Theism explains our existence better than Atheism ?

[Achsah]

lets stick to the fine-tune argument.

do you aknowledge, established science accepts the universe is finetuned to host life, or not ?

i think that would be a good point to start.

I agree we should stick just to one issue. Since you say you are a chemist. Lets just give a closer look at abiogenesis. Please explain, if you think its a plausible hypotheses to explain the origin of life, and why.

Apparently, you don't agree that we should stick to just one issue. Fine-tuning and abiogenesis are not the same issue.

Why are you so dishonest?

i would like to discuss with kwylon about fine-tuning, and with you, unless you call me one more time a liar, about abiogenesis. Thats the last time, i let you name calling me, and afterwards, i will start to ignore you.

[Savonarola]

Once again you you have managed to express what I was trying to communicate in much clearer terms.

You wouldn't believe how long and how many tries it's taken to be able to do that, and I'm sure that some people still don't grasp the message I'm trying to deliver. We'll see if Achsah followed it.

I yield to you on the above question as it was directed at you...and you are the chemist.

But chemistry is simply applied physics! Don't go far.

[Savonarola]

i would like to discuss with kwylon about fine-tuning, and with you, unless you call me one more time a liar, about abiogenesis. Thats the last time, i let you name calling me, and afterwards, i will start to ignore you.

"Start"? You've been ignoring me up until minutes ago.

But fine, if you're not ignoring me now, then you should go back, read what I've already posted in this thread about abiogenesis, and respond to it.

[Dardedar]

you should go back, read what I've already posted in this thread about abiogenesis, and respond to it.

DAR
Perhaps he could also kick back for a view minutes and watch this video I told him about on Thursday.

Again: Here is a nice video for Achsah to watch. It shows that we indeed have very good, entirely naturalistic explanations describing how abiogenesis can work with no God's or miracles required.

Watch it here

[Savonarola]

Perhaps he could also kick back for a view minutes and watch this video I told him about on Thursday.

I was tempted to re-post that link, but I'm not sure he'll watch it, and there's no telling what words from it he'd type into Google to find something to copy and paste here in response.

[Doug]

Who has knocked down a argument, is me so far. You can choose another one, than virtual particles. You need a LOT of faith to believe, these could be a reasonable explanation for the existence of our universe.

Are you going to just go with blatant, mere assertions now? You made a statement above, but you provide no evidence that you have knocked down anything, or that it takes faith to believe in virtual particles, which are predicted, postulated, and detected by science. That's head and shoulders above anything you have for ghosts with magic powers.

Citing reams of work from a theology website is unconvincing. What is convincing is that scientists have worked with the inflationary model of the universe, as appearing from a vacuum fluctuation, and it is the prevailing model in science today.

And where did the preconditions, AkA your vacuum field, come from, to create these vacuum fluctiations ?

Where are the preconditions for your magic ghost? Science can explain vacuum fluctuations. You have nothing for ghosts except "It's magic!" I win by default.

The idea that the Universe may have appeared out of nothing at all, and contains zero energy overall, was developed by Edward Tryon, of the City University in New York, who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory.

See here.

this is a theory, which is far from being able to explain the origin of the universe without a creator, convincingly. And this, not based on arguments of theists, but atheists

Show this. The quotation you cite does not show what you claim. It says that "The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."

But it does not follow from getting energy from a vacuum that the energy is not created from nothing. That is exactly the point at issue. Your source is just begging the question.

Tipler and Barrow, your source, also say, "a true 'creation ex nihilo' would be the spontaneous generation of everything--space-time, the quantum mechanical vacuum, matter--at some time in the past."

But this is just the fallacy of moving the goal posts. To say "only entire universes coming out of nothing count as ex nihilo creation" is creating an ad hoc definition for the purposes of excluding the case in question: a localized ex nihilo production. Just more question-begging.

Ghosts making things out of magic has NO evidential support, no theoretical structure, and does not provide any kind of competing model for an explanation of the universe. "It's magic" is not an explanation. It provides no knowledge.

absolutely nothing is much worse as a reasonable explanation that that. Its worse than the rabbit out of the magicians hat.

