Does God exist?

[fan]

Well you cant reason with religion.. If you could it would not exist!!! So whether you believe in GOD or not that is entirely your opinion. Many people do believe in GOD and say that GOD makes there lives better. If it does who are you to argue about what they believe in or not? don't forget we subjected to free will. Everyone have a right of believe what they want to believe if it is for the better.

[Sandwich]

Hey guys! There are so many evidences for the existence of God. Look around you. What do you see? Sun,plants, mountains and balance between everything. Macroorganisms and microorganisms live in a balance. There must be someone who created and controls them. And when we are thrilling or have no way to solve something, we refuge to something which is the most powerful, the most knowledgeable and everything most. Why we need to refuge to something? Because God put that need or feeling inside us.

Why must there be somebody who creates and controls everything? There's no actual reason at all. When I don't know how to solve something why does what I feel have to have been put inside me by god?!

There's no compelling reason why any of those things form any sort of evidence for the existence of god except for that you personally feel so and are telling everybody else that. That's just listing a load of random things and then deciding that god must be involved somehow. Balance between things can exist without something having created it, or controlling it. My feelings can exist because I feel them, not because somebody else put them there. Exchange "god" for "millions of tiny invisible ants" or pretty much anything else -- "soup", "pot plants" -- and it doesn't change the outcome of the sentence at all.

Personally I think that the idea that anything which happens has to have happened because of something else's intentions is a very misleading one, and it's the assumption that underlines all of these sorts of argument. I think that unless you can also argue that all things must be intentional and make a case for that before embarking on the leap of logic that therefore an unknown and all-powerful entity must be involved, it's reasonably meaningless to appeal to the idea that the mysterious owner of intentions has to be a supernatural being. The only reason I can ever think of as to why you'd think what you just said is because you personally feel that way and have decided it's a nice thing to think, regardless of how much sense it makes logically speaking. That's fair enough, the concept of faith is based on things not making any sense but believing them anyway, but I don't think you can really use it as an argument for anybody except for yourself.

[Proletariat]

I simply can't apply logic to personally answer the "God-question" to myself. I am equally unable to apply faith in the same sense.

I was raised as a Protestant, but the past few years I've been in a very ambiguous place in terms of my religious beliefs. Most of the time when the topic comes up I try to ignore it. I've learned long ago that if I try to wrestle with the topic, I won't win.

There are certain aspects of Christianity that I have trouble understanding. In Catholicism, you have so much tradition, so much ceremony. Who decided this was the best (only) way to serve God? Did God? For that matter, even though the Bible is claimed to be God's word, it is nevertheless written by human hands, edited by human priests, and passed along from generation to generation through the venerable channel that is tradition and custom. The socio-political aspects of religion do not incline me to believe in God.

Yet, if I look at the issue spiritually (as it really should be, really), then certain aspects of science seem just as confounding to me, if not more. In a previous thread, about the existence of alien life, I mentioned my incredulity at the concept of abiogenesis, that amino acids could somehow form the thousand-long sequences that comprise of proteins, even though the extremely small likelihood of something like that happening requires an effectively infinite amount of time. Then consider how many different proteins are in the human body, let alone every single organism that has ever lived on earth. And it's not just abiogenesis that seems, paradoxically, to demand an extreme amount of faith. How would an event like the hypothetical Big Bang even occur? And why? Why is it that, after billions of years, evolution suddenly decided that intelligence was an important factor to survival, even though trillions of species before the homo genus rejected it?

I was discussing this topic, more or less, with a friend of mine some time ago. Her theory was that what we call the universe is in reality a computer simulation, that the aspect of our psyche which we attribute to religion serves to identify us with the "programmers." It was interesting to hear her thoughts, but I thought it was pretty far-out at the time. Of course, now I realize that it's just as far-out as any other position on religion really is. This question simply defies proof, and I can no more prove that the Bible is literal than I can prove that life rose from primordial soup, or that myself, my coffee beside me, and this very keyboard I'm typing on exists inside a computer program. I nor anyone else right now can prove beyond doubt any of it, so all possible answers to the God-question are equally valid to any one individual. Religion is a personal experience. It doesn't matter if God exists or not; the real question is whether God exists or not inside you.

[Daedalus]

I simply can't apply logic to personally answer the "God-question" to myself. I am equally unable to apply faith in the same sense.

I was raised as a Protestant, but the past few years I've been in a very ambiguous place in terms of my religious beliefs. Most of the time when the topic comes up I try to ignore it. I've learned long ago that if I try to wrestle with the topic, I won't win.

There are certain aspects of Christianity that I have trouble understanding. In Catholicism, you have so much tradition, so much ceremony. Who decided this was the best (only) way to serve God? Did God? For that matter, even though the Bible is claimed to be God's word, it is nevertheless written by human hands, edited by human priests, and passed along from generation to generation through the venerable channel that is tradition and custom. The socio-political aspects of religion do not incline me to believe in God.

Yet, if I look at the issue spiritually (as it really should be, really), then certain aspects of science seem just as confounding to me, if not more. In a previous thread, about the existence of alien life, I mentioned my incredulity at the concept of abiogenesis, that amino acids could somehow form the thousand-long sequences that comprise of proteins, even though the extremely small likelihood of something like that happening requires an effectively infinite amount of time. Then consider how many different proteins are in the human body, let alone every single organism that has ever lived on earth. And it's not just abiogenesis that seems, paradoxically, to demand an extreme amount of faith. How would an event like the hypothetical Big Bang even occur? And why? Why is it that, after billions of years, evolution suddenly decided that intelligence was an important factor to survival, even though trillions of species before the homo genus rejected it?

I was discussing this topic, more or less, with a friend of mine some time ago. Her theory was that what we call the universe is in reality a computer simulation, that the aspect of our psyche which we attribute to religion serves to identify us with the "programmers." It was interesting to hear her thoughts, but I thought it was pretty far-out at the time. Of course, now I realize that it's just as far-out as any other position on religion really is. This question simply defies proof, and I can no more prove that the Bible is literal than I can prove that life rose from primordial soup, or that myself, my coffee beside me, and this very keyboard I'm typing on exists inside a computer program. I nor anyone else right now can prove beyond doubt any of it, so all possible answers to the God-question are equally valid to any one individual. Religion is a personal experience. It doesn't matter if God exists or not; the real question is whether God exists or not inside you.

