Comments on Atheist Propaganda: The Atheist's Riddle Revisited

Been a while since the last post... Time to enter ...

2010-03-09T22:56:14.608+09:00

Been a while since the last post... Time to enter the debate!

Let me start by stating my credentials. I am not the most intelligent person, but I always try to think my arguments through. My IQ is roughly 121. I am currently in an Australian University studying Microbiolgy.

Now, as for my argument:

I am going to point out a few things I know about life. Things which are rather obvious.

1. Everything that lives will eventually die. Be it Disease, famine, predator, accident, not knowing water depth and jumping, everything that is alive, or will be, will die.

2. Something that is not suited to it's environment is more likely to die. Examples: A crocodile out of water, Plant in constant shade, slow rabbits etc.

3. While things are alive, most of them will reproduce. These reproductions are not clones. Life reproduces with variation. Easily observable, just notice how you're different from your parents.

Because life reproduces with variation, life is constantly changing. In an unchanging environment, that a species has a high survival rate, few changes will occur over long periods of time. If the environment changes, and the species is no longer adapted to living there, the changes will be more dramatic.

A similar thing happens if a species capable of moving moves to a new environment. The changes that occur are also more dramatic. The speed of evolution depends on the level of change.

Now, by 'more dramatic' I mean somewhere in the order of being a new species after 100-150 generations, if the level of change is high. How long the generation is depends on the species. For humans, I'd say a generation is roughly 30 years. Evidence for this is not difficult to find, just google it. In a closed system human population where the environment drastically changes, it would take approximately 3000-4500 years to become an entirely new species. Physically they'd probably look similar to humans in the way that dogs look similar to jackles.

That is what you'd call macro-evolution. Which explains why it hasn't been observed.

Now as for the lizard becoming a bird, that isn't how it works, but I'll do my best to use that analogy.

For starters, the lizards would have to be living mostly in high places, or to be forced there and must stay there.

They would also need to either jump from place to place in their normal lives, or be forced into such behaviour through an envirnomental factor (predator, area subject to flooding, whatever).

A lizard with a slightly lighter bone structure is going to have an easier time making the necessary jumps. It'll also not hit the ground as hard if it fell from said high place (Or it would float easier).

This lizard is more likely to survive, and will pass on his genes to the next generation, some of which will have heavier bones, some will have lighter. Over many generations (lets assume the generation for this lizard is approx. 1 year), the light-weight bone gene will become more prevelent within the species, until all the lizards have bone-density similar to that of modern birds.

ith the assumed generation, this could be anywhere from 100 years to several thousand, depending on how suited the lizard is to jumping from high place to high place.

And don't say 'having the right bone density doesn't make a bird', because I know that. That also is a flawed argument that suggests that only one aspect of a species can change at a time. It's entirely possible that other lizards get pseudo-wings, during this process of evolving lighter bones, which also increase the chance of successful jumps, and decrease the chance of death in failed jumps. Who says their scales can't become more aerodynamic at the same time?

Please point out flaws in my argument, as I believe that a man can learn from his mistakes. Hell, I don't even mind if you come back with: 'That's wrong cause god exists'. Obviously thats not a real argument, but if you feel you can justify it, by all means try.

I call it the 'argument from awe'. Probability is ...

2010-01-26T11:43:35.240+09:00

I call it the 'argument from awe'. Probability is being misused here, as it is on Marshall's site.

Which do you think is more probable? That your driveway would have every molecule in it in exactly the relationship it is, or that you would exist to stand on your driveway?

The problem comes in because probability requires context. There are laws which affect what happens which are, well, laws and then there is chance. But to even try to put a number on the probability without knowing the underlying laws and context is foolish to the extreme.

But big numbers impress us, don't they?

In Darwinian theory, species transforming into oth...

2010-01-05T02:40:38.888+09:00

In Darwinian theory, species transforming into other species would have to come about by many single and mutually exclusive mutations.

