Proving evolution wrong.......

[jdb1984]

The lord says in the bible, many times, that he's the "Alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.". So, he was there when time began, and will always be there until time ends.

[Tahu]

Shroomish said:

The lord says in the bible, many times, that he's the "Alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.". So, he was there when time began, and will always be there until time ends.

That is perfectly true... if you are part of a religion that uses that bible. I personally have no religion. I figure that there is some high force somewhere, maybe like in 2001, A Space Oddessy.

[Oily]

Evolution is not trying to disprove the existance of a god. It is a science. I cannot understand why a whole scientific community would feed us lies for years and years and year. My school is a Church of England (ie Christian) school, but we were told of Genesis in RE and evolution in Biology. Don't assume, IDL, that scientists are going out of their way to disprove the existance of a deity by making up evolution. Many scientists are religious, even though many are not. Evolution is not an excuse for a god - if anything, it opens up more questions and chances for a god. What are the chances of the Big Bang happening? Infintessimally small. So why can't a god have made the Big Bang? Certainly, science stops there, and faith begins.

Guest-Crystal said:

X.x

And now we come to the arguement of exactly WHERE the Big Bang came from if there was nothing originally. I'm no Physics expert (rawrfinalswaslastweekevilevilevilbrainnotfunctioning), but wasn't there something that I've most likely forgotten about everything having to come from something? Energy doesn't manifest or destruct itself, it just changes. Matter is matter. Everything comes from something. That's why the Big Bang never made sense to me. The first time I read about it I thought the people who wrote that book I was reading had to be joking. If it came from some original atom, where WAS that atom if there was no universe?

And that's where God comes in. We know what happened right up to the beginning of the Big Bang, and then there is a gap. Do you half the mass of the universe is still unaccounted for? That the universe orbits a giant black hole? That each galaxy is moving away from each other galaxy, so the universe is technically expanding but isn't actually expanding?
It's fascinating. And I certainly wouldn't dare to presume I could disprove God made evolution or the Big Bang happen That's faith, where science stops.

[irishdragonlord]

The said:

Fallacy: Arguement From Ignorance. You're assuming schools believe in God and that they don't want to teach evolution. That's like saying, "There's no proof that you want to teach evolution, so obvously you don't want to."

The exact opposite, in fact.

You've managed to cram a couple fallacies into one paragraph. I shall address them.


Fallacy: Argument From Ignorance. Just because proof doesn't exist doesn't prove the opposite and that there will never be proof.

I said there was little proof. Mind telling me when I said there was none and that was that?

Two fallacies: Affirmation of the Consequent and Begging the Question.

Begging the Question -- How do we know everything created has an end? The universe is, in theory, an infinite amount of space. You are assuming both that something created that space and something can end it. The Affirmation of the Consequent is a direct result of this. But back to the previous point, how can you end an infinite amount of space? If it is infinite, it cannot end. It is infinite. Not finite. No finish. Presumable the only way to put an end to an infinite amount of space is to end it with an even more infinite amount of space -- which is impossible, considering that nothing is more infinite than anything else infinite. They both have no ends, so how can one be bigger?

You said 'presumable' and 'theory' quite a lot. May I note that YOU assumed YOUR theory and MINE was incorrect, as you accused me of doing, and said that was proof? That fallacy is "Hyporcrisy".

Also, how do we know the universe was created? Theoretically, the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. It is not until recently (say, a few hundred billion years back) that planets may have existed, and, in some cases, organisms. Because based on the theory that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, all the elements have existed for an infinite amount of time because that is what the universe is made of. It is not until recently (see above) that those elements came together (see above).

Affirmation of the Consequent -- That something created the universe. Just as humans create objects, it's assumed that "someone" (a.k.a. God) created the world. After all, the Bible says we were created in God's image. And thus vice versa. Therefore religion takes on the basis that someone created everything as people do. But that is impossible (physically, unless you use a fallacy) considering that nothing is more infinite that infinity. So theoretically God doesn't exist, because God would have to be more infinite than anything infinite. And based on what was previously said, nothing infinite is more infinite than anything else infinite. Thus infinty = infinity. There is no infinity +1 > infinity. Because if infinity goes on forever, there is no +1. Infinity has no end and therefore cannot be added onto.

