₦airaland Forum

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

It's very funny watching you tout those pile of fairy tales and speculations and armchair calculations as the truth about the formation of Oxygen. For starters, Prof. Martin Harwit(an evolutionist) has proven by his research that gaseous atoms don't clump together in space.

Go and tinker your fairytale.

Thanks! Could you, perhaps, cite the specific research you've referenced? It's difficult to tinker anything without the right tools!

Meanwhile, as you provide the reference, I want you to indulge me a little by thinking about these 4 things:

1) Consider the ideal gas equation (PV = nRT), what's the effect of high and low temperature on interparticulate pressure?

2) What's the temperature in space?

3) Consider the force of gravity (F=G m₁ m₂/r²), would you say there is attraction between two objects with masses m₁ and m₂ in space?

4) Finally what happens to F as the number of objects grow? And, will this cause the objects to clump together (assuming any repulsive force is negligible)?

Ranchhoddas:
Oh please.
You don't even understand what is being discussed.

Don't mind the otutupoyoyo!

butterflylion:
Special agent of MuhamMADs god he said ALMOST EQUAL and to everyone ALMOST EQUAL is not same thing as EQUAL!

1) No one is disputing that he said "almost equal"; and the only person here who seems to have conjured an argument equating "almost equal" to "equal" is you, in order to refute it.

2) He claimed he deliberately did not use the word equal. Either he doesn't know the meaning of "use", or he is blatantly lying. He did USE the word "equal", albeit qualified.

3) What I refuted initially was his specific claim that protons and neutrons are "almost equal". Protons outnumber neutrons by a factor of around 7 to 1. No where in the universe is 7 "almost equal" to 1. If you don't know this, then I'm sorry, but it's not my job to teach you mathematics.

that alone made me stop reading.

Sure, whatever excuse sails your boat. Your refusal to read my post due to an argument you invented is of no consequence to me.

shadeyinka:
This isnt true!
They are but theories of existence from scientists.
I hope you know that there are many other theories such as the multi universe / parallel universe theories. No, please check ,these are not verified, they are JUST theories.

Scientific theories are propositions with predictive powers that can explain several bodies of independently observed facts and natural phenomena. For a theory to be accepted as scientific, it must therefore, be supported by a large body of testable facts, and it must, itself, be falsifiable. As such, for anything to be called a theory in scientific pedagogy, it must have been subjected to, and withstood rigorous scrutiny. A "theory" in colloquial parlance may be "JUST" something, but a scientific theory isn't "JUST" anything. The "many other theories" you've referenced are, in fact, hypotheses, not theories as far as science is concerned. So when I explain something to you using established scientific theories, be rest assured that it isn't just some conjured speculation from scientists.

Now, I have numerically outlined my explanation, so it would be more productive if you pick the parts you feel aren't supported by facts and experiments; and I would be happy to address them. What isn't helpful is just saying "this isn't true" without clarifying what exactly isn't true.

I believe you know of the several theories of the ATOM.

What are the several theories of the atom?

I could also have brought up a theory that
God fabricated electrons from lights of x frequency, and then fabricated neutrons from a superposition of y and z EM waves and then fused them through collisions and vola! Atoms came out. You will say, this is nonsense isn't it. Theories are just educated guesses, they remain theories not facts until they are proven or better theories replace them.

So, stoptreating theories as facts

Is your god theory supported by testable facts? Is it falsifiable? If your answer to both questions is yes, then tell me how. If your answer to any is no, then it is not a valid scientific theory.

You haven't shown how atoms came up from the big bang. It is an impossible quest. Like I said, all you just did was stung up a bunch of theories and treating them as if they are facts.

If you don't agree with my explanation, you will have to show that the science is faulty. I mentioned that the cooling of the universe led to the transition of the dense energy from one excited state to another, which included the synthesis of baryonic matter. This aspect of the theory is supported by the observations of a constantly expanding universe, nearly uniform CMB and the decomposition of atoms into many excited energy states in every experiment ever carried out in a particle accelerator. If you believe atoms did not come about in the way I have described, you will either have to falsify any one of these mutually exclusive observations or present an alternative falsifiable theory that can explain every one of them without exception.