You're just writing gibberish now. I don't see anything resembling an attempt at a substantive rebuttal.

In other words, in the marketplace of ideas, you have nothing to bring to the table.

bring a better alternative, and we talk. Your quantum speculation fails in my view. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Period.

Oh, and how do you know that nothing can come from nothing? Have you examined a bunch of nothing to make sure nothing can come from it? You are just repeating a slogan and ignoring what science tells us about the world. I win by default.

You said that the cause of the universe must be "beyond" the universe. By that logic, the cause of the Great Pyramids must be "beyond" Egypt. That obviously does not follow, so your reasoning is obviously flawed.

Your comparison fails at all ends. the pyramids were built by the aegyptians. the universe also needed someone to create it. Neither do you imagine, the pyramids arose out of absolutely nothing.

A. Interesting. And the builders of the pyramids are gone, but their artifacts continue to exist. So even IF you could ever show that a spirit created the universe, you will still not have shown that this spirit still exists. That's one of the huge flaws with both cosmological and teleological arguments: they are about the past only, and show nothing of what exists now.
B. You still don't see how I reduced your claim to absurdity with the analogy. I guess you're just not able to grasp it: you said something to the effect that if Object X is created by something C, then C must be "beyond" X. On that reasoning, if people built the pyramids in Egypt, they must have been beyond Egypt. And a river that carves a canyon must be beyond the canyon. Poor reasoning.

The lack of time, space, matter, etc. has nothing to do with being a person, being finite or infinite, being weak or powerful.

i think actually, all this can follow logically. the univerese had a beginning, therefore a cause.

I've already shown that this does not follow, since science accepts uncaused things can come into existence.

since beyond the universe, nothing physical existed, the cause of the universe had to be spiritual ( non physical ).

That assumes that the universe is the only physical thing. Can you show this? The multiverse theory shows that it is conceptually possible that the universe could come into being from some other physical thing. So when are you going to show that the universe must be the only physical thing to exist?

And defining "spiritual" as non-physical is a negative definition, an empty concept. Could this spiritual being you speak about exist without the universe? If so, what were its properties, since we could not compare it to the physical universe negatively?

Beside this, it had to decide to create the universe. So it had to be personal. Personal and spiritual. Fits perfectly to the description of the god of the bible.

A. Many natural forces work as causes without being conscious. Rivers create canyons, but we don't insist that the river is alive or conscious, or that it made a decision. Other examples are too numerous to mention.
B. If God made a decision, that is an act in time. Before the universe, there was no time. So God could not change or perform any action. Kind of hard to make a decision under those circumstances, wouldn't you say?
C. The god of the Bible is decribed numerous times in ways incompatible with what you suggest. Nonphysical? God walks, changes his mind, goes to places to gather information (not omniscient), and on and on. Need a flood of examples?

So those properties do not follow from the lack of the set of the former properties. You could just as well say that the lack of time, space, or matter implies that the creator of the universe was blue, or green. It just doesn't follow since the concepts are logically independent from the concepts you purport that they derive from.

i dont think so. If there was no time, no space, and no matter, beyond the universe, the cause of the universe had to be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Follows perfectly. Perfectly logical and rational.

A. If the being is timeless, it can't create anything because that is an event IN TIME. Timeless beings do not change; they don't move. They can't act.
B. Spaceless? That conflicts with your claim that the being is infinite. Infinite what, then, if not extension?
C. You have shown nothing about the being having immense power, as you claimed. Being spaceless, timeless, and immaterial says nothing about power. Unicorns are spaceless, timeless, and immaterial--because they don't exist. But it doesn't follow that they can create universes!

Well, as I have already shown, that is flawed reasoning too. Especially since humans have existed in so little time in comparison with the age of the universe, AND the majority of life on Earth is aquatic, AND most land life is insects. So if "us" refers to human beings, you have given no reason at all to think that the universe was designed for human beings. You can't even show that the Earth was designed for human beings, let alone the whole universe.

