Rational belief

[theVOID]

I don't think it's possible to prove God through logical analysis. Why? Because to do that we have to know certain things and/or qualities of God which are not possible to know, and therefore, we can't be too sure if all the premises are true or not.

So in other words you believe in something you know nothing about, Is that correct? If you have belief in an entity of which you cannot be in any way sure of then i must really wonder about the motivation for such a belief...

You surely must have some reasons for belief in God... Are any of them rational though?

We have to understand all of God's attributes before we try to form any statements about Him.

Firstly, why is it that God and only God is something that cannot be spoken of unless it is known completely? Can you name any other phenomenon in existence that you readily believe even though you have no understanding of them and subsequently what their effects might be?

Secondly, if we are unable to make statements about the properties of this unknowable entity, Should that not include judging whether or not such a being exists?

However, that is not possible since this is something beyond our knowledge. I know that many thinkers have already created proofs for God's existence but then they were refuted by other arguments. I don't think I'll be at successful at finding a proof by myself either.

Again, "Beyond our knowledge" means "unknowable" - Why do you believe in something that you have no way of knowing the existence of?

Why specifically do you think there is a god? Does this come down to emotion or incredulity for you?

Trying to prove to God through logic seems to go around in circles only. But maybe it's one of those which is true but you can't prove it to be true. Something to do with Godel's incompleteness theorem I guess.

There are many things that are true that we do not know to be true, but in none of these other instances does one believe that the phenomenon is true, let alone allow it to inform their entire worldview.

1. The Big Bang, while incompatible with Islamo-Christian ideas of the creation, still seems like a dramatic and miraculous event. Stephen Hawking's latest book may challenge this. I plan to read it as soon as I can. Who knows, he may convince me to shift to atheism.

You mean incompatible with the literal interpretation of Genesis?

Also, how is it rational to believe in a deity with no evidence for his intervention nor any logical necessity? It seems to me like you are committing a fallacy, that being an argument from personal incredulity.

I highly recommend the Grand Design btw, it's a very good summary of the reasons for thinking M-Theory is true, as well as a look at the implications of such a theory.

2. How life got started on this world (although abiogenesis may challenge this).

This too as a reason for belief is personal incredulity.

3. So many things came together in our evolution that enabled us to develop our highly advanced brains, coupled with opposable thumbs, that made our subsequent civilization possible. "God's Gift of Reason".

Right, and we have a theory that is entirely capable of explaining all such phenomenon to a high degree of accuracy while not depending on the existence of a deity in any way. Seeing a such a comprehensive theory exists explaining the mechanism, for what reason do you think a deity must have had a presence in this process?

4. My "homosexuality proves God" argument which atheists will find just as unconvincing as #3 but at least it's one that may be new. One can only talk about that damn watch in the desert for so long.

You wanna clarify? I've never heard the 'argument from men sucking cock' before

5. I get to identify with great minds from history who had great hair. Oh wait, that's not a logical reason, is it?

None of them were logical reasons.

[DeistPaladin]

You mean incompatible with the literal interpretation of Genesis?

The metaphoric or poetic interpretation doesn't work either. My video on that subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTlSVk3LCYA

Also, how is it rational to believe in a deity with no evidence for his intervention nor any logical necessity? It seems to me like you are committing a fallacy, that being an argument from personal incredulity.

Not true. It also is an appeal to wonder too.

Seriously, there are some powerful instincts at work here and I've already admitted as much in other threads. I guess you could say deism is a truce between my believing heart and skeptical mind. I can feel a sense of awe at the grand machine and yet keep it real, grounded in the natural universe.

I highly recommend the Grand Design btw, it's a very good summary of the reasons for thinking M-Theory is true, as well as a look at the implications of such a theory.

I do intent to pick that book up or listen to an audio.

Right, and we have a theory that is entirely capable of explaining all such phenomenon to a high degree of accuracy while not depending on the existence of a deity in any way. Seeing a such a comprehensive theory exists explaining the mechanism, for what reason do you think a deity must have had a presence in this process?