Kind of a wise post, I guess, but I would fundamentally disagree with a few of your points. My main objection is to the assertion that life arising from primordial soup is equally as unprovable as the Creation apparently propounded by the Bible or the rather absurd computer program theory (we invented computers, what's the sense in being invented by computers or inside computers? I don't see the difference. If we are then there is still another "real" world somewhere above, right?) - ever heard of a little concept called Occam's razor? Basically if I was doing an IB lab and I got a series of points in a straight line plotting mass against distance I could connect those points however I like. I could make it very slightly exponential or I could draw little sinusoidal curves or a I could connect the dots to make a cat's face if I really wanted. But the most rational conclusion to draw is also the simplest - that these points are connected in a straight line.

Same idea with how our universe came about. The evidence we have is in the form of fossils preserved for millions of years. It took a genius like Darwin to explain fossils in the simplest possible way, and until we have evidence that makes computer simulation or seven-day creation more likely than evolution, it's not rational to believe in those.

I personally love the idea of having gods, especially gods of wine and gods of debauchery, so I believe in the Greek way of thinking, and I play little games with myself to entertain me through double physics classes. But frankly if I wanted to get into Cambridge I might pray and then do everything I could, or I might not pray and do everything I could, I might even sacrifice my next morning to the gods by imbibing alcohol, but I would never pray and/or sacrifice and not do everything I could. So if you have to create a whole system of religion that convolutedly justifies everything you believe to be right (i.e. not killing others) and of which you feel free anyways to take out the parts you don't like (i.e. stoning as a punishment for adultery *cough*Maha*cough*) then you might as well not have the religious framework at all, because it's a complex mechanism to describe something that can be explained simpler.

Thing about Induction, and that's exactly what we have here, is that there can be no definite conclusions. In their absence we must accept Occam's razor and falsifiability and so on as the most rational criteria for choosing what to believe in (because we can't know for sure). As long as that holds I'm sticking to not believing in greek gods. Much more pleasant thing to not believe in than computer stimulation or brain in vat or misogynistic vengeful homophobic patriarch (I mean God).

[Proletariat]

Kind of a wise post, I guess, but I would fundamentally disagree with a few of your points. My main objection is to the assertion that life arising from primordial soup is equally as unprovable as the Creation apparently propounded by the Bible or the rather absurd computer program theory (we invented computers, what's the sense in being invented by computers or inside computers? I don't see the difference. If we are then there is still another "real" world somewhere above, right?) - ever heard of a little concept called Occam's razor? Basically if I was doing an IB lab and I got a series of points in a straight line plotting mass against distance I could connect those points however I like. I could make it very slightly exponential or I could draw little sinusoidal curves or a I could connect the dots to make a cat's face if I really wanted. But the most rational conclusion to draw is also the simplest - that these points are connected in a straight line.

Same idea with how our universe came about. The evidence we have is in the form of fossils preserved for millions of years. It took a genius like Darwin to explain fossils in the simplest possible way, and until we have evidence that makes computer simulation or seven-day creation more likely than evolution, it's not rational to believe in those.

I personally love the idea of having gods, especially gods of wine and gods of debauchery, so I believe in the Greek way of thinking, and I play little games with myself to entertain me through double physics classes. But frankly if I wanted to get into Cambridge I might pray and then do everything I could, or I might not pray and do everything I could, I might even sacrifice my next morning to the gods by imbibing alcohol, but I would never pray and/or sacrifice and not do everything I could. So if you have to create a whole system of religion that convolutedly justifies everything you believe to be right (i.e. not killing others) and of which you feel free anyways to take out the parts you don't like (i.e. stoning as a punishment for adultery *cough*Maha*cough*) then you might as well not have the religious framework at all, because it's a complex mechanism to describe something that can be explained simpler.

Thing about Induction, and that's exactly what we have here, is that there can be no definite conclusions. In their absence we must accept Occam's razor and falsifiability and so on as the most rational criteria for choosing what to believe in (because we can't know for sure). As long as that holds I'm sticking to not believing in greek gods. Much more pleasant thing to not believe in than computer stimulation or brain in vat or misogynistic vengeful homophobic patriarch (I mean God).

See, that's the thing with the the simulation theory. Our science has predicted that humanity will have the computational power to simulate worlds by 2050. What is a bit, but a neuron? And if simulating a universe is possible, then we'd just as likely to be a simulation than the original programmers (and exponentially more likelier to be a simulation if simulates are, for some reason, allowed to create worlds themselves.) Yes, ad infinitum, I know, and rest assured I am quite familiar with the concept of Occam's razor, but it shouldn't be dismissed as being "rather absurd" when the first spontaneous protein synthesis is infinitely less likely.

You can say that science have given enough data to prop theories. You can say that fossils are proof that Diplodocus existed. What you don't have proof of is the thousands of little amino acids coming into the specific order to form a protein, just as no one has proof of God's 7 days of creation. But, faced with these two choices - that a random act with a 1 in 10^260 chance of occurring occurred, or that something simply made it all - you tell me what the simplest way to connect the dots is in this scenario.

This topic of religion is something that is silly to attempt to justify to others. That was the main point of my post, and why I introduced the idea of simulation theory. Every theory is right to the individual that believes it. And that's fine. Religion is internal, not external.

[Daedalus]

See, that's the thing with the the simulation theory. Our science has predicted that humanity will have the computational power to simulate worlds by 2050. What is a bit, but a neuron? And if simulating a universe is possible, then we'd just as likely to be a simulation than the original programmers (and exponentially more likelier to be a simulation if simulates are, for some reason, allowed to create worlds themselves.) Yes, ad infinitum, I know, and rest assured I am quite familiar with the concept of Occam's razor, but it shouldn't be dismissed as being "rather absurd" when the first spontaneous protein synthesis is infinitely less likely.

You can say that science have given enough data to prop theories. You can say that fossils are proof that Diplodocus existed. What you don't have proof of is the thousands of little amino acids coming into the specific order to form a protein, just as no one has proof of God's 7 days of creation. But, faced with these two choices - that a random act with a 1 in 10^260 chance of occurring occurred, or that something simply made it all - you tell me what the simplest way to connect the dots is in this scenario.

