@C_L_O_G - An invisible thing nobody has ever seen is obvious?  And if believing you were napoleon made you happy would that make it true?  I care more about believing the right things than being happy (but still manage to be happy most of the time).  Religious beliefs make people happy (according to them), but billions of people are persecuted, hated and denied civil rights daily in the name of those gods and doctrines.  Doesn’t that matter?  Gay people have over a thousand fewer rights and benefits than straight people in the US, but so long as you’re happy…

@musterion99 - Natural selection is an intelligent process, it just isn’t a conscious intelligence.  We don’t even understand how our own consciousness works at a fundamental level, questions about what can and can’t produce it are not exactly clear cut.  But the idea that our intelligence was the result of gradual modification of simpler and simpler minds over huge stretched of time is supported by the fact that minds can be genetically modified by selection (we breed dogs selectively for behaviors and skills for instance) and from the fact that if you compare different species’ brains you see a pattern of gradually more advanced brains that can do more things, strongly suggesting that many incremental steps would, in some environment, be fully functional and survivable.

@locomotiv - The stress of that situation would likely just increase their need to believe it.

@mtngirlsouth - I don’t pretend god doesn’t exist any more than I pretend unicorns don’t exist (which are also referred to in the KJV bible btw, nine times).  If you want to know a brief version of my reasons look above.  But you’ve talked to me before so don’t tell me you don’t know why anyone would be an atheist.

@fruit_snacks_galore - Gravity is readily observable, god is not.  And while I’m sure some atheists reject oppressive religious rules out of teenage rebellion the vast majority that I’ve known honestly don’t think the religious claims make sense or stand up to scrutiny.  It is no more fair to suggest that all atheists are just rebelling or want to live lawlessly than to suggest that all christians are alcoholics who believe in god because of AA’s 12 step program.  Some are, but not nearly all.

@flapper_femme_fatale - It’s indoctrination.  Everyone is neurotic (insecure, egotistic, whatever), religions don’t make people neurotic, they just provide outlets for their hangups which make them want to cling to the religion.  It’s like feeding a kid pizza and telling them they’ll starve unless they eat pizza the rest of their life, and all other foods are poison.  When of course there are many ways to meet your emotional needs, be ethical, etc, not just one.  Just as there are many ways to approach things like insecurity, not just repeating the mantra that god loves you.

@Hunt4Truth - Or… gravity.

@fruit_snacks_galore - Uh, we can detect wind objectively.  We can measure it.  Hell we can bottle and sell it.  I’ve always thought this example was silly.

@fruit_snacks_galore - You ran out of arguments in about two sentences then responded by simply insulting and condescending to him.  Do you honestly think that makes you right?

@LKJSlain - The god of the bible was devised in a time when nothing in nature was understood and everything was terrifying and out of our control.  It gave people a sense that they could control things like plagues and drought by following rules, which was a lot more comforting than feeling powerless.  And psychologically they did with god exactly what every abuse victim does – take the blame onto themselves to alleviate the sense of injustice and victimization.  If a kid is beaten up by their parent or a wife by their spouse they usually take the blame onto themselves because it is less painful to be tormented but deserve it than it is to be tormented and feel the wrongness, the unfairness, the evil of it.  This is part of why abused spouses stay with the abuser.

@musterion99 - 

“That’s nonsense. Only a conscious thinking mind can have intelligence.”

Most of your intelligence is unconscious.  And as I said, it’s intelligent but in a different sense.  It is intelligent in the sense that it can produce intelligent results, the way water molecules can produce symmetrical, complex patterns (snowflakes) and water can find the most efficient path to the low ground simply by each atom behaving consistently and following the path of least resistance.

“This is just double talk in trying to come up with an answer. No
different than God of the gaps.”

I’m not saying “this must be natural selection because there’s no explanation so I can claim it’s whatever I want”, I’m saying there’s actually evidence supporting it.  Do you deny that genetic variation and natural selection can produce more infectious viruses or insects resistant to pesticides or animals immune to disease etc?  This is well observed in nature.  It’s not as though I’m making it up.

And you are saying that my position is nonsense just like invoking a god to explain things we don’t understand (god of the gaps)… which according to you is perfectly reasonable.  See the contradiction?

“

And
as I said, what makes sense to me is that it could only come from an
eternally existing conscious being, not from some non conscious
material.”