You see, the limitation of pure science stems from the fact that time existed just after the bang.

This is NOT a limitation of science. It is a limitation of the present scientific theories, which I have openly highlighted.

So, it is scientifically impossible to extend beyond that.

Hubris! I don't think you, or anybody else is qualified to say what is or isn't scientifically possible.

Unfortunately, as you say, BEFORE the bang, the Universe was a condenced pin point; For want of words, let me call it "super matter". Now, this super matter had existed outside time for how long? Or was it in quasi-stabe state? What brought it into existence?

I never said such a thing. In fact, I have readily and repeatedly admitted that I don't know the state of the universe before the big bang. Don't you understand what is meant by my statement that "there is no known theory that describes the state of the universe at any time preceding Planck's epoch"? Stop misattributing straw men to me, please.

Now, as Christians, we speak about a God who predated time, space and matter. You say God is impossible, yet you start with super-matter as predating time?

Nowhere have I said god is impossible, nor have I claimed that any kind of matter predates time.

I believe that you know that QP is based on the current laws of physics: the current laws gave birth to the several physical constants like the Plank's Constant, pi constant, G universal constant etc.

If, the physical laws break down as you approach the time of big bang, don't you see then that it is fallacy to attempt to use QP to explain creation? You judge this!

I don't disagree that it is fallacious to use quantum theory to explain creation. You're preaching to the choir!

Nice, you are coming close to reality.
Something must have PRECEDED the current state of the Universe

Apologies if I left you with the impression that I was far from this reality. For the avoidance of doubt, my position has always been that I am ignorant of the preceding state of the universe before the known laws set in. I was sure I made this very clear from my initial post. Anyway, now you know!

Christians say: that THING is GOD

As far as science is concerned, Christianity is presumptuous.

Atheists say: that thing Cannot be God: but "super-matter"

Forgetting, that , that thing (something) preceded "super-matter"

I am an atheist, and I've never said whatever "that thing" is cannot be god, nor have I called anything "super-matter". In fact, super-matter is a coinage I am hearing for the very first time today, so it is just as vague to me, as the word "god".

As show, The present laws cannot explain the origin of the universe since the present laws came well after time t=0.

No they can't, but then again, your question wasn't about the origin of the universe, your question was about how the big bang brought about oxygen. Are we now shifting the goal post? The big bang isn't necessarily the origin of the universe, it is the origin of the present physical laws!

The simple axiom are not scientific laws but are of
.. of Contradictions
...of Concurrencies
of postulates

I don't know what you mean here.

Deliberately, I didn't use the word equal!

shadeyinka:
Look at the order in Atoms: electrons in their orbitals round almost equal number of protons and neutrons: you are saying they came out of the chaos of a sudden expansion?

Yes you used the word "equal", and qualified it with almost. I have quoted you as a reminder. Even with your qualification, you're still wrong!

Yet, given as isotopes, an atom still remain its chemical element and exhibit the same chemical behaviours.

But its physical behavior changes. I fail to see your point.

The factcthat they are ordered is the only reason we can study them as scientist and qualitatively define them. That is order.

They are somewhat ordered, yes, but as they grow bigger, they become increasingly disordered. The only real order in atoms is their proclivity to minimise energy. Just like the permutations of a mathematical set becomes more complicated and disorderly as the set grows larger.

To hide information from most biologists, you hide it in Mathematic
To hide information from an Artist, you hide it in Chemistry and Physics
Sometimes Lawyers hide plain statement under LATIN

Those are flowery words.

What are you saying?

Christians aren't opposed to Science. You have Scientists who also are Christians. Its easier for us to see where Science breaks down for it cannot answer all problems.

Okay, but why are you being defensive? Did I accuse you of being opposed to science? Or what has this got to do with the origin of oxygen?

Many Atheists assume that being Spiritual is equivalent to being anti Science but NO!

