...I am now atheist.

[destruct]

I will read the book.  I am not saying faith is the only way, what I am saying is that you are assuming that the scientific method will give you correct conclusions (based on what?).
You can read on arguments for free will as well. http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2007/01/freewill.html

You have proof of abiogenesis through the scientific method?  Or is it just a theory yet unproven.
Where did this law of quantum fluctuations come from?

Don't post reply if you don't want to.  The last thing I want to say is that there will always be doubt that God exists, and you cannot 100% prove that God does not exist.

[Bloodshadow]

I will read the book.  I am not saying faith is the only way, what I am saying is that you are assuming that the scientific method will give you correct conclusions (based on what?).

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about science being "correct"; I'm no scientific realist. Let's just say that I'm an instrumentalist, and leave it at that.

You can read on arguments for free will as well. http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2007/01/freewill.html

I don't have time to read that in detail right now. I did skim it a little, but I'm not convinced. In short, if your argument isn't firmly grounded in biology, chemistry, and physics, I'm not going to take it very seriously. It is not enough to just talk about how we make choices. To convince me, we'll need to discuss, among other things, the neurobiology that governs how we make choices as well.

You have proof of abiogenesis through the scientific method?  Or is it just a theory yet unproven.

If you're talking about science and "proof", then your understanding of science itself may be inadequate. Science deals with evidence, not proof. There's not enough evidence to support any of the theories of abiogenesis, but at least we know that they aren't totally bogus. On the other hand, there's no evidence for the existence of God (no, anecdotes don't count), and omnipotence doesn't mesh well with our current understanding of physics. So I'd rather accept abiogenesis for now until counter-evidence comes up.

Where did this law of quantum fluctuations come from?

Look it up yourself. I'm not the one studying the history of science.

The last thing I want to say is that there will always be doubt that God exists, and you cannot 100% prove that God does not exist.

I know that there is always the possibility that God exists. I do not want or care to disprove the existence of God. I am a skeptic. Again, God doesn't particularly mesh well with our current understanding of physics, so I refrain from believing in him unless enough evidence of his existence comes up.

[BeefSupreme]

We know that God exists.  Here are five ways to prove it (see link).  Post if you find anything wrong with the logic. http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

I only read the first one because that's all I needed to see the fallacy in this.
"5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else."
Then how does "God" move?

The last thing I want to say is that there will always be doubt that God exists, and you cannot 100% prove that God does not exist.

That's what most of us have been saying the whole time, broski. You can't prove God exists. You can't prove he doesn't exist. I refer you to my original comment:

The ONLY thing we know FOR SURE is that we DON'T know for sure.

[Bloodshadow]

We know that God exists.  Here are five ways to prove it (see link).  Post if you find anything wrong with the logic. http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

I only read the first one because that's all I needed to see the fallacy in this.
"5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else."
Then how does "God" move?

Apparently God isn't constrained by physics or logic like us mere mortals are, or something along those lines.

[BeefSupreme]

We know that God exists.  Here are five ways to prove it (see link).  Post if you find anything wrong with the logic. http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

I only read the first one because that's all I needed to see the fallacy in this.
"5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else."
Then how does "God" move?

Apparently God isn't constrained by physics or logic like us mere mortals are, or something along those lines.

Right. We'll just take his "word" for it

[OldTrees]

Bloodshadow's answer are very good. (though the final paragraph of his post means 4th when it is saying 5th)

The ONLY thing we know FOR SURE is that we DON'T know for sure.

We know that God exists.  Here are five ways to prove it (see link).  Post if you find anything wrong with the logic. http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

The first three ways are the same argument. The holes are:
7) Why cannot motion extend ad infinitum? (causes extend ad infinitum?, contingent beings extend ad infinitum?)
Also remember that both an axis and a mobius strip have infinite length.
8 ) Why is the unmoved mover God rather than a non divine unmoved mover?

Argument from gradation of being
1) Not all gradations are better to worse some are tall to short.
3) The maximum in a genus does not have to be the cause of everything in the genus. The best waffle does not create waffles. We create waffles and our definition of waffles and our preferences create what it means to be the best waffle.
4) The maximum does not imply perfection.

Argument from design
1) Our pattern matching brain invents a story of a goal. This has no correlation with whether a goal existed or not.

You will note that these holes have cascading effects on the conclusion of each of the 5 ways.

A non-divine unmover would be a contingent being, which would have to die at some point.  What has the power to start a contingent being moving?

Also, perfection is, philosophically, the complete fulfillment of somethings nature.  This is the maximum fulfillment of a things nature, therefore it is perfect.

For the argument from design, we know that each being has an inherent goal based in the nature of that being.  We do not create the goal out of nothing, the goal is based on the nature of the thing.  Therefore, there has to be someone to create that nature (aka God).

A non-divine unmover uncause uncontingient thing could cause movement effects and contingent beings. I only wrote out the part about movement because the first 3 ways a logically identical and I expected you to apply my mover example to each in turn.

I do not agree that perfection in universally defined that way. That definition would define imperfection out of existence since everything is 100% itself.

We do not know if beings have inherent goals. However we do know that humans invent fictional goals as an attempt to explain things. You say that we create the goal based on the nature of the thing thus correlation of the thing to the goal we created is not coincidental and complete a result of the process we used to create the goal. This can even happen for manmade things. (example below)

Example:
I make a screwdriver and put it on the table to mess with people. You see the screwdriver. You create the explanation that the screwdriver was made to screw screws based upon the nature of the screwdriver. Notice that you did not correctly identify the goal of the screw despite it having a goal and you recognizing its screwdriver nature. The goal you are using to explain the screwdriver is a fiction you created in you mind. This mental process is completely divorced from the origin of the object.