So where did the consciousness of that being come from?  And the material our brains are made of is not “conscious material”, it’s the same material every inanimate object in the universe is made of, just in a functional pattern.  And consciousness is a mystery, I don’t think a solitary neuron of my brain is intelligent, but many “dumb” neurons work together and somehow manifest in intelligence.

[But the idea that our intelligence was the
result of gradual modification of simpler and simpler minds over huge
stretched of time is supported by the fact that minds can be genetically
modified by selection (we breed dogs selectively for behaviors and
skills for instance) and from the fact that if you compare different
species' brains you see a pattern of gradually more advanced brains that
can do more things, strongly suggesting that many incremental steps
would, in some environment, be fully functional and survivable.

]

“In no way does that prove, or strongly suggest in my opinion, that it
came from some non conscious material.”

So a mechanism that we know for a fact can modify a mind and a series of intermediate, fully functional minds in nature gradually going from unconscious to fully conscious doesn’t suggest that consciousness evolving is even possible?  Do you think a lizard has a conscious intelligence?

“But because you don’t believe in
God, that’s what you believe.”

No, because of the reasons I listed, none of which have anything to do with a god.  I do not cling to atheism or want to be an atheist for the sake of being one.  It doesn’t help me get through my day or feel good about myself or make me moral, I do not depend on it for anything.  So no, I don’t feel the need to rationalize my non-belief.  Many religious people who see their religion as the one thing keeping them feeling hopeless however, do have a reason to reject plausible scientific explanations.

Do not project your biases onto me please.

@boricua_chic_2008 - I am always somewhat stunned when someone agrees with me without qualifying their remarks in one of these discussions.  Thank you : )

@Table54 - That part wasn’t really relevant to your point, but I like to attempt the daunting task of fact-checking the internet : )  And I think jesus is probably lower than number 3 – christianity is barely based on his teachings.

@bittentothequick - That’s what I said : )

@C_L_O_G - I actually agree with you, I think the bible is simply the justification for homophobia.  But without it there would be no justification for homophobia.  The only other way to justify it would be to lie, lies are easily shot down or disproven.  But religious dogma is impossible to argue with, so as I said, gay people don’t get equal rights and won’t probably for generations.

@musterion99 - [

- Most of your intelligence is unconscious.] 

“What
are you talking about? That’s ad hoc.  Do you have any scientific proof
to back that up?”

I didn’t think I had to elaborate, if you study psychology or neurology it’s well understood that we have whole huge parts of our mind that we have no conscious control over or even awareness of.  From literal knee-jerk reactions which are unconscious to subconscious thoughts which we cannot control to muscle memory.  I am typing this right now without consciously thinking about where the keys on the keyboard are.  When I get dressed in the morning I am not consciously coordinating my behavior, I’m doing it by muscle memory.  I had a weird dream last night, I did not consciously decide to have that dream, etc.  If you punch me in the face my heart rate will quicken, my body will release adrenaline into my bloodstream and I will feel fear and anger and have a powerful urge to either retaliate or flee – my conscious mind can resist the last part but the rest occur without it’s knowledge or consent.  I can consciously control my breathing but most of the time I don’t, especially when I am asleep and literally unconscious.

Simpler organisms like insects operate purely by reacting to stimuli.  They have no conscious thought process, their brains aren’t complex enough to support higher thought and their behavior shows no signs of what we call intelligence.  Our minds are like hybrids between that kind of mind and a conscious mind, as though consciousness came later and was built on top of an unconscious mind, we have many parts of our mind which react automatically and unconsciously to stimuli, a lot of unconscious impulses (like sex drive, altruistic impulses etc) and then we have consciousness on top loosely governing the whole messy process.  Sometimes our baser instincts win out, sometimes our intelligence wins out.  Our minds operate more like a democracy than a dictatorship.

And if you break our brains down into their components we have a small “reptile brain” at the core which controls the brain functions we share in common with reptiles, like sex drive, fight/flee response etc, a mammalian brain outside of that which controls the parts we have in common with other mammals, like memory functions, empathy, parental instincts etc, then some parts are bigger and beefed up in humans which apparently is what gives us our heightened intelligence.

“You should have said that natural selection is a
process. By saying it’s an intelligent process, it logically implies a
conscious thinking mind behind it.”

I think saying it’s a different kind of intelligence that doesn’t involve a conscious mind of the kind we have makes clear that that isn’t what I was saying.  I apologize if I was unclear, these are very deep ideas and hard to convey very clearly.