I accept evolution as fact. My study of evolution is part of my sense of awe. First, we seem to be progressing ever forward, not just in cranial capacity but also in morality as well. This dovetails well with the optimism of traditional deism in thinking humanity has a noble destiny (stark contrast to the end-time aspects of the Islamo-Christian faith).

Additionally, when I say "so much came together", I refer even to little developments, like how we lost our body hair, reducing the need for panting and enabling more sophisticated communication. I accept evolution but that doesn't preclude a deity tweeking the process here or there. Were we just lucky?

You wanna clarify? I've never heard the 'argument from men sucking cock' before

OK, you know the Ray and Kurt banana argument? Outward indications of being ready for consumption? Nice handle that fits perfectly in the hand? Fits in the mouth? And unlike the problem of wild bananas, the seeds aren't a problem. Additionally, there's the "sweet spot" in the rectum. It apparently substitutes for a clitoris so well that I hear-tell that some men can climax without even the need for the reach around. Talk about what can't be explained by natural selection alone.

At this point, I assume that many atheist readers are anxious to return to the subject about the watch in the desert...

Seriously, my proposed proof has more to do with the value of gays to a larger society, not the sex act itself. Gay adoption in particular, both in human society and elsewhere in the animal kingdom, benefits society where it is allowed but the benefits are so indirect that natural selection alone seems inadequate. I have a video that goes into greater detail here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQJWjYZLEcs

[theVOID]

The metaphoric or poetic interpretation doesn't work either. My video on that subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTlSVk3LCYA

Nice video *subscribed*

I agree with everything in there so far, though it really does not stop the argument from primitive interpretation, that being the people who wrote the book were importing their hypothesis into the holy book and attributing it to God.

A Christian can easily claim that this is just primitive interpretation of theistic creation, just as they claim similar phenomenon for the barbaric laws, the incest etc, how would you respond to that?

Not true. It also is an appeal to wonder too.

So both personal incredulity and mystery... Again, why do you think that a belief contingent on these fallacies is rational?

Seriously, there are some powerful instincts at work here and I've already admitted as much in other threads. I guess you could say deism is a truce between my believing heart and skeptical mind. I can feel a sense of awe at the grand machine and yet keep it real, grounded in the natural universe.

And your 'believing heart' is what?

I accept evolution as fact. My study of evolution is part of my sense of awe. First, we seem to be progressing ever forward, not just in cranial capacity but also in morality as well. This dovetails well with the optimism of traditional deism in thinking humanity has a noble destiny (stark contrast to the end-time aspects of the Islamo-Christian faith).

Ok sure it's not incompatible with Deism, but what reasons do you have for thinking that Deism is a part of this? It seems like this is a view contingent on your initial acceptance of deism, which seems to me to be an emotional reason, unless i am mistaken?

Additionally, when I say "so much came together", I refer even to little developments, like how we lost our body hair. reducing the need for panting and enabling more sophisticated communication. I accept evolution but that doesn't preclude a deity tweeking the process here or there. Were we just lucky?

Where did the deity tweak? Assuming that such deistic action is necessary you must have an example of a biological process you believe is not accounted for with natural selection? Do you believe that improved respiratory systems are contingent upon a deity? And how does this sit with animals that have better respiratory systems?

Also, if a deity were to tweak tending towards human perfection, how do you explain the many life forms that live longer, are faster, stronger, produce less birth defects, have better eyesite etc? The only attributes we have that seem to be particularly unique are high-level intelligence and social ethics, and the latter could easily be the product of high-level intelligence combined with normal sociality in mammals.

OK, you know the Ray and Kurt banana argument? Outward indications of being ready for consumption? Nice handle that fits perfectly in the hand? Fits in the mouth? And unlike the problem of wild bananas, the seeds aren't a problem. Additionally, there's the "sweet spot" in the rectum. It apparently substitutes for a clitoris so well that I hear-tell that some men can climax without even the need for the reach around. Talk about what can't be explained by natural selection alone.

