as i said before im not answering each of you specifically, its too meticulous for the time i have alotted so here are my responses to the best of yours.

I'd like to clarify again why i came hear. i wanted apposing viewpoints for my paper. which is interesting since you all say i only read apologist works. this is the ammount of resistence i expected but not the quality. i am in NO way overwhelmed by any of this and the fact that i can't answer your questions doesn't surprise me either. you guys called me ignorant. well yeah. i havn't had the time yet to read every detail of everything entailed in my paper. that would be quite a bit of reading. I've read briefly, skimmed a bit, etc. im only in the beginning parts of my process. i didn't AT ALL expect my arguments to stump you guys, i didn't try to witness to anyone, and i didn't try to prove the atheists are meanies. iv been respectful of your beliefs. havn't attacked you guys at all, just the fact your proof is not proof. all this aside im very smart, just becasue im not an expert in every field doesn't mean i can't grasp it. i also have a great deal of common sense. which often, book smart people lack. evolution simply does not make sense to me. whether i belived in God or not, it does not make sense. i do understand how it works in theory, what doesn't make sense is how little there is to proove it. all the information you have giving me is rediculous. there are no transitional fossils. i don;t need a fifth link on transitrional fossils. you guys said i use biased apologist sources. your sources are from either this site or from atheist.com or something of the sort. everything you've accused me of goes both ways.

as for saying im just copying and pasting apologist resources and not thinking for myself is rediculous. you guys are just taking the scientists word that the fossils are real. have you researched them yourself? no, you've taken other atheists word for it. as i said, everything is going both ways.

i don't know why im even bringing this up but someone was trying to tell me that the bible says God gives us whatever we ask for.... onve again as i am ignorant of your beliefs, you are also ignorant of mine. the fact that most of you used to be Christians so you know both viewpoints is rediculous.

oh and HisWilness... my life would be much easier if i was an atheist. it would be nice to have no responibility, no one to hold you accountable, and no purpose but to serve myself. so don;t say i believe just so that i fit in with my social group. most my friends are not christian, id fit in much bettter if i wasn't a christian. the fact is that i am a Christian, theres no doubt in my mind of God's power. people say there is no evidence, i see it every day. I believe you have to be saved before you can see that evidence. which is why even though its so obvious to me, you don't see anything.

and finally, the whole hubris thing. what a joke, iv seen more hubris here than any other atheist site i've gone to. you guys said i was prideful and came with a closed mind. Ha, yours is no more open than mine.

I'm not going to get into evolution. Suffice to say, the fossil record is amazingly consistent with the theory of evolution through natural selection. I won't get into the evidence that supports that theory. It is the second-most tested theory in science today, after Newtonian physics, and has made positive predictions in genetics, medicine, psychology, sociology, ecology, and a whole slew of other -ologies. If you desire a treatise on the tests that the theory of evolution through natural selection has gone through, I will gladly go over some of the more accessible predictions, tests, and results. It's really quite fascinating.

I would like to get back to the "first cause" cosmological argument mentioned in your original outline.

Causality assumes the existence of time. That is, first is the cause, followed by the effect. This is fundamental to "first cause" arguments.

(As an aside: Even with a "first cause" and a special exemption for God, it's a *long* leap from an eternal first cause to a specific God, or any God whatsoever. Even granting a God that is self-aware, omniscient, and omnipotent, there is no evidence that this God is anything at all like the modern view of the Christian God. The few tests that are possible for the existence of the Christian God all fail. For instance, if God did favour Christians, and God did answer prayers, then Christians would have longer, happier lives. In fact, Christians suffer from depression, divorce, cancer, car accidents, financial problems, and other things at exactly the same rate as the rest of the population. Christians do not miraculously recover from disease or accident at a greater rate than the general population. So, accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour doesn't convey any practical advantage over *not* believing. At least, not until you get into the afterlife, for which there is also no evidence.)

In any case, God as first mover is not only unnecessary, it doesn't even make cosmological sense. At the beginning of the universe, there was no time. There was no space. There was nothing. It wasn't even a void. It was literally nothing. There was no dimension, no time. There was no existence. Cause and effect require time, as one comes before the other, by definition. Without time, there is no "first cause," as cause and effect aren't even possible. There is no need for God as a first cause, as there *was* no first cause.

For your core thesis, that theistic belief matches reality better than atheistic belief: there is only one epistemology that has given concrete, verifiable, practical results, and that is science. No other methodology or epistemology has been consistently and verifiably correct in results. Although your belief in God may provide personal comfort, satisfaction, wisdom, and pleasure, it is by no means a verifiable epistemology. (At least, not until the second coming. And even that might be up for debate; David Koresh said that *he* was the second coming of Christ. I doubt many people actually believed him.)

