Xapi,
You misunderstood my statement about the creation of the cosmos... I was not comparing it to evolution... but rather to abiogenesis... both the creation of the cosmos and abiogenesis have very little evidence currently to explain them.

As to the existence of everything... I believe that they simply had to be that way... It is because it is because it is. Conservation of energy/matter tells me that the universe (including possibly connected universes... or whatever we actually exists out there connected to our universe) has to have always existed... and that it will always, in some form, exist. I see no evidence that the concept of conservation of energy/matter is violated (and thus falsified). Until that conservation of energy/matter is falsified I will continue to believe that the universe has always been. As far as the magic of it all... magnetism, gravity etc. It is mind boggling, is it not? I agree with you there. But, as I believe that the universe has always existed there is no need for a creator... And when we understand magnetism and gravity and light more than we do, they will still be amazing things... just as microbes are amazing things even after we figured out that they caused disease... rather than spirits and ethers...

Physicists will tell us that matter is probability... that there is no there there... that it is all energy. Therein

oops... typo - ignore the fragment at the end... an unfinished thought for later.

2+2=4. The ancient Greeks reportedly believed that mathematics and numbers exist in some real sense outside of their application in this world. (I'm probably not using the best description of the concept...) With the unsurity of quantum physics and what matter actually is... it seems to me that in some sense mathematics are the framework, the backbone, perhaps even the essence of reality. Matter is energy... matter and energy can be described by math... in some sense when you dig deep enough in sub atomic particles appears that there is no there there... that it is all energy and math (probability). Math has reality... math describes reality... maybe math, in a sense, IS reality... and we exist, the whole universe must exist, because 2+2=4. As George Orwell said: 2+2=4... all else follows.

I think it's a little less complicated than that. I prefer the idiom "I think, therefore I am."

"You misunderstood my statement about the creation of the cosmos... I was not comparing it to evolution... but rather to abiogenesis... both the creation of the cosmos and abiogenesis have very little evidence currently to explain them."

Sorry about that. I still don't believe we have very reasonable hypotesis.

And about math... Well, let's just say that for things to be that way, I believe there has to be a mathematician.

...ah. If a tree falls in the forest...
Does something have a reality if no one thought it / perceived it? That is the question that we grapple with here.

...and what math made the mathematician necessary?... and so on. (the old uncaused cause problem).

...and as far as not having very reasonable hypotheses for the beginnings of our universe... I agree. I am reminded of the very strange theories that were put forward to explain continental level geology before the advent of the plate tectonics model. We are probably missing something really key here... and things like "dark energy", for example, just sound like pixie dust to me.

I believe:

1. Natural laws rule the universe. No exceptions. No such thing as super-natural or magic. If something violates a natural law that we came up with, then it falsifies the "law" and we'd better adjust our law to fit reality.

2. Natural laws are mathematical. They are the way they are because they have to be. The principle of the inverse square for things like light and gravity, for example, were not arrived at randomly or by whim... they are that way because there is no other way. 2+2 can never = anything but 4... and the fact that it does in this universe is because it has to. If this was not the case, then mathematics and natural laws would not be able to dependably describe the universe. It does dependably describe the universe... therefore the universe is rational (as math is).

3. Since the universe obeys natural laws and natural laws are mathematical, it follows, therefore, that the universe is based on math. ...because it has to be based that way.

4. Math does not need someone to think it in order to be real. Math exists on it's own. 2+2 will always = 4.

5. The universe, if there was going to be a universe at all, is the way it had to be. The math dictates that to be true.

6. For the universe to exist at all, it had to have been necessary for it to exist. ...just as 2+2 has to =4. Without such a necessity it seems logical that it simply wouldn't have existed... nothing would have existed... that seems like it would have been the simpler model: an utter void without form or time - meaningless.

7. If the universe had to be... then it doesn't need a creator... it just simply is. Only things that didn't have to be need creators to make them exist.