How the devil is it impossible for the universe to have been created? "Theoretically" it is infinite. And 'presumable' only something bigger can destroy it. Since when? A chisel can break a boulder, if placed right. And I said God was infinite. You are going from one assumption to the next, unable to prove anything. What better have you done than what you accuse of me?

Fallacy: another 'Begging the Question.' How do you know God wasn't created? That is like saying, "Because I'm telling the truth, everything that follows is true." Well, isn't that speical. That's begging the question!

Isn't it special how you put words in my mouth? How do you know the universe wasn't created? Same way I do! We don't! It's called 'faith', and considering how things work in my beliefs, than yes, God would NOT have been created.

And now that I've proved your statement to be a fallacy,

*cough*

it goes to say that God might have been created. But wait a minute! Nothing can create itself, as you said, and God might've been created. So what created God? Let's refer back to our Affirmation of the Conqequent. We're assuming here for the argument's sake that since God is infinite God would therefore be created by something more infinite so that God would be infinite. But I already disproved 'infinity +1,' so therefore nothing is more infinite than God who is already infinite, therefore proving that God created himself unless someone or something equally infinite created God, which would therefore prove the existence of multiple gods.

I'm sorry, does any of that even make sense? And NO, God could NOT have been created if the ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS TRUE. You're beating a dead horse.

And, regarding the fact that we cannot comprehend any of this stuff, we fall under the fallacy of 'Appeal to Authority' -- if we cannot comprehend it, it is not our area of expertise, so therefore yours, mine, and everyone's arguments are therefore disproved.

More feeding me words.

That good?

[irishdragonlord]

Oily said:

Evolution is not trying to disprove the existance of a god. It is a science. I cannot understand why a whole scientific community would feed us lies for years and years and year. My school is a Church of England (ie Christian) school, but we were told of Genesis in RE and evolution in Biology. Don't assume, IDL, that scientists are going out of their way to disprove the existance of a deity by making up evolution. Many scientists are religious, even though many are not. Evolution is not an excuse for a god - if anything, it opens up more questions and chances for a god. What are the chances of the Big Bang happening? Infintessimally small. So why can't a god have made the Big Bang? Certainly, science stops there, and faith begins.



And that's where God comes in. We know what happened right up to the beginning of the Big Bang, and then there is a gap. Do you half the mass of the universe is still unaccounted for? That the universe orbits a giant black hole? That each galaxy is moving away from each other galaxy, so the universe is technically expanding but isn't actually expanding?
It's fascinating. And I certainly wouldn't dare to presume I could disprove God made evolution or the Big Bang happen That's faith, where science stops.

I do not believe evolution disproves the Bible, or vice versa. Some of it, yes, but not all.

Also, there IS the 'separation of church and state' so school's won't teach the Bible unless something new happens, and therefore, evolution, or, as I said, a new theory would be taught.

[irishdragonlord]

Shroomish said:

The lord says in the bible, many times, that he's the "Alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.". So, he was there when time began, and will always be there until time ends.

Correction - the Bible says he was before time, and will exist outside of, and after time ends.

[Kiddo]

I'm not trying to prove, disprove, or even take us on a wild tangent here. I just find something highly amusing.

We are trying to use human arguements, human concepts, and human logic to prove/disprove...

God.

I personally find that hilarious.

[Tahu]

Kiddo said:

I'm not trying to prove, disprove, or even take us on a wild tangent here. I just find something highly amusing.

We are trying to use human arguements, human concepts, and human logic to prove/disprove...

God.

I personally find that hilarious.

True... You would have to use godly theories, and if you were using those, then there wouldn't really be any need to disprove the existance of yourself.