So, at the moment, the only knowledge that matches up with observable reality is the knowledge gained by science. And as God falls outside nature, He also falls outside the purvue of science. To try to change science to match God would destroy the essence of science, the one proven way of knowing about the universe. To change God to match science would be to destroy the idea of God, as He is unnecessary for our understanding of the natural world.

If He indeed exists, His domain is not the physical, nor the natural, as He would have to exist outside our universe (by virtue of being the impossible fist mover). That leaves His domain in everything outside of physical existence. That is, His essence is in spirituality, which is neither rational nor physical.

Feel free to use any of these refutations in your thesis. If you require elucidation, or even possible counter-arguments to these points, I'll be glad to help in whatever way I can.

Good luck with your thesis. I hope you do well.

- Tony

Well, scientists. I don't know if they're atheists or not. Also, I've held the fossils in my hands. Because the scientists are friends of mine. It's not really so much "faith" as it is "hey, that's neat - look how this bone and that bone change through different layers of the earth". It's pretty amazing to see if you check it out.

... and to return to your thesis, that belief is fine, it's just irrational.

 Yeah nigelTheBold, where you been !!!?

that ZERO" first cause Aristotle shit,

well he was learning too, thank god, and fuck "god of abe"

, btw.

I got a bitch about making language clear, WHICH GOD ?

The god/cosmos, or god of abe , damn Bable ..... G C or G A

, damn words, god has been stolen by the theists !

Get our atheist god back !  (((( can I get a smiley please ....

[[[ had to edit text runs off page .... in IE6  

 Oh man...  now fossils aren't real?  I suppose the earth is flat too, huh?   

I'm out of here, this guy isn't being intellectually honest anymore and this paper will fail because he's already got a conclusion that he's just trying to fill in with hovind fluff.

Many years ago, I was married to a fundamentalist Christian. I was working on my physics degree at the time. My then-wife and I got into a discussion one night about evolution. I mentioned that the evidence for evolution was overwhelming, that it was so far-reaching its effects were seen in many disparate branches of science, that there was not one single piece of contrary evidence.

She mentioned all the in-fighting that was going on (gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium being the big one at the time), and used that as proof that even scientists didn't know everything about evolution, so how could it be true?

And then we talked about physics, and cosmology, and deep time (though I didn't know it was called deep time then). I mentioned that many galaxies were several billion light years away, and that the time it would take for light to travel that far puts the age of the universe much greater than that used for new-earth creationism (in which she believed). All of this "fossil light" (isn't all light "fossil light?" ) either came from a real galaxy a billion years ago, or God created this light in-transit, which would indicate that He's fucking with us. (I didn't say "fucking with us," of course, as that would've gotten me in big trouble.)

We talked like this for a bit more, she growing more agitated, me getting a bit more strident. Finally, I said, "Look, pretty much all sciences support a very old universe, and evolution. Do you think they're just making this up to discredit God?"

Of course she said, "Yes."

Fundamentalists are not willing to reconsider their viewpoint in light of mere facts. The only way to make it into heaven is by a strict reading of the Bible. (Or more accurately, a strict interpretation of the Pastor's reading of the Bible.) This gives them very little psychological wiggle room. Their greatest fear is to fall out of favor with God. And who could blame them? Reading the Bible, God doesn't even treat his friends pleasantly. It doesn't seem to take much to fall out of favor. Distrusting what He says in His book is one sure way to get taken off his Christmas list. So, the Word of God trumps the Evidence of Nature.

That makes all scientists untrustworthy, because they are generally atheists (an untrue assertion), and are out to disprove God for their own nefarious ends. I'm not sure what those ends are; I was never able to figure it out. I know *I* was never given the decoder ring, nor the secret handshake. They certainly didn't invite me to the annual Nefarious Scheme Seminars.

And I was *so* looking forward to ruling the world.

I agree.  This has been hard for me to grasp I think because I was never a theist, so I don't really understand that state of mind.  I have a few atheist friends who are ex-fundmentalist christians who have been trying to explain it to me for years!

On a side note, I'm about to complete my physics B.S. also!  w00t!

 I am not a science whiz like most people on this website, so I can give you the layman atheist breakdown.

1. Science is a field of study, it cannot make claim. Are you referencing a specific theory, or the person who made these claims? As for your statement of a beginning, can you reference the exact scientific reference you are referring? As a thesis I should be able to see any reference you make to observe your idea.

