's literally impossible to say that the formation of life was improbable. You could still argue that we are the only planet with life in the universe, and because we are so unique, life is rare; the problem with that assertion is that it's just prejudice guided by nothing but anthropocentric bullshit enforced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Evidence from the Curiosity rover already shows that life could have formed on Mars, so life might actually be kind of common in the universe. But who knows? No one, and that's why I won't buy any of the 'life is so perfect and rare so there must be a God'-arguments.
I dont specifically know any theories off the top of my head but i bet theres a couple that could be found on scientific sites and journals. But i dont see how its so rediculous...what are protiens? Collections of chemicals in a certain pattern. That it. Different elements combined to form them. I dont see how thats so impossible
Not necessarily true. Frequently people try to estimate the chances of specific things happening by chance. This will create a massive number. If you calculate the chance that the generic version of an equivalent event happening that odds will be much much lower. Also, if you calculate the chances of something happening under current conditions, the odds will vary greatly compared to the odds of it happening under the conditions at the time the event actually would have occurred.
So you decided to dodge my question by contradicting a half-assed, uneducated comment... I made that comment so you could see that answering my question is kind of important, not to demonstrate that you are wrong.
I was insulting my own insult. I think it's halfassed and uneducated to say that "There's litterally endless of (molecular collisions) every second so that can't really be it."
To propose that a God created the universe is internally consistent. Logic tries to examine whether arguments lead to their proposed conclusions and whether systems of belief are internally consistent. To propose that God created universe is logical.
But the minimal requirement for a belief system is that it is logical, so to conclude Intelligent Design is logical is absolutely elementary. It just an insurance that this position is actually valuable in a discussion. Seriously, it's nothing to brag about, actually it's kind of sad that you would actually ask this question.
The Universe is Complex and a simple variable in the nature of gravity for example could cause life as we know it to not exist. Examples of this are a simple change of gravity could cause a radically different universe from the one we know.
For a Good Example the location of Earth and other things is Perfect for life we are in the "Goldilocks's zone" we have active volcanoes and other activity we have the planet Jupiter to deflect asteroids from hitting the earth we have the moon for the tides and the Moon also stabilizes the earth's axis.
Saying that there is no God is the illogical part and for people who say it was the Big Bang and a God Played no part of it does not explain the first cause. Some Atheists will counter and say that does not mean you should Believe in God.
The problem with atheism is that they don't even consider if God exists.
No god is responsible for anything, Ruazenith is responsible for Earth, other Onew are responsible for other parts of our universe. You should look up the science of how illogical your creationist beliefs are.
No god is responsible for anything, Ruazenith is responsible for Earth, other Onew are responsible for other parts of our universe. You should look up the science of how illogical your creationist beliefs are.
Is it not illogical for something to happen for no cause?
Onew are intelligent designers. We have a good idea of what it is that cause them to come into existence, but we don't have a good understanding of that cause. It is okay to say "I don't know".
Onew are intelligent designers. We have a good idea of what it is that cause them to come into existence, but we don't have a good understanding of that cause. It is okay to say "I don't know".
If you can explain what caused the universe to come into existance tell me believing in a God is as rational as anything EVEN if we don't account for the evidence for God as the Big Bang can't explain what happened before it.
If you factor in the specifics that it took to create life, that I often hear had to be just right, and if they were just one protein off that life wouldn't exist. Then yes. Though if you believe it happened the way the bible explained it, then no.
Who says that the Biblical creation story is literalistic? Thomas Aquinas said that the days of creation could be metaphorical; this was before the theory of evolution was introduced.
Who says that the Biblical creation story is literalistic?
Creationists. Fundamentalists.
Thomas Aquinas said that the days of creation could be metaphorical; this was before the theory of evolution was introduced.
Well my question is, how is an objective reader supposed to know what in the bible is literal (as in "to lie with another Man is an abomination") and what is metaphorical (as in "If you look upon another woman and lust, you have committed adultery, so cut your own eyes out")
Although this isn't the debate for it, I think this is more proof that you should not trust the Bible, you should make your own religious assumptions with the bible as maybe a loose guide.