This topic of religion is something that is silly to attempt to justify to others. That was the main point of my post, and why I introduced the idea of simulation theory. Every theory is right to the individual that believes it. And that's fine. Religion is internal, not external.

Simulation theory is fine enough, and I acknowledge we might be living in a stimulated world (which would still not mean we should act any differently; all limits between "true" reality and "untrue" reality such as computer simulation or brain-in-a-vat are arbitrary), but to equate a bit with a neuron is ridiculous. Sure we could use bits to explain the basic function of human life but our microscopes can see cells within the neuron, and so on deeper down, so the "bits" in question would have to be at the level of atoms, in fact at quarks, indeed, at the 17-dimensional strings that physicist now think lie at the heart of matter (or whatever it is that they do). That we should be able to simulate worlds by 2050 is a nice assertion but without supporting evidence completely useless, to me entirely unconvincing, and it probably relies on technological advancement continuing at this pace, which, to me, is increasingly unlikely as the cutting-edge information we discover becomes increasingly difficult to hold in a single mind. The first spontaneous protein synthesis thing isn't exactly inarguable fact - from my brief look at the wikipedia page, it seems to me that there are several competing theories as to how life originally arose (proteins first, nucleic acids first?). You can't make an ultimatum like 1 in 10^260 or Creation and convince others that these are the only options; obviously they're not.

And you're misinterpreting the connect-the-dots analogy. A theory has to account for all the facts in the best possible way. Religion doesn't account for all the facts; it has to be continually modified to fit new discoveries about evolution and fossils and the effectiveness of prayer in double-blind studies and so on. There is no modification necessary or possible (so far) for the evolution theory; all new discoveries so far have confirmed it. And evolution, unlike Creation, is falsifiable.

The conclusion about internality and all theories being right to the individual who believes them is admirable, but stupid. If contradictory theories were able to coexist it would be fine, but conservatives would limit liberals' liberties, and certain strains of radical Islam lead people to mass-murder, and so long as these "theories" affect other people they're going to be discussed. It's such a sad argument to say that all this is futile; a sad, hollow argument to try to put a conclusion onto a topic that will obviously not be concluded by you or me (unless you capitulate ).

[∫ Jorge δx]

God is a metaphor that we have taken literally.

Either that or I'm an idiot.

[Proletariat]

Simulation theory is fine enough, and I acknowledge we might be living in a stimulated world (which would still not mean we should act any differently; all limits between "true" reality and "untrue" reality such as computer simulation or brain-in-a-vat are arbitrary), but to equate a bit with a neuron is ridiculous. Sure we could use bits to explain the basic function of human life but our microscopes can see cells within the neuron, and so on deeper down, so the "bits" in question would have to be at the level of atoms, in fact at quarks, indeed, at the 17-dimensional strings that physicist now think lie at the heart of matter (or whatever it is that they do). That we should be able to simulate worlds by 2050 is a nice assertion but without supporting evidence completely useless, to me entirely unconvincing, and it probably relies on technological advancement continuing at this pace, which, to me, is increasingly unlikely as the cutting-edge information we discover becomes increasingly difficult to hold in a single mind. The first spontaneous protein synthesis thing isn't exactly inarguable fact - from my brief look at the wikipedia page, it seems to me that there are several competing theories as to how life originally arose (proteins first, nucleic acids first?). You can't make an ultimatum like 1 in 10^260 or Creation and convince others that these are the only options; obviously they're not.

And you're misinterpreting the connect-the-dots analogy. A theory has to account for all the facts in the best possible way. Religion doesn't account for all the facts; it has to be continually modified to fit new discoveries about evolution and fossils and the effectiveness of prayer in double-blind studies and so on. There is no modification necessary or possible (so far) for the evolution theory; all new discoveries so far have confirmed it. And evolution, unlike Creation, is falsifiable.

The conclusion about internality and all theories being right to the individual who believes them is admirable, but stupid. If contradictory theories were able to coexist it would be fine, but conservatives would limit liberals' liberties, and certain strains of radical Islam lead people to mass-murder, and so long as these "theories" affect other people they're going to be discussed. It's such a sad argument to say that all this is futile; a sad, hollow argument to try to put a conclusion onto a topic that will obviously not be concluded by you or me (unless you capitulate ).

Well put, and thorough to boot. But if you look at the function of a bit, and the function of a neuron, they're essentially the same. Bits are tiny switches, and they exist in one of two possible states. On and off. 0 and 1. Similarly, neurons exist in two states, either at resting potential when they're "off", and at action potential level when they're "on." There is no middle ground for either of these objects. You don't have 0.5 in binary, and you don't have a kind-of-a-sort-of-a action potential in biology. You can argue about the organelles inside a neuron cell, but if you look at the structure, the function is identical. You can't apply reductionism to life.

As for the 2050 statistic, sure, it's an estimation, a prediction, so it involves a certain degree of probability. But if you look at the growth of information technologies, stretching back for decades, you see easily plottable, readily graphable relationships. Not only do principles such as Moore's Law predict linear growth, you even have individuals like Kurzweil who have mapped exponential increases. As for the limit of the human mind being a natural upper bound for this growth, it would only ring true if indeed all we knew had to be "held in a single mind." But this hasn't been the case since the beginning of human civilization. Everything from the first cave drawing to what I'm typing right now is an example of information that's recorded and held outside of a human mind. So I don't really understand why you would argue an inventor has to know everything he needs to know inside his brain, when he simply doesn't. Computers are capable of holding a wealth of information that can be selectively drawn upon by the inventor at his/her luxury.

I've also never suggested that protein synthesis and Creationism are the only options to everyone. I've only narrowed the question to two for you, and you only. The reason why I did that is because you made the argument that abiogenesis - and by extension, scientific arguments on the origins of life - have more proof that are more credible and believable than Creationism, and I tried to show that that's not necessarily the case.