2. Logic cannot say anything; it is a process of testing. You cannot state a point by stating that a point does not exist. Just because you feel that logic does not "state" something, does not make the negative true. If you want to use your statement of, "therefore it is more logical to say that an eternal     being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause." you will first need to proof an eternal being.

• - So static knowledge is superior to reevaluating knowledge.. how... give me an example of a static belief that has been more successful than a non-static belief. If this was the case, wouldn't medicine, and engineering to name a few, be better off when they where conceived than the modern versions with an expanded body of knowledge?
• - You are not being specific enough here. How about Atheist that believe in the theory of the big bang, claim the universe......
• - Evolution has already been established... If you are questioning the evidence of evolution you will need to break it down and argue specific points. Fossils, DNA, protein strands...... I can't see taking you on your claims against evolution. Using evolution to claim the beginning of the universe is odd, since the theory makes no such claims.

• - how? how does evolution operate in direst opposition? You make the claim, but you state how, and then you follow up with another question. You also will need more than one supporting point.
• - "The natural world descending into disorder?" opinion? or fact, if fact where is your, How, where, why?

I am confused about your micro versus macro? I looked on the internet and found nothing on these two systems. I did find a reference t your example under adaptation.

• - "Atheism are dangerous" how? Will being an atheist make us all Hitlers?
• - what documentation do you have on Hitlers religious believe?
• - purpose of what? hope of what?, what happens after death, moral absolutes?
• - How does not having these make atheist dangerous? where is the effect to your cause? Where is your how and why these are dangerous?

 Honestly, you state nothing new, you’re our regurgitating known flawed logic of the major "Creationist" that has been repeatedly shot down, including in the federal court system, and you bring nothing new to the table of debate to make anyone change their mind.

You have not even written a well establish outline, or followed a rules for supporting an argument. Your points are general and not supported, you make claims with no support, and you didn't even take the time to spell check. Honestly, if you turned this in at high school level you should be failed.

{ Fixed quote some formatting particularly quote functions - Edited by Mr. Atheist }

Oh, my.

First, our DNA does not hold the code to create antibodies for every virus. Not even close. Our DNA is encoded with a basic and general immune system that is able to recognize foriegn bodies, including viruses. This is way cool, and very complex, but isn't a signpost to God.

Our DNA holds fragments of code for many viruses, that's true. However, that's more due to the nature of viruses than anything else. Viruses inject their code into our DNA in the hopes of hitching a free ride to replication. Very little of that has to do with our immune system, except that those cells are hopefully detected and destroyed by the immune system.

Our anti-viral immune system is based around T cells. This is a class of white blood cells that detect and attack viral infections. There are several different forms of T cells. During an infection, the body produces many T cells in response to the infection. However, ramping up to an infection is a reaction to infected cells, and not to the invader itself. Fortunately, the body is able to create "memory T cells," which are able to recognize the invader itself based on bonding sites on the memory T cell. The next time the virus attacks, this allows the body to react at the first sign invasion, rather than allowing the virus to take hold inside our own cells. Until the virus infects the first time, though, these virus-specific memory T cells do not exist.

That's the entire basis of inoculation shots. By infecting the body with weakened or dead viruses, the body is able to build up the defence against a foe that can't attack. Then the body has a "memory" of what that specific infection looks like, and is able to respond to the virulent infection quickly and easily.

The body does not come pre-equipped to do battle against specific viruses. The body's general defences allow it to adapt, but often only after the virus has infected us. That's why things like herpes, HIV, and strains of flu are able to attack us. That's also why we only get chickenpox once.

It sounds like you might imagine that humans have different DNA than the rest of the living creatures on earth. At least, I have met that idea many times. Truth is, humans are not special when it comes to DNA. Our DNA is very much like the rest of the world's life. We don't have anything special in our cells, or in our coding. The only thing that distinguishes us from the other apes is our ability for complex abstract thought.

Which, like much of biology, is pretty cool.

Judging by bravetheist's answers, I don't think he has read one book on evolution. Congrats....

not.

Just wondering Jordan, you stated in your OP that you wanted "GOOD" opposing viewpoints...are you satisfied now ?

ps, "knowledge is power" isn't it !

Look back in the thread, I provided links that specifically were about macroevolution since of course you are going to try to separate the two eventually.

So, is this really about evolution? Is that the point? if so, it would've helped to know that in advance. As it was, evolution was only one point among many, including the origins of the universe, and epistemology in general. I thought the point was to show that theism was more logical than atheism? If that isn't the point, then your thesis suffers from being too general. You might want to consider choosing a single point of "attack," as it were. Otherwise, you'll end up all over the place, and the resulting paper might be too unfocused.

