@ Ursa: The fact that I agree with you that God, IF he did exist, would have to exist outside causation, only strengthens my belief that God does NOT exist.

I don't believe in God and therefore do not believe in the argument from design. I was trying to demonstrate a flaw with it.

In terms of your apparent defence, that God is a "special case", I don't buy this argument either. If God is a "special case", theoretically the universe could also be a "special case" thus nullifying the argument that it must have been designed.

In terms of point two, I most certainly do not believe that the universe has a 'soul' because I do not believe _anything_ has a soul. The concept of a 'soul' is meaningless, sentimental mumbo-jumbo as far as I am concened.

In terms of the universe having existed forever, a scientific hypothesis for this already exists, in terms of the theory of an endless cycle of: Big bang / expansion / contraction / big crunch / another big bang... and so on.

@ zoofie:

"1. The law of causality states that everthing that CAME INTO BEING must have a cause. It is pretty conclusive that the universe did indeed have a starting point since it is expanding and also that it came into being in a violent explosion as suggested by the big bang "radiation" that was discovered. So this indicates that the universe must have a cause since it came into existence. In other words the universe had a beginning and therefore something but have cause it to begin."

I don't necessarily agree. You are presuming that there was nothing there before the Big Bang. But you don't know this. So I do not think it is safe to assume that the universe had a starting point at all - and even if it did, there is no proof that the big bang was that starting point.

"2. You don't need to apply that same logic to everything because reason would suggest that SOMETHING has always existed. If everything that exists needs a cause for it to come into existence then there can really be no point in history where absolutely nothing existed. If something existed forever then it is almost impossible that this something was the universe. So God and the universe are different in that the universe is subject to the law of causality and God is not, since science says the universe had a beginning. "

If SOMETHING has always existed, why not the universe?

"My main scientific argument that there is a God apart from the law of causality is the intelligent structure of the world. It is obvious that at some point the universe did not exist but it is obvious it exists now."

I do not agree that this is obvious. I think, in fact, it may be incorrect.

"Things this complicated do not accidentally come about."

Can you prove this? How do you know that the existence of the universe is not simply the result of random chance?

"I once read that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has 100s of amino acids) by chance is about the same as a blind man finding a single marked grain of sand in the sahara desert 3 times over!"

So? Highly improbable things happen all the time. None of what you say proves the existence of God.

@ zoofie and Ursa:

Both of you are basically arguing that the normal rules do not apply to God. If that is the case, it is impossible to have a logical argument about the existence of God or his supposed role in the creation of the universe, because any time an argument is proposed which does not fit with your views about God, you can just say:

"Aha, but that doesn't apply to God, because he's special!!"

@ Jamie
So.....does that make it false? If there really is a God that has existed forever and created the universe....I'd say he'd have to be pretty special.

So far you have restated our general arguments without responding to any of the specific points brought up. If you won't believe these arguments because you think there is no God then respond to my comment that illustrates the unique absurdity of the claim that this complicated universe came about by accident. You are jumping ahead of yourself by trying to ask "who made God?" Once you have acknowledged that
1. It takes a great leap of faith to believe that the universe came about by chance because of the immensely small probability there is of this happening (practically zero)
2. That is the universe had a beginning, then it must have a cause.

What that cause is would be the next question, but we're not there yet. You're trying to straw man my argument by assuming what my next point will be.

several typos in there

2* that IF the universe had a beginning.....

@ zoofie:

"So far you have restated our general arguments without responding to any of the specific points brought up."

I belive I have responded to most of your points. Which of your points do you feel I have failed to address.

"1. It takes a great leap of faith to believe that the universe came about by chance because of the immensely small probability there is of this happening (practically zero)
2. That is the universe had a beginning, then it must have a cause."

I believe there is every possibility that the universe did not "come about" at all - and in fact has existed for ever.

My problem with your argument is that the nature of your "God is special" claim makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with you, because any argument I could possibly make can be trumped by you simply saying "Ah, but that doesn't count, because God is special." If you really hold that God is so special that no rules, no logic, and no rationale whatsoever need apply to him, what is the point of your attempting to engage in a discussion about the creation of the universe? You will always win the argument on your terms, but I reject your terms.

Ack, typo:

*Which of your points do you feel I have failed to address?

Have you gotten to my points, Jamie? They are quite similar to zoofie's.

BTW, if you have a complaint about the nature God, please report at the heavenly helpdesk (opened 24/7, free of charge).

@ Ursa: If you look above my long-ish response to zoofie, you'll see I did also post a response to you.