What if the current scientific paradigm is wrong and all things that exist have the capacity for consciousness? What if consciousness (awareness of environment) is what facilitates physical forces in the universe--the driving phenomena that causes bits of matter to accelerate?
This would mean that the universe is conscious and also has the capacity to re-arrange itself. This isn't far-fetched when you realize that humans have this capacity - they are conscious and have control over their physical, material bodies.
If this ability can be extended to the universe, it would make it "God". It would also make the universe more similar to man than previously acknowledged!
If everything is conscious, it would also indicate that God has to exist - in the form of the large-scale universe.
Conscious phenomena in the universe would be directly tied to accelerative forces!
Cells don't have brains, and they clearly demonstrate awareness of the environment (when they interact with their surroundings). Consciousness doesn't require a brain. To me consciousness seems to be far more universal than most people realize.
Cells don't have brains, and they clearly demonstrate awareness of the environment (when they interact with their surroundings).
Cells do not have Consciousness, the only react to the environment. The ocean isn't making a conscious decision to allow us to have some land to live on, it is simply reacting to the physical laws of our universe.
I disagree with your conclusion. I think anything that interacts with its environment acknowledges that it is aware of its environment, and is therefore conscious--whether it be a complex biological organism, a rock, or a particle of matter.
Different complexities of awareness probably do exist. But all things would be aware, and thus conscious.
This is something you would have to demonstrate, not simply assert. Rocks don't fall when you drop them because they respect the authority of gravity, they simply react to the physical law of gravity. Consciousness has been demonstrated to come from the brain, if you would like anyone to believe it exists anywhere else you have to present an argument to support that claim.
Well, a rock falls to the Earth because of the accelerative force of gravity. And it ceases falling any further when it makes contact with the ground, which applies an upwardnormal force on the rock through electro-static repulsion. (Both gravity and the normal force alter the inertia of the rock.)
It's my argument that consciousness and accelerative forces are inseparable from each other, so that the magnitude of conscious experience is directly proportional to the magnitude of the accelerative force on the object.
Consciousness cannot be separated from the force exerted on the object. That is my position.
It's my argument that consciousness and accelerative forces are inseperable from each other, so that the magnitude of conscious experience is directly proportional to the magnitude of the accelerative force on the object.
Okay, we can now start talking about your ideas, if nothing else they are interesting. When you say that conscious experience is directly proportional to the acceleration forced apon it, what reference point are you using?
No has ever had accelerated as fast as the Earth travels through space, for an example to show what I'm trying to get at.
LOL. Well, this is where it gets interesting. Forces have vectors, meaning they have direction through space. Because consciousness is inseperable from accelerative forces, this means that conscious experience has directional vectors on the object, too--and of equal magnitude and direction as the accelerative forces!
This implies that forces and conscious experience always accompany each other! In fact, in the universe an accelerative force is always associated with conscious experience so that the two can be considered one singular phenomena.
It's only through the human use of language that we can separate the two; but the two are actually one thing, according to this model.
With respect to gravity, the greater the force the greater your weight. With respect to gravity, consciousness would be related to weight. You could be more conscious on the plane or alternatively on the ground; it depends on what you're doing in each situation.
However, gravity is the weakest known fundamental force in the universe. Your state of consciousness is really going to be decided by the electro-magnetic force effecting your nervous system and your brain, which is far stronger than the force of gravity.
It's really the electro-magnetic force that governs all the variety of human conscious experiences! The other forces will contribute a negligible fraction of your overall conscious experiences.
Astronauts in space weigh nearly zero, so they do experience less consciousness with respect to weight as compared to humans on Earth's surface!
This is a theory I've developed in my lifetime; I don't know if anyone's ever contemplated it before. I know of philosophers that have proposed ideas on the subject of consciousness--some of them even relating consciousness to ordinary matter. However, I've never read about anything more developed than what I've offered on the subject. I actually have partners on this theory at the university I attended.
