Thread: God is a logical conclusion.

Originally Posted by FreshAir

but which is more likely to happen by chance though, a god popping into existence and creating everything or energy that slowly changes state into what we see today over billions of years


.

This 'energy' you are speaking of is it acting randomly, or with intention?.
The energy appears to be controlling everything in an ordered manner, it also seems to have made the universe in such away that it ensure the existence of life, not just life but intelligent and complex lifeforms.
If you believe that is all chance that is fine but I simply refuse to accept that as it is so far fetched and an unreasonable conclusion to come to.
The energy you speak of that is changing and controlling the universe, seems to be the definition of God.

Originally Posted by Sean Michael

As I have said before, you do not have to compare something that is working to something that is broken in order to know it is working. You, do nothave to compare your computer to one that is smashed to know yours is working. The universe works, we have no need to compare it to anything else.

That has been your argument throughout this thread. You have said the universe is orderly and perfect, and we were to name anything else that was like that which had not been created. You have repeated that mantra over and over.

Originally Posted by thebrucebeat

That has been your argument throughout this thread. You have said the universe is orderly and perfect, and we were to name anything else that was like that which had not been created. You have repeated that mantra over and over.

I do not remember using the term perfect. I have been going over that mantra because that is true. We have nature, the laws of physics, all the constants of the universe, if one or more of these behaved even ever so slightly different there would probably be no life, and there would not be intelligent life. I am waiting to hear the arguments in support of there being no God, which I have asked for on numerous occassions and still have not got. Either it is chance which is highly unlikely, or it is design.

Originally Posted by Sean Michael

I do not remember using the term perfect. I have been going over that mantra because that is true. We have nature, the laws of physics, all the constants of the universe, if one or more of these behaved even ever so slightly different there would probably be no life, and there would not be intelligent life. I am waiting to hear the arguments in support of there being no God, which I have asked for on numerous occassions and still have not got. Either it is chance which is highly unlikely, or it is design.

Sorry about the use of the word "perfect". Didn't mean to load your lips, but the point remains. You have used the angle of comparison as the cornerstone of your argument throughout this thread, and now want to say that isn't relevant.
Seems like you need to make a choice here.

Originally Posted by Sean Michael

As I have said before, you do not have to compare something that is working to something that is broken in order to know it is working. You, do nothave to compare your computer to one that is smashed to know yours is working. The universe works, we have no need to compare it to anything else.

So you admit that your argument of "Things that are complex and orderly are not known to happen by chance, therefore why assume the universe is." is bunk. Thank goodness.

What other arguments are you ready to admit are failures?

Originally Posted by Sean Michael

I do not remember using the term perfect. I have been going over that mantra because that is true. We have nature, the laws of physics, all the constants of the universe, if one or more of these behaved even ever so slightly different there would probably be no life, and there would not be intelligent life. I am waiting to hear the arguments in support of there being no God, which I have asked for on numerous occassions and still have not got. Either it is chance which is highly unlikely, or it is design.

You have already reneged on the constants argument when you admitted that constants "can not be changed" and settled that an argument revolving around changing those constants was absurd.

You have also admitted that comparing the universe to something else is absurd.

What arguments do you have left?

Originally Posted by Sean Michael

Atheists believe God does not exist, agnostics are the people who say they do not know either way.
I am stating the evidence to me points towards intelligent design. I would appreciate some evidence from those who disagree with me that God does not exist, I would like to know why they believe that to be true.

No, most atheists have a disbelief in the claims about God because there is no evidence either way. Even one of the most militant atheists, Richard Dawkins, will not make the definitive claim that God does not exist.

Originally Posted by Sean Michael

There has to have been something that has always been there, and that first thing must have been a creative force. God is the point of origin.

Why must the first thing be a creative force? And even if that is true (which I see no reason to believe it must be so), why could that first thing not be something completely natural, and not an intelligent being?

Originally Posted by Nullity

Why must the first thing be a creative force? And even if that is true (which I see no reason to believe it must be so), why could that first thing not be something completely natural, and not an intelligent being?

Have airplanes always been there? Did airplanes evolve from the elements found in the earth without the benefit of intelligent design?

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Have airplanes always been there? Did airplanes evolve from the elements found in the earth without the benefit of intelligent design?

What makes a thing an airplane?