The argument that science never has to refine itself is also silly, since science, in every field, has constantly and consistently redefined itself since it's beginnings. Remember when the smartest men on the planet believed in phlogiston? Or geocentricity? Science and Religion have both been permeable to new information, new discoveries; the difference is that the average person is more informed about Religion's struggle against change than Science's. And it's the same for other areas like the Arts. And even if we zero-in on the Theory of Evolution itself, anyone can easily see that revisions have been made constantly and for countless times. Humanity can't even sort out it's own genus - homo - accurately, since we've gone from Out of Africa to maybe Multi-regionalism to the discovery of mitochondrial DNA to discoveries that, hey, Neanderthals actually live on as a small percentage of modern humans DNA so it might still be multi-regionalism after all. And that's a field dating the past million years or so; a flash of a second in geological and evolutionary time. The fact is, evolution is not as simplistic, not as infallible, not as concrete as so many people like to think it is.

I also hope you didn't think I'd capitulate because my position was called "sad" and "stupid" by an anonymous individual over the internet =P Here's the kicker: I actually respect your point of view in disagreeing with mine. It doesn't seem that you reciprocate the geniality, and I certainly am not a fan of being called stupid, but I am okay with you having your own opinions. Obviously the examples you used of radical islam and neo-conservatism are the most extreme that one can find, and I don't disagree with the fact that those movements seek to limit those of others. But ideas and ideologies and movements and political parties are collectives, and again I urge you not to apply reductionist thinking to the issue, because the beliefs of an individual are a completely different topic than the beliefs of a group. Collective movements and ideas can be destructive, yes of course. But to say that tolerating an individual's position on religion is "stupid", is a bit crass.

[Sandwich]

The argument that science never has to refine itself is also silly, since science, in every field, has constantly and consistently redefined itself since it's beginnings. Remember when the smartest men on the planet believed in phlogiston? Or geocentricity? Science and Religion have both been permeable to new information, new discoveries; the difference is that the average person is more informed about Religion's struggle against change than Science's. And it's the same for other areas like the Arts.

I would say that the difference is that Science has had its explanations discredited and changed the conclusion. Religion has been discredited and kept the conclusion the same, just changed the explanation. In that sense, Science never has had to redefine old ideas, it's replaced them, added to them or scrapped them. Religion, on the other hand, cannot do anything but attempt to re-define itself because it fundamentally can't replace, add or scrap things.

I don't think it's just more information about the struggle against change, I think it's a fundamental difference in nature of the two things. For me personally, I actually find it quite a compelling part of why I've come to my own conclusions about the two. I don't accept that you can find out new facts which change the outcome of something but then just change the story which leads to the outcome so the facts fit again. Facts which impact on an outcome change outcomes, they don't change the route by which you get there -- at least not 100% of the time!

[Daedalus]

I also hope you didn't think I'd capitulate because my position was called "sad" and "stupid" by an anonymous individual over the internet =P Here's the kicker: I actually respect your point of view in disagreeing with mine. It doesn't seem that you reciprocate the geniality, and I certainly am not a fan of being called stupid, but I am okay with you having your own opinions. Obviously the examples you used of radical islam and neo-conservatism are the most extreme that one can find, and I don't disagree with the fact that those movements seek to limit those of others. But ideas and ideologies and movements and political parties are collectives, and again I urge you not to apply reductionist thinking to the issue, because the beliefs of an individual are a completely different topic than the beliefs of a group. Collective movements and ideas can be destructive, yes of course. But to say that tolerating an individual's position on religion is "stupid", is a bit crass.

Haha fair enough. I can accept people believing in god, or people believing in Palin -- it's just when people try to say "oh this debate is useless, you need to accept that people can have different points of view than you" that I get a bit frustrated, because it seems like an awkward way to end a debate. I still don't agree with a fair amount of what you said - I think Alice made some good points, and when I said that evolution didn't need modification it was specifically to do with the framework of evolution and natural selection. Figuring out the movements of our ancestors is a noble enough goal (and one that requires a belief in evolution), but the fact that we've modified our consensus is no judgment on Darwin's initial conclusions: that natural selection, over many, many, generations, could have been responsible for the many adaptations that animals exhibit in relation to their environment. And though you're right about the all or none thing with neurons, that doesn't explain (to me) why they could be modeled by bits.. there's so much else going on there, like Alzheimers, or neurogenesis, and the complex probability functions that regulate the amount of neurons that fire and the rate at which they do so, and so on, that I simply cannot conceive of the brain being modeled so simplistically.

Another interesting point is the science and religion thing. To zero in on Christianity for a second -- their holy text, the Bible, has not changed, I think, in the better part of two millenia. It requires a constant act of reinterpretation to make the Bible consistent with today's accepted wisdom, and even so you are left with the utterly contrary nature of the Old and the New Testaments, and, as a side-note, you're left with schools in America that teach Creation. The closest thing scientists have to a holy text is probably the scientific method, which really isn't that universal, but there's also the sheer beauty that our current scientific knowledge was built, piece by piece, over hundreds or thousands of years by people who may have shared nothing - not language, not nationality, not religion or even believe in the Earth's flatness or roundness - but who built their theories around facts and found that whether we measure them in the North hemisphere or in the South, the relentless machinery of reason moves always in the same direction. Doesn't mean there were no kinks along the way, doesn't mean that people didn't believe in what seemed logical to suit certain facts at certain times (and turned out to be utterly, amusingly wrong), but it does mean that in the long run we have been progressing towards an understanding of the world where it seems increasingly that what is unanswerable today will be answerable tomorrow, and that the little slice of our own ignorance that we can fill with God is shrinking day by day.

I wasn't serious about the capitulation though. I didn't call your position on religion "sad" or "stupid"; it's this that bothers me: "Every theory is right to the individual that believes it. And that's fine. Religion is internal, not external." I wish it was true, but it obviously isn't, and sure I took the two most extreme examples, but that doesn't mean there will ever be a justification for not discussing these things. I don't think this is reductionism. People can be crazy alone as well -- the Tuscon shootings are our most recent example. Not religiously or politically motivated, or not that we know of for the moment, but it shows that you don't have to get to the level of groups or societies to witness senseless murder.

[Proletariat]

Bits don't have neurotransmitters like neurons do of course, but it's not difficult to conceive of a computronium "brain" using other control mechanisms. Obviously such an entity wouldn't suffer from things like Alzheimer's, but I will admit that I am not even close to having enough knowledge to theorize how it would replicate other functions, like neuroplasticity for example.