Please stop calling it a theory, that is misleading, this is just a hypothesis. I am unaware of any evidence to support your hypothesis, if you have some I would be very interested to read it, otherwise I don't see a reason to consider your claim as anything more than interesting.
Ultimately, this model for consciousness probably can't be proven. I can't think of an experiment that would either verify it or invalidate it. However, I consider it an important contribution to philosophical discussion, so on that ground it has merit. I'm offering it up as mental consumption for those that like to contemplate such things.
I am such a person, which is why we are talking. I just have so many things to contemplate I have to prioritize them by the likelihood of truth. You are claiming there are varying levels of consciousness based on weight. We have an example of a species that exists in both weighted and weightless environments, but no one has observed a drop in consciousness. Everything is set up to test this hypothesis.
I don't see how you are connecting consciousness to weight, or even to acceleration. What leads you to think they are related?
Well, that's where you are wrong. You would weigh less on the moon's surface than you would on Earth--and you actually would feel the difference! As I define it, consciousness is the capacity to be aware of the environment, and we humans achieve this specifically through sensory experience. You very much would feel the difference in weight between standing on the moon and on Earth!
Also, weight is actually inflicted on materials by the force of gravity. Weight is decided by mass x acceleration. (Recall that Force is equal to mass x acceleration.) This would be an example of how the change in the force of gravity would contribute to a change in sensory experience.
So this model, as presented, is perfectly consistent. Obviously it becomes difficult (if not impossible) to test with regards to the electric force and the much more general electro-magnetic force! So there are limitations to verifying this model!
However, because this model remains consistent where it can be tested, it cannot be refuted as unsound! This condition makes the model a genuine scientific theory.
However, because this model remains consistent where it can be tested, it cannot be refuted as unsound!
You have the words valid and sound mixed up. Also you stated that it hasn't been tested, so there is no reason to believe it is true.
As I define it, consciousness is the capacity to be aware of the environment, and we humans achieve this specifically through sensory experience. You very much would feel the difference in weight between standing on the moon and on Earth!
Are you saying that when on the moon, humans are less aware of their environment than while on Earth?
That would support your claim, and would be really, really exciting.
Well, I understand what your saying, but I actually mean it cannot be refuted as invalid and unsound. (If we want to get technical, "invalid" was used an as auxillary term.)
No, I've never personally tested it (by going into space or flying to another planet). But from what astronauts have experienced in space, this model is perfectly consistent with their experiences. This is a language issue. (I used "tested" in a different context the first time I used it.)
Astronauts do in fact experience a different weight on the moon than they do on Earth, and recall that with respect to gravity, consciousness is experienced as weight, as I indicated before, so conscious experience is in fact altered.
Everything I have stated on this topic is consistent.
so they're conscious experience is in fact altered
Their experience is altered, but is their overall level of consciousness lower?
I actually mean it cannot be refuted as invalid and unsound.
I will agree that your hypothesis is valid, but you have to demonstrate all your assumptions about how consciousness works before claiming it is sound.
No, I've never personally tested it
And I wouldn't have expected you to, I do expect that if people in space have a reduction of consciousness, someone would have noticed.
I don't want to get into a debate with you about what constitutes a legitimate theory, but a theory is considered viable as long as it is supported where it can be tested. The model is therefore sound (and, yes, valid).
The conscious experience is altered with respect to weight. Weight is less on the moon so you can interpret that as lower consciousness if you like, though I define it slightly different in the model.
I also do make assumptions in the model; many of these assumptions cannot be tested. This is where the model will have to be accepted as a philosophical explanation for consciousness.
There isn't anyway to discuss this before you understand what you are talking about, you keep stating things as if they are true, something isn't sound just because you say so, and you don't understand what a theory is.
I do know what a theory is, and I accept that my model is a weak theory in that there isn't much in way of experimentation to verify it. However, it does make predictions with some phenomena (as with weight) that can be used to determine its viability. Because the predictions it makes are entirely consistent with what is known and accepted as true, it is a theory!