I'm still not sure how a discussion about the origin of oxygen digressed this far, but if it puts your mind to rest, I'm not one who assumes being spiritual is equivalent to being anti-science. It's not one's attitude towards spiritualism that makes one pro/anti-science, it's one's attitude towards scientific claims that makes them pro/anti-science.

A Christian Scientist look at that Thing Preceding Matter and see, GOD!
An Atheist Scientist look at that Thing Preceding Matter and see, MATTER!

What thing are you talking about?

shadeyinka:
I clap for you for this long thesis: which in reality is a conjecture of postulates and hypothesis. Unverified at its best.

No, most of the premises in my explanation are scientifically verified, both theoretically and experimentally. The ones that haven't been, such as the reason for matter-antimatter imbalance, I clearly stated that they haven't been.

I will take you up only on your postulate 1.

Okay

The universe consists of ALL Space, Plasma, Gases and Solid matter in existence.

Yes

Does your definition of universe include Space?

Yes, it does!

If the universe was infinitesimally small but extremely dense, you assume gravitational force was so strong to keep it like that Abi?

Since all Physical laws break down as time t aproaches zero (time of bang). How come G seems to defy the breakdown?

No, I made no such assumption, nor do I find such an assumption useful in understanding the early universe. There are many states in which energy can exist that preclude gravitational interaction (You may have heard of photons). Like you said, G is a law of physics, so it couldn't have predated (or defied) the expansion of the universe.

How long did the universe stay as "a pin point" before an external force (or was it an internal force--unstable equilibrium) caused it to change its state?

Now this is venturing into territory beyond the scope of the big bang. If you recall, you question was to "Use the Big Bang to explain the origin of oxygen". That, I have done! If you go back to my first sentence. You will see that I mentioned the big bang cannot account for the period preceding Planck's epoch. In fact, in this time period, every known law of physics, including quantum theory, breaks down. As such, it is impossible for me to tell you how long (or if at all) the universe existed in the dense state. For all we know, T = 0 might not even exist!

It is an "absurd falacy" that God will self exist isn't it?
Yet its no less absurd that the universe self existed as a dense point?

Yes! God, the universe, alien species, multiverse, whatnots... Something must have preceded the current state of the universe, which may or may not be self-existent. Both of the possibilities you mentioned may seem absurd, but I wouldn't go as far as to call them a fallacy. My knowledge is too limited to make such a bold statement.

Any body who hears your Quantum Physics Sounding explanations will marvel at your Genius Faculty. Sometimes, it pays to strip the language down to logics and sense.

Logic is indeed a useful tool, but cannot, of itself, lead to answers. There must exist well established, universal axioms and phenomena from which logic proceeds. This is where scientific facts, laws and phenomenology come in.

The scenario you created in 1 is impossible by any current physical laws on which quantum physics is based. Yet, you project quantum physics to take care of periods when even quantum physics would not have existed.

I do not think I created any scenario that is not supported by our present laws of physics. Be reminded that the laws of physics come in after Planck's epoch, a period which I explicitly mentioned had nothing to do with the big bang, before I proceeded to outline the genesis of oxygen. Beyond Planck's epoch, physical laws should have started taking effect. I didn't make this up, it's well established science.

Finally,
Look at the order in Atoms: electrons in their orbitals round almost equal number of protons and neutrons: you are saying they came out of the chaos of a sudden expansion?

By no means are the number of protons and neutrons almost equal. In fact, the ratio is about 7 protons for every neutron. Atoms obey the laws of physics, but they aren't terribly ordered, which is why we have so many isotopes, isobars and isotones of atoms.

Illogical things should not be hidden under flowery speached. Out of a great catastrophe, order came out!
This clearly violate the law of Entropy!

I agree that illogical things shouldn't be masked by flowery words, however, it is not true that order necessarily violates entropy. To be precise, entropy does not preclude localised order. The only requirement for the law is that universal entropy must always be positive. If this requirement is met, pockets of localised order (negative entropy) can pop up without affecting the net positive entropy of the universe.

love2017:
but those are natural disasters.... You will understand what I'm saying if you would be able to survive for 2 minutes, even in the closest planet to earth.

