...I am now atheist.

[Nepycros]

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

Stack one layer of ignorance on top of another, call it God, and stop asking questions. BRILLIANT.

[Nepycros]

I may be oversimplifying things because Im remembering a conversation I had with a friend, so I may be taking certain things for granted that I shouldnt.

What you're taking for granted is the fact that schools aren't the only place where shootings take place. Are you saying every gunman that fired off shots into a church automatically proved that church is, without a doubt, devoid of any 'God' you might happen to consider to be a necessary form of spiritual kevlar?

[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

Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century. Suffice to say that his understanding of physics was severely outdated; many of the things in your link simply aren't true according to our current understanding of physics. Using outdated claims and reasoning doesn't help you prove anything. I can explain in detail, but I don't really have time right now.

[destruct]

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

Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century. Suffice to say that his understanding of physics was severely outdated; many of the things in your link simply aren't true according to our current understanding of physics. Using outdated claims and reasoning doesn't help you prove anything. I can explain in detail, but I don't really have time right now.

Only one is required to prove God exists, and not all require physics.  Some are just simple logic.  This is not proving the Christian God, but it shows that there is a God.

[Bloodshadow]

Only one is required to prove God exists, and not all require physics.  Some are just simple logic.  This is not proving the Christian God, but it shows that there is a God.

Your link has five arguments. The first violates Newtonian mechanics, among many other things. The second is made meaningless by special relativity. The third is dubiously phrased and violates certain conservation laws (e.g. mass, energy); it may also be sufficiently explained by the Big Bang theory. The fifth can be countered by the theory of evolution (and no, I won't bother arguing about evolution here). That leaves the fourth.

But the fourth argument is also dubiously phrased, and assumes the existence of some objective absolute to every adjective we can think of, which is just silly. For example, there is no such thing as "that which is hottest", because of the very definition of temperature in thermodynamics. You can have arbitrarily high temperatures; it's just that our current understanding of physics cannot predict  how matter behaves past a temperature of 10³² Kelvins. In fact, most things in the world are defined relative to one another, rather than relative to some poorly defined and arbitrarily chosen absolute, and the existence of such an absolute is by no means necessary. That's not even mentioning how subjective "better" or "worse" can be. There may or may not be a God, but there sure doesn't have to be one.

[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.

[destruct]

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).

[Bloodshadow]

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

Oops. I do mean the fourth. I'll fix that now.

What has the power to start a contingent being moving?

The Big Bang, of course. For reasons we do not yet understand, the Big Bang starts off all the energy in the universe in a state of extremely low entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics continues from there. Maybe God made the Big Bang happen, maybe not, but a God definitely isn't necessary even according to our current understanding of physics.

Besides, a "being" here is very ambiguously defined. Everything in the universe is made of a collection of various elementary particles (mostly up quarks, down quarks, and electrons), which are actually waves on the quantum scale. It is a direct consequence of quantum mechanics that if I replace one electron in your body with an identical electron, literally nothing would have changed about you. None of the atoms in your body are the ones you're born with. In other words, "you" are not the atoms your body is made of, but rather a pattern of atoms. If I break you down completely on the atomic scale, then reassemble the pattern that is you out of a different group of atoms, you would still be you. Nothing would have changed. No, I do not believe in the existence of souls, and I will not argue about it here.

My point is, all "beings" in the universe are patterns of elementary particles, rather than the particles themselves. It's like the difference between a pencil drawing and the carbon atoms that make up the graphite that displays the pencil drawing. The patterns do not move; the elementary particles do. So if you're going to talk about "beings" and how they move, at least do so rigorously. Otherwise it won't mean anything.

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

What is a being's "nature"? Define it rigorously, in the context of modern physics. If you don't, then you're just throwing around words that sound vaguely meaningful but aren't really.

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).

Why does each being have to have an inherent goal?

Humans do not necessarily have an inherent goal. Yes, humanity has a disposition toward survival and reproduction. On one hand, you could say that God created humans and gave them the disposition for survival and reproduction. However, that's by no means necessary. It could have been pure chance that we obtained our disposition toward survival and reproduction, from evolution. Because if we didn't, we wouldn't be here to wonder about our disposition toward survival and reproduction in the first place! That's the anthropic principle. If something seems like it's made just right for our existence, it does not necessarily mean some higher being designed that way.

[destruct]

There has to be something that started the Big Bang exploding.  Some say it is based on laws of nature.  And where did those laws come from?

A being's nature is the essence of what makes that thing what it is.  Accidents are changes that change how a thing looks, but doesn't change what it is.  The nature of a thing is the core of what it means to be that thing.

Our goal is not purely through evolutional chance.  All animals have instinctive behaviors that bring them towards survival and reproduction.  However, all humans have an intellect and a will, which is what sets us apart from animals, who only have instincts and instinctive reactions.  The purpose of a thing is contained within that thing, and therefore the Creator of that thing must have given that thing it's purpose.  Go back as far as you want, but eventually there has to be a Creator.

[Bloodshadow]

There has to be something that started the Big Bang exploding.  Some say it is based on laws of nature.  And where did those laws come from?

