More important than you may think. Many cultures used to use mind altering drugs to "see God". They didn't know they were mind altering drugs at the time, but entire religions were built around what they saw.

So the question remains - what was Jesus smoking?

This proves nothing. Dawkins is HARDLY an objective source. If he were so certain of his position, why would he be wasting so much of his time bashing the creationists? That doesn't make him look to sure of himself.

The strongest evidence for the existence of a god is the dependence of life on nature. Why would life REQUIRE certain things from nature if it were created by chance and independent of nature. Life cannot exist without a stable climate, without oxygen, without water, without food (which is provided by nature). This dependence suggest that life was created to be sustained by its surroundings. Chance would not be able to explain these dependencies. It's a huge problem for evolution.

The organization of the simplest cell is also a convincing argument for the existence of a creator. The complexity and organization of even the simplest life forms cannot be explained by chance. Another HUGE problem for evolution.

I will concede that the above is far from conclusive proof. I believe they are strong arguments. At the very least they are problems for the theory of evolution to overcome. Unfortunately, some in this thread wouldn't believe in god even if he swooped down from the heavens and bit them on the ass.

:1orglaugh

 ??

Are you afraid of going to hell due to your involvement in porn sites?

So what you're saying is that neither side has proof, but your side is still right?

Thats what we all think :)

That is not the issue. Either the universe was created or it was caused. I believe it is more rational to believe it was created since it is stitistically next to impossible ('next to' only because there has to be a one in something chance) to have come about without a cause.

You question the relevance of my post yet.......

No! Neither side can be proven conclusively. There are two possibilities: (1) chance, or (2) cause. I think it is more rational to believe cause over chance given the statistical improbability of chance.

It can be explained through science actually. Unfortunately I do not have an advanced degree in the subjects needed to argue that.

Yeah so I asked a side question? Your post bitched about respect and made false assumptions.

Mocking religion in the middle of a serious argument makes you look like an amateur.

we evolved to require things like oxygen, water, food, etc... because they are there, humans have this wonderful ability to adapt to differant environments, and i really don't see how this argument of us having dependancys on nature is valid against evolution, if anything to me it appears to support it. Environment always has a HUGE impact on the way a thing will evolve, eg: fish that live in the deeper parts of the ocean, past where the light filters through, generally glow, or have some form of lightsource...

anyways, just my :2 cents: hope it makes sense.

You've got a couple of good points there; except:

Should we respect the beliefs of others, when those beliefs include intolerance toward the beliefs of others (including ourselves) ?

Should we respect the beliefs of terrorists? They think they're improving the world.

That is ENTIRELY the issue - you don't know the answer, so it must have been God. Scientists don't know the answer, so they postulate a hypothesis, and then based on all available evidence attempt to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The outcome of this is a theory.

Scientists are unbiased - to them the evidence is more important than the final outcome.

To creationists the reverse is true.

Ignoring evidence because it doesn't tie into your way of thinking does the same.

If you believe in ghosts.. you believe that humans are just not bones and flesh but have a spirit.. and there's life after death... Which is a major step towards believing that there's a God.. Sure its not a guaranteed proof.. but that surely coincide with what the religions are all based on... Futhermore.. if you believe and know anything about ghosts.. you would know that they often make religious references, expressing themsleves in different ways.. while religion has always had a HUGE influence on them... Religious ceremony to clean a house, etc...

As for the supernatural and paranormal... Believing in the supernatural is ignorant? Wow.. why everything HAS to, WITH CERTAINTY, be physics? lol Can we know the reasoning behind this idea!? Thats kind of like people blindly believing in God isnt it it?.. We dont know.. we have no proofs.. but the idea that it all can be explained by physics is SO CONFORTING !!! lol

One theory is not better than the other.. I wont ask you to prove it.. you'll lose your time..

I don't know whether there is a god or not, but I do know that certeinly not all religious people are morons... a lot are, but there are many who are very educated and intelligent

but scientific theory provides a cause... no scientist just says it's random, there's a few differant theorys, and even if for some reason your anti science, what about the other oddball theorys, why would it have to be god, what about aliens? seems as if their is just about a big as chance of it being aliens as god, that deposited us here.

Wrong dude, do a quick search. Atheists can believe in ghosts. You are equating believing in physics with believing in God. Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww im done with this one.

I do not have an advanced degree in microbiology or theoretical physics but I do have an advanced degree and am quite familiar with the scientific method. Physics is no closer to being able to explain the origin in the universe as microbiology is to being able to explain the origin of life. Mathematicians have calculated that the probability of life or the universe coming into existence by itself (without a cause) is something like 1 in 1-followed by 57 pages of zeros. Do you realize how improbable that is?

100:glugglug

oops

this thread is moving fast

once again, it is incorrect to say 'without cause' as far as i'm aware all of the current major scientific theories provide cause...

Do you realize how improbable it is for someone to win the lottery? But that happens several times a year. I dont believe your 1 in 1-followed by 57 pages of zeros. What EXACTLY is that for? Its not for "the universe coming into existence by itself" thats for sure. You keep saying without a "cause" like you are assuming that the only "cause" can be God.

Did you even graduate from high school? If you accept the premise that ghosts exist, you must then explain how they come into existence. The point here is that in order to do so, you can no longer hide behind the theory of exolution since this theory is only concerned with the life we can see and touch.

So answer the question (or STFU) .... how did ghosts come into being?

Jimmy Swaggart

The usage of ghosts is just a comparison, belief in God is equivalent to belief in ghosts.

People who believe in God/ghosts do so with no empirical or reproducible evidence.

BECAUSE of the lack of any empirical evidence many people take the position that he/she does not exist.

LOL cant handle the new responses so you dig up old ones? I already answered this in a satisfactory way that you could not successfully argue against.

He may not have graduated high school, but at least he probably realises that the theory of evolution is a theory concerning evolution, not ghosts.

I don't know, but for the upteenth time NOT KNOWING THE ANSWER DOES NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD!

What would it be then? The statistical impersonality that someone will win the lottery is a really bad analogy, and one that has been used by Dawkins and his followers (quite unconvincingly). The problem is that with the lottery there is a guaranteed outcome, namely, that someone WILL win the lottery. The probability that the universe came into being without a cause has no guaranteed outcome. There is a HUGE difference.

If cause is not god, then what is it? Given the complexity of life and the universe, clearly it would need to have some form of intelligence. The definition of god is, in the simplest terms, a cause with intelligence.

What is YOUR hypothesis?

Not concerning the origin of life or the origin of the universe. That's the point.

Hehe! Better quit while you're behind, Jr.

Give it up, this is something that will be totally ignored.

Theres really no way to prove or disprove.

I think the only way humans will ever get closer to the answer of 'is there a god' is to encounter smart aliens. We are basically glorified monkeys with limited brain power. If there is other life out there, chances are its much smarter than us and may have a much better understanding of the nature of the universe.

Didn't I say that (point 1)?

As two point (2), the analogy betwwen the existence of ghosts and the existence of god is valid.

Personally, i think for someone to say god is all mighty, and all knowing, and use the classic creationist argument that as complex as humans are, there must of been some intelligence involved, shows a lack of intelligence, If someone designed us, shouldn't they of done a better job? humans are extremely flawed, and fragile, and for someone (especially 'god') to have designed us that way, seems retarded. If anything, i _might_ concede the point that god outsourced our design to india!

I find Dawkins very convincing.

I dont need a hypothesis. Leave that to people who spend their life on this subject.

I take that back
My hypothesis is that you are a moron and are not worth arguing with, because you will just backtrack/put words in my mouth/use irrelevant rants to try and prove me wrong.