The earth is conducive for life. That's well established, and goes without saying. What I take issues with is your use of the word "perfectly". The earth is no where near "perfectly" fine-tuned for life, and those natural disasters are precisely the reasons why not.

love2017:
why is the earth so perfectly fine-tuned for life ......why can't we get life, even microbes, elsewhere in the universe inspite of the uncountable numbers of planet we are having. If you have a rational sense of reasoning, you ought to know that there's an intelligent force or being who willingly designed the universe that way.

How can yo say the earth is perfectly fine-tuned for life? An earth that is perfectly fine-tuned for life wouldn't suffer from cataclysmic events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions; it would neither have uninhabitable swathes of ice and sand deserts, nor predatory and parasitic lifeforms.
No, my "physicist" friend, this earth isn't "perfectly fine-tuned for life", it is just barely able to support certain lifeforms, and you will find that its entropic evolution is ambivalent towards the lifeforms which it harbours.

shadeyinka:
I have, "in the beginning God created....."
The mechanics is beyond me. My Physics is far too elementary compared to that of God.

I did ask you a question.
Use the Big Bang to explain the origin of oxygen?

Actually, you may be surprised to know that the 'big bang' can explain the origins of Oxygen to an astounding degree of accuracy. To understand the formation of elements, we first have to understand the events that led to their precursors. Although, the earliest time accounted for in the big bang theory is known as the Planck's epoch (approx. 10^-43 S). There is no known theory that describes the state of the universe at any time preceding this, so we'll skip that period. Moreover, it is not terribly important to the formation of elements, as such I'll just give you the gist in bullet points summary.

1) By extrapolation of known physical laws and observations (esp. general theory of relativity and universal expansion), we estimate that there was a state in which the universe was of infinitesimally small volume, extremely high and near isotropic temperature and quasi-homogeneous, high energy density.

2) At the extreme size, energy density and temperature, quantum fluctuations must have caused small random inhomogenieties in the energy distribution, which caused minute local variations in energy states across the whole volume.

3) A phase change brought about rapid expansion of the universe. As the universe expanded, it cooled and its energy density reduced. Remember the local energy fluctuations from quantum effects? These local fluctuations were uniformly distributed (in the same way the debris from a bomb would be uniformly distributed around its explosion radius). These fluctuations were the seeds that latter resulted in the formation of large scale space (LSS) objects, which I will get to later.

4) Bear in the mind that in spite of its cooling, the universe was still very very hot in the initial stages of expansion. Anywhere you have very high energy/temperature, particles and their antiparticles can pop in and out of existence randomly. These particles are fundamentally just energy redistribution from one excited state to another. As a result, there was a period where the universe was dominated by quarks and anti-quarks, electrons and anti-electrons and many other elementary particles.

5) There was a period, known as baryogenesis, where the number of quarks and electrons exceeded the number of anti-quarks and anti-electrons. The reason for this imbalance isn't well understood, but one of the leading hypotheses is that some forms of antimatter decayed out of existence before they could annihilate with their matter counterparts.

6) Recall the energy fluctuations I mentioned earlier? Well, the excess matter were distributed in the same manner as these fluctuations because they are just different excited states of the same energy, basically.

7) Now, as the universe cooled further, the excess quark matter started to clump in many different configurations to conserve energy. Two of the configurations are ones with which we are most familiar: protons (Up Up Down) and neutrons (Up Down Down). Thus our very first Ionized Hydrogen atoms (¹H⁺) were born! To a much smaller degree, the same process led to the creation of ²D (²D is for deuterium, a hydrogen with neutron) and ⁴He⁺ too. With further cooling, these atoms, which had excess positive charges started to trap electrons (negatively charged leptons) to balance out their excess positive charges.

8 ) But electric force wasn't the only force acting on these atoms. In fact, they were also experiencing gravitational pull from all other surrounding atoms. Luckily, the initial energy fluctuations meant some areas in the universe experienced more gravitational pull than others (due to presence of more atoms).

