A valid question, for sure. I'm equally curious why believers can say that some god always existed. History has shown, time and time again, that when people say "god does it/did it," science always finds a natural explanation sooner or later. Yet people keep clinging to this idea that there has to be something that science can't explain, thereby always justifying belief in some god. I think science can figure everything out, given enough time. In the meantime, while we don't know the answer, why not just admit to that? What's wrong with "We simply don't know (yet)?" Why does it have to be "We don't know, therefore god?"
A perfect example of this is the Black plague. They thought God was punishing them - and then, a few hundred years later, it is explained that fleas where carrying the disease, landed on rats, jumped off after allowing them to spread it, and then bit people.
Earth, and the universe, are not remotely 'perfect' for anything. That is a naïve concept. It lies within an admittedly narrow range of attributes which allow the emergence and evolution of life. Once evolution started, life naturally evolved to fit the conditions on earth, not perfectly, but enough to survive and reproduce. There are probably at least tens of trillions of planets in the universe, with conditions covering an enormous range. The idea than none of these could possibly be suitable for life without purposeful outside intervention is the truly bizarre one. It would be like throwing a die a million times and not expecting at least one 6.
Our existence is based on being uncannily lucky. All these small chances. Chances that a stray meteor randomly collides with something and just happens to be one of the only ones that had traces of life. Chances that the planet is hospitable enough for us to survive. Chances that the bacterial mutations randomly create more complex life. Chances that the complex life has enough energy to survive, and mutate further in our general direction. Chances that those mutated beings don't kill each other and doom us. Chances that these organisms move onto land, and don't starve promptly. It goes on, for a very long time. Is it really that hard to believe that, among all these chances, there is a chance that god exists? Just because there isn't an explanation doesn't mean there cannot be a god. Life exists because of all these random chances somehow managing to work out in our favor. All these impossibly small chances. A God can't be that far-fetched. Also, who cares if you can't prove god. What's wrong with "We simply don't know (yet)?" Why does it have to be "We don't know, therefore science."
I like your clever play on my post. It's not so much "We don't know, therefore science" as it is "We don't know, let's find out!" Science is merely what we've named the methodology for doing so.
I guess that's where we disagree. Looking back, "perfect" wasn't the right word, but it's real close. The big bang somehow created us and we somehow landed here and we somehow survived where others couldn't and we somehow evolved to this point doesn't work for me. We weren't the strongest. We weren't the fastest. Science seems to think there are plenty of species out there capable of matching our intelligence, so how come we just got on the high-road while they were left behind? So it seems being the smartest wouldn't be enough to make us this advanced. There's no answer I can give you that will make you change your point of view, and vice versa. I don't mean that as in "I don't want to hear any of that nonsense blah blah blah" but through personal experience and knowledge I have and a personal relationship I feel I have with God is enough and I'm confident he's there. If I'm wrong, shoot. Looks like nothing is going to happen, but I'm sure I'm not. Scientific theory may be enough for you, but not me. That's where we're different, and I guess it's great that we live in a world and country where we can say that.
Good. Because we didn't. That's where people get confused. We share a common ancestor with Monkeys, but we are apes. Not monkeys. The difference being that apes are significantly larger than Monkeys and have no tail. Oh, and Monkeys have arched legs, making walking upright really difficult so they just jump along. Apes have no arched legs so they can walk bipedal for a short-time. Unless you're a human - beings who are very underdeveloped.
I know neither of you brought that up originally, but it seems to be a popular debate for others. I'll just remove that for it's irrelevance.
I was attempting to demonstrate that any argument can be turned around when it comes to religion. It's an endless debate, and nobody will ever convince anybody to "accept" either side. Especially not on the internet. Fun to talk about it, though, so long as people don't go all insane and start a war.
I also like how this thread is basically a fun little debate and argument where people aren't going bananas at eachother - it's more controlled than threads based on one topic.
I'm not saying there's not a god. We can't know whether god exists or not. The null-hypothesis, however, demands that there is no god until proven otherwise. Considering how long the universe has been around, and considering how many stars and planets there are, the likelihood of none of these starting and evolving life seems ludicrous to me. I wouldn't be surprised if there are millions, if not billions of planets out there that have, are or will have life on them during the lifetime of this universe. Take note that unlike the idea of god, these events could theoretically (though obviously not practically, at least not until we have supercomputers that are insanely more efficient than today's supercomputers) be re-done over and over, to see whether or not the outcome would be the same. Why should god be exempt from evidence? "Who cares if you can't prove that a suspect committed the crime? We should just jail him anyway, since we don't know who else could've done it."
I like it so far! I love to discuss matters of religion, politics, etc. I see it as kind of a sport. I have no illusions of converting people or convincing them, I merely enjoy the mental exercise in discussing and debating. This is obviously only true as long as the "mood" of the discussion stays rational and without personal attacks. I never resort to such things personally, but I often find that threads like these get locked because one or a few bad apples start slinging insults at people instead of keeping to the topic. I would much rather the bad apples be banned from the thread (or forum, whatever works, hehe) instead of a perfectly good discussion going to waste, but forum moderators often seem to prefer the latter solution, sadly.
Circular and nonsensical argument. Either you can disprove, or you cannot. (I am going to say for now that you have not). . Why must God be complex? Please explain that. I disagree that God must be complex. The only time I can think of when someone asked God His name, he said, "I am who am." Which is to say, "I am being itself." Everything that is, then, exists as a function of God's being. This would necessarily incorporate everything that is, into God. The entire universe participates in God's Being. This allows for God to be all the things you attributed to Him, and still be simple. Even if one to accede to your argument that God is necessarily complex, how does that make His existence less probable? Are human beings less probable than trees, who are in turn less probable themselves than rocks? You must agree that the human being is incredibly complex . . . perhaps infinitely so. The complexity of the entire universe seems to shout back at you that this argument based on complexity is a bit ridiculous unless you are prepared to say that our universe most probably does not exist because it is so complex. This is less an argument that sophism. This hardly sounds like an argument. You are just saying that your own conception of who God might be based on no real reference to anything in real life is true, and therefore the existence of God is preposterous. It's a free world, certainly, and you can say pretty much anything you want, but just you saying so is not really very convincing, and it certainly does not even approach an attempt at disproval of God's existence.
I just snorted. Almost 2 years ago, the police shot a guy dead straight away based on assumptions. They later found out he didn't commit the crime.
You also have to take into account what "Evidence" is. I find the Bible to be evidence, whereas you may disagree. A guy from my church had terminal cancer (like 6 tumors I think) and was given 3 months to live. That was last June and the cancer is mostly gone now. The doctor said it was unexplainable, it was a miracle. Maybe people will come up with a way to explain it in the future, but I consider this evidence of God and again, you may not. I don't consider the fact that all these little events adding up was bound to happen as evidence, and it seems you do. If everyone picks and chooses what to believe, there's not going to be an end to this argument. I choose to believe what I want, and you do as well. There's nothing wrong with that though.
This sentence was only made for context inside its paragraph. Out of context, it sounds rather silly as a legitimate point.