I’ll put it this way, natural selection does effortlessly things that if we tried to do them intentionally, would require tremendous intelligence.

["And as I said, it's
intelligent but in a different sense.  It is intelligent in the sense
that it can produce intelligent results"]

“And I say that’s just double talk.”

When I asked you below if you think it can produce better viruses, immune systems etc (ie intelligent results) you agreed.  How is it double talk?

“You’re concluding that God didn’t
create the processes for snowflake patters to come about.”

I didn’t say anything about god.  And snowflakes form as a byproduct of blind processes whether or not a god designed the properties those blind forces function by.

“That makes no
more sense to me than saying Van Gogh’s paintings came about by natural
processes.”

Van goh’s paintings came about as a result of billions of years of cumulative natural processes, not in one step.  And it makes sense to me.  Which isn’t to say I understand every step of the process, but I’ve seen really good explanations for so many things, the gradual steps of the evolution of the heart, lungs, eyes, etc, etc, that I no longer seriously doubt the power of natural selection to build complex, inter-working systems.

“I’m
not denying that but that doesn’t refute the logic I believe that
intelligence and consciousness did not come into being from non
intelligent, non conscious, and non living inorganic substances.”

Do you understand how natural selection works?  It can do truly amazing things.  I don’t see the difficulty.  And abiogenesis seems more logical than divine creation by a god of the type that would itself need to be explained as much as it’s creation.  And again there is no distinction between living and non-living matter.  You have iron in your blood, the same as in a frying pan.  It’s not living matter or dead matter, it’s just a functional or non-functional pattern of the exact same matter.

“It’s
not a contradiction. I’m saying in “the same way” you think God of the
gaps is nonsense, I think what you said is nonsense. “

The god of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance, ie “we don’t understand x, therefore y (god) must exist”.  I am neither claiming the existence of an invisible being nor basing my argument on ignorance.  While you may think my point of view is as wrong as I think yours is, the logic of the two positions is not the same.  Natural selection is an observable part of nature, as are the other facts about neurology and animal breeding that I cited.  Nowhere did I make an argument from ignorance.

“I’m
always surprised every time you or any other atheist asks this. The
answer was in my statement. I said an “eternally existing” God.”

I have had this discussion many times and knew what you would say but I thought I’d at least do you the courtesy of letting you say it and not putting words in your mouth.

“It’s the
same logic as first cause. That has to be something eternally existing,
a first cause.”

And that makes sense to you?  If god doesn’t need to have a cause why not say the universe doesn’t have to?  Or why not say the earth was just created by vishnu five minutes ago with the appearance of age?  This is abductive reasoning, “if x explains y then that proves x”.  The problem is that x can explain y even if x isn’t true.  And x might not be the only explanation or the best explanation, which is why abductive reasoning is only good for generating hypotheses which must then be supported by tests and observations. 

This argument about an unmoved mover goes back to aristotle who said that objects are either moved or “given being”, allowing them to “move” other objects, and posed as an open question the mystery of how the first human being was “given being”.  The original question was about how could we have an infinite string of ancestors.  Then thomas aquinas plagiarized a list of his open questions and turned them all into arguments for the existence of god of the “we don’t understand this therefore god” variety.  You are doing what aquinas did, citing the limits of our understanding as proof of the existence of the god of a particular culture.  I’m saying aristotle was right – these are riddles to be solved, not proof of this or that.

I’m trying to understand how life and the universe and intelligence began.  Religious people want to slam the book shut and say “god did it”.  Even if there is an uncaused cause, show it to me.  Prove it, explain how an uncaused cause could exist.  Because I could invoke an invisible magic pencil in the sky and say “there, boom, all of quantum physics explained – anything we don’t have an explanation for, the magic pencil did it.”  Would that explain anything?  If people accepted that and stopped investigating would that be good or tragic?

“You might believe it’s the universe or energy. For the
reasons I’ve already stated, I believe it’s God.”

I think there’s a fundamental something to the universe, but I think it’s arrogant to put a name or attribute values to it.  If there is a conscious intelligence at the heart of everything I see no evidence that it cares about human affairs at all.

“Saying it’s the same
material is a weak argument.”

It’s a fact, not an argument.

“You know very well that the arrangement of
molecules and DNA make extreme differences between our brain and a rock.”

Yes, which is why I said it’s a different arrangement of the same material.  I’m saying there’s nothing special about the matter in living things, “living matter” isn’t a thing that exists.  Life is the pattern, not the matter itself.  It’s all protons and electrons.