For the sake of argument, lets say a lizard was going to evolve into a bird. First you'd need to grow the joints that the wings attach to. Then you'd need the lightweight bone structure that birds have (which lizards have no use for). You'd also need the muscles and the feathers. And because of all that, if you didn't have all of those come up in a single generation then the lizard would be at a serious disadvantage to be eaten by predators.

If you added the parts one each generation you'd have 5 or 6 generations which are weaker before they get stronger, and by then they would be eaten. Not to mention that once they got through w/ the evolution, they would need to adapt to another environment.

So the theory about random mutations doesn't hold up

Well, both of the articles were about micro-evolut...

2010-01-03T21:01:58.107+09:00

Well, both of the articles were about micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, which proves nothing. God would be a sick being if He didn't allow His creations to adapt to changes in the environment. However, it would be more effort than it's worth to change species in order to adapt. That would be a waste of energy.

Yes, there are things that I admit I don't know. L...

2010-01-03T06:49:41.431+09:00

Yes, there are things that I admit I don't know. Like why it is that atheists are so adamant about a God that they don't believe exists. I don't understand women, I don't fully understand God (which is impossible considering that He is infinite, and we're finite), but I do know a bit about Him.

Evolution is not science because it is not observable. We can see the 'effects' but we can only infer, at best, about the causes of them.

You're knowledge of God could be increased if you would read through the Bible instead of being completely ignorant about it. I would recommend the ESV version if you do.

The 'wild' west you refer to never existed. Gun fights during the frontier days were few and far between, Hollywood is the one who made those famous.

Rules would have had to have evolved too. At some point in our history humans would have had to have been armed to the teeth as you put it. That way, they would have evolved into the 'civilized' world we have today. However the second law of thermodynamics would disprove that.

Your admittance to your lack of knowledge of God d...

2010-01-03T03:20:51.828+09:00

Your admittance to your lack of knowledge of God doesn't help you any. Clearly you do not understand anything about God because you can't see how good of a system we have here in this universe. By one animals death, it supplies life to another animal (whether with meat or by decomposing).

Since evolution gives us no moral standards, what makes murder, stealing, etc wrong?

God does not live in our universe and time has no effect on Him, however He has control over it. That's the point of the 'blink of an eye' statement.

The chaos point is saying that what you call chaos is not what God calls chaos.

Yes, we are created in His image, but that doesn't mean that we have His mind in us. People do evil things everyday, that's not part of the mind of God. So no, our minds are not God's mind working in us.

For one, you assume your perfect world to look lik...

2010-01-03T00:21:24.090+09:00

For one, you assume your perfect world to look like God's perfect world. Making the classic mistake of putting God in a box. You assume that 'premature' death is worse than some other form of death, but is it really? If one animal dies, but its body feeds 4 or 5 others, something good has happened.

As far as time taken for evolution, if to God a thousand years is as a blink of an eye and vice versa, why would He want to do everything quickly? Wouldn't He much rather enjoy His work? If He is infinite and has no sense of time, why would He want to do everything quickly?

Is it not possible that what looks like chaos to you is the infinitely complex systems that God has designed?

As for the egg thing, if you were a god, I would loathe you for creating your efficient world and forcing people to live in it.

Reg, I can see where you're coming from. However, ...

2010-01-02T01:06:17.342+09:00

Reg, I can see where you're coming from. However, you do the same thing with circular reasoning by assuming that there is no God.

I assume that there is a God, and argue from that perspective, where you argue from the perspective that there is no God. Thus we have a problem. That problem is that one of us is wrong.

Now there are three theories which may hold truth. There's the atheistic evolution, the theistic evolution, and creationism.

Do you play the lotto? I don't, I like something more solid. With atheistic evolution, you've got a one in a kazillion chance of being right. With theistic evolution or creationism, you've got a ((kazillion-1)/kazillion) chance of being right. I like probabilities like that, they're easy to win.