LMAO i'm pretty sure that whole "rectal sweet spot" would be the stimulation of the prostate from beyond the rectal wall.

At this point, I assume that many atheist readers are anxious to return to the subject about the watch in the desert...

Nope, it's a stupid argument

Seriously, my proposed proof has more to do with the value of gays to a larger society, not the sex act itself. Gay adoption in particular, both in human society and elsewhere in the animal kingdom, benefits society where it is allowed but the benefits are so indirect that natural selection alone seems inadequate. I have a video that goes into greater detail here:

Wow, at first i thought this argument was humor... Natural selection promotes social structures, homosexual families do not violate this beneficial trait, but they don't add anything to it either, in fact the lack of a reproductive ability means that whilst it's not all bad socially, it certainly does not contribute to the continuation of the gene pool.

Firstly, your understanding of natural selection seems to be fundamentally flawed you said "things are the way they are because that's the way the environment is and things have adapted to the environment" As in "giraffes adapted to the tall trees" But nothing has adapted to the environment, rather the species that developed mutations that were beneficial were more likely to survive the environmental pressures - The giraffe's with longer necks has a better change of finding food and thus were more likely to pass on the randomly mutated gene that increases neck size.

When applied to your homosexual example, we would not expect homosexuality, or any other trait that is non-beneficial, to arise to deal with environmental pressures (as you implied happens), rather these mutations find their place amongst species with sufficiently beneficial genes and simply hang on for the ride. We have many genetic functions that are artifacts, carried on not because they aid survival, but because they happen to be part of the genetic makeup of a species with enough genes selected against the environment to be survive long enough to reproduce and thus to pass on not just the beneficial genes, but also the non-beneficial genetic artifacts.

Homosexuality is one of the many artifacts of natural selection. At the time it occurred it was not detrimental to the society continuing to function, thus it was not selected against. This will be why you don't see homosexuality in non-social animals as it would necessarily exclude the ability to reproduce and pass on the genes.

My thinking is that bi-sexuality is what allowed the gene to pass down, in fact it was widely believed to have occurred before homosexuality, and it was just one of the many benign but non-beneficial genes in the lineage of a species.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Propositions that are logically necessary are necessarily true,

That is not my understanding or belief. I was taught that a logical inferences may be true and many are, but logic never guarantees truth. Nor indeed does science in any absolute sense.

To accept a proposition as true, I require it to be proved using scientific method. If this is currenty impossible ,the best I'm wiling to accept is "probably, or may be the case".

[theVOID]

A logical inference is not a logical necessity, Padriac.

"It is customary in philosophy to distinguish between statements (judgments; propositions) which are factually true and those which are "necessarily" true (or, what comes to the same, between statements that could conceivably be false, and those which could not conceivably be false). An example of the former would be the statement "All of my classmates are unmarried," while an example of the latter would be the statement "All bachelors are unmarried.""

Since the proposition "All bachelors are unmarried" is not a scientific conclusion (being apriori) by your standards you would be forced to believe it is only probably true, where as in reality it is necessarily true, given the definitions of bachelors and marriage.

The first statement "All my classmates are bachelors" has to be established aposteriori but may be true all the same.

[DeistPaladin]

Nice video *subscribed*

I agree with everything in there so far, though it really does not stop the argument from primitive interpretation, that being the people who wrote the book were importing their hypothesis into the holy book and attributing it to God.

A Christian can easily claim that this is just primitive interpretation of theistic creation, just as they claim similar phenomenon for the barbaric laws, the incest etc, how would you respond to that?

Thank you.

If I didn't mention it in the video, the order of events is far too incorrect to even be interpreted in a poetic light. Were a deity to relate the big bang to primitive humans, I'd expect it to be something along the lines of "let there be light" followed by the creation of the stars, then the earth, then the plants, etc. Instead, we find what you would expect from primitive humans creating a geo-centric myth, that is first the earth, then the plants, then the sun, then the stars as an afterthought, etc.