As for the framework of natural selection and evolution, we must remember that it's a scientific theory that's only been around for the last 250 years or so, which is a drop in the bucket in terms of human knowledge and scientific discovery. I used geocentricity as an example earlier because, back in the days that it was the only theory in astronomy, humans simply could not figure out why the Earth wouldn't be at the center of the solar system. They see the sun,moon and stars all revolve around the Earth, day and night, year after year; for them, geocentricity was simply logic. Anything different would be called insanity. Now, we know they were wrong after all.

Similarly, things that we take to be de facto truisms may, in the future, prove to be different. We would scoff at this notion now, but it's occurred, time after time, because that's the nature of scientific progress. And I know you will hate this argument, because there's no good way to rebuke it, but I'm sure you'll try =P

One thing I want to point out though is that, above, I noted how my position on religion is in a very strange place at this time of my life. I agree completely with your point on holy texts and their unchanging nature. That's why I believe Catholicism is self-deprecating. That's also why I will never, ever believe the Bible to be literal. This resistance to change bugs me about other things too, in particular the Second Amendment of the American Constitution, since you've reminded me by mentioning Tucson. It's this idea that we can base the present - and even the future - on what someone thought was right hundreds (and in the Bible's case, thousands) of years ago, that I find completely ridiculous. The Bible is a relic, a fossil; something that should be treated with the same level of respect and wonderment as a particularly shiny object in a museum. Actually, it's best purpose would be as a time capsule. But of course, it doesn't mean that the "framework" (to borrow your term) of religious thought is completely wrong either. The belief of a Creator, of a God who made the universe as we know it isn't dependent upon a book.

I think the point you make at the end is the most crucial though. First, I do have to say that there's a reason why I had "sad" and "stupid" in quotation marks. They're quotes. Your quotes. Do not dodge or hide the fact that you did type the words. But as you've stated, individuals are indeed capable of committing murder in the name of religion as much as groups are. And that's why I wouldn't describe myself as a radical individualist by any means. I'm no Marquis de Sade. I suppose there's a spectrum of tolerance to my views on individual freedoms (and actually, I believe everyone has a spectrum, just to various degrees from individual to individual.) I'm not insane enough to condone extremism.

Damn. Does that count as capitulation?

[nametaken]

'right...

no one created the supreme power, he created everything else.'

FOLLOWED BY:

'So who created the 'he'?'

This is similar to the concept of 'the big bang', the standard model views our local universe as finite....so therefore their must have been a point of origin, which according to many scientists existed without anything causing to exist.

But what if that 'cause' happened to be God? We're always told that there is a cause and effect.

In the past thirty five years, scientists have been stunned to discover that the universe is finely tuned to an incomprehensible precision to support life. For many scientist, this points in a very compelling way toward the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Here are some of the data gathered by scientists, both Christians and non-Christians, that point toward complexity and orderedness at the beginning of the universe: Stephen Hawkins has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. Davies also estimated that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100, life could never have developed. For comparison, there are only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe. There are about fifty constants and quantities. For example, the amount of usable energy in the universe, the difference in mass between protons and neutrons, the proportion of matter to antimatter. That must be balanced to a mathematically infinitesimal degree for any life to be possible. For organic life to exist, the fundamental regularities and constants of physics must all have values that together fall into an extremely narrow range.

The probability of this perfect calibration happening by chance is so tiny as to be statistically negligible. Collins puts it well: "When you look from the perspective of a scientist at the universe, it looks as if it knew we were coming. There are fifteen constants...that have precise values. If any of those constants was off by even one part in a million, or in some cases, by one part in a million million, the universe could not have been able to coalesce, there would have been no galaxy, stars, planets or people." Some have said that it is as if there were a large number of dials that all had to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits, and they were. It seem extremely unlikely that this would happen by chance. Stephen Hawkins concludes: "The odds against the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." Elsewhere he says, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Astronomers are discovering a whole new dimension of evidence that suggests this astounding world was created, in part, so we could have the adventure of exploring it. As astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and science philosopher Jay Wesley Richards, who wrote the book "The Privileged Planet," elaborates. Total eclipse of the sun, which yield a treasure trove of scientific data, can only be viewed from one place in the solar system where there are intelligent beings to view them. Also, earth's location away from galaxy's center and in the flat plane of the disk provides a particularly privileged vantage point for observing both nearby and distant stars. Another example, earth provides an excellent position to detect the cosmic background radiation, which is critically important because it contains invaluable information about the properties of the universe when it was very young. Because our moon is the right size and distance to stabilize Earth's tilt, it helps preserve the deep snow deposits in our polar regions, from which scientist can determine the history of snowfall, temperatures, winds, and the amount of volcanic dust, methane, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The findings of scientists that our world appears to be designed for discovery have added a compelling new dimension to the evidence for a Creator. And, frankly, their analysis makes sense. The finely tuned universe can compel only one reasonable conclusion, a supernatural agent must be responsible for it.

Every time I've come across written communication, whether it's a painting on a cave wall or a novel from Amazon.com or the words "I love you" inscribed in the sand on the beach, there has always been someone who did the writing. Even if I can't see the couple who wrote "I love you," you don't assume that the words randomly appeared by chance of the the movement of the waves. Someone of intelligence made that written communication. And what is encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living creature is purely and simply written information. I'm not saying this because I'm a writer; scientist will tell you this. We use a twenty-six-letter chemical alphabet, whose letters combine in various sequences to form all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. For me, that's reason enough to believe this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer. In 2004, the atheist world was shocked when famed British atheist Antony Flew suddenly announced that he believed in the existence of God. For decades he had heralded the cause of atheism. It was the incredible complexity of DNA that opened his eyes: In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more that fifty years of DNA research have provided the materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Nearly every scientist agrees that the universe had a beginning. The most widely accepted explanation is the Big Bang theory or some variation of it. The question is: What made the bang? If you hear a noise you look for the cause for a little bang, then doesn't it also make sense that there would be a cause for the big bang? Stephen Hawking states, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." The philosopher Kai Nielson says, "Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang... and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that."

Maybe you've heard Christians denying the evidence for the Big Bang theory because they believe it contradicts the Bible's revelation that God created the world. But well-meaning, Bible-believeing Christians have different views on the issue. For example, William Lane Craig believes that the Big Bang is one of the most plausible arguments for God's existence. Adds astrophysicist C.J. Isham: "Perhaps the best argument... that the Big Bang supports theism [belief in God] is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists." Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow admitted that, although details may differ, "the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Stephen Hawkins has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. You may have seen the bumper sticker that reads, "The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and Bang! It happened." It's a little simplistic, but maybe it's not so far off.