---
I think that I base the above on the following assumptions:

A. The universe is rational and conforms to uniformitarianism.

B. Only things that are not dictated as inevitable and necessary need a creator to force them into being. A rock tossed in the air, for example, will fall on its own... it doesn't need a god to actively push it down.

C. The universe is inevitable and necessary... otherwise it would not exist. Either the universe was inevitable and necessary or a god was inevitable and necessary - otherwise you would have nothing at all.

D. To have needed a universe to exist is a simpler model than to have needed a God to exist who then in turn for unknown reasons decides to create something not originally needed. Occam's Razor suggests we should make as few assumptions as possible... to assume God adds assumptions.

Tell me where I go wrong in my logic... or where you differ from me in your assumptions (and why) - I would be very interested.

@Dexter:

>"dark energy"

A silly name invented for PR purposes (the earlier "dark matter" had a point to it but proved popular in the media, and the "dark energy" people wanted to jump on that).

We don't know what dark matter or dark energy are. They must be something in the sense that there are observed effects that we don't know how to explain (although they could be something like the difference between our current best laws of physics and the real laws of physics, or even a systematic error in our observations that nobody has figured out yet, rather than some physical substance).

They actually could be (last I checked with physicists who would know, about a year ago) something quite mundane: dark matter could be right-handed quarks, and dark energy could be a cosmological constant. While these will sound like as much gibberish to most people as the "dark" terms, they're fairly old ideas (30 and 80 years, respectively, when there was no evidence for them yet) that are as well understood as the rest of 20th-century physics. Occam's razor suggests that that really is what they are, but of course we don't know for sure, which is part of why physicists try to think of other ideas and build things like the LHC to check.

>4. Math does not need someone to think it in order to be real. Math exists on it's own. 2+2 will always = 4.

As a mathematician, I don't think of it that way. 2 + 2 = 4 because we tell the story that way (and for good reason: that's the way the story works out best, both aesthetically and for the purpose of describing reality).

With regards to the tree and the forest.

Personally... I don't think it makes a sound if no one hears it... but that's just me.

Listen... we think the universe obeys these laws all the time without fail just because that's all we ever see it do... but honestly what percentage of the universe have we observed? Less than 1%? That, even? What makes us think these laws are constant everywhere? What if, the second the proverbial astronomer takes his eye away from the microscope, the germs all do something radical? What if the stars the astronomer was looking at change color the second he looks away?

What if the laws we see applied only apply for 100,000 years at a time, or just in this section of the universe and not elsewhere?

We assume too much, I think. Everything is dependent on our perception.

I think we should refocus on the original address and question here, because I think it is a highly interesting and discussable poit:
To Christians (and all religious people):
What is it that makes you believe.

I say it again: If humans had eternal life here on Earth, I think no-one would bother with religion at all. There would be no reason for it: We would never die and we would never have to worry about what would happen to our "eternal souls" afterwards.

I know it is a point hammered away on by atheists, such as myself, but the only reason people believe in gods is to somehow deal with the enormous fear associated with the fact that we are all going to die sooner or later.

The concept of heaven (common to most if not all religions), with its sometimes endearingly silly imagery, is supposed to allay this fear.

I'd say everything we know from logic and science very strongly points the other way. There is nothing after death, just like there was nothing before birth.

I know it isn't easy, but the sooner we learn to deal with that, the better it is for our views on what things are important to us during this short life here on earth.

Religion, in my modest view, certainly is not one of these.

Heaven actually isn't as common to the religions as you might think. Yes, it is common in the predominant religions, but many religions are based around the conecpt of immortality through reincarnation. No heaven, you die and are born again into another creature, the breed of which and the life it is forced to lead is based upon the way you handled yourself in a previous life.

Thanks, Draugnar, interesting and of course valid point.
The crux here too is that same deep desire of humankind to simply not want to accept the finality of death and, one way or another, heaven/hell or reincarnation, they have dreamt up placebo phantasies to try and somehow or other rationalize it.
Believers need a reality check, I keep insisting, depressing as that may be for most. It's time to pull our heads out of the religious sands.......