And your 'believing heart' is what?

That the natural universe is a machine, that the human mind is not just the result of good fortune and we have a noble destiny as a species.

It seems like this is a view contingent on your initial acceptance of deism, which seems to me to be an emotional reason, unless i am mistaken?

Actually, I learned about evolution in high school. I discovered I was a deist around the age of 35.

Where did the deity tweak? Assuming that such deistic action is necessary you must have an example of a biological process you believe is not accounted for with natural selection?

Setting things up for our more evolved brains and civilization. And it's not so much "necessary" as it is the alternative is to believe we won the cosmic lottery. Sure, it's possible that it all just happened to work out that way on its own but... wow. I know you're going to say "personal incredulity" again, so I hope I just saved you the bandwidth by beating you to it, but I honestly find it incredulous.

And how does this sit with animals that have better respiratory systems?

Better for what purpose? In our case, better for communication that, combined with our opposable thumbs and increased cranial capacity, made our current civilization possible. Other animals may have superior respiratory systems for breathing underwater but that's not necessary for our purposes.

The only attributes we have that seem to be particularly unique are high-level intelligence and social ethics, and the latter could easily be the product of high-level intelligence combined with normal sociality in mammals.

I wouldn't say "only" as this is a decisive attribute. Further, our morality is improving over time, contrary to the claims of theists, so I wouldn't conclude any inevitability that ethics will always grow out of intelligence and normal socialization.

LMAO i'm pretty sure that whole "rectal sweet spot" would be the stimulation of the prostate from beyond the rectal wall.

Yes.

Wow, at first i thought this argument was humor...

Well, call it "kidding on the square" as Al Frankin might say. Yes, it is something I've wondered about and yet it also has the advantage of making the fundies faces turn all kinds of pretty colors. Two birds, one stone.

Natural selection promotes social structures, homosexual families do not violate this beneficial trait, but they don't add anything to it either, in fact the lack of a reproductive ability means that whilst it's not all bad socially, it certainly does not contribute to the continuation of the gene pool.

I would not say it adds nothing. Gay couples can't have children of their own. Het couples will want their own kids if they can have them. The benefit to society is the creation of loving families ready to adopt for their heterosexual counterparts who have died or shirked their responsibility. Additionally, there's a strong correlation between sexual orientation and androgyny. The stereotype of catty gay men and butch lesbians is not just a stereotype. I think this too serves a purpose, allowing gay couples to effectively fill both mother and father roles. Studies in both psychology and zoology have shown that same gender couples are equally capable as parents.

However, as I've said, this benefit to society is indirect. I can't see how a tribe with gays would be at such an advantage over a tribe with no gays as far as which one would survive. Yet, there is benefit. Also, the fact that gays can't have children of their own, meaning it should be, if not an evolutionary dead end, at least an inhibitor. The fact that homosexuality exists not merely in all human societies but also the animal kingdom as well is something that makes me wonder.

This will be why you don't see homosexuality in non-social animals as it would necessarily exclude the ability to reproduce and pass on the genes.

Non social animals typically have more primitive parenting patters. I mean "primitive" in the biological sense of the word, which is to say no family structure. Ergo, your point is moot since such animals don't raise their young and therefore have no need of adoption.

My thinking is that bi-sexuality is what allowed the gene to pass down, in fact it was widely believed to have occurred before homosexuality, and it was just one of the many benign but non-beneficial genes in the lineage of a species.

Current thinking is that homosexuality, in males at least, is the result of the environment in the womb. A woman's later born sons, that is after the first son, are more likely to be gay. Not sure what prevailing hypothesis exists to explain lesbians.

It might be interesting to see studies on whether or not bisexuals are more likely to have a gay child, which would lend weight to your thinking on the subject. Unfortunately, we're going to need to get a lot more comfortable about sexual orientation as a society before such a study is even possible. Finding out how many closeted gays there are in the country is hard enough. It's not uncommon for bisexuals to relate that they didn't find out about their versatile nature until later in life. I surmise that there may be more out there that never find out. What we think of as "bisexuality" may be far more common than anyone suspects, especially since we think of heterosexuality in rather purist terms.