[irishdragonlord]

Tahu~Published said:

True... You would have to use godly theories, and if you were using those, then there wouldn't really be any need to disprove the existance of yourself.

Another thing that I find funny - being the blind humans we are, it's wonderfully refreshing to realize someone noticed that Seems the more complex something is, the easier we get it, but when it comes to 1+1 mathematics - we're screwed.

[The Angry Artist]

IDL said:

The exact opposite, in fact.

Excuse me:

IDL said:

Schools teach evolution because it is the scientific excuse for a God and a way to teach about the origin of life excluding God and even if they DID disprove evolution they would teach a different theory.

'Scientific excuse for a god?' I interpreted that as you mean schools don't want to teach evolution, science is wrong, evolution is wrong, or some other statement. That is the fallacy of Amphiboly -- ambiguity.

IDL said:

I said there was little proof. Mind telling me when I said there was none and that was that?

I'm referring to the, as you said earlier, 'missing links.' Presumeably there is no evidence there (hence the 'missing'), and therefore what I said still stands.

IDL said:

How the devil is it impossible for the universe to have been created? "Theoretically" it is infinite. And 'presumable' only something bigger can destroy it. Since when? A chisel can break a boulder, if placed right. And I said God was infinite. You are going from one assumption to the next, unable to prove anything. What better have you done than what you accuse of me?

That's a fallacy -- Bad Analogy. You used a solid to break a solid. But can you use that same chisel, multiplied 500,000,000,000 times larger to break the universe? Of course not. But enough about that. I'll get to my point. What would you use to end the universe?

Dynamite? Well, the residue (or anything left by dyanimte; I don't know much about it) would be there. But how much would you need? A lot? An infinite amount. Because the universe is infinite there is no set amount of dynamite you need. You need an infinite amount. But the residue. The residue would exist where nothing can exist. Would the aftermath of the destruction of the universe be a vacauum? Why would it be a vacuum when space already is a vacuum? Nothing would be destroyed. Instead there would be a non-universe of antimatter as that would be the opposite of the universe... And the Conservation of Matter still stands. The molecules of everthing in the dynamite would be transformed into eneregy, which would exist where nothing can, and that would cause a great burst of energy, which woukd then exist in the antimatter... And so on. But on to my next point...

Yes. I am assuming God is infinite.

IDL said:

Correction - the Bible says he was before time, and will exist outside of, and after time ends.

He's going to exist outside of time? He is then infinite in that regard. And wait? The Bible says explicitly in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The Earth. Earth. Gaia. Say it how you will, but that means God took the elements and created Earth. In other parts of Genesis the Bible says how God created the land, the trees, the ocean, the animals, and, most notably, humans. Let's see... master of time, and master of space (elements and matter). Sounds pretty infinite to me!

IDL said:

Isn't it special how you put words in my mouth? How do you know the universe wasn't created? Same way I do! We don't! It's called 'faith', and considering how things work in my beliefs, than yes, God would NOT have been created.

How do I know the universe wasn't created? Well, where do you get an infinite amount of matter without there already being an infinite amount of matter? God, apparantly.

Oh yes. It is very special. Because unlike you I happen to believe in logic, not faith. I don't take the truth for granted. I trust arguments with logic in them. If there is no logic, why should I should I believe the argument? If I trust only a blind man and not myself or reasoning, who is really the blind one? I proved through logic God would have to be created to exist, while you proved through faith God wasn't created.

IDL said:

You said 'presumable' and 'theory' quite a lot. May I note that YOU assumed YOUR theory and MINE was incorrect, as you accused me of doing, and said that was proof? That fallacy is "Hyporcrisy".

I, unlike you, backed up my arguments. I don't base them on faith. You put up two facts and did nothing to back them up. I put up my counter-points and backed them as well as needed. So I did not use the Hypocricy fallacy.

IDL said:

Fact 1: everything created has an end. Fact 2: nothing can create itself.

God fact 1: God wasn't created. God Fact 2: Not being created, he did not create himself.