I personally don't care whether it's theistic evolution or creationism. In the long run it doesn't matter.

I do find it interesting how religions are regarded as superstitious, and 'scientific' evolution isn't. In order for science to be good it must be observable and be able to be performed multiple times. Evolution is neither. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and hasn't been re-performed.

I'm curious why it is you think that there is no God?

As for the glory and sending Jesus, I don't buy it...

2009-09-30T20:43:09.825+09:00

As for the glory and sending Jesus, I don't buy it. God, as defined by the church, is omnipotent. If he really did create us just to worship him, he would just have instilled us with the desire to do so. I see no valid reason why any god would have to prove himself to the beings he created, which are below him.

Sounds like someone giving a dog a treat just so he can pet it.

And no, I don't believe anything about Jesus being sent from heaven to die for our sins. It's a story created by man to support a made-up religion.

You are also glossing over the fact that the churc...

2009-09-30T20:38:58.389+09:00

You are also glossing over the fact that the church states that God is perfect and all-knowing. I have shown you that these to traits, were they to coexist in one being, would logically disprove our existence. A perfect being could not create imperfect beings, because that would suggest he did something wrong. And a perfect being would never need to be worshiped or loved. He would never have want of those things.

If you were perfectly happy, you could, by definition, never want anything more. God is by definition, perfect. So to say he created us to worship him, is to say God is not perfect, which goes against the definition of God.

God is all-knowing, and I already proved that to know all would strip away free will.

If I wrote a book with a main character, and through the book I chronicled everything he did from birth to death, and then somehow created that being, in full accordance to the book I wrote, then had the being read the book, he would be all knowing about his life. The being could never do anything that wasn't known to him. Free will, in this case, would be impossible.

See what I'm saying?

A perfect god would never have created us, and an all-knowing god would have no free will. But how can you be perfect with no free will? Seems like something made up to me.

You might say that the evidence is a bit thin, but...

2009-09-30T20:38:54.195+09:00

You might say that the evidence is a bit thin, but I would point out two significant facts about the evidence.

1. It is not the only evidence, nor is it the most substantial.
2. It's more evidence than has ever been produced for the existence of God.

I feel I must address something else, and that is the fact that I do not reject God because he might be selfish, I reject all gods because they do not exist, because there is no scientific data to back them up.

You suggest that we can not detect God because he exists outside our realm of detection, and that is fine. But what we should be able to test for is indirect actions performed by said God.

One could test the healing power of prayer. (Which, as I have shown earlier in this thread, has been proven to not work work at all.)

One could test whether or not miracles happen. (To date there is a scientific explanation for every miracle that has occurred.)

You can start to disprove God's actions in the Bible. (There is no way that the Arc could have supported two of every animal. There is no way the entire Earth could have been flooded in just 40 days and nights. The human gene pool varies too much to suggest we descended from Adam and Eve, or even Noah and the only 'survivors' of the flood. Etc.)

Here comes the problem. You suggest that perhaps God just wants us to love him and worship him, and that he loves us and all that, but when it comes down to it, there is no reason he should just make us all accept him on blind faith. If he really were that arrogant, wouldn't there only be one religion? Wouldn't we all know he exists? Why would he create people to worship him, and then wait 13.7 billion years to create mankind, and then wait until Jesus died before saying, "Oh yeah, this is the religion. I know my son was Jewish, but forget all that."

Even bigger flaws start to appear after Christianity was formed. They started to worship, not on the sabbath, but instead on Sunday, the day of Ra, the Egyptian sun god. Why? Because Jews worship on Saturday, the Sabbath, and they can't have that. We start to indoctrinate cannibalism into the religion (taken from pagan rituals). People do this all the time when the 'eat of the flesh' and 'drink of the blood'. Easter falls on a pagan holiday, following the cycles of the moon. The list goes on from there, but I assume you get the point.