With 'us', i refere to all lively beings on earth. And, no. You have not shown any flawed reasoning of mine. Try harder.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... 9.htm#1225

1. The exact mass of the universe was necessary for life supporting elements to exist...
2. The exact mass of the universe was required to regulate the expansion of the universe to allow the formation of the sun and the solar system...
3. The vast volume of the universe is required to give the earth just the right amount of light and other electromagnetic radiation to support life and not destroy it...

Why should anyone believe these unsupported claims? You could just as well say that the exact mass of the universe was necessary so I could fart. Since we don't know the exact mass of the universe, how could your absurd source possibly know that its EXACT mass is necessary for anything? This is just too ridiculous to continue.

Rebutting you is like stomping on a slug.

[kwlyon]

Not only WE would not exist, the universe itself would not exist, if the cosmological constant would have been finely tuned, as it was. I guess you agree, this constant is quit uncontroversial. Mainstream scientists, like Krauss, admit it.

In the spirit of full disclosure, this is FAR outside of my field. However I am quite AWARE of the work done on the fine structure constant. I have taken a graduate level physics class where we spent quite a bit of time tinkering with these constants to create our own "universe" and had to argue why it could or could not exist. Thus I am quite aware of how little has to change for the universe to not resemble what it is. However, what I really took away from that class, was how many possible arrangements and modifications to OUR universal constants could exist. It would be ridiculous to assert that there may not be MANY more stable configurations that could yield life of some kind. And I am CERTAIN that Krauss would agree with me. And again, this may well be the only universe that COULD exist for reasons yet unknown. There could be other universes that could exist which follow completely different laws based on completely different constants.

This line of reasoning opens up one hell of a can of worms. I must admit that this is not my corner of the physics playground, and as such I am not an expert on this particular topic. However I have had an opportunity that few have to peer into the window and I wish I could easily convey the experience to you--the mysterious veil around this field has quite dissipated for me and I must say I am not overly impressed. It IS mostly blind conjecture with no possible experimental verification. I think string theory is closer to experimentally verifiable predictions.

As Krauss himself points out, each of the two models left requires a high degree of fine tuning. A universe with a cosmological constant "involves a fine-tuning of over 120 orders of magnitude" while an open universe without a cosmological constant still "involves a fine-tuning of perhaps 60 orders of magnitude."11 In other words, if our universe has a cosmological constant, the value of that constant can vary no more than one part in 10120 (the number one with 120 zeros after it). If it has no cosmological constant, its expansion rate must be fined-tuned to within one part in 1060. For the sake of comparison, the best example of human fine tuning is the gravity wave detector currently under construction, fine tuned to one part in 1023. Human achievement takes on a new perspective in light of such numbers. For that matter, so does divine power.

how do you explain this degree of fine-tuning ?

I do take issue with Krauss's assertion as you have here communicated it. This argument is only valid as it applies to OUR universe and life as WE know it existing. It does not, in any way, address the probability of life in general. It Does not in any way address the probability of A universe existing in general. It does not provide evidence that our universe COULD be any different than it is. Don't get me wrong, allot has come of this type of inquiry, however it is AT THE VERY EDGE of our understanding of the universe. It is little more than well educated conjecture and potentially meaningless mathematical modeling. So, in answer to your question, "how do you explian this degree of fine-tuning", I can't. Krauss can't either, and neither can you.

[Achsah]

this questions goes to all participants :

If God would prove himself to you without any doubt remaining, and it would be the God of the bible, would you wish to start , worshipping him ?

[Dardedar]

this questions goes to all participants :

If God would prove himself to you without any doubt remaining, and it would be the God of the bible, would you wish to start , worshipping him ?

DAR
I would have a chat with Him about this and inquiry as to why, if He is all powerful and not incomplete in anyway, He would find it necessary or useful for a mere human to prostrate themselves before him in this way. Perhaps there are insecurity issues? I know He has had jealousy issues in the past (Exodus 34:14). Having been the creator who bestowed me with the ability to reason and think about such things, He would certainly understand my bringing up the question. If He then could come up with a good reason, or some reward for my trouble, I'd certainly consider it. I'm all for worship where worship is due, especially if it'll help a fellow out.