Oh, right. I forgot. Your arguments are based on faith, which is reason enough for me to admit that I'm wrong.

Haha no.

IDL said:

*cough*

You "disproved" my accusation of your argument being falacious without reasoning.

IDL said:

I'm sorry, does any of that even make sense? And NO, God could NOT have been created if the ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS TRUE. You're beating a dead horse.

But you didn't prove the original statement! Yes, God would not be created if the original statement were true. But as you used a Begging the Question to prove your argument, the statement is not true!

IDL said:

More feeding me words.

You said it yourself:

IDL said:

Yes, this is mind boggling, but quite frankly, so is the 4th and 5th dimension stuff - many believe they exist, but in our mathematical, overly-logical minds, we can't comprehend it.

'We can't comprehend it.' If we can't comprehend it, why are we discussing it?

IDL said:

That good?

In a way, yes. In a word, no.

[Linnen Malfoy]

I personaly like to belive in the clockwork theory when you think about God. The theory basicly states that the universe and life is like a clock - God winds it up, lets it run, and has kept his hands off it.

I've always liked to think that there is perhaps a God yet there is scientific fact behind things. Call it what you like, but it seems like a more intrigusting theory.

As for those who wonder what happened before the universe, there is a theory (I cannot remeber the exact names and terms, so if you do know, please tell me!) that nothing can come out of something sometimes. Needless to say, it's a rare. Yet some belive that this blip occured and when one matter was created, it started a chain reaction known as the big bang.

But science isn't just about proving that God is dead. They say that he works in mysterious ways, and so what is more mysterious than hiding yourself behind a veil of science?

[Ikkin]

The said:

I'm referring to the, as you said earlier, 'missing links.' Presumeably there is no evidence there (hence the 'missing'), and therefore what I said still stands.

Would it would be wrong to say, "We have a more and more extensive fossil record, but have found no proof of the slow process of macroevolution. Because our record is growing but our proof is not, the chance of there being fossil evidence is shrinking."? Lack of evidence cannot prove something incorrect, I agree, but it does make it seem unlikely. Think of a court case- just because the jury has no evidence against the defendant does not mean he's innocent, but they'd be quite unlikely to put him in jail.

He's going to exist outside of time? He is then infinite in that regard. And wait? The Bible says explicitly in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The Earth. Earth. Gaia. Say it how you will, but that means God took the elements and created Earth. In other parts of Genesis the Bible says how God created the land, the trees, the ocean, the animals, and, most notably, humans. Let's see... master of time, and master of space (elements and matter). Sounds pretty infinite to me!

This doesn't make sense with the rest of your argument...could you please explain why it is here?

How do I know the universe wasn't created? Well, where do you get an infinite amount of matter without there already being an infinite amount of matter? God, apparantly.

Oh yes. It is very special. Because unlike you I happen to believe in logic, not faith. I don't take the truth for granted. I trust arguments with logic in them. If there is no logic, why should I should I believe the argument? If I trust only a blind man and not myself or reasoning, who is really the blind one? I proved through logic God would have to be created to exist, while you proved through faith God wasn't created.

This is a fallacy. You say the universe, something fully material, was not created, but refuse to believe that a spriritual being could exist without being created. How is that logical? Something has to be eternal. The universe is not, it has been proven to be 14 Billion Years Old, starting from the Big Bang, according to science. So, the 'atom' that the universe came from could have been eternal, you say. But it's material, and material objects don't tend to create themselves. In any case, there must have been something that was not created, either the material universe's seed (the thing that exploded into the universe according to the Big Bang Theory) or God. Can you truly prove, one way or the other, which one it was?

It almost seems as you're ruling out the God argument from the outset as illogical without proof. That's letting personal beliefs get in the way of a scientific conclusion. Very unscientific.

Also, where do you get that the universe is infinite? If it came from something that was not infinitely large (the universe seed) and is expanding, (you say infinity cannot be expanded upon) then the conclusion is that the universe is finite. There's probably some calculation out there as to the size of the universe, but as it would be purely theoretical anyways, it seems unnecessary.