"In the beginning there was an explosion," explained Noble Prize-winning physicists Steven Weinberg in his book The First Three Minutes, "which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing part from every other particle." The matter rushing apart, he said, consisted of elementary particles, neutrinos and the other subatomic particles that make up the world. Among those particles were photons, which make up light. "The universe," he said, "was filled with light." Interesting, that's what the Bible says too.

Obstacles to the formation of life on primitive earth would have been extremely challenging. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so. First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it. And that would only be one protein molecule, a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.

There is something about nature that is much more striking and inexplicable than its design. All scientific, inductive reasoning is based on the assumption of the regularity, the laws, of nature, that water will boil tomorrow under the identical conditions of today. The method of induction requires generalizing from observed cases of the same kind. Without inductive reasoning we couldn't learn from experiences, we couldn't use language, we couldn't rely on our memories. Most people find that normal and untroubling. But not philosophers! David and Bertrand Russel, as good secular men, were troubled by the fact that we haven't got the slightest idea of why nature-regularity is happening now, and moreover we haven't the slightest rational justification for assuming it will continue tomorrow. If someone would say, "Well the future has always been like the past," Hume and Russell reply that you are assuming the very thing you are trying to establish. To put it another way, science cannot prove the continued regularity of nature, it can only take it by faith. There have been many scholars in that last decades who argued that modern science arose in its most sustained form out of Christian civilization because of its belief in a all-powerful, personal God who created and sustains an orderly universe. As a proof for the existence of God, the regularity of nature is escapable. I can always say, "We don't know why things are as they are." As a clue for God, however, it is helpful. I can surely say, "We don't know why nature is regular, it just is. That doesn't prove God." If I don't believe in God, not only is this profoundly inexplicable, but I have no basis for believing that nature will go on regularly, but I continue to use inductive reasoning and language. Of course this clue actually doesn't prove God. It is rationally avoidable. However, the cumulative effect is, I think, provocative and potent. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God.

[Proletariat]

Except you forget to mention that contrary data have been given to debunk the fine-tuned Universe argument on many occasions.

The crucial flaw of this theory isn't the data though. It's the lack of data. It comes down to this one question: does another model exist for comparison? And the answer is no. You can't prove that it has to be this number or nothing, because you don't have another universe to compare it to. You can say that life as we know it cannot have originated if gravity was one speck off, but you cannot say that all life could not have. You simply can't make these assertions without a comparison.

The idea of the fine-tuned Universe isn't knowledge; it's belief. There is no evidence either for nor against it. It's a belief, just like religion. So it's perfectly fine if you believe in it, but it's important not to misinterpret it as what it clearly isn't. It is not evidence for God. It is a belief, parallel to religion, not propping it up.

[eshylkaratas]

Hey guys! There are so many evidences for the existence of God. Look around you. What do you see? Sun,plants, mountains and balance between everything. Macroorganisms and microorganisms live in a balance. There must be someone who created and controls them. And when we are thrilling or have no way to solve something, we refuge to something which is the most powerful, the most knowledgeable and everything most. Why we need to refuge to something? Because God put that need or feeling inside us.

Why must there be somebody who creates and controls everything? There's no actual reason at all. When I don't know how to solve something why does what I feel have to have been put inside me by god?!

There's no compelling reason why any of those things form any sort of evidence for the existence of god except for that you personally feel so and are telling everybody else that. That's just listing a load of random things and then deciding that god must be involved somehow. Balance between things can exist without something having created it, or controlling it. My feelings can exist because I feel them, not because somebody else put them there. Exchange "god" for "millions of tiny invisible ants" or pretty much anything else -- "soup", "pot plants" -- and it doesn't change the outcome of the sentence at all.

Personally I think that the idea that anything which happens has to have happened because of something else's intentions is a very misleading one, and it's the assumption that underlines all of these sorts of argument. I think that unless you can also argue that all things must be intentional and make a case for that before embarking on the leap of logic that therefore an unknown and all-powerful entity must be involved, it's reasonably meaningless to appeal to the idea that the mysterious owner of intentions has to be a supernatural being. The only reason I can ever think of as to why you'd think what you just said is because you personally feel that way and have decided it's a nice thing to think, regardless of how much sense it makes logically speaking. That's fair enough, the concept of faith is based on things not making any sense but believing them anyway, but I don't think you can really use it as an argument for anybody except for yourself.

my dear clever always an argument finder friend,

Your answer is just about underestimating the sentences. You avoid to see what they mean because you dont want to believe in god. You think that if you believe in god, you will destroy all basic parts that are in the structure of your life. You said it is non-sense but according to which sentence of mine and tell me the one that makes sense.

Can a computer open by itself? NO! Can it register to IBSurvival and log in ? NO!

Ok. You see a big, modern plane. It has so many complicated electronic systems. You appreciate the engineers that has built it. If we compare that to our universe, it is also a very complicated system. So there must be someone who created, balanced and keeps balancing it.

Knowledge exists because you know it. But the part you missed is what is the source of knowledge?

To provide the balance there must be objects that needs to be balanced. Since the creation of the things can not be a coincidence, they must be created by someone that is all-knowledgeable, all-powerful and all-everything. God is just a word that we name a source which is the beginning of everthing. This source has the power to do everything. So when you have no hope you refuge to that source because only that can help you. If you have any question contact me

[Sandwich]

my dear clever always an argument finder friend,

Your answer is just about underestimating the sentences. You avoid to see what they mean because you dont want to believe in god. You think that if you believe in god, you will destroy all basic parts that are in the structure of your life. You said it is non-sense but according to which sentence of mine and tell me the one that makes sense.

Can a computer open by itself? NO! Can it register to IBSurvival and log in ? NO!

Ok. You see a big, modern plane. It has so many complicated electronic systems. You appreciate the engineers that has built it. If we compare that to our universe, it is also a very complicated system. So there must be someone who created, balanced and keeps balancing it.

Knowledge exists because you know it. But the part you missed is what is the source of knowledge?