[Saracen]

Peace.....

I'm interested to see if any theist here has a sound and valid argument (An argument where the premises are true and the conclusion follows logically) for the existence of God, that is to say: An argument based on either 1) Evidence in indication of the proposition OR 2) Logical necessity for the truth of the proposition.

This does not induce standards like "personal experience", "emotions" or "intuition" as they can all lead to innumerable contradictory conclusion with no way to logically discern the truth of the resulting conclusions.

Also, an argument for a God is not an argument against a competing proposition, unless there is a true dichotomy.

Anyone want to have a shot at meeting these standards?

I will give it a Whirl

The strongest and most empirically confirmed evidence indicates an early universe with conditions which align best with the predictions of Big Bang Cosmological models.

Big Bang Theory is the most reasonable explanation for the beginning of the known universe provided by the community of science.

If there was a Big bang, the entire event would have occured in accordance to pre-existant physical laws since without the existence of such laws there would have not existed the mechanics for such an occurance. i.e, there would have been no known reason for instability of the singularity.

All material originated at the Appearance of the singularity and the subsequent Big bang. The existence of physical laws absent physical material (material in the most strict sense) is supernatural by definition (Unless we include an intelligent and creative agent as being part of nature) The idea of the purposeless[/i] pre-existence of Electromagnetism without the existence of energy or particles, or gravity independent of mass, or the strong nuclear and weak forces independent of nuclear particles is completely untenable on the face.

Whatever gave rise to the laws of science could not be a product of the scientific process.

The only known phenomenon which gives rise to codes and laws and then enacts such laws thus creating original forms and systems is "thinking". an example would be governments and games, computer programs, and music. All of the aforementioned are typically first designed subjectively and subsequently created in the phenomenal world.

Outside of thinking there can be no possible explanation for the origin of "scientific process". Scientific processes cannot explain its own origin-

Yet thinking has in many instances created processes from nothing but the imagination.

Therefore I propose that the Universe evinces the existence of a prime thinker which created the process by which all else came into existence and further I assert that such entity must exist by logical necessity.




The Saracen Knight[i]

[theVOID]

Nice video *subscribed*

I agree with everything in there so far, though it really does not stop the argument from primitive interpretation, that being the people who wrote the book were importing their hypothesis into the holy book and attributing it to God.

A Christian can easily claim that this is just primitive interpretation of theistic creation, just as they claim similar phenomenon for the barbaric laws, the incest etc, how would you respond to that?

Thank you.

If I didn't mention it in the video, the order of events is far too incorrect to even be interpreted in a poetic light. Were a deity to relate the big bang to primitive humans, I'd expect it to be something along the lines of "let there be light" followed by the creation of the stars, then the earth, then the plants, etc. Instead, we find what you would expect from primitive humans creating a geo-centric myth, that is first the earth, then the plants, then the sun, then the stars as an afterthought, etc.

This sounds like my favorite argument against holy texts "God, if he exists, has either never said anything at all or is a frankly a fucking terrible communicator"

And your 'believing heart' is what?

That the natural universe is a machine, that the human mind is not just the result of good fortune and we have a noble destiny as a species.

No, i mean what is it you are referring to as your 'believing heart' - you'r heart doesn't think, so what are you actually attributing this phenomenon to? Is it an emotional need for purpose?

It seems like this is a view contingent on your initial acceptance of deism, which seems to me to be an emotional reason, unless i am mistaken?

Actually, I learned about evolution in high school. I discovered I was a deist around the age of 35.

So why do you think now that a deity must have been involved?

Where did the deity tweak? Assuming that such deistic action is necessary you must have an example of a biological process you believe is not accounted for with natural selection?

Setting things up for our more evolved brains and civilization.

Such as...

And it's not so much "necessary" as it is the alternative is to believe we won the cosmic lottery.