9) Eventually, large clouds of H, D and He gases started to clump around localised regions within the universe. As these clouds grew larger, the sum of all the atoms in them attained a critical mass known as Jeans mass. This is the mass at which gas clouds gravitationally collapse into a singular (spherical) LSS object. So great is this mass, that it forces the fusion of atomic nuclei (e.g. hydrogen nuclei and deutorium combining to form He-3 nuclei).

10) Now, let's say the binding energy of deuterium nucleus is E_D, that of a Hydrogen is E_H and that of helium-3 is E_He-3, you will see that E_H + E_D>E_He-3. Therefore, when D + H nuclei are combined to form a single helium-3 nuclei, we get:
²D + ¹H → ³He + E_H-He, where E_H-He = (M_D + M_H - M_He)c². (The famous E=mc² equation!!). This is called nucleosynthesis

11) E_H-He is difference in nuclear binding energy of the reactants, and it's the reason these spherical LSS objects we call stars glow brightly. E_H-He also exerts an outward force that counteracts the inward gravitational force until there is equilibrium.

12) Meanwhile, when the finite amount of H and D in the star is exhausted, the ⁴He nuclei inside the star start combining to form ¹²C in a process known as the triple-alpha process;
⁴He + ⁴He → ⁸Be
⁸Be + ⁴He → ¹²C

13) Finally, with enough ¹²C formed, we get the next stage of reactions;
¹²C + ⁴He → ¹⁶O + E_C-O

Behold! Oxygen

Besides this, there are also other cosmic events that synthesise various isotopes of oxygen, such as death of stars. This is story for another day, however.

For now, the key summary is that there is a clearly defined and well-understood process by which oxygen was formed from the big bang.

It will make you an age cheat and a criminal!

It boggles the mind why a "none" homosexual is so obsessed with homosexuality to the extent they have gone to great lengths to express what they hate about it, unprompted! It would seem this poster is having a bout with existential crises.

The video in this post is titled "Muslim vs Atheist". The format of the video suggests it's the Muslim's response to a specific atheist critic in an ongoing debate. Given the format, it is probably better that the duo in the discussion continue at it with each other, so that responses are kept in context. However, I will just make some quick generic observations on the 7 themes which the apologetic in this video touched upon.

1) On the marriage age of Aisha at time mark 1:57: I do agree with the apologetic that to criticise the prophet on this account is a pointless exercise in historian's fallacy. Truth is, it wasn't the morally reprehensible act then, that it is today! The apologetic however, went on to criticise the idea of evolving morality as subjective, claiming that "We [Muslims] have our own OBJECTIVE moral code". Of course, a remark like "Our own objective moral code" is an oxymoron. It is cognitively dissonant to acknowledge the existence of several moral codes and in the same breath, claim that such a thing as objective morality exists. However, what I found particularly disconcerting is his apparent glorification of immutable morality. I don't think a set of 1400 yr old moral codes is something to brandish with pride. It rather speaks to his inability to adapt to the ever evolving realities of existence. The uncomfortable truth for him is that evolution waits for no one, and if we are to learn anything from history, it is that those who don't adapt will extinct. So, by all means, he should feel free to adhere to his anachronistic moral codes with pride.

2) On the cause of the universe at time mark 3:19: He seem to suggest the universe has a cause, therefore, that cause is [his] god. In so far as he has not shown the link between the premise and the conclusion, there is nothing logical about that claim. It is just as much a leap of faith as saying the universe came from nothing.

3) On the doctrine of Jihad at time mark 3:54: Yes, he's right again! The concept of jihad in Islam is more nuanced than the caricatured nonsense about holy wars

4) On the doctrine of Martyrdom at time mark 5:27: His argument about Muslims having a greater incentive to die fighting for justice is as foolish as it is bizarre. Yes, paradise might be a great incentive for Muslims to martyr themselves. An atheist cannot be incentivised to martyrdom with paradise, no doubt, but they could very well be incentivised by the belief it will make life better for their friends/families/countrymen. Only a person who believes paradise is real in the first place can also believe that the pursuit of paradise is greater than the pursuit of comfort for one's own family and so on. Any incentive is only valuable in the mind of its beholder. Ergo, it is absurd to claim one is greater than another if the end result for both is the same.

