LOL, the other thread is already hijacked. I'm not sure starting a second one will serve its intended purpose.

I was just trying to see if this one would take some of the fire off of that one. I tried to give the guy some works to peruse which might have been helpful, but he'd end up having to read a book's worth of opinons to get to people trying to give him viable info. :-)

Well, I admit I haven't read "The Language of God", and I can honestly say that I don't see it making on to the large waiting list for my reading.

My point was that in the articles I have read concerning Collins and in the debate I've seen him in it seems he would be very close to Christian dogma on details such as God made us as we are in his image if it were not for his scientific knowledge. It seems to me that he puts his scientific knowledge in priority and says that, well evolution has to be true, so there's no way that God created us as we are. He relegates his faith to a logical little corner that is unassailable by science and evidence and says that God uses evolution for his divine purpose and that science cannot disprove his existence. What I'm saying is that for Collins, God fills all the gaps that science doesn't, but he takes science as primary to literal interpretation of scripture. Obviously he can't accept YEC because it goes against scientific consensus and what he accepts to be true. It's interesting because I'm sure that if science had more answers, say if he lived 10 years from now, his faith might be relegated to an even smaller slice of reality as science starts to encroach.

This is known as the "God of the gaps".

Regarding the argument that the universe had to be created because something can't come from nothing:

Where did God come from?

Although looking back at the other thread now, I can see that Crazy Anglican has argued that Francis Collins argues against this notion. The Wikipedia entry on God of the Gaps says: "Francis Collins, noted geneticist of Christian faith and head of the Human Genome Project, expounded on this in his book, "The Language of God" where he argues that using the God-of-the-gaps theory is scientifically irresponsible for Christians and may even be considered to take away from beautiful complexity of God's creation."

Common misunderstanding Pandarsenic. The common answer to your question is that God has always existed. I hope this clears things up for you.

if horses had gods they would be and act like horses....Xenophon.
we needed him so we invented him....all else follows....

....sorry about the "him"...it just slipped out!!

Re:Spyman

I hope you're being sarcastic, because that's exactly the problem I'm pointing out. If you say God can have always existed, you must allow the same possibility for the universe and God becomes unnecessary again.

I didn't say that was my answer to this question, rather what I meant was that this was the usual answer to this question.
I agree this answer is not satisfactory. Perhaps for theologians it is not the existence of the universe that necessitates God, but rather the universe's properties: for example, beauty, love, complexity etc.

Re sarcasm, I apologize for my weak attempt at humour.

I don't know, Spyman, a lot of theists insist that God is the only way the universe could have come into existence.

Lack of imagination. I prefer the creation stories of ancient mythology because they're so much more inventive. =)

@pandy, spyman - I'd say you place a great deal of faith in Science as a creator.

Nothing or Nobody we are aware of has ever created somethine from nothing. We have manipulated what we have, to form things, to be sure, but never has there been nothing and we have made it something. It is impossible

My point was that for believers in a creator this argument makes much more sense. If I could italicize sense I would've. You guys seems more comfortable in playing devil's advocate to the theistic answer than approaching it. Chrisp this is why I say atheists DO want proof. Who created God? That question doesn't even make sense. God is not within of realm of reality.

A Soviet astronaut, during the cold war, said he had went to the heavens and God was not there. In a bizarre way, many believed that proved that God didn't exist. God is not created or measured or seen in that way. He is the author and creator, not belonging with the creat-ed.

Surely you can see that the theists are, though their response to this is unprovable, are ground that makes much more sense?

I don't have faith in science as the creator. Science is a means with which to obtain, organize and use knowledge. Science did not create the universe.
I have no idea where the universe came from. I would happily accept God as the creator if I could think of a reason to. But can't. I am not even sure what God is. Thus I am an athiest is the sense of "without God" rather than having a positive disbelief in His existence.
I believe in natural selection in the sense that I think it seems to a very good way of explaining evolution. However if someone could present a compelling argument that it is wrong or implausible or offered a alternative theory that fit the facts better I would change my beliefs. Can you say the same for you belief in God? If someone could present a complelling argument that it His existence is unlikely or even impossible would you be willing to change your beliefs?