Christianity formed from the ashes of the defunct pagan religions because there was seen to be more profit and power in it. The Romans had hundreds of gods, each with their own altars or temples. And because of this, the wealth was spread around. With a single god, a single church, and basically a church government (Pope, Cardinals, etc.), the wealth was focused to one mass collection. And with a living god as their savior, and a Bible that was a sin to refute or question, it became pretty clear that this was the religion to make money off of.

You can see the pattern here. If ever a religion was formed to serve the purpose of man, and not God, Christianity was it. Hell, the richest country in the world per-capita is the Vatican. You see where I'm going?

I completely understand why you would reject God o...

2009-09-30T12:23:52.376+09:00

I completely understand why you would reject God on that basis. No one likes an arrogant person. It is a very hard concept to get your arms around, that when we worship God, it's not meant to be because He said so, it's supposed to be because we want to. It is hard to worship Him when you think that all He wants is selfish. But the thing is, it's not. If He didn't want to be glorified by us, He wouldn't have sent His son, there would be no need to because the law would condemn us. But in order to further His glory, He sent His son to save us. What makes Him lovable is the fact that He did save us.

I'm going to take a deeper look at love, because this is the root of the matter. God loves us, so He saves us. OK, makes sense. God wants us to be happy in Him (or in the relationship with Him). In order for us to be happy in Him, He has to be happy in Himself. God has to enjoy Himself in order for us to enjoy Him. Similar to a grumpy old man without any friends, he doesn't enjoy himself, and no one enjoys him. So in order for God to merit glory from us, He has to do something for us, which He did by sending His son. Does that make sense?

I think you explained it well enough. Although it does seem a bit thin, since some scientists believe it, I'll take your word for it. I do have one question, I've heard that light comes from when electrons 'jump' valence levels, does that mean that light may come from one of those other universes?

I will say that you present an argument about God ...

2009-09-30T11:44:55.314+09:00

I will say that you present an argument about God that I can't accept. Nothing against you, it's just I can't believe we are intended to worship a god who has created us simply to worship him. Seems like a kind of god who doesn't deserve our time. Like the give respect to earn respect.

As for other universes interacting with our own, I will ask you to pardon any mistakes I make in my following examples. It's been a while since I have read the examples, but I will do my best.

This is a very simple explanation, so pardon me if it seems slightly childish.

At the subatomic level, you have three basic elements of the atom, protons, neutrons and electrons. The classic model we are all taught that electrons orbit the nucleus in a certain pattern of shells. 2 electrons in the first shell, and 8 electrons in each subsequent shell.

New advances in our ability to observe and experiment on the subatomic plane shows that the previous model of the atom with shells is quite wrong.

It appears now that electrons tend to orbit the nucleus in a more random pattern. That is to say, it is impossible to tell where they are at any given time. What makes this impossible is that the electrons tend to orbit the nucleus through interactions with other, unseen, universes. The reason we cannot detect the electrons at any given point on their path, is because the electron is simultaneously at every given point on it's path at any given time. The theory is that the electron can only be at every given point if it were the same electron spread out through the orbit using other universes.

The multi-verse theory states that for every single variable in our universe, there are an infinite number of universes with every possible variant of every possible outcome of an event.

Thus, the only way the electron can be everywhere is if we are seeing every possible place it can be, as defined by the multi-verse theory.

No other theory can explain the pattern we see in the electron orbit of atoms.

I hope that helps explain some. As I said before, it has been a while since I read up on the theory, so pardon me if I didn't explain well.

I like your thoughts on life on other planets and ...

2009-09-30T06:18:10.717+09:00

I like your thoughts on life on other planets and the multiple universes. Can you point me toward where the other universes interact with our universe?

I like your outlook on evidence. Coming from a Christian background, I've been bombarded with Creationism my whole life, but as time goes on, I've started to see that the Big Bang happened. I'm not yet convinced on Evolution, but I'm not ruling it out.

Thing is, Christians have a tendency to use the Bible as a science book, which in no way was the intended purpose.