We know that God exists.  Here are five ways to prove it (see link).  Post if you find anything wrong with the logic. http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

I only read the first one because that's all I needed to see the fallacy in this.
"5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else."
Then how does "God" move?

Apparently God isn't constrained by physics or logic like us mere mortals are, or something along those lines.

[/quote]
Technically this is a simplified proof by contradiction. Aquinas assumes nothing can move itself and motion existing. However these are (almost) contradictory thus one of them is false. Since we know motion exists it must be the assumption that no unmoved mover exists that is false. Aquinas incorrectly assumes the only possible unmoved mover is God.

[destruct]

We do not know if beings have inherent goals. However we do know that humans invent fictional goals as an attempt to explain things. You say that we create the goal based on the nature of the thing thus correlation of the thing to the goal we created is not coincidental and complete a result of the process we used to create the goal. This can even happen for manmade things. (example below)

Example:
I make a screwdriver and put it on the table to mess with people. You see the screwdriver. You create the explanation that the screwdriver was made to screw screws based upon the nature of the screwdriver. Notice that you did not correctly identify the goal of the screw despite it having a goal and you recognizing its screwdriver nature. The goal you are using to explain the screwdriver is a fiction you created in you mind. This mental process is completely divorced from the origin of the object.

The nature of a thing determines its goal, because when something is good, it has perfected its nature.  Is a screwdriver that can't screw anything good?  No, because its nature is not perfected.
A screwdriver is made to screw screws, correct?  So when a screwdriver can't do that, it isn't a good screwdriver.
Humans do not create the goal, we discover the goal that is inherent in the thing itself, regardless of our opinion about it.

[Bloodshadow]

The nature of a thing determines its goal, because when something is good, it has perfected its nature.  Is a screwdriver that can't screw anything good?  No, because its nature is not perfected.
A screwdriver is made to screw screws, correct?  So when a screwdriver can't do that, it isn't a good screwdriver.
Humans do not create the goal, we discover the goal that is inherent in the thing itself, regardless of our opinion about it.

You've dodged the question.

1. Why does everything have to have a goal?

2. What if something has multiple but equally valid goals? For example, nuclear fusion. Is its goal to make nuclear weapons or power plants? Whichever you choose, I can argue for the other.

3. What if I'm on drugs and make a bizarre contraption that doesn't seem like it has any goal?

Of course, if you answer "because God says so" to #1, then we have nothing more to discuss.

[Dm]

The nature of a thing determines its goal, because when something is good, it has perfected its nature.  Is a screwdriver that can't screw anything good?  No, because its nature is not perfected.
A screwdriver is made to screw screws, correct?  So when a screwdriver can't do that, it isn't a good screwdriver.
Humans do not create the goal, we discover the goal that is inherent in the thing itself, regardless of our opinion about it.

That depends. You're telling me that the Screwdriver is not good if it can't drive screws, 'cause that's it's nature.

But then again, that's -not- it's nature if I clearly made and placed the Screwdriver to mess with people. Each individual sets a different nature to an object, as the object can serve for diverse purposes and people don't think the same. It only has a nature because You set a nature to it. If the nature I want is to make it so the Screwdriver is merely for aesthetic purposes and to be displayed at the top of my table to mess with people and never drive any screws...

I'd say it's a pretty good Screwdriver. After all, it's doing exactly what I wanted. It's following my definition of nature for it.

That's the only problem I had with your post. As much as it may seem that we don't create the goal inherent in the thing itself, we do shape the goal that we're pursuing. Because we're flexible. As long as the item is doing what You want, the nature You placed for it, it's serving it's purpose regardless of what other people think.

But, following the logic of Nature and that everything has it's own inherent, unchangeable nature, we shouldn't even be talking about Nature in here, should we? Because the defined Nature of the Religion Section of a forum is to discuss Religion.

Unless it has a different Nature to you..? In which case everything you said would be a contradiction.

Back to the stalkin' of the thread.

[destruct]

The thing about a thing's nature is that it is objective, not subjective.  We form our opinion of it based on the nature, not the other way around.

Things have a goal because they simply exist.   Nothing exists without a goal. 
For the aesthetic screwdriver ex.       But then it is no longer, in the technical sense, a screwdriver (dictionary def.  something used to turn screws).  Then it is something different, so its nature has changed.

[Bloodshadow]

The thing about a thing's nature is that it is objective, not subjective.  We form our opinion of it based on the nature, not the other way around.

Things have a goal because they simply exist.   Nothing exists without a goal.

You're just claiming these things without backing them up. Why is a thing's nature objective? Why can nothing exist without a goal? I sure don't see how either of those things are necessary.

Maybe it's just that you believe that everything has a nature, but fail to realize that your beliefs are just as subjective as everyone else's. Most of the time I try to be as close to objective as possible, but all my beliefs are subjective too. Failing to realize that and insisting that your beliefs are objectively true is stubbornness.

[destruct]

Sorry, I wasn't thinking on that last post, I had to take care of something else.
We agree that everything has a nature, right?  So lets just take for example human nature.  Let's say that I can define what human nature is, if nature is subjective.  Let's say I say that you have to be able to think straight to be a human.  Does that mean autistic people are now not human?  No, they still are human, even though my subjective definition of the nature of a human says they aren't.  therefore the definition of a things nature has to be objective.