I am reminded of this quote:

"Contrast the Creator of the Universe with the whole human species. Put forward a reason why the C of the U would give the teensiest smidgeon of interest in the behavior of this sub-miniscule, micro-transitory blip in the career of His universe. This is many orders of magnitude more ludicrous than a human showing interest in the thought processes of a bacterium, let alone BECOMING a bacterium and dying a bacterial death in order to make an impression on the rest of the bacteria. Is there an objective threshold for "ludicrous"? I doubt it. But this degree of concern with the human species, on the part of the C of the U, falls on the far side of my threshold of "ludicrous."

D.
------------------
"...if you claim to have a bucket of water, but offer me no proof, I
don't have a "belief" that your bucket is empty. It could have milk in it, or
syrup, or corn, or cow patties. I don't have any "belief" in any of those
possibilities, but since I have no evidence of them either, I'm not going to
claim I know whether your bucket is empty or full, nor knowledge of its
content. I'm just waiting for you to back up your claim, and
the more you argue that I should take it on "faith," the more outlandish your
claim as to the contents, the more suspicious I am of your claim. If you're a
person who has never had more than $10 in your pocket at a given time, and
you tell me your bucket contains ten billion in cash, I'm going to be REAL
skeptical.
Religion claims it has infinite cash in its bucket, but it refuses to show me
a dime. In fact, it usually asks to borrow MY dime, and says I'll get paid
back after I'm dead! Yeah, right!" --Brent Yaciw

[Doug]

Better odds for that than the odds that a ghost made life by magic powers. Can you show that such a thing is MORE likely than the chance production of life by natural causes?

absolutely. I have done so, already. but you simply ignore the numbers. why that, despite the fact, they are from secular well respected scientists ?

I must have missed the part where you give the odds of ghosts creating life by magic. Can you give me those numbers again?

And you must be unaware of how abiogenesis can easily take place give certain conditions and millions of years. Did you watch the video at the link Darrel posted? Why not?

You can't even show that ghosts or gods exist, so ipso facto you can't show what kinds of things they can create. At least with natural forces, we can know that these natural forces exist, so the odds that existing things did something will ALWAYS be better than the odds that nonexisting things did it.

but thats exactly what you assert. That non existing things ( nothing ) , created everything by chance...... To argue, the universe created itself, is utmost irrational, since how could it create itself, if it did not exist beyond its beginning ?

#1: I assert the universe came from nothing, but by methods science understands at least to some extent, although much remains speculative, and by a process which continues to produce particles today.
#2: You assert that the universe came from nothing (you said that there were no other physical things) by methods of which we have ZERO understanding (magic), initiated by a being which we cannot detect (God), and using methods which have no known parallels in the present day.

So, the universe came from nothing via methods partly understood and observed today, or the universe came from nothing via methods completely unknown by a being not known to exist.

No rational person could think that #2 is a better explanation than #1, given a fair comparison. You lose.

Right, so he [Lee Smolin] doesn't believe that the universe appeared randomly.

thats not what he said. He just showed how small probability is, it to happen by chance.

Rather, he believes that universes tend toward parameters that are optimum for the production of black holes, and that black holes produce other universes. So he thinks that our universe was spawned by a black hole in another universe.

thats what he believes. Let him believe, whatever he wishes. It might make sense to him. To me, it makes no sense whatsoever.

So you throw your own source under the bus and run. Why am I not surprised?

If we want to know what the purpose of an artifact X is, we should look to see what X does. If it was designed well, it should show its function in what it produces or what it does. Most of the universe does not produce life, as far as we know. So whatever purpose the universe has, it is clearly unrelated to life. That's just common sense.

there is not only the factor of quantity, but also of quality. Mere quantity and size does not necessarly say something about purpose.

That's an extraordinarily weak rebuttal. Mega-trillions of stars to one, and this means nothing to you? OK, show that "quality" is an objective measure here and that it trumps more quantity than you could count in a lifetime. Start showing.

You have NO evidence that the universe was designed to produce one lifehosting planet, so your claim is unsupported and totally ad hoc.

thats a desperate, baseless assertion. Even secular scientists aknowledge , the universe was designed to produce life. You don't admit it, thats just a argument of incredulity.