However, if you're not satisfied with some of the answers, then please elucidate: what do you consider a good response? What are you really looking for? If talk.origins doesn't appeal to you for the evolution thing, what are you really looking for? What are your arguments against evolution, for instance?

Here's a good, rhetorical (rather than logical) argument I'll throw out:

Science has given us much. It has resulted in many verifiable, productive things, including computers and genetic therapy and good dentistry. Most of the world around you is shaped by science, and the results of scientific research. Science has proven itself as an epistemology by the practical results it has given. Since the same thing that gave us magnetic trains, the Hubble telescope, the chunnel, and cotton candy also provides the proof of evolution, then tell me: what provides the counter argument to evolution?

The Bible? If so, what has the Bible given us that is comparable to the fruits of science? Name one single, solitary thing that the Bible has given us that compares to the results of science.

I'm not talking spirituality. That is a realm outside of science, and has no practical results outside our own subjective experience. I'm talking objective, provable results. Name that one objective thing, and then you may question evolution. (Or, you might question evolution based on another scientific framework; but right now, no other such framework exists. Evolution is the only logical, rational, reality-based explanaition we have.)

Meanwhile, tell me what you are after. There have been many excellent opposing views in this thread. Most have pointed out the base logical fallacies, as well as some of the factual errors. What more do you want?

Here's the basic problem to your approach: you are begging the question. I'm not the only one to point it out, but you've ignored every post that does. You have assumed the presence of God. Now, if you approach the world with the preconception of God, you will assume God in everything. The problem is this: your imagination can place God in any situation. You are unable to face facts because you see God painted into the picture, like Forrest Gump, a fictional character inserted into reality.

I'm afraid that's all you'll ever see. God, as proposed by you (and many other Christians) is the ultimate mover, the only reason you'll ever need for anything.

Let me give you a story, a story of warning.

About twelve hundred years ago, the Western Christian world was in trouble. They believed everything came from God-- the good, the bad, the terrifying. There was no progress socially, economically, scientifically.

At the same time, the Middle East was a veritable garden of intellectual paradise. Baghdad was a center of research, of discovery. At the time, Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī was busy creating a mathematical system later called algebra. During the time when the Western Christian world was at its lowest, Islam was at its zenith, and al-Khwārizmī was one of its shining stars. Research and original thought was not only encouraged, it was celebrated; while in the Christian world, any thought that was not based in God was met with derision, or death.

Now, twelve centuries later, the Islamic world is ruled by fundamentalism. If a thought is not of Allah, it is shunned. Original thought is suppressed. Now, the Middle East is a place of intellectual desolation. Islam, once a culture of discovery and intelligence, is now a culture of religious suppression, of social inequality, of spiritual malaise.

Do you see the moral of this parable? I hope so. it is the parable of rationalism. It is the parable of fundamentalism.

You may not know it, but you are being judged. Not by God; that is a judgement I cannot comprehend. No. The judge is reality. It is fact. It is the parable of rationalism.

For the sake of us all, I hope you are judged correctly.

brave theist wrote:

"I didn't hear very many good oposing viewpoints but i did get plenty of great ideas on how to make mine better."

-----------  WOW can't wait to hear them. ALL REPENT WHILE YA CAN !   I do love you brave theist. No kidding , you are a godsmack.

Education for all is truely our best investment.

Judging from the posts so far, if I was the teacher I would give this paper an "F" and staple an application for McDonalds to it.

Asking for a simple link to prove evolution? Really? You've got tons of links, you could also post something on www.richarddawkins.net and ask for more info there.
There are obvious holes in your knowledge that I learned at, uh, age 14 I guess, not to mention that of cosmology, geology and basic philosophy.
Have you ever read about the scientific method?

I must say I'm sory on your behalf, you seem to be deprived of basic knowledge that I take for granted.
Anyway, I'd advice you to read several books on evolution and other subjects and really try to acquire some valid evidence based knowledge, there's obviously a yawning chasm of scientific illiteracy to be filled here.

-I'm not being mean, just honest

Oh, and here's a twister, how come we in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland haven't plummeted into an abyss of "irrational" "sinfull" activities and obliterated our godless behinds if godlessness is so bad? On the contrary we're pretty well off. And there's a clear decline in theism, be it christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Räelianism or other simmilar goobledegook

I can empathize with you though. I really wanted to believe that the X-Ray glasses sold in the back of the comic books really could allow me to see through women's skirts.