So we didn't happen to be the species that evolved higher intelligence and managed to survive to become an expert at survival, rather we were just given it and the numerous other intelligent primate species such as the neanderthals simply didn't have this cosmic daddy looking out for them?

There is significant evidence that Homo Neanderthal was actually more intelligent than us earlier on, they have evidence of neanderthal tools, rituals and music long before that of any human.

So the deity didn't like them as much as us? Shame, our cousins are extinct now regardless.

Sure, it's possible that it all just happened to work out that way on its own but... wow. I know you're going to say "personal incredulity" again, so I hope I just saved you the bandwidth by beating you to it, but I honestly find it incredulous.

You're being anthropocentric - I for one see no reason to assume that humanity is cosmically special, we're only special to ourselves.

One species was inevitably going to be the one looking back and asking these questions, The fact that it's homo sapiens on this planet is arbitrary.

And how does this sit with animals that have better respiratory systems?

Better for what purpose? In our case, better for communication that, combined with our opposable thumbs and increased cranial capacity, made our current civilization possible. Other animals may have superior respiratory systems for breathing underwater but that's not necessary for our purposes.

Right, but opposable thumbs aren't uniquely human - The only real fundamental advantage we have over our primate cousins is the higher level of intelligence.

I wouldn't say "only" as this is a decisive attribute. Further, our morality is improving over time, contrary to the claims of theists, so I wouldn't conclude any inevitability that ethics will always grow out of intelligence and normal socialization.

Sure, and this is likely not an independent thing, it is the result of being socially inclined and having the ability to pass on the results of examination of this sociality.

Well, call it "kidding on the square" as Al Frankin might say. Yes, it is something I've wondered about and yet it also has the advantage of making the fundies faces turn all kinds of pretty colors. Two birds, one stone.

That would be nice if it was a sound argument... At least it's creative

I would not say it adds nothing. Gay couples can't have children of their own. Het couples will want their own kids if they can have them.

So gay people evolved to take care of the kids of straight couples?

Sure, there are plenty of instances in evolution where an initially unwanted mutation ended up having a slight if not significant benefit - The development of the wings in tree-dwelling mammals was one such thing, believed initially to be disadvantageous because the increasing span of the arm would have made navigation around the environment more difficult, yet it survived and continued to develop, going from useless to more useless, lucky to get by in a harsh environment until it was sufficient to produce a side-effect - The increased span of the arm equated to a larger surface area, decreasing the damage suffered in falls. This is quite a useful advantage for tree-dwelling mammals such as the ancestors to bats, despite the fact that the mutation was likely to have gotten by on the merits of the other developments in the species.

Homosexualities advantages for society likely arose in the same manner, being something that was initially detrimental to society as it impedes the likelihood of reproduction, yet found a usefulness in some arbitrary way later on.

We don't need the notion of a cosmic wizard causing them to evolve when we have an answer from well demonstrated natural mechanism.

Additionally, there's a strong correlation between sexual orientation and androgyny. The stereotype of catty gay men and butch lesbians is not just a stereotype. I think this too serves a purpose, allowing gay couples to effectively fill both mother and father roles. Studies in both psychology and zoology have shown that same gender couples are equally capable as parents.

1) The proportion of gay's that are either "catty" or "butch" is a minority.

2) The fact that they are no less capable parents only shows sexual orientation doesn't have relevance in raising youth. This would be an argument in opposition to anti-homosexuality but it doesn't lend credence to the notion that a deity caused them to evolve in the slightest.

However, as I've said, this benefit to society is indirect. I can't see how a tribe with gays would be at such an advantage over a tribe with no gays as far as which one would survive.

They would be disadvantageous to the short term survival as it lowers the chances of reproduction, however if it is outweighed by positive traits that assist survival then the fact this trait exists is meaningless. It seems to me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection, so let me clarify a few things:

1) Species do not adapt

2) Not all mutations are beneficial

3) Not all non-beneficial traits are selected against

4) Beneficial function in one area can be detrimental function in another

5) Traits are not necessarily initially beneficial

Non social animals typically have more primitive parenting patters. I mean "primitive" in the biological sense of the word, which is to say no family structure. Ergo, your point is moot since such animals don't raise their young and therefore have no need of adoption.