Oops, the nature *of* God. This isn't some rhetorical trick to win the discussion but a logical conclusion. That said, and like I said earlier: God has chosen a specific path and comes to us in a specific way. One can even say He has in some degree made His plans subject to our free will. Here and now, we have the option of choosing for or against Him, whether He knows it or not. Again, there's much to say about this subject, but the main message is: don't think too 'humanly' about God--He isn't a human, He is completely different. He only becomes recognizeable when He Himself has chosen to act in terms for humans understandable, and ultimately, becoming human himself. This step is more important than you may think. Without Jesus the distance between God and man is, well, cosmical.

He doesn't exist.

I'd just like to point out that highly improbable things do not happen all the time, if the did then they'd be common things ;-)

Jamiet99uk thank you for finally reaching the main point, which is that Judaism/Christianity have made such a ridiculous lie and farse out of God (or lack thereof as I don't believe in one, which I THINK by inference of LOGIC) in that it is supposedly an all-powerful being that for some reason needs to be noticed and loved,and payed tribute to, etc. The whole system is without liability and was clearly designed by humans as a way of manipulating the minds of people in the time at which these religions were invented. That is not to say that all aspects of religion are bad, it is only to assume that we as humans cannot know or assume to know anything as absolute (let alone everything) and when we pretend (to make ourselves feel falsely secure in a chaotic universe) to know all through God we are lying to ourselves, and creating a dangerously powerful reverie. Especially with the whole apocalyptic portions of many religions. (Religulous anyone?)

who the fuck said God needed to be worshipped? I think the point is humans need to acknowledge their place within the universe and how awe-inspiring the whole thing is.

Also prayer happens to involves assessing ones own needs and (sub)-vocalising them. So you know what it is you need/want, obviously 'God helps those who help themselves' so once you know what you want you just need to work towards your goal. It is possible that God doesn't exist and that Prayer is still a useful and benificial thing for human society.

Still I find it an incredible act of hubris on the part of many religious people to think they understand even the tiniest fraction of what any omnipotent and omniscient being thinks. If God exists we don't have the ability to comprehend what an omniscient being wishes for us, and I feel we need to decide for ourselves what in life to value rather than relying on what can only possibly be the lies which have been passed down to us. (though as i have stated there is still some value to be found in some books of the bible, where the message is still relevant to todays society - the idea of building a kingdom of heaven on earth appeals to me though i might seek to create a utopian society; Realistically I happily work alongside religious people in day-to-day life.)

let's see, the whole liturgical part of religion (ie WORSHIP) oh yeah, that's right, that part. Man created God in his own image (see Old Testament and how much of a whiny bitch God is, it's a funny story still). I'm glad at least that you agree on the hubris part, although the extent to which you take this is different compared to my own, but that's cool. If I were to follow any kind of religion it would probably be either Buddhism (not specifically deistic) or Daoism (which really is a questionable religion). I do believe in a universal flow of energy, but I do not believe in a soul. The existence of Heaven, Hell, and souls are just as unlikely as the existence of God. Once again, I don't have the balls to say 100% God doesn't exist (because that would make me all-knowing which I certainly am not) although I am about 99.999% sure based on my logic and reasoning (other accepted and proved so called "truths"). Who created God, by the way? If the atheist argument of supporting the Big Bang is that the dust was already there (which I believe) then nothing needed to create it. God is unnecessary in my view of the universe (I don't like the story book construction of the Bible - beginning, now, end, it's too idealistic to be realistic). God does not exist for me, which does not mean that if you believe in it strongly enough that it doesn't exist for you. People create their own realities.

@ursa- where was thing heavenly help desk during the holocaust, all the european wars of religion, and let's add the plague for the hell of it? don't give credit to God for all that is good, and then blame all "bad" shit on humans. once again this infalliability/non-reliability argument shielding God is bullshit. If God wants to deal with me it would do it on my humanly (though semi-existentialist leaning) terms or I would have no such deal, where's this so called covenant? btw does anyone think it funny that Moses went up a mountain alone where no-one could see him and brought down two fucking tablets of arbitrary laws from a fucking bush supposedly and that this constitutes the fundamentals of our explanations for morality in the Judeo-Christian sense???

Regarding moses: is it not better to have a set of tablets and a fundamental basis for our morality than to have nothing to base it on?

I don't care what Moses did in those mountains, if he came back with something which was helpful for society to organise itself. (and so what if he had to claim godly authority to get other to buy into his rules? so what if some people were only following the rules because they feared God - and the old testmenant God was a vengful one)

Our modern western society has developed it's sense of morality largely based on those Judeo-Christian traditions, and I for one think western morality has a lot to be desired, however much of that is more modern influences of economic theories...