To provide the balance there must be objects that needs to be balanced. Since the creation of the things can not be a coincidence, they must be created by someone that is all-knowledgeable, all-powerful and all-everything. God is just a word that we name a source which is the beginning of everthing. This source has the power to do everything. So when you have no hope you refuge to that source because only that can help you. If you have any question contact me

I didn't misunderstand them or avoid their meaning, I was making the point that they all rest on a central appeal or assumption which is basically that you are saying "there MUST be one unifying human-like source and the world must have been intended". My point is more or less that... well, why? Why does the world need to have been created by something? There's no real reason. The only "argument" for it that you made (and that I've ever read) is false logic where you say:

A does B.

C is also B.

Therefore all B must be done by A.

For instance:

White paint makes a house white.

This flower is white.

Therefore flowers are all white because somebody painted them.

Clearly it's wrong because not ALL things are white because they were painted, only some things. It's exactly the same with your argument about things that are complicated having to be created -- well, they don't, only some complicated things have been created. To say that the world is 'complicated' and that people need intention to make complicated things does not follow that therefore somebody must have intentionally created the world because it is also complicated.

I understand what you're saying, but what I'm pointing out is that it doesn't make sense. Yes, I agree with the fact that a computer couldn't log onto IBS by itself, but why should I assume that the Universe is like a computer and need somebody controlling it? There's no actual reason at all except for the falsely inductive argument from before. The only 'reason' has to be just personal. It doesn't make it less valid, but it does mean it's valid only to you because it's based solely on a feeling that you have had. All this "complicated things all require something to have created them stuff" is unproven. Until somebody can explain why all complicated things must have been created (in terms of the argument, explain why A is the only possibly source of B), it's just speculation.

"Since the creation of the things can not be a coincidence" <--- there are no good conclusive reasons as to why not except for personal hunch.

[eshylkaratas]

my dear clever always an argument finder friend,

Your answer is just about underestimating the sentences. You avoid to see what they mean because you dont want to believe in god. You think that if you believe in god, you will destroy all basic parts that are in the structure of your life. You said it is non-sense but according to which sentence of mine and tell me the one that makes sense.

Can a computer open by itself? NO! Can it register to IBSurvival and log in ? NO!

Ok. You see a big, modern plane. It has so many complicated electronic systems. You appreciate the engineers that has built it. If we compare that to our universe, it is also a very complicated system. So there must be someone who created, balanced and keeps balancing it.

Knowledge exists because you know it. But the part you missed is what is the source of knowledge?

To provide the balance there must be objects that needs to be balanced. Since the creation of the things can not be a coincidence, they must be created by someone that is all-knowledgeable, all-powerful and all-everything. God is just a word that we name a source which is the beginning of everthing. This source has the power to do everything. So when you have no hope you refuge to that source because only that can help you. If you have any question contact me

I didn't misunderstand them or avoid their meaning, I was making the point that they all rest on a central appeal or assumption which is basically that you are saying "there MUST be one unifying human-like source and the world must have been intended". My point is more or less that... well, why? Why does the world need to have been created by something? There's no real reason. The only "argument" for it that you made (and that I've ever read) is false logic where you say:

A does B.

C is also B.

Therefore all B must be done by A.

For instance:

White paint makes a house white.

This flower is white.

Therefore flowers are all white because somebody painted them.

Clearly it's wrong because not ALL things are white because they were painted, only some things. It's exactly the same with your argument about things that are complicated having to be created -- well, they don't, only some complicated things have been created. To say that the world is 'complicated' and that people need intention to make complicated things does not follow that therefore somebody must have intentionally created the world because it is also complicated.

I understand what you're saying, but what I'm pointing out is that it doesn't make sense. Yes, I agree with the fact that a computer couldn't log onto IBS by itself, but why should I assume that the Universe is like a computer and need somebody controlling it? There's no actual reason at all except for the falsely inductive argument from before. The only 'reason' has to be just personal. It doesn't make it less valid, but it does mean it's valid only to you because it's based solely on a feeling that you have had. All this "complicated things all require something to have created them stuff" is unproven. Until somebody can explain why all complicated things must have been created (in terms of the argument, explain why A is the only possibly source of B), it's just speculation.

"Since the creation of the things can not be a coincidence" <--- there are no good conclusive reasons as to why not except for personal hunch.

Find my argument logical or not, just stop skewing my logic. It means what it exactly written, if you don't understand ask for another example.

You got one point. God created everything at FIRST but today there are more things than he created. So the rest is not creation but shaping and combinating the objects which are done by human beings. Because he gave us every source we need.

The universe is an object like a plane not a source. It is the FIRST visible "object" so it has created by someone. And that much complicated thing just can be created by god.

I understand what you think. Yes, it is hard to believe in an invisible thing but there are evidences. You can ask me about a divine religion.

Think about Microsoft Company. The company needs to be controlled. You should check for new investments, give the livelihoods of workers and etc.It is very hard to control it. But universe is not that much small.There are micro and macro organisms, plants and nearly 5 billion human beings. It is hard that only a thing can control which is all-everything.

Can you say that BMW X6 hasn't got a factory. People put its parts to the nature and the parts come together then become BMW X5?

[Daedalus]

I didn't misunderstand them or avoid their meaning, I was making the point that they all rest on a central appeal or assumption which is basically that you are saying "there MUST be one unifying human-like source and the world must have been intended". My point is more or less that... well, why? Why does the world need to have been created by something? There's no real reason. The only "argument" for it that you made (and that I've ever read) is false logic where you say:

A does B.

C is also B.

Therefore all B must be done by A.

For instance:

White paint makes a house white.

This flower is white.

Therefore flowers are all white because somebody painted them.

Clearly it's wrong because not ALL things are white because they were painted, only some things. It's exactly the same with your argument about things that are complicated having to be created -- well, they don't, only some complicated things have been created. To say that the world is 'complicated' and that people need intention to make complicated things does not follow that therefore somebody must have intentionally created the world because it is also complicated.

I understand what you're saying, but what I'm pointing out is that it doesn't make sense. Yes, I agree with the fact that a computer couldn't log onto IBS by itself, but why should I assume that the Universe is like a computer and need somebody controlling it? There's no actual reason at all except for the falsely inductive argument from before. The only 'reason' has to be just personal. It doesn't make it less valid, but it does mean it's valid only to you because it's based solely on a feeling that you have had. All this "complicated things all require something to have created them stuff" is unproven. Until somebody can explain why all complicated things must have been created (in terms of the argument, explain why A is the only possibly source of B), it's just speculation.