[testimonials snipped]

What nonsense. What you need are arguments, reasons, not testimonials. Where do you think you are, a church?

You have no evidence that the universe was designed to produce one lifehosting planet. That is not a desperate, baseless assertion, it is an observation based on what you have written. You have no such evidence. Testimonials will do you no good here. And none of the testimonials had any argument about why the universe must have been designed to produce one lifehosting planet, as you asserted.

I notice you did not try to rebut my machine shop analogy.

i missed it.

Too bad. It whipped you pretty badly.

[Doug]

I hope you aren't trying to use Aristotle's definition of an efficient cause, because you are doing so incorrectly. But whether you are or not, you have not explained how efficiency is related to our issue. Your question is a non sequitur.

A designer, able to create a universe as ours, must obviously be inimaginably powerful, therefore efficient. Nothing has no properties at all, and is therefore inefficient.

This is a joke, right? Being powerful has nothing to do with being efficient. You tried to parrot some source that was based on Aristotle, and, not knowing what an efficient cause is, you are caught babbling incoherently.

Don't repeat things you don't understand.

what we know, is the needed finetuning of the Big Bang so that our universe would not collapse right in the beginning. The odds are staggering.

What we know is that this universe did not collapse. We don't know that we "needed" it. That begs the question that this universe was intended, which is exactly the question at issue, so you commit the fallacy of begging the question.

That is exactly the issue. Why did it not collapse, if chance, it would so, were almost infinitely large ?

Maybe the universe did collapse, billions of times, until a Big Bang created this one that we're in. We can't know that this is not true, so you can't show that the odds of this universe existing are astronomical.

And since we don't know how many different kinds of universes can exist, we can't say that the odds of this one are unlikely.

if the constants were met, and something had the power to create them, there could theoretically exist a almost infinite number of universes. IF........

Your response is irrelevant to what I wrote. I think you are no longer understanding what I am writing.

Ok, so you quote Newton who gives NO evidence but just repeats your mere assertion. That does not help your case. You still have no evidence.

why do you consider the fact, that the universe is finely tuned to life, no evidence ? again. thats a argument of incredulity.

No, actually YOU have the argument from incredulity. You can't imagine how this universe could come into existence without design, so it must have had a designer. That is incredulity at its heart.

But to ask me to consider the "fact" that the universe is finely tuned for life is to commit the fallacy of begging the question. You are going downhill, Achsah.

Compare: A person walks into a mall and kills 999 out of 1000 people in it. So you conclude that the shooter's purpose was to preserve the life of the lone survivor. That's a highly selective omission of most of the available evidence.

See it the other way around. There were one trillion shooters, to kill one man, at 10m of distance. All miss to shoot the guy.... that would be a incredible coincidence, dont you think ?

Not if there were actually trillions of other people to be shot, in comparison to the trillions of other planets that do NOT have life. THAT is a comparable analogy, unlike your single person, which is not analogous to anything we are discussing. There isn't just one planet in the universe. You commit the fallacy of faulty analogy.

You're doing the same thing with the evidence of the universe. One planet of billions upon billions has life (as far as we know), and this life has existed for a fleeting period out of billions and billions of years, and you conclude that the universe was created for the purpose of that life. That ignores the majority of the prevailing evidence.

It does not, since the odds, this only earth to host life, was one to the 10^220 power. A inimaginable large number.

That is irrelevant to the point you pretend to respond to. Most of the universe cannot host life, as far as we know. So it is irrational to say that the universe was made to have life if almost all of it doesn't. That the odds are greatly against life only ADDS to my point: life in this universe is scarce. So that is probably not its function, if it has one.

Scientists have been able to show how this process worked, but the prize is for actually doing it, which requires more time because it is a more thorough demonstration. But they're close to doing it too.

Not true. http://www.us.net/life/

"The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s).

you just need to propose a highly plausible explanation. Thats all which is required.

You're right. I read too hastily, or got a couple of websites confused. Well, as I have posted below, scientists are very close to actually recreating life in the lab by replicating ancient conditions and showing how these arose naturally. (I take it you still have not seen the video Darrel linked to.)