And this again seems to argue that they have no ultimate purpose other than to adopt the young of unable heterosexuals.

Homosexual adoption is most likely a side effect of having homosexuals and orphans in a social structure, there is absolutely no need to invoke a deity to explain this relationship.

Current thinking is that homosexuality, in males at least, is the result of the environment in the womb. A woman's later born sons, that is after the first son, are more likely to be gay. Not sure what prevailing hypothesis exists to explain lesbians.

So some hormonal irregularity then. This makes it more likely that homosexuality is happenstance if it can be attributed not to the genetics of the homosexual themselves, but to a mutation in the mother that causes a hormonal release of a certain kind during pregnancy.

Therefore we have a greater chance still of homosexuality prevailing genetically as this gene would be passed down more frequently amongst heterosexual couples.

It might be interesting to see studies on whether or not bisexuals are more likely to have a gay child, which would lend weight to your thinking on the subject.

Perhaps

Unfortunately, we're going to need to get a lot more comfortable about sexual orientation as a society before such a study is even possible.

Studies of that nature are already being done, there is no need to wait for social attitudes to change to preform it.

Finding out how many closeted gays there are in the country is hard enough. It's not uncommon for bisexuals to relate that they didn't find out about their versatile nature until later in life. I surmise that there may be more out there that never find out. What we think of as "bisexuality" may be far more common than anyone suspects, especially since we think of heterosexuality in rather purist terms.

Sure, but this lends no credence to your argument.

---

I will give it a Whirl

The strongest and most empirically confirmed evidence indicates an early universe with conditions which align best with the predictions of Big Bang Cosmological models.

Agreeed

Big Bang Theory is the most reasonable explanation for the beginning of the known universe provided by the community of science.

Agreed.

If there was a Big bang, the entire event would have occured in accordance to pre-existant physical laws since without the existence of such laws there would have not existed the mechanics for such an occurance. i.e, there would have been no known reason for instability of the singularity.

Agreed

All material originated at the Appearance of the singularity

First problem: There is no reason to believe that the singularity ever "appeared" (was not there and then was) The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and as thermodynamics is compatible with Big Bang cosmology, to say the singularity "appeared" is mistaken.

and the subsequent Big bang.

You are internally contradicting yourself now. Even if your above premise was true (which it isn't), matter cannot "originate" both at the singularity and the big bang. We have reason for believing that it was created in the big bang along with space and time.

The existence of physical laws absent physical material (material in the most strict sense) is supernatural by definition (Unless we include an intelligent and creative agent as being part of nature)

Wrong again, energy is not supernatural. Matter is quantized energy in various amounts and charges, but energy is not necessarily matter.

An intelligent, creative force would only be "natural" (in the sense of naturalism) if he was made of matter and/or energy.

The idea of the purposeless[/i] pre-existence of Electromagnetism without the existence of energy or particles, or gravity independent of mass, or the strong nuclear and weak forces independent of nuclear particles is completely untenable on the face.

I agree it's a stupid idea, so it's a good thing that it's a complete Straw-man argument.

Seeing as your initial premises are all flawed the conclusion is already logically invalid, but i'll continue for the hell of it...

Whatever gave rise to the laws of science could not be a product of the scientific process.

A "scientific process" is one performed by scientists. I assume you mean "natural process", if so, what reasons do you have for asserting that a natural process cannot give rise to natural law?

I see no reason at all to accept this assumption.

The only known phenomenon which gives rise to codes and laws and then enacts such laws thus creating original forms and systems is "thinking".

Not true. Algorithms with feedback loops are more than capable of generating complex systems that develop their own rules over time. As the code develops you can even discover rules that apply to one scale of the system that make no sense when applied to the constituent system.

an example would be governments and games, computer programs, and music. All of the aforementioned are typically first designed subjectively and subsequently created in the phenomenal world.