"Since the creation of the things can not be a coincidence" <--- there are no good conclusive reasons as to why not except for personal hunch.

Find my argument logical or not, just stop skewing my logic. It means what it exactly written, if you don't understand ask for another example.

You got one point. God created everything at FIRST but today there are more things than he created. So the rest is not creation but shaping and combinating the objects which are done by human beings. Because he gave us every source we need.

The universe is an object like a plane not a source. It is the FIRST visible "object" so it has created by someone. And that much complicated thing just can be created by god.

I understand what you think. Yes, it is hard to believe in an invisible thing but there are evidences. You can ask me about a divine religion.

Think about Microsoft Company. The company needs to be controlled. You should check for new investments, give the livelihoods of workers and etc.It is very hard to control it. But universe is not that much small.There are micro and macro organisms, plants and nearly 5 billion human beings. It is hard that only a thing can control which is all-everything.

Can you say that BMW X6 hasn't got a factory. People put its parts to the nature and the parts come together then become BMW X5?

You're not making any sense at all haha. First you say "God created everything at FIRST" like it's an assumption, and your entire argument to prove the existence of God arises from the existence of God. Think about it for a minute. And you're repeating yourself ... just because cars are made in factories or companies are controlled doesn't mean the university must have been manufactured and humans must be "controlled". That's called a logical fallacy, which is a fancy way of saying it's stupid, and I think Sandwich has shown you quite clearly why. My opinion, to be honest, is that since all children are created by people having sex, God must have had sex with himself to have given birth to us --- see how it doesn't make sense?

God's existence is impossible to disprove logically - ever heard of Russell's teapot? But trying to prove it logically is even more ridiculous. The problem is you haven't ever worked it out for yourself... like thousands of others religion and the existence of God have been indoctrinated into you and now you're trying to come up with arguments to make it right. That's a distorted form of reasoning, and we're not "skewing" your logic -- your logic is already skewed.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Daedalus

[Chelsi:)]

I do believe He exists. Sometimes (most likely when I have a bad day or I'm in an unpleasant mood) I begin to have doubt, but I always end up going back to believing.

[eshylkaratas]

I didn't misunderstand them or avoid their meaning, I was making the point that they all rest on a central appeal or assumption which is basically that you are saying "there MUST be one unifying human-like source and the world must have been intended". My point is more or less that... well, why? Why does the world need to have been created by something? There's no real reason. The only "argument" for it that you made (and that I've ever read) is false logic where you say:

A does B.

C is also B.

Therefore all B must be done by A.

For instance:

White paint makes a house white.

This flower is white.

Therefore flowers are all white because somebody painted them.

Clearly it's wrong because not ALL things are white because they were painted, only some things. It's exactly the same with your argument about things that are complicated having to be created -- well, they don't, only some complicated things have been created. To say that the world is 'complicated' and that people need intention to make complicated things does not follow that therefore somebody must have intentionally created the world because it is also complicated.

I understand what you're saying, but what I'm pointing out is that it doesn't make sense. Yes, I agree with the fact that a computer couldn't log onto IBS by itself, but why should I assume that the Universe is like a computer and need somebody controlling it? There's no actual reason at all except for the falsely inductive argument from before. The only 'reason' has to be just personal. It doesn't make it less valid, but it does mean it's valid only to you because it's based solely on a feeling that you have had. All this "complicated things all require something to have created them stuff" is unproven. Until somebody can explain why all complicated things must have been created (in terms of the argument, explain why A is the only possibly source of B), it's just speculation.

"Since the creation of the things can not be a coincidence" <--- there are no good conclusive reasons as to why not except for personal hunch.

Find my argument logical or not, just stop skewing my logic. It means what it exactly written, if you don't understand ask for another example.

You got one point. God created everything at FIRST but today there are more things than he created. So the rest is not creation but shaping and combinating the objects which are done by human beings. Because he gave us every source we need.

The universe is an object like a plane not a source. It is the FIRST visible "object" so it has created by someone. And that much complicated thing just can be created by god.

I understand what you think. Yes, it is hard to believe in an invisible thing but there are evidences. You can ask me about a divine religion.

Think about Microsoft Company. The company needs to be controlled. You should check for new investments, give the livelihoods of workers and etc.It is very hard to control it. But universe is not that much small.There are micro and macro organisms, plants and nearly 5 billion human beings. It is hard that only a thing can control which is all-everything.

Can you say that BMW X6 hasn't got a factory. People put its parts to the nature and the parts come together then become BMW X5?

You're not making any sense at all haha. First you say "God created everything at FIRST" like it's an assumption, and your entire argument to prove the existence of God arises from the existence of God. Think about it for a minute. And you're repeating yourself ... just because cars are made in factories or companies are controlled doesn't mean the university must have been manufactured and humans must be "controlled". That's called a logical fallacy, which is a fancy way of saying it's stupid, and I think Sandwich has shown you quite clearly why. My opinion, to be honest, is that since all children are created by people having sex, God must have had sex with himself to have given birth to us --- see how it doesn't make sense?

God's existence is impossible to disprove logically - ever heard of Russell's teapot? But trying to prove it logically is even more ridiculous. The problem is you haven't ever worked it out for yourself... like thousands of others religion and the existence of God have been indoctrinated into you and now you're trying to come up with arguments to make it right. That's a distorted form of reasoning, and we're not "skewing" your logic -- your logic is already skewed.

I only would like to say that God hasn't been created. You are even not capable to answer my topic. First you study my logic!

[Sandwich]

I only would like to say that God hasn't been created. You are even not capable to answer my topic. First you study my logic!

Not meaning to be harsh, but your logic is somewhat invisible. Can you set it out in a series of statements that all follow on (logically) from each other that don't rely on a massive assumption? The logic that I can see is very illogical.

Just stating something that you believe to be true and that you believe that it justifies all your other beliefs isn't the same as logically explaining WHY with true statements that all follow on from each other. Saying that we don't understand your logic seems to me like an excuse for the fact that huge portions of your logic are unaccountable for, or don't make any sense if you question them. It's fine to say that religion doesn't have to be logical, but you can't say that it is and then provide something that doesn't even follow.