I definitely agree with your three facts. The thing is, God exists in order to glorify Himself. True, He doesn't need to have created us in order to be glorified, but He chose to in order to bring Himself more glory. How does He do that? If He had created us to be perfect sinless beings, then that would be the same as creating more angels. It would be more bodies glorifying Him, but it would be from the same perspective as the angels. So He created us knowing that we would fall into sin, so that even from a fallen world, He would be glorified through loving us and sacrificing His Son. It's similar to a politician, when he gets praised from his own party, it means little or nothing, but when he gets praise from an opposing party, then he has legitimacy. Same basic principle.

I like your logic, it is very objective, but the Christian walk is subjective as well. I am not an emotional man at all. I still have problems with God's love. It doesn't make sense to me for Him to sacrifice His Son for our sake. Unless you already know that through Jesus' death God would be glorified, it doesn't make sense.

You said that God has no free will. Well, He does, except that He cannot sin. He is perfect, He wrote the perfect law for us to follow (although no one is perfect, which is why Jesus had to be sacrificed). God's free will is to glorify Himself. God wants us to have joy in Him, the key word is 'in.' Meaning a relationship with Him. Now if He is not satisfied with Himself, then there is no way that we can be either.

When you say that God cannot control His own destiny, I think you miss part of Him. His purpose is to glorify Himself and enjoy Himself. Since God is eternal, having a destiny doesn't really apply. Although it is a good thought, I think you put God into a box.

I will take a look at those books, probably not all of them, but I will look into it. Thank you for your suggestions.

As for why I don't believe in God controlling the ...

2009-09-30T02:29:20.978+09:00

As for why I don't believe in God controlling the universe or anything, well, it's because the Christian God falls into a trap of circular logic. I may not be able to experiment on him, or show that he interferes with the universe, but I can logically suggest that his existence would negate the existence of the universe.

Here's how it works. (By the way, I was born into the Christian faith, I was confirmed in the church, and I have read the Bible. I am using what I was taught about God to support my logic.)

1. The Christian God is all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipotent and perfect in every way. I think you and I can agree on this.
2. A being who is perfect and omnipotent will never have any want or need. I can support this through the mere definition of the words. If you are perfect you can require nothing else, and if you are omnipotent, you can grant yourself anything you require to stay alive.
3. A being who is all-knowing would know everything from its beginning to its end. Its entire life would be known to it from its creation. This fits the definition of all-knowing.

Now, using these three facts, which I am sure we can both agree accurately describes the Christian god, we can start to logically define why he shouldn't exist, or why we shouldn't exist.

We shouldn't exist.

Why? Because a god who is perfect and free from want will never need anything from anyone. He will never need praise. He will never need worship. And he will never need to create trivial beings. If the Christian god really does exist, there would be no reason for him to have created us, because he would never need us. There would be no point in his making of us. He would be perfectly content without us.

Along the lines of why we shouldn't exist, if God were all-knowing, and knew his entire life span (which I hope we agreed is something an all-knowing being would know), there would be no reason to create us. He would know that we would all sin, disobey his words, fight wars, murder, steal, rape, praise him, praise evil, etc. All of human history would be pointless, because as soon as he came into being all our lives would be known and so would our deaths. And I doubt a perfect being without want or need would ever create something so imperfect as humans.

Here's some of the circular logic that traps God into the realm of why he shouldn't exist.

We established he is perfect and omnipotent and all-knowing. Well, there's a flaw there. And a perfect being with a flaw is not perfect. What's the flaw? Simple.

If God is all-knowing as we established and defined, then he has no free will. He cannot do anything he wants to do. He would be defined and held to doing only what his knowledge of his actions held him to. It's like knowing the future, anything you do will lead to a specific outcome, and in the end, anything you have done would have already been predetermined.

The flaw is that how can a perfect being who is omnipotent not have control of their own destiny. This would lead to believe that the being is either not perfect or not all-knowing. Or they don't exist.