@ Xapi "@Darwin: I tire of pointing out the logicall falacies in each and every one of your posts. I will find an inteligent atheist somewhere else to discuss this."

LOL...Arrogant much?! And normally, I see no reason to address one's spelling in a text debate...But if you wanna suggest how intelligent you are or how unintelligent someone else is, LEARN HOW TO SPELL!!! The fact that you misspelled "inteligent" is hilarious.

So aside from that, you gave me five scenarios and I addressed each one of them, logically. Your next immediate step was to say how "tired" you were of pointing out my logical fallacies. WTF.

If you want to engage someone in a discussion, there's no need to dismiss their arguments with pettiness if you don't understand them. Cuz otherwise, you are just closing your eyes and ears and pretending it didn't happen....so I'll just treat you like the arrogant baby you are from now on.

YOu can't count...
"There are three differences:...1) and 2)"

You can't spell...
"inteligent"

You turn into an arrogant dick when you don't understand something...
"I tire of pointing out the logicall falacies in each and every one of your posts."

You don't even know what you are saying:
"I have not assumed that science won't answer these questions, I simply believe that it won't." <- Read that over and over until you get it. LOL!

You make up your own definitions to suit you:
"Either way, change the word omniscience to 'knows all that was and is', and my point still stands."

...and yer gonna try to find someone more "inteligent" to discuss this with?! Who the fuck do you plan on discussing this with? The rock in my pocket?

BTW - if you couldn't already tell, I'm tired of taking cheap shots from you. Perhaps I'll find a more "inteligent" cheap shot artist who doesn't turn into a whiny little bitch to discuss this with. Happy? =D

I told you to drop the pettiness. I almost regret that I'm going to post this, cuz it means I have dropped to your level.

I'm not a native english speaker. In Spanish, intelligent is spelled inteligente. It's an honest mistake.

About the three diferences, there was a third, but it was rather agressive, so I erased it.

"So aside from that, you gave me five scenarios and I addressed each one of them, logically. Your next immediate step was to say how "tired" you were of pointing out my logical fallacies. WTF.!

No, you adressed them like a five year old. That's why I grew tired. Do you want me to point out the logical fallacies in that post? OK, here goes:

""1 - That there is more than one God (*1)
> This cannot be the case, because I only believe in one god. This leads us right back into the logic trap I explained above (and below)""

The fact that you (or anyone) believes there's only one God means that there can't be more than one? That's not a logical fallacie, it's plain stupidity.

""2 - That God shows himself different to different people
> This cannot be the case because if you believe in your god, then it means you don't believe in mine. So this assumption is wrong or you are wrong. See my above comment: "Do you believe in Zeus? If you don't, you will have violated your assumption. If you do, you will have violated your belief."""

Assume there is one God, and assume he shows himself as different to different people. Then I would be "right" to believe in my version of God, as the Greeks would be "right" to believe in Zeus. If you came up with your bulshit story about a rock being God, then you'd be "wrong". I, however, need not to believe in Zeus to believe in my God. I personally would have no opinion about it, or even believe it to be false.

Of course, I would be a hypocrite if I attacked someone for having a belief different than mine. The world is full of hypocrites.

"3 - That different people understand God's message differently (*2)
> - this defies the definition of god. (ie. god can create heavenly bodies and perhaps man, but cannot effectively communicate well? Why not just assume he stutters then?)"

No, this doesn't contradict the definition of God, but it goes to the root of the definition of man. We will misunderstand and take out of context almost anything.

"4 - That there are some people who really can comunicate with God and agree, and other people who are lying or fooling themselves about it, and say different things.
> See my comment for 2."

Your comment for number two says nothing about this.

"5 - That there is a God whom does not communicate with humans at all. (*3)
> then there is no god and god is just a mythical creature created by man."

¿? If there is a God then there is no God? Yeah, that's a logical proof...

@Dexter:

1. Natural laws rule the universe. No exceptions. No such thing as super-natural or magic. If something violates a natural law that we came up with, then it falsifies the "law" and we'd better adjust our law to fit reality.