Morality makes a dangerous assumption, I prefer ethics. And even then they're not perfect. To me morality is relative. There are few absolutes (especially because there is no God). Are you arguing the "means justify the ends" bit, because I would find that ironic considering your main thesis. Do you not think those ten commandments are a bit inflated to say the least? While I agree that killing is not usually the best solution to problems in terms of logic, it is natural as it occurs in the animal kingdom, and because humans are animals with an ego (and hence a superego to go all Freudian), and it is not always going to be agreed upon as an absolute evil by every living person (therefore it is not absolutely wrong). Just because something isn't wrong doesn't mean you should go around doing it in excess. This whole false idea of sin tied to morality in my opinion is meant to get people to pledge false allegiance to a religious system that helps them deal with this made up expression of sin in return for a fake/imaginary salvation of which there is none to have or strive for. Western morality.... let me go off on a mini rant. western morality has allowed, if not perpetrated, all of the previously stated (my last post) generally-accepted atrocious acts of violence/hatred. they are guides that are so unrealistic so as to be broken quite often, though they do for the most part do a good job. these morals were the same that fueled imperialism (by contradiction of their own principles as a means to an end of asserting their power over other savages and damned humans), and many wars.

I never said the ends justified the means. I was suggesting that some good may have come from the actions Moses took. This doesn't mean I believe in following the same strategy, i am willing to give Moses the benifit of the doubt and believe his motives were good, and the fact that we are still talking about him testifies to the success of his strategy. (whether he believed in God or was perpetrating a massive deciet, i don't think it matters)

As for strategy, the society he was in was a very diferent thing from what we have today. Education might be the best tool for improving conditions within our society, but if you are leading a bunch of refugees from fleeing Egypt in a desert you don't have a society to improve, you have to start somewhere.

I would agree with you that morality is relative, and that there may be a time for killing; but i feel it is fair to say that most of the time we can get by within our society without killing - if the rules are applicable most of the time they are a simple place to start. (though with more time for education you odn't need to limit yourself to the simplest rules)

@Jamiet99uk: "I'd just like to point out that highly improbable things do not happen all the time, if the did then they'd be common things ;-)"

Erm, sorry, but you're mistaken. It is unlikely that my house will be struck by lightning. But if my house gets struck by lightning, that doesn't make it "common" for my house to be struck by lightning. It only becomes "common" if my house starts being struck by lightning repeatedly over a given period of time.

I meant that things happen all the time which are improbable, not that one _particular_ improbable thing happens all the time. In that case, as you say, it would be commonplace, but that's not what I was arguing and you know it, so your comment is just trolling.

*(Sorry I was of course quoting CrazyAnglican, not myself. Duh.)

@orathaic: "who the fuck said God needed to be worshipped?"

Religious people say this all the time. People go to church specifically to worship God/Jesus.

@Jamie: you're missing my point.

Is it not possible that Religion said Humans need to worship something, rather than the other way around?

also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6sFVkNmSgs&NR=1

ottovanbis: "The whole system is without liability and was clearly designed by humans as a way of manipulating the minds of people in the time at which these religions were invented."

Let me give you a hint: keep repreating nonsense to yourself and at some point you will start to believe in it. And yes, the irony is there, right on the spot, and I see it!

* repeating

@Jamiet99uk Yes, I did know what you were getting at, but wanted to point out that what you were speaking of was in fact the history of the Universe event. Calling it highly improbable falls a little short. As you say, lightning hitting a house (even your house specifically) is far (again a huge understatement) more likely than having the Universe form with the exact specifications that would allow life to exist. As you say it's not proof of God's existence, but it's certainly something to ponder with respect to the existstence of God. Well respected scientists such as Francis Collins and Stephen Hawking have done so. THere is no reason to merely brush it aside as if this incredibly improbable event were of no importance to the discussion. I'm sorry that you thought I was trolling, but it was a precursor to a more serious post.

** was in fact, a once in the history of the Universe event**

@ Ursa: or you agreeing with me, or taunting me, it's difficult to tell because you could be referring to Religion as "nonsense," but you could also claim my generalization to be just as much "nonsense." While I do agree (and think I even stated somewhere) that truth is relative to how far people will take a belief (as are "absolute" morals). Are you referring to the irony that I pointed out or your own. I realize that I am not always the most cohesive, but your statement is rife with ambiguities. Please elucidate for me.