If the universe is finite, (as seems logical) then something can be greater than it. (it's expanding anyways, so it will end up bigger than itself) And if something can be greater than it, what rules out a Creator God?

But you didn't prove the original statement! Yes, God would not be created if the original statement were true. But as you used a Begging the Question to prove your argument, the statement is not true!

Oh, this is a big mistake! Saying that a statement is not true simply because it was argued the wrong way is simply incorrect! It's like saying 4+4=8 is incorrect because the person you asked counted 7, 6, chicken, ninja, 117, 224, antidisestablishmentarianism, 4. The answer is not automatically incorrect if the logic is off. Faulty logic cannot be used to prove something, true, but it does not make the answer automatically false.

[irishdragonlord]

I'd just like to say, first, THANK YOU IKKIN!

Anyway, my turn.

The said:

Excuse me:


'Scientific excuse for a god?' I interpreted that as you mean schools don't want to teach evolution, science is wrong, evolution is wrong, or some other statement. That is the fallacy of Amphiboly -- ambiguity.

Sorry if it came out that way - I intended to state that schools would use any excuse to NOT teach God, and though I can't see how you misread it... that was my intent.

I'm referring to the, as you said earlier, 'missing links.' Presumeably there is no evidence there (hence the 'missing'), and therefore what I said still stands.

Step 1: open any science book known to man
Step 2: Tell me it never says the words 'missing links'.

That's a fallacy -- Bad Analogy. You used a solid to break a solid. But can you use that same chisel, multiplied 500,000,000,000 times larger to break the universe? Of course not. But enough about that. I'll get to my point. What would you use to end the universe?

Dynamite? Well, the residue (or anything left by dyanimte; I don't know much about it) would be there. But how much would you need? A lot? An infinite amount. Because the universe is infinite there is no set amount of dynamite you need. You need an infinite amount. But the residue. The residue would exist where nothing can exist. Would the aftermath of the destruction of the universe be a vacauum? Why would it be a vacuum when space already is a vacuum? Nothing would be destroyed. Instead there would be a non-universe of antimatter as that would be the opposite of the universe... And the Conservation of Matter still stands. The molecules of everthing in the dynamite would be transformed into eneregy, which would exist where nothing can, and that would cause a great burst of energy, which woukd then exist in the antimatter... And so on. But on to my next point...

I would not use the temporal to eliminate the infinite. And since God isn't temporal, and inifinite, and the universe, as Ikkin so nicely pointed out, is not infinite, God could do a pretty darn good job of getting rid of it.

Yes. I am assuming God is infinite.

Woah woah woah. I thought you said he wasn't? Am I confused or something?

He's going to exist outside of time? He is then infinite in that regard. And wait? The Bible says explicitly in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The Earth. Earth. Gaia. Say it how you will, but that means God took the elements and created Earth. In other parts of Genesis the Bible says how God created the land, the trees, the ocean, the animals, and, most notably, humans. Let's see... master of time, and master of space (elements and matter). Sounds pretty infinite to me!

I'm not sure if you are arguing or agreeing with me. God being outside of time has jack squat to do with creation - by that I meant He can twist and exist without time. Nothing preventing him from making the world, and, for that matter, time itself. I DO say God is infinite, so what is your point in that statement?

How do I know the universe wasn't created? Well, where do you get an infinite amount of matter without there already being an infinite amount of matter? God, apparantly.

Oh yes. It is very special. Because unlike you I happen to believe in logic, not faith. I don't take the truth for granted. I trust arguments with logic in them. If there is no logic, why should I should I believe the argument? If I trust only a blind man and not myself or reasoning, who is really the blind one? I proved through logic God would have to be created to exist, while you proved through faith God wasn't created.

Here's a Fallacy for ya - False Accusations! I use logic more than most people I know. Every time I read something in the Bible most people don't know the answer to, I don't rest until I see the logic in it! And the same goes for every biblical subject I know!