“The fact is that we do have consciousness, unless you’re going to posit
some crazy idea that we don’t really exist.”

I could argue that actually from a buddhist perspective, but that’s getting pretty far off topic and wasn’t my point.

“You’re calling them dumb neurons
because you don’t believe God created those neurons and gave them
instructions on how to work together.”

No, I’m calling them dumb neurons because by themselves they are not intelligent.  I am saying that any intelligent mind is made up of compontents which at some level are not, themselves, intelligent.  A car is a car, a spark plug is not a car.  Somewhere along the way of adding parts and functionality it becomes a car.  We are debating about what is and isn’t a car without even knowing how an internal combustion engine works.  You are saying that an invisible man in the sky makes the engine turn, and I’m saying it has a mechanism which we do not yet fully understand, but which by it’s appearance in nature in less complex forms does not appear to be anything more than the latest prototype.

“I
didn’t say it’s not possible. I gave my opinion about what makes logical
sense to me. I do believe a lizard has conscious intelligence. Just not
on the scale of our intelligence.”

Do you think a fly has conscious intelligence?  Thoughts and feelings?  An amoeba (it can react to and sense it’s surroundings)?

“Ok, sorry I did.”

Thank you.  I seriously appreciate the apology.  That’s usually the point at which the believer tells me how my own mind works.  Thank you for not doing so.

@DrummingMediocrity - How many invisible people do you know that exist?

@Table54 - I don’t know if there would be no christianity without paul, but I think christianity is more like paulianity.

@Rhindon - The same place math and numbers come from – they are a model invented by human imagination which flows from descriptions and properties of nature.  You might enjoy this.

@Rhindon - 
“The consciousness is a mystery. Too true! But when you can show me a rock that can manifest intelligence, you let me know.”

A rock is not the product of billions of generations of descent with modification.

“You
constantly argue science and logic, but you can’t even explain
consciousness! You cry, “SCIENCE!” yet ridicule those who cry, “GOD!”

Actually I was offering a plausible explanation and evidence to support it, not invoking a magical cause or shouting “SCIENCE!” at anyone.  Science is that portion of reality that is observable and experimentally testable, so I don’t see the comparison.  Evangelists always try to act as though religion and science are just two equal sides of the same coin as though the observable and testable is somehow on par with the unobservable and untestable.

“Science has, indeed, shown that from one species begets the same of its
species.”

Yeah, and science has also shown that in cases with genetic isolation or divergent selective pressures one species will branch off into two similar but different species, and that whole groups of similar species (like felines, canines etc) share the same genetic markers and thus much of their ancestry, and that all groups of creatures on earth are related to one another to some degree genetically (thus terms like human, primate, mammal, chordate, animal etc which denote degrees of evolutionary similarity with other species).

“So show me how and when and why an unintelligent object can
beget that which has intelligence. You can’t, and you never will.”

How: changes in the environment make different genetic variations get inherited at different rates due to their effect on the survivability of individuals within all species, effectively acting as a colander catching every useful variation that occurs and removing the harmful ones, which over time accumulate to form ever more complex and dynamic systems including those in the brain, which, for reasons I listed earlier I and most scientists who work on this stuff very strongly suspect evolved incrementally over time.  When: I can’t even give an estimate without your definition of intelligence.  Why: Why and how are the same question, like asking how does it rain and then why does it rain.  It rains because of evaporation and condensation.  If you mean why did god make the weather that way that is a theological question, not a scientific one and it makes huge assumptions about the universe. 

“The
only answer rests in the possibility that we’re dealing with the
melding of the unintelligent biological matter as a conduit for the
intelligent spiritual being.”

Define those terms.  What is a spiritual being, what makes it spiritual, what are examples of spiritual beings and how do you know such things exist?  And what is this “conduit” and how do you know it exists?

“BUT! Because science deals heavily (if not
SOLELY) with the physical, it has not yet the proper tools to EXAMINE
the spiritual matter.”

That is like saying math sucks because it only deals with equations.  That’s what math is.  Science is the branch of philosophy that deals with the observable universe.  And what is “spiritual matter” and how do you know it exists?

“Truly, would you examine a star with microscope?
Would you use an X-ray to test a blood type? A thermometer to test the
number of light particles present? NONSENSE!”