I put it to you bartog: what is God? I God a conscious being? Or is it possible that God is some kind of unconscious force?

typo.. *Is God a conscious being?

@bartdogg42
We don't place faith in Science as a creator. That is a complete misunderstanding of the word Science. We appreciate Science as an Explainer. This is why it is different to God, Science comes from rational, intelligent beings, and as such appears only at the end of an evolutionary process.

The important difference between the Scientific and religious views is how much is needed to start the process. we are attempting to explain how a universe produced complex beings (like us). We cannot end that arguement by suggesting that we need another rational being (God) to create us, since we would then need an arguement to explain God as he would be complex.

I know at this point you desperately want to say something like "God is not within the realm of reality". I could of course simply say: "If God is not within reality then he is not real. We win". However that would just misuse your arguement. I will instead say that where-ever God is he must be complex if he intends a Universe to act out and result in complexity. intention is a complex act. We have already decided that complex beings need explaining, so we then need to explain God.

The scientific, evolutionary viewpoint instead holds that all that is needed to create complex life is energy. Thats all, we know it exists, and we know it existed back then, because of conservation of energy. With energy, particles can be created (the Big Bang, as replicated on a small scale by CERN), with particles stars wil coalesce, with stars chemical diversity is formed in supanovas, with chemistry replicating chemicals (like DNA) can be made, with DNA natural selection takes hold and makes organisms. All that is needed to explain life is energy. This is simpler than a complex God so is a more satisfactory explaination.

Without a physical need for a God we cannot believe in a God without simultaneously justifying belief in about anything that could possibly exist. Since you do not believe in absolutely everything that could possibly exist, only what you were brought up with, you agree that many other deities and supernaturals are not worthy of belief. If you could apply that argument to your own god, it would also be found unworthy of belief.

Yes, I did not mean to imply that Science is your God. You both called me an it and kudos. I guess my point was that your faith in thinking something came from nothing is perhaps greater than my own.

I will say I would be totally willing to dismiss my beliefs should they prove untrue. I would equally be willing to embrace another religion should it prove more viable. In fact, I was on that path before.... a side note is that I was not brought up believing in God. More agnostic.

And OMG your last paragraph is off. My "clues" in the other thread point to a creator, not just some imaginary being/thing. If the world around us does not give clues as to why the flying spaghetti monster exists, then why should I believe it to be so? The world does give clues as to why God exists, so I must consider them.

ps, the main and most convincing argument, for me anyways, is the person of Jesus and the resurrection. I'll talk about them in the other thread in the next couple hours as I'm busy at work.

I've had a look at your "clues". Here are my arguments against them.
1. You don't like the way the Big Bang makes something come from nothing. So you put God there. 2 flaws: the first is that God himself requires explaining, else he comes from nothing. Since something must come from nothing we end up with a choice between God and Energy. Energy is a superior choice because it is simple whereas God is complex enough to design and control. Since we started the argument wishing to explain complexity we have not finished it if we are explaining it with something complex.
2. The cosmological constants. What is being missed in these and similar arguments is that while only these constants can produce our kind of life, other constants would produce other kinds of life. Lets say Life attempted to start on a planet a lot hotter than earth. Carbon based life would fail but Silicon based life (silicon has very similar chemical properties to carbon) could succeed. Therefore life would always result and as each lifeform could only think in terms of itself, it would be unable to appreciate life in the other possible constants.
3. You say we can't use inductive logic unless there is a God, since everything would constantly change. However we can tell from the past that things have stayed similar. Therefore why complicate a viw of the universe by including a God when the view that things stay at rest when not moved is just as explanatory. In addition, why would God stay the same? If that is your viewpoint then God ought to be as fickle as everything else.
4. The argument from Beauty. Why do you presume Beauty needs a God? You are correct that music needs a creator due to its complexity and detatchment from the physical universe. However you should not suppose God is that creator when one is already to hand, namely the musician.