Granted, it isn't a strong theory (not all theories are, by the way), but it is a theory nonetheless.
You're wrong about that. Even cells in stone move together for common goals. "All" solid matter is moving within. Does a sperm swim without conscience thought? What about bacteria , mold, parasites,,,,cells make up who we are and cells function in lava, water, acid, wood, and all manner of stone. Cells naturally swim,wiggle and even walk my friend.
If there was evidence for it then sure. But as of right now there is not a single scientific finding that points to a creator let alone even a god existing. Its all faith based which is essentially illogical.
Faith isn't necessarily illogical. Blind faith is, but a simple level of trust is not. If anything it's more logical to have faith in those with more education and knowledge than yourself, and to believe what they say. That's the way most young atheists have faith in science journals and the sort.
Ok ill grant you that there are multiple definitions of faith and a deep trust is one of them. However, when were talking about religion (which we are) it IS blind faith. Total trust in that for which there is no evidence. That is illogical
Unless you count all of the evidence for natural processes that contradict a god, all rebuttals of holy texts, and all refutations of theological arguments as well as the scientific method and basic common sense. Which I do
We cant 100% disprove it because we cant test for it. HOWEVER, we can still reason based on the evidence we DO have and CAN test for. And based on our reasoning a God's likelyhood of existing is zilch.
No, because something that is unexplained doesnt mean it will never be explained. And even if we found something that was indeed unexplainable it wouldnt be grounds to believe every word of a 2000 year old holy book and the other unexplainable existence of a god. One unexplainable doesnt warrant belief in another. And i think you mean if there was indisputable proof of god, would i convert? Well id have no choice. id be unconsciously convinced god was real but if it was in fact the god of the bible id rather kill myself than worship that evil, sadistic, moronic, asshole of a god.
No, because something that is unexplained doesnt mean it will never be explained
Question: Does explaining something disproves God?
And even if we found something that was indeed unexplainable it wouldnt be grounds to believe every word of a 2000 year old holy book and the other unexplainable existence of a god.
Dont you think that the existence of miracles are enough to prove the existance of a higher being?
One unexplainable doesnt warrant belief in another
You can become a Deist, though. We believe in a God, but not in the corrupted religion.
Question: Does explaining something disproves God?
No, but if its the creation of the universe then it kinda does. And if biblical claims are explained by other means it destroys the bible which also disproves the idea of the biblical god. And often when things are explained it doesnt disprove god, but if god is not in that explaination then it certainly doesnt help his case.
Dont you think that the existence of miracles are enough to prove the existance of a higher being?
No. Proof of a higher being is proof of a higher being. Miracles occuring could result in many theories. Some possibly including beings, others using natural explainations or supernatural forces.
You can become a Deist, though. We believe in a God, but not in the corrupted religion
Deism is a pointless position. And it would still require me believing a god exists which i dont and probably never will.
If we discover how the universe began then a God would become pointless. It would pretty much be disproven. Whats the use of a god who didnt create anything? It certainly wouldnt be yaweh if that were the case so therfore no heaven or hell or jesus either. It would be useless and still unproven.
Question: In what form should God be in the explanation?
Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, personal being. It cant just be nature or something like that. a literal god being
May I hear what theory you have for the Lady of Guadalupe (which you didnt replied at)
Spooky magic tapestry doesnt = yaweh exists and created everything. I dont have to give anything. im not wasting my time researching for you. It isnt proof of anything or even relevant.
Any honest man will sit on the fence. Keeping a closemind only benefits the fool, y know.
Are you fucking retarded? Deism is a positive claim that a god exists, just not a personal one. It isnt a fence position its a full theistic position. And im an agnostic atheist. im on the fence either way the evidence goes but i dont believe that god exists. If the evidence shifts in that direction ill believe but as of right now its shifting the other way so i dont believe
We already have. And its called the "M theory". It explains how the universe began, but never disproves God.