I can observe stars, x-rays, blood types, temperatures and light particles.  Yes those things would be stupid, but where is the error being made by non-caricatured scientists?

“Christians are
dogged as closed-minded, but the very same critics fail to grasp this
one concept of using the right tool for testing theories and such.  You
have purposely limited yourself to the physical world to justify your
belief that God does not exist.”

I don’t believe God does not exist, I do not believe a god exists.  I am not making a claim, I am simply unconvinced of a claim others have made.  I am not trying to justify my position, I am asking you to justify yours.  Claims are not considered true until proven false, they are considered false until substantiated – otherwise we’d have to believe in every god of every religion, because most of them can’t be proven not to exist.  Not to mention leprechauns, bigfoot, etc, etc.  And I don’t refuse to admit non-physical, invisible things could exist, I just refuse to make claims about them I by definition can’t substantiate.

“In doing so, you invalidate your
argument earlier that are not an atheist simply because you want to be.
No sir, you ARE an atheist by CHOICE. Your very words stem from your
HEART – from that which you have CHOSEN to believe. I can say this
confidently because many people are faced with the undeniable evidence
of Biblical claims and yet STILL REJECT the message! This very thing
happened when I answered your challenge about the “two creation stories
contradiction”. When I explained how there is no contradiction, despite
all the evidence, you STILL rejected it. You chose to be deluded in your
beliefs. You don’t want God. Until you are willing to choose otherwise,
you will face the same results in whatever “search” you are
doing…emptiness.

@musterion99 - See (above), this is the reaction I usually get, people telling me (obnoxiously) what I believe and how I feel about things.

@Rhindon - I don’t recall that particular conversation, but I don’t remember anybody explaining adequately how saying different things were created on different days is not a contradiction.

@Rhindon -

“Quite the contrary – I understand that the
evolutionary argument is one of a great deal of time. Please don’t
misunderstand my seemingly over-simplification of it.”

You don’t seem to understand anything else about it from your questions.

“Here’s the
number one question: What stimuli was it that set the process in motion?”

Just chemestry.  Here‘s one model of abiogenesis which, I admit is over my head, but seems reasonable.

“And how is it that chemicals lacking any self-awareness became
self-aware?”

Study the comparative anatomy of the brains of different species and you’ll see many intermediate, fully functioning brains with different levels of self-awareness.  Awareness came late, most of our brain functions we are not consciously aware of.  They deal with unconscious impulses and drives and pre-programmed responses and unconscious learning, like how you train a dog via positive and negative reinforcement.  Consciousness is just the latest thing.

“To this the simple matter must be addressed: what IS
information?”

I don’t really care.  Creationists love the term information specifically because it’s so nebulous so they can demand that scientists provide mechanisms that give rise to “information”, then when they provide mechanism after mechanism and example after example they can just say “that’s not real information” without defining it.

“And how did it become organized if not prior-existing
intelligence organize it?”

Wouldn’t a prior existing intelligence involve “information”?  Wouldn’t it be more complex and orderly than it’s creation?  Then why do you say a germ must have a designer but an all-powerful, omniscient, infallible, god that doesn’t need a designer makes perfect sense?  Why not apply that skepticism to the religious claim?.

“How did these laws of the universe come to BE
that allowed whatever stimuli to operate at all?”

I have no idea.  But not knowing the answer on the test doesn’t mean whatever you write in the blank space is therefore true.

“My dad has an
age-old Tandy 1000 computer, and no matter how much information passes
through it, it’s not going to evolve into my Acer laptop sitting…er,
on top of my lap. In fact, just for the amount of heat needed to melt
the plastic casing that might be remolded, who or what will reshape the
material to the SPECIFICS that make up my laptop? And how will all that
information – the INSTRUCTIONS – come about and in the right logical
order so that my dad’s Tandy will function at the advanced level of my
Acer? To say NOTHING of the physical casing I mentioned already.”

If you knew anything about natural selection you’d know that the principles of natural selection don’t apply to man-made things which do not reproduce and inherit variations which are then subject to natural selection.  But if you need a technological example there are lots of evolution simulators, programs that similar descent with modification and natural selection.  And there are companies that design things like better bridges and more stable airplane wings by plugging the physics into a super-computer and simulating a few hundred thousand generations of descent with modification and let the computer “evolve” a better wing.

“Random
stimuli on lifeless chemicals cannot answer the question of
LIFE…of consciousnesses.”

Are you saying you reject natural selection entirely?