There are many proposed explanations for the Big Bang, and why the laws of physics are what they are. It is true that none of them have been experimentally verified yet. However, that does not necessitate the existence of God. It is possible that there was a time when literally nothing existed, and everything came into existence via purely random quantum fluctuations.

A being's nature is the essence of what makes that thing what it is.  Accidents are changes that change how a thing looks, but doesn't change what it is.  The nature of a thing is the core of what it means to be that thing.

Don't throw around meaningless meaningful words and expect me to buy them. What "is" a human, according to your definition of "nature"? A human is just a collection of atoms. What if you change a human's genome, one nucleotide at a time? At which point does the human stop being human? Why?

Our goal is not purely through evolutional chance.  All animals have instinctive behaviors that bring them towards survival and reproduction.  However, all humans have an intellect and a will, which is what sets us apart from animals, who only have instincts and instinctive reactions.  The purpose of a thing is contained within that thing, and therefore the Creator of that thing must have given that thing it's purpose.

No, I don't consider humans to be any different from animals. All living organisms, including plants and bacteria, are "intelligent" to some degree or other, meaning that they can respond to outside stimuli. Humans simply have a much greater intelligence than any other species on the planet, and such intelligence could have simply arisen from evolution. Again, not everything has to have a purpose; simple chance will suffice according to the anthropic principle. I'd rather believe that we came to exist with chance rather than with some arbitrary, contrived, questionably defined purpose.

Go back as far as you want, but eventually there has to be a Creator.

Again, the Big Bang could have been caused by pure randomness. The existence of some creator entity is not necessary. Unless I am presented with explicit evidence of the existence of such a creator, I will not assume one exists.


You know what? Just read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. That will at least give you a clue on how God might not be necessary for everything to exist. I don't want to waste too much time trying to explain what you can get by reading a book.

[destruct]

One of your premises here is that the scientific method is how we find stuff out, right?  So prove that the scientific method is the correct way to find things out.

A human is a being (created in the image and likeness of God if you will, but i'm not going to argue that here unless you want) with an intellect and a will and an eternal soul.  Animals do not have free will or a soul.

What is your definition of an intellect and a will?  Of course they respond to stimuli, but do they have a choice whether to respond to stimuli?

Lets just say that everything came through evolution.  What started the process of evolution?  Even if it is the Big Bang, things just don't happen out of the blue according to our laws of physics.

[Bloodshadow]

One of your premises here is that the scientific method is how we find stuff out, right?  So prove that the scientific method is the correct way to find things out.

There is no "correct" way. The scientific method is simply the most efficient way. Occam's razor, and all that. So far it seemed to work out pretty well throughout history. If you think you have a better way, good luck trying to convince all the scientists in the world. They have no reason to not change if your way truly is better.

Or look at this image:

A human is a being (created in the image and likeness of God if you will, but i'm not going to argue that here unless you want) with an intellect and a will and an eternal soul.  Animals do not have free will or a soul.

There is no scientific evidence of souls. Therefore, until sufficient evidence presents itself, I'm going to assume that souls do not exist.

I do not believe in free will either. See the standard argument against free will.

What is your definition of an intellect and a will?  Of course they respond to stimuli, but do they have a choice whether to respond to stimuli?

I see all living organisms, humans included, as no different from machines. Their behaviors may be adaptive, but they're still machines. They're capable of producing progressively better versions of themselves, resulting in reproduction and evolution.

A biological machine is more "intelligent" than another if its behavioral patterns are more complex. For example, a more intelligent machine can analyze more environmental factors and use them to its advantage. Humans can build tools to help themselves, while most mammals only use their claws and teeth to hunt. That doesn't mean humans have "souls" or "free will" while animals don't; the animals are just less intelligent and complex.

You do not actually have a "choice" when responding to stimuli, because you will always respond in a way that is the most beneficial to yourself (or your children, but that still is beneficial to yourself since passing on your genes is good for you). Even if you "choose" to not respond, it's because your brain made the decision that not responding is the most beneficial course of action. Even if you suffer from some form of insanity or mental disorders, your brain's decision-making abilities are simply impaired; you still respond to stimuli in ways that you believe to be the most beneficial to yourself.

Lets just say that everything came through evolution.  What started the process of evolution?

Abiogenesis. Even if the first organic molecules on Earth arrived via meteorites or something from outside the planet, those molecules still must have assembled themselves by chance somewhere out of atoms. Maybe some aliens seeded life on Earth or something, and those aliens were created by some other species of aliens, but if you go back far enough there had to have been something that arose via abiogenesis.

Even if it is the Big Bang, things just don't happen out of the blue according to our laws of physics.

Your understanding of our current understanding of the laws of physics is inadequate. "Things" do, in fact, "happen out of the blue", via quantum fluctuations. I'm only in my second year of university, so I'm afraid I can't give you a detailed explanation until I myself have learned more about physics.

Again, just read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. That'd be a more productive use of both of our times, rather than arguing with me here. Hawking can explain things far better than I can.