Logically, we have to assume they don't exist, because any definition we apply to them tends to cancel out their existence.

As for the books, it's always good to start with Stephen Hawking's 'Universe in a Nutshell' and 'A Brief History of Time'. As for Michio Kaku, 'Hyperspace', 'Parallel Worlds' and 'Physics of the Impossible' are must reads.

Good line of questioning. I appreciate that. The...

2009-09-30T02:29:16.839+09:00

Good line of questioning. I appreciate that.

The 11% chance comes from planets that fall within a certain set of parameters. Several things need to be present to harbor life as we know it. First you need liquid water. Second you need oxygen in some form. And third you need carbon. Since the only life we have ever found (which is life on Earth) requires all three of these things, this is what we look for.

Now, not all planets can contain these things, and some contain one or two. Mars, for example, contains all three things. The problem with finding life on Mars though is that the planet appears to be dead. We are still looking for life to have survived in the polar ice caps, but it is an expensive and very time-consuming process. There is a chance we have missed our opportunity to discover life on Mars. It may have existed millions of years ago when the planet was younger and more hospitable. The fact is, we have yet to find out one way or another.

I use Mars as an example because it is currently the only planet we believe could have supported life at one point or another. Going out past Mars runs you into the problems of gas giants, which don't contain liquid water, and frozen ice-planets like the dwarf planet Pluto. It is argued that some of the moons of Jupiter may hold liquid water under their frozen surface, the problem is finding it.

I don't want to go too long into this, you can certainly find out more on your own with a little research on the internet, or by watching 'The Universe' on TV. Both are excellent sources of information, and can do a much batter job than I can in this little space.

To answer your question more directly before moving on, we haven't found life because our solar system offers little in the way of life-supporting planets or moons. Our reaches into the galaxy are very very small, so it will take a long time before we can study other planets and moons.

As to the existence of God. First, I don't know that there are multiple universes. I do know that the research and experiments allow for them. I also know that for certain theories to work, they must exist. Can we see them? Of course not, but we can measure how they interact with our universe. And this leads me to believe the science on the theory.

This is how my reasoning works. If you can provide clear data suggesting something, and back it up through experiment and observation, I can begin to accept the theory. Might it prove false? Sure. Who knows what we will discover later on down the road. But I am always willing to change my ideas to support the evidence, and this is key. I don't change the evidence to support my ideas. Which is a trap many religious advocates fall into.

Hold on, Jim, I do believe that the Big Bang happe...

2009-09-29T21:55:37.430+09:00

Hold on, Jim, I do believe that the Big Bang happened, Red shift and all that, proves it.

Can you name a specific book or article by him? I'm interested in learning.

Here's your flaw, since God is not physical, science cannot observe Him. You're quick to say that there are multiple universes, but you don't believe in something just because you cannot see it. How do you know that there isn't a God controlling those multiple universes? If He's God, then surely He will be able to be undetected by His creation.

I got your math, makes sense and all. But if that was the case that you have an 11% chance of life starting, then why don't we have life on other planets too? I would assume that if life was found elsewhere that scientists would tell us about it.

Now, you have admitted yourself that the chances o...

2009-09-29T21:18:46.150+09:00

Now, you have admitted yourself that the chances of life beginning without God's help is extremely thin. I would assume this to mean that you do think it's possible, otherwise you would not have given it it an 'extremely thin' chance.

Let's do some math. Try to keep up.

There are an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. This is an underestimate, as we cannot see past our light horizon.

With all the galaxies combined, we have roughly 10^21 stars in our universe. Astronomers safely estimate the number of planets in the universe as being 3^22.

These are big numbers, so hold on tight.

With all these planets, stars and galaxies, only a small percentage can supposedly harbor life. Of those planets, it is assumed that intelligent life (I say assumed because so far they are assuming all intelligent life must be like us, that is, carbon-based, oxygen breathing, water dependent.) Can only survive on a small fraction of those planets. Assuming how long it takes life to naturally occur, develop, survive extinctions, and evolve into intelligent beings, we can start to estimate the number of intelligent species in the universe.