In ADDITION, you used false information in your 'logic' and you used faith. You claimed the universe is infinite, which is not true. It would take an infinite of time for the Big Bang to make an infinite universe, and since it hasn't been that long, the universe is not infinite. In fact, as, again, Ikkin said, it's growing! And your use of faith was that the universe was infinite and therefore indestructible. Here's logic for God:

He is SPIRIT, and INFINITE, therefore not bound by a SINGLE LAW OF PHYSICS.

Logical enough?

I, unlike you, backed up my arguments. I don't base them on faith. You put up two facts and did nothing to back them up. I put up my counter-points and backed them as well as needed. So I did not use the Hypocricy fallacy.

Sorry, but I DID have logic.

Oh, right. I forgot. Your arguments are based on faith, which is reason enough for me to admit that I'm wrong.

Haha no.

Need I again go to word-inserting-in-mouth?

You "disproved" my accusation of your argument being falacious without reasoning.

Isn't that what you just did to me?

But you didn't prove the original statement! Yes, God would not be created if the original statement were true. But as you used a Begging the Question to prove your argument, the statement is not true!

Well, just now in that earlier comment on that post I did!

You said it yourself:


'We can't comprehend it.' If we can't comprehend it, why are we discussing it?


In a way, yes. In a word, no.

Are you a physics teacher? If not, you're not comprehending it, as you said, for it would have to be your area of expertise. And until a physics teacher comes, I see no need to rephrase what we said.

And we're discussing it because it's the topic! (For now, anyway.)

[TheEaterofWorlds]

IDL said:

Sorry if it came out that way - I intended to state that schools would use any excuse to NOT teach God, and though I can't see how you misread it... that was my intent.

Actually, it's not a case of using an excuse not to teach God. They simply can't. Their hands are tied, they aren't allowed to teach any religion, because someone will file a lawsuit.

In my Mythology class, were were discussing all the different stories around the world discribing a major flood around the same time. My teacher wanted to read the flood story from the Bible. She WANTED to read it, but she couldn't because she was afraid to loose her job.

(In a nice turnaround, the whole class's opinion was that we didn't really mind. We read it anyway, despite the fact that the principal would have been ticked if she had known, off of a little print out. The religious folks in our class didn't feel offended by the Bible being dicussed within the contexts of Mythology, and the atheists/agnostics didn't feel like it was being 'shoved down our throats' and we were all glad we could include it because it makes the point that almost every cluture had a discription of the same event that much stronger.)

I bet there are plenty of teachers who would love to teach creationism alongside evolution, but they can't because they might be fired or reprimanded. They'd be reprimanded because the school board doesn't want a lawsuit on it's hands and they don't want a lawsuit because they don't have enough money as it is. Politics make it too hard.

Though when it came to evolution in my school, people who didn't agree with it were allowed to leave for that section of the semester. Then those same people were upset that creationism wasn't taught. If you're angry that people won't listen to your views, what's the point in not listening to the other veiw yourself? It confused the heck out of me. I think it would be nice if both were taught, and also some Non-Christian views of creation because they're just as valid.

But that was a little off topic, sorry.

[The Angry Artist]

Ikkin- said:

Would it would be wrong to say, "We have a more and more extensive fossil record, but have found no proof of the slow process of macroevolution. Because our record is growing but our proof is not, the chance of there being fossil evidence is shrinking."? Lack of evidence cannot prove something incorrect, I agree, but it does make it seem unlikely. Think of a court case- just because the jury has no evidence against the defendant does not mean he's innocent, but they'd be quite unlikely to put him in jail.

In my opinion (yes, opinion), fossils don't say very much. What is the chance that an animal will die and become buried in mud or ash underground for thousands of years? Yes, the court case example is accurate, but I highly doubt someone would be brought to court without evidence. Not that has anything to do with this argument, nonetheless.

This doesn't make sense with the rest of your argument...could you please explain why it is here?