Researchers have found a way that the genetic molecule RNA could have formed from chemicals present on the early earth. Other studies have supported the hypothesis that primitive cells containing molecules similar to RNA could assemble spontaneously, reproduce and evolve, giving rise to all life. Scientists are now aiming at creating fully self-replicating artificial organisms in the lab­oratory—essentially giving life a second start to understand how it could have started the first time.

See here.

these are baseless assertions, without a hint, how this could have happened by pure chance. Again, you show your credulity without at least examine in a more indepth manner, what these guys assert. Your bias is evident.

Baseless assertions? These researchers are actually DOING this. Scientists publish their research for peer review. And the example I cited isn't the only one of its kind. If this stuff was baseless they'd have been exposed by their peers long ago. What kind of nonsense have you been reduced to now? You are just in denial.

Whining that science has a bias will get you nowhere.

Actually, no. It explains a lot of things.....

Study the history of science. Science, by rejecting the unjustified spirits, magic, etc. that you pretend should be taken seriously, has made more discoveries in the last 100 years than your kind of speculation made in the previous 1000 years. Science is a cutthroat business. You get ahead sometimes by showing that your colleagues are wrong. Unjustified bias, secret conspiracy, etc. will not survive in science. Science is about what WORKS. If ghost and spirit explanations increased our knowledge, science would have them. But those explanations are meaningless, as I have already shown.

It's not bias, it's a desire to get to the truth and use explanations based in reality.

That is not a substantive response, so it is irrelevant. I explained why magic explanations are inferior to naturalistic explanations, and you have no answer, apparently.

You have missed so far, to bring substantial arguments to the table, to back up your position.

So my telling the truth about you hurt so much, you thought you'd say the same thing and lie about me. Childish.

I have SHOWN how my arguments are substantive, and I have SHOWN how yours are not. Mere assertion to the contrary is unconvincing.

Show that the universe occurring naturally is unlikely.

I've done so. Science has done so, and admitted it. Thats why it has proposed the multiverse theory, to have a alternative explanation to design.

You have quoted people who have no arguments for their quotation. That is just wheels idling. It gets you nowhere.

Why do you ignore the obvious ? I will soon see no more reason, to continue our debate, since you ignore the most obvious facts. That makes a reasonable discussion senseless.

Translation: "my ass hurts and I want to stop having it kicked."

Run away if you must, but I hope you have learned something.

[Doug]

If God would prove himself to you without any doubt remaining, and it would be the God of the bible, would you wish to start , worshipping him ?

DOUG
Only if he could also show that he deserved it.

Compare to an equally sensible question:
If a gay leprechaun had such great sex with you that you became his partner, how much would you love him?

[Savonarola]

I agree we should stick just to one issue. Since you say you are a chemist. Lets just give a closer look at abiogenesis.

Apparently, you don't agree that we should stick to just one issue. Fine-tuning and abiogenesis are not the same issue.

Why are you so dishonest?

this questions goes to all participants :

If God would prove himself to you without any doubt remaining, and it would be the God of the bible, would you wish to start , worshipping him ?

Once again, you demonstrate no desire whatsoever to stick to just one issue. You first want to stick to fine tuning. Then you want different people to stick to different things. Then you want everyone to address yet another thing.

You lie about what science says, you lie about what people believe, you even lie about what you want to talk about. Why should I not call you out as a liar? If you don't want to be called a liar, then you'll have to stop lying.

[Savonarola]

this questions goes to all participants :

If God would prove himself to you without any doubt remaining, and it would be the God of the bible, would you wish to start , worshipping him ?

Doug beat me to it. The God of the Bible is logically impossible, as the attributes that deity allegedly possesses are contradictory. A God that is all-loving would not send people to hell, or direct people to rape children, or order the slaughter of innocents.

In a conversation with a pastor I once had, I pointed out the numerous assumptions he started with. I asked him to convince me of the simplest, most basic one: that any deity exists, regardless of further characteristics. Even he seemed dumbfounded at his inability to make a rational argument.

[Achsah]

You lie about what science says,

I guess you know, we have nothing to say to each other anymore, don't you ?

[Achsah]

Translation: "my ass hurts and I want to stop having it kicked."