“Chemicals follow set laws. They do not
differ. But the human mind can respond to the same stimuli in different
ways – one way one moment, and willfully a different way the next
moment, all to the same type of stimuli. How does evolution have an
account for this?”

It’s called consciousness, and if you didn’t notice it’s extremely useful.

“You want to talk about the “[...] of the gaps”, evolution tries hard but fails massively.”

Yeah, that’s why over 99.9% of even christian biologists accept it.  The only people who think evolution is crap science are people who think computers should evolve.  Ie people who don’t even have a handle on the basics of biology.

@musterion99 - Especially when they’re being nasty about it.  And this was meant for you but they forgot to tag you:@Pure_Taint

@trunthepaige - See the above.

@Pure_Taint - Thanks.  Interesting name by the way.

@Pure_Taint - You can change your screen name if you didn’t know.

@musterion99 - 

“That
still has nothing to do with my original comment.”

“That doesn’t show or
prove consciousness coming forth from non consciousness.“

I gave you evidence and a mechanism to account for it.  Your only response is “Nuh uh!”  Incredulity is not a counter argument.  You don’t even try to explain why my evidence isn’t valid, you just assert that it isn’t. 

“

As far as
I know, a plant and a rock don’t have a brain or consciousness. It’s
funny how you demand proof for God, but you don’t demand proof to know
what an insect is thinking and whether it makes some conscious choices.
How do you know what an insect is thinking?”

The same way I know what a child is capable of thinking, by observing it’s behavior and how developed various brain structures are.  And god is not a thing that observably or verifiably exists, it would be comparable if I were making claims about insects and children when nobody had ever seen one.

“

That’s what I was saying, even if you think it’s far fetched.”

So if water being able to form snowflakes indicates god specifically designed it to do that does the potential of matter to be made into nuclear bombs indicate god wants us to nuke each other?  Water has other properties, it also drowns humans – does that mean god designed water with drowning people in mind?  Did god design electricity specifically so we could build the electric chair and permanently remove public hair? 

[But
the greater complexities of god just exist for no reason?  By that
logic it seems that things need to be designed less the more complex
they are.

]

“I already explained the logic of first cause.”

Yes, with a false dichotomy.  Now you’re ignoring a huge contradiction in your worldview.

“What
you consider empirical evidence for consciousness coming from non
consciousness, I don’t buy.  Just as you don’t buy that our consciousness
comes from an eternally existing conscious being.”

The difference is I can say why I don’t buy it.  You can’t or won’t say why my evidence isn’t valid.  You just say “la la la la I can’t hear you”.

“I’m talking about the matter itself.  It’s a simple point.

“

[I asked you if it's so simple, then why can't we just take these molecules and create consciousness?]

I’m trying to get you to accept a simple idea and you’re refusing and changing the subject and repeating a question I already answered in my last response.

[If
complex things need to be designed and everything needs a cause and
nothing can exist without being created, then how is an a thing that is
complex but wasn't designed, exists but wasn't created and has no cause
not the most illogical thing in the universe by the very argument that
it must exist?

]

“It’s not illogical. It’s the logic of
first cause, which in my opinion is far more logical than consciousness
coming from non consciousness. To me, that’s illogical.”

HOW is it logical?  I just gave you three complete contradictions in your arguments and your only response is to assert that they’re logical and that evolution is illogical with no logic, evidence, rhyme or reason.

“No,
I don’t see it as proof. I believe by faith in what makes the most
logical sense, that God created life. My subjective experiences are more
proof to me than that. But even that is my own subjective experience
and not proof to others that God exists.”

So like always in these discussions the skeptic gives their actual reasons for their position and the religious advocate gives generic apologetic arguments while holding their real reasons for belief safely in reserve where they cannot be shot down.  And subjective experience is by definition not proof, terms like proof, knowledge and fact refer to things that can be demonstrated objectively.  Subjective vs objective is the difference between beliefs and facts.

[You don't know what god is, or how he did anything.  How is "something made something somehow" an explanation?

]

“I
never said I know what God is or how he did anything.”

I know, as I just said that.

“By faith, I
believe he created life. As I’ve been saying, that makes more sense to
me than the alternative.”

Could you please deal with any objection I raise?  Just one per response would be nice.  Using terms without defining them is just noise.  Saying “god made the universe” without understanding how or by what mechanism or knowing what god is even supposed to be is like saying “bleep made blorp by means of bligtzu”.  It’s just gibberish.