Did i say disprove? no. I said then god becomes pointless.
Didnt create anything, or you simply explain how he did it?
Both
Oh, so you mean that human have to be dependent on him? Sounds like your wishing for a communist regime
THATS THE FUCKING CHRISTIAN GOD. ANY NON PERSONAL GOD WOULD BE USELESS AND WOULDNT WARRANT WORSHIP OF IT.
Your definition of Agnostism is a bad one
How the fuck is it a bad one? Agnosticism = I DONT KNOW. I dont know if theres a god and ill go whichever way the evidence goes. Right now it goes against his existence so wheras I DONT KNOW i also THINK that he ISNT real.
In what way does it disproves God?
Are you honestly retarded? Like seriously just let me know and ill spell everything out for you. I cant disprove god. Im not TRYING to disprove god. You made the fence sitter comment and i disputed it. Thats it.
And so you'll shut the fuck up about the stupid magic tapestry heres the evidence that it's a FRAUD:
When ACTUAL scientists look at things we get REAL findings. When crazy religious people give things a passing glance we get myths and stories and fabrications.
And HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! i didnt realize you linked something and lo and behold its the CATHOLIC NEWS HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! They dont even know what science is!!! HAHAHA get a scientific source and then we'll talk
I can see that you already made your own conclusion about the article. But with this courage to laugh, can I assume that you have something that can disprove it?
Here is the Scientific Records that you seek (Sources is NASA). You can search for "Lady of Guadalupe scientific findings" if you wish the condensed version. Just be warned though, most are Catholic sources.
Now I ask, will you deny this findings as mere coincidence?
Until the statement "a God/Intelligent Designer created the Universe" is supported with premises I consider valid, I shall deem it an illogical statement.
Until you disprove that "a God/Intelligent Designer created the Universe", I shall deem the statement "a God/Intelligent Designer created the Universe" a very logical statement (based upon the evidence for).
I have no interest in disproving the statement to you. I would have just as hard a time disproving the statement that: "the universe has always existed". I will ask you a question about your logic though, that I hope you are kind enough to answer. Since you suppose that an intelligent being created the universe, do you suppose this intelligent being always was, or was this being also created by another intelligent being? My hunch is that the universe expands beyond any individual living being and that it always was. I see no reason to believe the universe was created. Maybe you can help me improve my understanding. I'd sure be grateful if you could.
Do you believe the Universe created you? That is, that evolution happened and you became, via a female and a male? Do you believe this is how you came to be? If so..
Ok, I will follow the example you set.... Is ignoring questions just how you like to roll? Do you understand that asking a series of questions immediately after being asked one is a tactic of avoidance? Do you see this sort of behavior as detrimental to deepening conversations? Do you think it's silly of me to refuse to settle for less than mutually respectful interaction?
Do you not know how reasoning and the burden of proof work? youve been on this site long enough. You're defending the positive claim that "A God/Intelligent Designer created the Universe". It is then your job to support that. I can reject that claim and not have to support my stance at all. Doubt is a default position. Im doubting your claim, that other guy is doubting your claim. We dont have to disprove shit. You dont ever see in court the defense having to disprove the persecutions claims 100%. THe persecution must support their positive accusation.
I do not need to tell you, nor provide evidence, that unicorns do not exist.
Nor leprechauns, nor vampires, no werewolves.
Why is this? This is because (one reason) the majority of people know it is not true and there is little evidence to say so.
Mankinds history is full of "religion" and "spirituality", the majority of people know it is true and they've got plenty evidence to say so.
There is a HUGE fucking difference. This is not fairy tales of the human mind.
We're talking mankind, as a whole throughout history, believing in X, Y, Z God(s), versus, a few people (throughout history), believe in X, Y, Z fairytales. Do not get that shit mixed up; they are obviously different.