You have just shown examples of design by intelligence and then asserted that all possible patterns are therefore designed by intelligence. This is a bare assertion fallacy.

Go and Google nature in music if you want some natural systems making patterns that resemble human music. The examples are endless.

Outside of thinking there can be no possible explanation for the origin of "scientific process". Scientific processes cannot explain its own origin-

Firstly, the scientific process was invented by humans, what you should be addressing is "natural law".

Secondly, saying that there can be no possible explanation for the origin of "natural law" without a mind is another bare assertion fallacy, you have not demonstrated that this is the case.

Yet thinking has in many instances created processes from nothing but the imagination.

Not thinking alone, it was able to conceive of a process, but the actual application of the mechanism was within the confines of matter, energy and natural law.

Therefore I propose that the Universe evinces the existence of a prime thinker which created the process by which all else came into existence and further I assert that such entity must exist by logical necessity.

You have only demonstrated a flawed understanding of the Big-Bang cosmology and the ability to commit numerous bare assertion fallacies.

Do you want to reform your argument taking into account the refutations?

Also, answer this question: How is god a solution to the problem of existence? Saying god solves the problem of the existence of nature only moves the question to "why is there super-nature rather than nothing" a question that your God hypothesis is incapable of answering.

[gargantuan]

1. Our concept God is all powerful in our universe.
2. If there is an all powerful, all knowing, ever present intelligence in our universe, it must be god.
3. Computer processing power increases every year.
4. Computer processing power will continue to increase every year.
5. We will eventually reach a point where a computer is so powerful, it can compute the entire universe from the point of the big bang onwards.
6. Since you are part of the universe, you will be included in this simulation.
7. Computers will eventually be able to run millions of universe simulations every second.
8. The chances of the universe you think you are in being the original universe falls to almost zero.
9. The computer running the simulation will be all powerful, all knowing and ever present.
10. God is a computer.

In addition to this, any number of simulations could include a God variable, or many God variables. Perhaps the concept of god doesn't even exist in the original universe and we're simply the experiment of some MIT student in the year 98908092 who wants to know what would happen if humans believed things that were patently false. If we stop believing in God, the experiment would be concluded and the simulation would no longer be needed. Our universe simulation would then end..... I should stop talking now, for all our sakes.

[Saracen]

Peace....

First problem: There is no reason to believe that the singularity ever "appeared" (was not there and then was) The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and as thermodynamics is compatible with Big Bang cosmology, to say the singularity "appeared" is mistaken

The standard theory holds that it "Sprang" or appeared.

That aside it would not really matter much if we decided that the singularity was infinitely present. It would have been infinitely dense, with zero volume and completely static with no matter or space outside of itself. -

The Change in state from inactive to active would be consistent with "springing".

You are internally contradicting yourself now. Even if your above premise was true (which it isn't), matter cannot "originate" both at the singularity and the big bang. We have reason for believing that it was created in the big bang along with space and time.

I wasn't contradicting myself at all, however, for the sake of moving forward I agree that matter arrived with space and time.

Wrong again, energy is not supernatural. Matter is quantized energy in various amounts and charges, but energy is not necessarily matter.

An intelligent, creative force would only be "natural" (in the sense of naturalism) if he was made of matter and/or energy.

I never said energy was supernatural nor did I even imply it.

I think you lost track of my point.

My point was directed toward the idea that physical processes without material would be extra-or super natural by definition..

I agree it's a stupid idea, so it's a good thing that it's a complete Straw-man argument.

It is not a straw man argument, It is part of my proposition. In order for it to be a straw man I would have to offer the position as a counter to something someone else has claimed. So...Uh...What are you talking about?

Seeing as your initial premises are all flawed the conclusion is already logically invalid, but i'll continue for the hell of it...

Should I remind you that you agreed with three of my[/b] initial statements...?



I am going to get some rest..I'll finish this later...