“I understand but that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.”

If a concept is not defined at all it cannot possibly be real because there is nothing to be anything.  If I say that Blorp exists, but cannot define what blorp is, then does it matter that nobody can bust my claim?  Because unless I can define my terms I don’t have a claim to begin with.  Yes it’s possible there could be some kind of being in the universe but we could stumble on any kind of advanced sentient intelligence and call it “god”.  Without a real definition of a particular god there would be no way to tell whether we ever found it.

“And God is not based upon what secularists in universities believe.”

Not what I said at all.

["Are
you sure indoctrination plays no part in this?  A god creating the
universe used to "make sense to me" too until I realized I was just
believing that because it was the factory setting I inherited from my
parents and culture, it was just built into my operating system.

]

“It
could but it really doesn’t matter to me.”

You don’t care if you’re believing a false idea because of the psychology of indoctrination?  Then you’re like a cult member that doesn’t want to be rescued.

“God existing isn’t dependent
on indoctrination. He either exists or he doesn’t, and I believe he
does.”

So god exists whether you were brainwashed into believing him or not?  How many things have people ever been brainwashed into believing that turned out to be correct?  Doesn’t the fact that people have felt the same way about thousands of other gods give you the least bit of pause?

“I can’t talk my way out of that any more than you can talk your
way into believing in him. We both base our beliefs on the knowledge
which we believe to be true.”

The difference is I’m actually reasonable.  I give you evidence and logical arguments and you dismiss them without explanation.  You give me logical arguments and evidence and I take them in, think about them, and poke holes in them.  I am persuadable and open to the possibility that I’m wrong, which is why I already changed my mind once on this subject.

“You
don’t believe that something has always existed? If there was ever a
point where there was absolute nothingness, then logically nothing would
ever exist. Absolute nothingness cannot produce something because
there’s nothing or nowhere from it to come from. And we know that energy
cannot be created or destroyed, so some type of energy has always
existed.”

This ignores the fact that something always existing makes as little sense as something coming from nothing.  An eternally existing god doesn’t make sense and cannot be explained, nor can an eternally existing universe.  Nor can a god that came to exist by some mechanism, nor can a universe that came to exist by some mechanism.  But in both the naturalistic versions (an eternally existing universe and a universe that came about by some unknown mechanism) they have the advantage of being simpler, requiring fewer assumptions and the phenomenon in question (the universe) being unarguably real.  And all of science seems to point to the universe being simple and gradually getting more complex, in biology, physics, cosmology and chemestry.  The simplest elements were the earliest in the universe and fused together to form heavier elements which exponentially increased the potential for chemical complexity.  The earliest fossils are single-celled organisms, followed by soft bodied creatures, followed by creatures with bones and exoskeletons, musculature and so on and so forth.  The earliest turtles had no shells, the earliest bats had no sonar and so on and so forth.  Everything in nature seems to go from simple to complex.  With a deity it goes from complex to even more complex.  Be honest, which is the simpler explanation?

You say that a brain evolving by known mechanisms is a fantastic explanation that you just can’t accept, while casually accepting invisible magical beings as a reasonable explanation.  Where’s your incredulity when it comes to religion?  Evolution is not an invisible or mysterious process, how is it more ridiculous than an invisible, mysterious being we can’t even verify exists?  You prefer one to the other, but not because of logic or evidence.

“And
again I say that’s nonsense, that consciousness came from non conscious
material. You said in an earlier statement that our brains and a rock
are made of the same thing. We should be able then to take those
molecules and yes, create them in a lab. Of course we can’t because it’s
far more complicated then that. It not just as simple as some dumb
neurons existing.”

Either you’re not very bright or you’re refusing to look directly at the thread of this discussion for fear of where it might lead.  You said why can’t we produce intelligence from simple chemicals in the laboratory, and I said very reasonably because if intelligence evolved it took, according to the fossil record, several billion years to evolve the first time, and obviously we don’t have an entire planet and about 4 billion years at our disposal to do that experiment.  You don’t deal with this and just repeat the question.  Nobody is suggesting that you mix chemicals together and poof a human being pops out fully intelligent.  If that is how you think evolution works you are grossly ignorant.

@Pure_Taint - http://edit.xanga.com/editusername.aspx

10 bucks or 10,000 credits.  You get credits for commenting, getting comments etc.  I have almost 20k credits, but then I never spend them on anything.