And so, since mankind throughout history has claimed X, Y, Z., with the common denominator being GOD (S). AND SO, science common denominator is fucking OBSERVANCE (empirical data), AND SO, if many atheists rely on SCIENCE and not "belief", then please provide empirical data that most, if not all, mankind will believe there is no God*. < - - - - - - - That will be your 100 percent proof, that God(s) does not exist.
I'm done with that bullshit logic that you as well as many other bring to the table, it is irrelevant to the truth that which ALL OF US are seeking.
It does not because nobody gives a shit about unicorns. Guess how many more people care about care and believe in "it" more than they give a shit about unicorns. Therefore, this is old news, your ideals of refuting God with this is not relevant.
And so, when things matter in this world, like the belief in God, you must give evidence that God does not exist just as much as the person believing so, ought to give evidence that God(s) does exist. And further, there is more evidence for than against the existence of God(s).
What are you talking about? Unicorns are the Avatars of Ruazenith, a key foundational belief necessary for my Alignist world view. Your god is old news, people have been preaching about him for 4000 years or so, yet never once have they demonstrated it's existance. If you want to claim something exists, you have to demonstrate it to exists.
Yes, or course. It would be silly of me to say a statement is logical without first accepting it's premises. As far as whether I am "the all knowing when it comes to what is valid and invalid", that question made me chuckle. As far as I know, I AM the ultimate authority on what I consider valid and invalid.
I challenge you to figure out, then explain where the implication that I am presenting myself as a know-it-all comes from, because all I do here is share my opinion in hopes of finding a good challenge, and if possible being a good challenge.
Upon further consideration, given the opportunity I would reword my initial argument as:
Until the statement "a God/Intelligent Designer created the Universe" is supported with premises I consider valid, I cannot accept it as logical
I don't see how everything- being what everything is- could come from a sentient being. The Big Bang violates so many laws. Ever heard of the Conservation of mass? Ever heard about the Cambrian explosion, the cosmological inflation used to explain the fine-tuning problem has NO EVIDENCE for it. A totally Naturalistic person can not at the moment explain what caused these and other problems. The Truth is I do not see how the whole universe was not made by a God. I believe the God is the Christian God.
I 'believe' in the cyclical theory- with the big crunch as well as the big bang. I 'believe' time is eternal, thus Everything exists. (I 'believe' Nothing also exists, which causes the instability that drives time, and stops the universe from being a steady state)
A Christian is a fine one for waving the 'no evidence' flag. What makes your myth more credible than any other religions? Expansion of the universe (shown by red shift) shows direction- an origin point for an explosion.
That still does not explain what caused the first Big Bang. Also Jesus Fulfilled all the prophecies of the Old Testament. Can you give me one contradiction in the bible?
A soldier is a man of war. A peacekeeper- i.e. peaceful diplomat, police, is a man of peace.
Calling a soldier 'a man of peace' is a contradiction, yes. As a medieval re-enactor, I have some experience of, at least, medieval combat. There is no peace there.
Us? Maybe. But the entire universe? Nah. I don't think I have the vocabulary this late at night to explain myself, though. So uh. Someone else can do it or something.
This is more than a yes or no answer. Obviously a higher intelligence created our reality. However, to admit that you must also admit that that entity or group that we call God uses "drama" to distract our interactions with one another so much so that we don't unite for common advancements in planetary exploration. Face it, we are so primitive we are still entrapping one another to make money through imprisonment and euphoric substances. That is still rather primitive behavior. So God...is a deviant.
It is not logical. If you look at evolution, it suggests that the simplest beings are exposed to factors such as the environment and mutations caused the complex beings and creatures on this world we know now. This is true of the universe. All these planets were not here with a blink of an eye as it took a long process that started from a very simple particles. If you want to say that god designed this whole process of the universe getting more complex it would be illogical. Thats because, if god did exist why didnt god just create the complex things right from the get go? because god wanted to? no thats not logic as there is no premise for a being to have created this universe.
The ontological argument is a logical argument but then I am not interested in this kind of argument or metaphysics.Epistemology and scientific inquiry that is empirical is my logical approach.