IDL in his last argument said, "And I said God was infinite. You are going from one assumption to the next, unable to prove anything." I took that to be that I assumed God was infinite without being able to prove it. So I explained my reasoning. But why doesn't it make sense? I really would like it if you'd be more specific.

Ikkin- said:

This is a fallacy. You say the universe, something fully material, was not created, but refuse to believe that a spriritual being could exist without being created. How is that logical? Something has to be eternal. The universe is not, it has been proven to be 14 Billion Years Old, starting from the Big Bang, according to science. So, the 'atom' that the universe came from could have been eternal, you say. But it's material, and material objects don't tend to create themselves. In any case, there must have been something that was not created, either the material universe's seed (the thing that exploded into the universe according to the Big Bang Theory) or God. Can you truly prove, one way or the other, which one it was?

I said the universe existed for an infinite amount of time, yes. It's not that I refuse to believe a spiritual being could exist without being created, but I see no argument for it. Throughout time every civilization has had its own religion. Some consisted of one god, others consisted of many. How do we know which one is accurate? Please don't say "Christianity (or some form thereof) and/or Judaism, because they have the Bible.' Those religions are BASED on the Bible. The religions came from the book. The book did not come from the religions. So how do we know which one is accurate. The Ancient Greeks or Egyptians would have argued for their religion. The Assyrians the same as well as the Incans and Aztecs. So why is Christianity the real answer?

Material objects don't create themselves. A hydrogen atom could not make itself. But atoms are not the lowest units of material. You have quarks. And then? The superstring theory, that all matter is made up of tiny, tiny strings of vibrating energy. What if before the universe began there were just energy strings that were there? Maybe they then came together to form a quark, which then combined with five more quarks to form an atom. And for some reason the atom exploded and hurled the strings in all directions, which collided with each other to form atoms. That is probably a wrong theory. It's too much of a farce. But based on the argument I made before, how do we know God is the answer?

Ikkin- said:

It almost seems as you're ruling out the God argument from the outset as illogical without proof. That's letting personal beliefs get in the way of a scientific conclusion. Very unscientific.

As I said before, I see know argument for God, which then can be interpreted as bias. But you seem to be the same (bias in favor of God), so...

Ikkin- said:

Also, where do you get that the universe is infinite? If it came from something that was not infinitely large (the universe seed) and is expanding, (you say infinity cannot be expanded upon) then the conclusion is that the universe is finite. There's probably some calculation out there as to the size of the universe, but as it would be purely theoretical anyways, it seems unnecessary.

If the universe is finite, (as seems logical) then something can be greater than it. (it's expanding anyways, so it will end up bigger than itself) And if something can be greater than it, what rules out a Creator God?

Okay, I'll admit it. I made a mistake. I didn't check that fact. That rules out a lot of what I said earlier, but that doesn't rule out the argument of multiple religions. It also does not rule out the Law of Conservation of Matter. You cannot create energy out of no energy. And, come to think of it, it doesn't rule out force. You see, forces act on objects. But what force could come out of, say, God? I say God is infinite. That might theoretically mean the force generated by God is also infinite. But that would mean God would have to be physical in some way. Because force is based on some physical implementation. There is therefore no such thing as divine force. Not only would that rule out the creation of Earth or any other planets (that God forced them to come together), but that would rule out creationism as well. What would force animals to just come together? To just form? What would force carbon and calcium and oxygen and so forth to come together and form organisms?

Ikkin- said:

Oh, this is a big mistake! Saying that a statement is not true simply because it was argued the wrong way is simply incorrect! It's like saying 4+4=8 is incorrect because the person you asked counted 7, 6, chicken, ninja, 117, 224, antidisestablishmentarianism, 4. The answer is not automatically incorrect if the logic is off. Faulty logic cannot be used to prove something, true, but it does not make the answer automatically false.

True, very true. So what is the correct argument/logic?

Thank you for your argument. Though it proved me wrong in some points, you proved me wrong in some points(a.k.a. I won't go through life thinking I'm right when I'm not).

I'll address IDL's argument later...