- I agree. I'm not certain, but I believe that is the case.

2. Natural laws are mathematical. They are the way they are because they have to be.

- This is circular logic. You are not proving anything. I agree that, if the Universe weren't almost exactly as it is, then it would be a complete mess, or wouldn't exist at all.

The principle of the inverse square for things like light and gravity, for example, were not arrived at randomly or by whim... they are that way because there is no other way. 2+2 can never = anything but 4... and the fact that it does in this universe is because it has to. If this was not the case, then mathematics and natural laws would not be able to dependably describe the universe. It does dependably describe the universe... therefore the universe is rational (as math is).

3. Since the universe obeys natural laws and natural laws are mathematical, it follows, therefore, that the universe is based on math. ...because it has to be based that way.

- I'd rephrase that as "the Universe is built upon Mathematicaly representable concepts"

4. Math does not need someone to think it in order to be real. Math exists on it's own. 2+2 will always = 4.

- Agree

5. The universe, if there was going to be a universe at all, is the way it had to be. The math dictates that to be true.

- Agree

6. For the universe to exist at all, it had to have been necessary for it to exist. ...just as 2+2 has to =4. Without such a necessity it seems logical that it simply wouldn't have existed... nothing would have existed... that seems like it would have been the simpler model: an utter void without form or time - meaningless.

- I disagree. The Universe is necesary because it exists? It couldn't have not existed? I dispute that.

7. If the universe had to be... then it doesn't need a creator... it just simply is. Only things that didn't have to be need creators to make them exist.

- I dispute the premise, so I won't bother with the conclusion, although I'm not certain of your logic here.

---
I think that I base the above on the following assumptions:

A. The universe is rational and conforms to uniformitarianism.

- Good assumption.

B. Only things that are not dictated as inevitable and necessary need a creator to force them into being. A rock tossed in the air, for example, will fall on its own... it doesn't need a god to actively push it down.

- Interesting concept. I hadn't thought of that. Since our major disagreement is elsewhere, I won't argue this, although I do not take it to be necesarily valid either.

C. The universe is inevitable and necessary... otherwise it would not exist. Either the universe was inevitable and necessary or a god was inevitable and necessary - otherwise you would have nothing at all.

- This is the main source of our disagreement. The Universe is not necesary or inevitable in my book, or at least I don't have enough proof of that. God may not be necesary either, and I won't pretend to have an explanation on how he came to be.

D. To have needed a universe to exist is a simpler model than to have needed a God to exist who then in turn for unknown reasons decides to create something not originally needed. Occam's Razor suggests we should make as few assumptions as possible... to assume God adds assumptions.

- The number of assumptions is the same. The Universe exists. We can assume the Universe is necesary and it can only be the way it is, or we can assume that a Creator exists wich created the Universe as it is.

Tell me where I go wrong in my logic... or where you differ from me in your assumptions (and why) - I would be very interested.

- There you go. It's a true pleasure discussing with you. It seems I didn't have to go elsewhere to find an intelligent atheist to talk to.

What is it that makes you not believe?

@Xapi-
I said:
"2. Natural laws are mathematical. They are the way they are because they have to be."
You said:
"- This is circular logic. You are not proving anything. I agree that, if the Universe weren't almost exactly as it is, then it would be a complete mess, or wouldn't exist at all."

Actually, based on your last sentence I think we're pretty much in agreement here... I just didn't express myself clearly. I do think, however, that the "complete mess" would have internal contradictions though... which would make such a universe impossible. I don't believe that true paradoxes can exist... by definition.
----
As to the question of the universe and/or God being inevitable and necessary...
I posit that if God was not necessary or inevitable then either: 1) he was created by some other still greater creator (since I believe that things that are not necessary and inevitable need a creator to force them into being), or 2) he does not exist. So... if you believe in God I suggest that it is more likely that God is necessary and inevitable because that does not require an additional greater creator to whom the same question would apply (ad infinitum). I take that one step further... I suggest that if the universe is necessary and inevitable then that does not require a creator to whom the same question would apply... But since you suggest that the universe is not necessarily inevitable then it certainly follows that a creator could exist or even be necessary... your model is consistent. You are correct that the core of our disagreement is whether or not the universe is inevitable/necessary. (Some atheists suggest that it is pure chance that is responsible for the universe existing... I don't buy that).