Ah i see. Thats all your goal here...... but let me tell you. I don't get in to that level of conversation. Rather i think its time to stop here. I think you overrate your ability of debate skills a littlebit, don't ya ? specially, when you need to make " nothing " up ??!!

bay....

[Achsah]

It's time to go........

[Dardedar]

And you were doing so well. I think you almost had us convinced. Just kidding.

If you have any more questions or want help with any of these things, don't hesitate to ask. We're glad to help.

D.
--------------
"You will find by reading the second chapter that God tried to palm off on Adam a beast as his helpmeet... God caused all the animals to walk before Adam in order that he might name them. And the animals came like a managerie into town, and as Adam looked at all the crawlers, jumpers and creepers, this God stood by to see what he would call them. After this procession passed, it was pathetically remarked, "Yet was there not found any helpmeet for Adam." Adam didn't see anything that he could fancy. And I am glad he didn't. If he had, there would not have been a free-thinker in this world; we should have all died orthodox. And finding Adam was so particular, God had to make him a helpmeet, and having used up the nothing he was compelled to take part of the man to make the woman with, and he took from the man a rib...And then imagine a God with a bone in his hand, and about to start a woman, trying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde or a brunette.
Is there an intelligent man or woman in the world who now believes the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent."
--Robert Ingersoll, over a 131 years ago, in his "Mistakes of Moses."

[Doug]

Ah i see. Thats all your goal here...... but let me tell you. I don't get in to that level of conversation. Rather i think its time to stop here. I think you overrate your ability of debate skills a littlebit, don't ya ? specially, when you need to make " nothing " up ??!!

bay....

My goal is to demonstrate to readers of this forum that the arguments you have presented, such as they are, do not work.

I've done that. Run if you must, but please print out or save my roasts of your position so you can read them at your leisure at a later time and perhaps learn something.

[kwlyon]

AchSah,

Took my wife to the movies. Don't bother with the second Nanny McPhee movie...it was rather a letdown if you were a fan of the original. Look, I tried to set up a nice, friendly exchange here. Achsah, your tactics here have been rather dishonest. I understand that you want to believe in a deity. I don't have any problem with this. However I would suggest that you ask yourself WHY you felt compelled to argue such a line on this forum. I would also suggest you reflect on why you felt it necessary to resort to such evasive and dishonest tactics. I will be the first to admit that these guys get a little overly zealous from time to time, however, look back over the exchanges you have had on this forum. Then sleep on it and look over it again. You want to believe in a god, but you are not secure in your faith. That is why you have come on this forum employing childish and evasive rhetoric in an attempt to bolster your beliefs...but in the end it had the opposite effect didn't it. Let me give you some advice from the experience of one who has been in a similar situation...if your faith is important to you, stay away from such "debates". Immerse yourself in a community of others who believe as you wish to believe. If, however, you wish to believe that which is true, take the "leap of faith" and open your mind. There will be consequences either way. I have always felt it is best to understand, as best we can, the reality of the world around us.

Oh, and to answer your question above, ABSOLUTELY! If I were provided with unassailable evidence that a god exist and would grant me life beyond death, I would absolutely worship him/her/it if that got his roxs off and would assure me a place in "heaven". In fact, I am a little concerned about exactly what lengths I might go to in order to appease such a deity. I am not so much afraid of dying as I am really obsessed with the idea of continuing to exist. I ENJOY existing. I don't want to not exist. Thus death scares me. You want to know what scares me more than death? The fact that I have waisted at least a 1/4 of my life--gone in a blur of fear and self loathing. The idea that I might have squandered away the only time I have to exist pandering to a non-existent fairy in the sky. That I might have become so comfortable in my beliefs that I would harm others to defend them, or even become lazy, confident in the promise of eternal life, and fail to contribute anything to those who will come after me. These things scare me far more than the realization of my mortality. Religion has cost me sooo much time. I would gladly give up a vague, baseless promise of eternal life in exchange for the assurance of having this finite time back. But I can't get it back. All I can do is be ever so grateful for the time I may have left, and do something of value with it.

It's been a pleasure,

Kevin