@Bartdogg.
The resurrection is the most silly story I have ever heard. God wished to forgive everyone. Why couldn't he just do that?! God instead chose to kill himself in order to change the laws he made himself. More likely, this story was the product of Israel's bloodthirsty legal system at the time.

I'll refer you to my answer to Chrisp. I didn't say these are proofs, merely good clues for the existence of a creator God.

and you really misunderstand what you keep calling "energy." Energy hasn't existed forever as you've suggested.

Conservartion of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore any energy now was there at the beginning.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. Reread what I've written. I'm not talking about an isolated system. I'm talking about a creat-or outside of the system.

sure, energy, in our system, has probably always been. And sure, energy cannot be created in our system, but again, the creator I propose is outside it.

But then the creator would be inside a "metasystem" which includes him and our system and is also controlled by conservation of energy.
You have merely created an "out of our system" to allow your viewpoint of a God to survive. You have started with the conclusion (that you believe in God) and are creating things to sutain that viewpoint. Starting with what we see around us, a God is unnecessary.

How do you know the conservation of energy applies to the metasystem (by that I presume you mean outside our universe)? Other universes might have different laws of physics. No?

I never said a belief in God is necessary, but that it just makes more sense with reason and these "clues."

Also, you are not only starting with what we see around us, you are ending that way. There is no more.

I am creating things? That God is out of our system? This is not a new idea, nor is it mine. Hawkins and others seem to have come to same the conclusion. If you'e comfortable saying "I don't know and we never will, but NOT God" then you're entitled to that.

@spy was that directed at me or OMG?

I wasn't saying it did; I wasn't granting it for the sake of argument.

Sorry that was to OMGNSO.

@ bartdogg42. I am not ending with what we see around us. I did not see the big bang, but the physical evidence of red shift shows it must play a part in the start of the universe.

The reason I don't think that suggesting an "out of this universe" to explain God is justified because the universe ends up the same whether God exists or not. For an idea to have credence it must result in some difference to competing ideas that results in it being true(er) and the others false. If it is reasonable to believe in ideas other than meet these criteria, then any and all ideas must be considered and believe, even those our society considers mad and nonsensical.

"For an idea to have credence it must result in some difference to competing ideas that results in it being true(er) and the others false"

Ok, the two competing ideas are: (choose for yourself)

1. Things began at the Big Bang. Something came from nothing.

2. Nothing can come from nothing! Therefore...

Actually, to pull back to something posted while I slept:

"God is not within of realm of reality."

That says all you really need.

And bartdogg, you missed other options:

3. Something came from something, experiencing a radical change in what that something was but with that something already having existed as of the Big Bang. That something always has existed and always will exist and it is not God.

4. Something infinitely complex (God, a being capable of altering the laws of reality and dealing in the intangible, the supposed human soul) came from nothing and made something else from nothing too. We then argue that because things around us are so complex, they must have been designed by an infinitely complex being who was, for some reason, not designed.

@pandy - Oh please don't take individual sentences and pull them out of the context of my argument. You know what I meant, sheesh.

re 3. This makes no sense when discussing the origin of life. It's obvious something came from something, my question obviously is where did the first somethings come from?

4. Man I'm tired of this kool-aid. You're looking for proof, and you're not going to find it. You have none either and are living by faith. God didn't "come" at all, He just is. He has no beginning or end. I'm comfortable with saying my position is one of faith, the difference is (and I don't want to pigeon hole you here) that the vast majority of atheists are unwilling to say they are also living by faith. They come from this position of intellectual snobbery with which to say, "Oh, you are taking a blind leap of faith! My conclusion however is supported by much evidence and totally in sync with science."

You have no answer for what came from nothing and are comfortable there. That's fine, but address it as a faith based worldview and not some intellectual high ground.

lmao i appreciate the sentiment of this thread. go ahead and post all the argument stuff here i dont mind the hijacking of the other thread though

if i had time today i'd be arguing right alongside the best of you :P

Moving this argument to the main thread. :D