I like the idea of the universe being unnecessary, though. It gives life a greater meaning, doesn't it? It means that the universe, let alone life, is unlikely, and that means that we should cherish it all the more. If you believe that life has to exist, you take it for granted.

@greatone99-"What is it that makes you not believe?"
For me it is several things: 1) no evidence of a god leads me to be technically an agnostic, 2) it seems more likely that if a god existed that it would make itself apparent... this leads me to lean heavily towards atheism, 3) I see and understand enough of the mechanisms of the physical world to believe that it is likely that all we see is possible to have evolved/developed on its own and does not necessarily need a separate creator... I do not believe in irreducible complexity, for example, 4) logic suggests to me that if the universe can exist without a god (which I believe that it can), then why would there be a god?, 5) I recognize the social/cultural reasons for belief in a god, and they mostly seem to have to do with man's fear of death... And any belief that is blended with wishful thinking is tainted and should not be trusted, 6) I grant that I cannot disprove the possible existence of a god... but it has no bearing on my life (except in interesting conversations such as this one). With or without a god I would run my life in the same way... I would still treat my fellow man well, I would still try to enjoy life as much as possible and accomplish things. I don't see that it would help me to find religion... and anyway I cannot bring myself to find religion simply because I would like the result... it must make sense on it's own merits.

@Onar- I see what you're saying... but I have a different perspective. I'm not a fan of games of chance for example. I find a mathematical formula to be a beautiful thing... and I find how we evolved to fit our environment to be a beautiful thing. I can enjoy these things thoroughly even if they are as sure as 2+2. Some like movies with serendipity and magic in them... I tend to like ones infused with logic and structure (mysteries, for example).

A counter point: If there is an afterlife I think that it threatens severely to dilute/devalue life. If you are in a sense immortal thanks to an afterlife or reincarnation then you might take it for granted. I believe that when we die that that is it. We become food for worms. We are conscious thanks to the circuits in our brains... when they cease functioning that is it. To me that gives my life a significant urgency... and poignance. I'm not so sure I would treasure some of the moments I treasure as much if I was convinced that I had forever in front of me.

@diplomat...you disgust me. ive seen you here and ive seen you on the book thread, and you dont have a shred of respect for aethists. not that i am one, but i am a firm believer in respect for others beliefs. here you are, praising your religion of love, while at the same time showing that we should all hate and frown upon aethists merely for being different. and as for odds...sure how it turned out the way things are is 1 in 100000000000 (however many zeroes) and from all your other technical questions, youve clearly never looked into the science of the origins of life whatsoever. am i not bashing christianity, but it is a miraculous story. it is a stretch to believe. jesus has near-magical healing powers. he walks on water. mary gives birth without ever having sex. if you can believe that, dont say aethism is impossible.

^ ^ Thank you.

Flexibility is a virtue.

Christians cannot see that, will not see that, and this is one reason I have left them.

That said, there are definitely pinheads on both sides.

Well yes, this is true. Richard Dawkins can get on my nerves sometimes. He is just about as narrow-minded as Billy Graham.

Or Dinesh D'Souza or Josh McDowell so on so forth.

@Dex: Thank-you for fleshing out my opinions so much. I prefer a world of logic, but is probability not a function of mathematics? Any event is possible, it is a question of probability. take solace in the things you know are likely to happen, and the rest is academic.

@Onar - yes... good point.

Take for instance, the possibility that all the air in the room would suddenly rush out of the room, leaving you to suffocate. It is thoretically possible, but so improbable that we never worry about it.

yes, ever religion has its members that harass members of other religions. personally, i just think you should respect others beliefs. COEXISTENCE!!!