Now mind you, these number reflect your 'extremely thin' chance.

Our galaxy should be able to support roughly 35,000 intelligent life-forms. And our galaxy is considered around medium size. So I will use this as an average for the universe.

With each galaxy being able to support 35,000 (est) intelligent life forms, the galaxy should support around 3.5^15 intelligent life-forms. This is a low figure considering how many planets there are in the universe. This is chance less than one percent of one percent of one percent per planet.

You will note I only included intelligent life in my estimates. You have to remember other factors, such as life that began and did not make it to intelligent levels, life that exists but is not intelligent, etc. On Earth alone there are millions of life forms that are not intelligent. If you want to predict the possibility of life in general in the universe, we have to increase our 35,000 life forms per galaxy over a million-fold at least. This gives us a new number of 3.5^21 life-forms in our universe. Which is about an eleven percent chance that any planet can support support life.

I would hope you think that an 11% chance is not 'extremely thin'. Because that is the chance that a planet with life-supporting capabilities has to form life. It's not a question of whether or not it can happen at that point, but a question of when.

With all that said, I have shown that in a universe without God, we have at least an 11% chance of having life being created naturally without help from God.

Those are decent odds. Better the 1/10. You have a greater chance of life being created naturally every for a year than winning the lottery once in a lifetime.

Not too thin.

Again, the Admin brings up some great points here....

2009-09-29T21:04:27.701+09:00

Again, the Admin brings up some great points here. You want to prove that the Atheist stance is illogical? Let's go over your logic right now.

Size of the Big Bang:

I am pretty sure, no, 100% sure that scientists have not changed the size of the Big Bang. They agree that it was a point, smaller than an atom with infinite mass. But this is not the point of the Big Bang is it? Who cares if it was the size of a basketball? It doesn't effect the outcome.

No evidence for the Big Bang:

Yeah. Like the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) imagery? The one that perfectly fit the models and theories of the Big Bang well before the picture was ever taken? The "smoking gun" of the Big Bang? The image that could only fit in the universe if the universe originated in a Big Bang? Hmmm...

No evidence for Multiple Universes:

You mean besides String Theory and M-Theory? There are dozens of scientific endeavors set out to study sub-atomic phenomena that can only occur if the muli-verse theory is correct. String Theory requires multiple universes to interact in the 11 and 26 dimension realm. There are mountains of evidence supporting multiple universes. I will not list everything here as I would hope to avoid writing a doctoral thesis. But I will make some suggestions as to where to find the information. Try reading anything by Michio Kaku. He does a great job at breaking down the theory.

More likely to have a God than not:

Well now. You just re-entered the math ring without any math. I have already told you that when assuming the existence of anything, you first have to assume that what you are looking for doesn't exist. Why? Because you can't see it where you are. Example: You tell me there are hippos outside. I would have to assume you are wrong and that there are no hippos outside. I look out my window. In my immediate area there are no hippos, and so far my assumption is right. I travel to the zoo, go to the hippo enclosure and see a hippo. Now my assumption was proven false as there is a hippo outside. This works with God as well. You have to assume there is no God. Why? You can't see him, hear him, interact with him, measure anything he does, verify that he even interacts. Nothing in all the world has ever measured his existence in any way, shape or form.

I have said this before, and I will say it again; Just because you believe your logic doesn't make it logic.

In order for you to call something illogical, you have to first be able to break down the logic using another form of logic.

That is, you can't just say that because there is an astronomical chance of life starting, there has to be a God. You have tried to break down the logic of nature being able to produce life over 13 billion years (which I have shown is not mathematically that astronomical) with an assumption. It's like throwing a water balloon at a castle. Good job, but your not really helping the fight.

Nathan, tell me in one sentence why I should take ...

2009-09-29T17:54:49.709+09:00

Nathan, tell me in one sentence why I should take you seriously after the display you've put on on this site. Why do your opinions deserve my respect, and why do your posts deserve to be read?

Here's the problem.... you invented a being, and i...

2009-09-29T17:52:37.641+09:00

Here's the problem.... you invented a being, and invented a place for it. You cannot defend the assertion that there is even such a place as "outside of the physical universe". I'm not sure that even makes any sense. And you certainly cannot defend the claim that anything is able to exist there. That position is unfalsifiable, and therefore, bulletproof. But it is also completely useless to our understanding of anything, indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

Where you begin to have a problem is when you claim that this thing does stuff in THIS universe. Stuff like answering prayer. Well dang, that sure is testable!

"Again, you assume that God will act constantly, but why does He need to? Why is He going to be your lab rat?"

Right.... so if we want to test if prayer is answered, your god doesn't want to be our lab rat. But you'll then cite the soul study and claim it has some value.....

"You need to read the rest of my last post."

I most certainly do not. You've proven to be a liar, who has admitted he has no idea what he was talking about. You are not a reliable source of information, and that is the bed you've made for yourself on this site. Deal with it. Reading your posts is generally not useful in any way. You have no credibility, and I have no respect for you of any kind. So what value do your posts have? Tell you what, why don't you pray that your god sends to me a person who can competently argue the case for it?

"I am a 5 point Calvinist, which means that I believe that once you are saved, you will stay saved. You never truly believed."

Right. This argument is circular, unfalsifiable, and oh-so religious to the core.

Still waiting for you to acknowledge those 3 things above.

Again, you assume that God will act constantly, bu...

2009-09-29T10:50:55.707+09:00

Again, you assume that God will act constantly, but why does He need to? Why is He going to be your lab rat? You clearly don't understand the concept of God with that attitude.

I am a 5 point Calvinist, which means that I believe that once you are saved, you will stay saved. You never truly believed.

You need to read the rest of my last post.

By the way, why is it that even though you admitte...

2009-09-29T10:32:31.594+09:00

By the way, why is it that even though you admitted you don't know much about science, you keep coming here and telling me what science can and can't do? Isn't it wrong to pretend to know about something that you don't? Isn't that called "lying"? Don't you think that I, actually having a scientific education, might know better than you?

Nathan, you need to start looking at the sources of almost everything you think you know. If what you'd written on this page is representative of the facts that are in your head, you might need to start wondering about the people who gave you this information, and consider the possibility that you hold a large, large number of ideas that are completely baseless.

But Nathan, I once again want you to own up to you...

2009-09-29T10:29:31.031+09:00

But Nathan, I once again want you to own up to your mistakes, and I'd also like you to explicitly say that you accept evolution, as you invoked it in a previous argument.

So if you're not a coward:

1. Admit that you were wrong once again about the atheists in foxholes.

2. Admit that you have been wrong about almost every 'fact' you have presented here up until now.

3. Admit that you accept evolution. Or deny it. But if you deny it, don't ever try to use it again to support one of your points.

"And since God is outside of the physical world, H...

2009-09-29T10:26:21.426+09:00

"And since God is outside of the physical world, He cannot be measured, but His acts can be."

You don't see a problem with this sentence? Nathan, anything which has any interaction with this Universe (ie. makes things happen), can be detected. You assert that it can't be detected, which is not true, so that you can justify the fact that is hasn't been done. The only kind of thing which cannot be detected are those things which do not exist. You even said yourself, the acts can be measured. That's exactly right! If a god was pulling strings, we should see some strange things happening, but we don't.

"I could get into all the things I love about being a Christian, but you wouldn't understand."

I stopped reading your post here. Has it occurred to you that I was a Christian in the past? You think I wouldn't understand? I DO understand, and I understand where I went wrong. What you don't understand is what it means to finally be able to answer some of the questions you claim are mysteries. The answer is extremely simple.