5) On apostasy at time mark 6:31: The claim that apostasy "does not limit private conscious decisions" is pure unblemished BS. It does! When someone is arrested and tried for apostasy in an Islamic state, the options are: (i) become a Muslim again or (ii) face the sword. It was practiced then, and it is practiced now, in every country that claims sharia as its law. There was never the option of "feel free to practice whatever religion you want, just don't carry out treasonous activities against the state", however loosely they choose define that term. He described this as "Natural Justice". This is a gross perversion of the meanings of both words! There is nothing natural about forcing people to commit to your religion after leaving it, nor can that be said to be just. The hadiths are unequivocal on how apostates should be treated, and they do NOT prescribe mercy.

6) On Muhammed as an example for mercy 8:20: He cited the conquest of Mecca. It is not true that Muhammed was entirely merciful. He certainly didn't forgive everyone when he conquered Mecca. This fact is also recorded in several hadiths.

7) On the use of violence by godless societies at time mark 9:08: This is a very awkward hole to dig himself into. There are far more examples of tyrannical govts in godly societies, playing the role of gods (or claiming to speak for one) than ever can be accounted for in godless societies. The problem here, of course, is bad leadership, and while bad leadership isn't the exclusive preserve of any group, it is far easier to commit heinous acts when god can be used to justify them, than when one knows that the responsibility for such acts is solely their's to bear.

SmartyPants:
If you will recall, or simply refer back to the first page, the topic of my argument is why i am a Christian. I never set out to establish scientifically, that there is God. You cannot use science to prove the existence of a being who surpasses science, since ostensibly He created created science! You can only make inferences as to His nature from science. I only set out my reasons for why i choose to believe in God in the first place. You are asking questions that answer themselves.

No you didn't! What you did do, however, was set out to establish, logically, that there is a god. The clue is in the number of times you mentioned the word "logic" and its derivatives in your post (25 times if you recall). I set out to show that you hardly invoked the principles of logic in the things you attempted to pass as such!

1. Why must there be a supreme creator? Because the universe could not exist without a source but that source must then be without a source. The original source must therefore be thought of as the supreme source from which all life and creation flowed. So if there is a God, He must be supreme.

You have failed to provide any new insights, instead, choosing to relapse to your preferred soundbite: The universe couldn't exist without a sourceless source. Forget scientific proof, all you need do is provide logical proof as to why that is the case. Your obstinacy in acknowledging that you have no logical proof for that claim just shows you neither have respect for logic, nor any understanding of it.

2. Natural laws conform to a pattern. Patterns are the product of intelligent design.

You're quite wrong, actually. Patterns may emerge from natural laws, but the laws, themselves, are apparently arbitrary as far as we know. There's no pattern to which radioactive decay of any single nucleon conforms, there is no pattern to which the fundamental forces of nature conform, there is no pattern in the uncertainty principle. See, if you know of any patterns to which natural laws conform, I can guarantee you a Nobel prize in Physics! Natural laws may create localised order, but they are far more ferocious in their creation of pointless, degenerate things too. I asked you to explain the purpose of neutron stars and brown dwarfs because you seem to think there's intelligence in them. Yet again, your ignorance is exposed as your god!

The evidence may be largely circumstantial but this is not a court of law and it need not be conclusive, for a rational mind to draw a logical opinion.

It really is all as simple as that.

This is essentially now a debate about your mischaracterisation of fancy as logic! You are right about one thing though, this is certainly not a court of law. The rules in a court of law are subject to the interpretations of the judge or jury, whereas the rules of logic are immutable, and beholden only to themselves. Logic does not deal in extrapolations or probabilities, it deals in decisive, methodical precision. Anything short of this cannot be called logical.

SmartyPants:
1. I did explain this in fact, and right from the start. In simple words, a supreme creator is the only explanation that does not raise any further questions. With any other explanation, where the source came from would be a persistent issue. But with a supreme creator, you can have no further questions, since His nature itself would defy our understanding of scientific possibilities.

All you're basically saying here is that anything you cannot explain results from some entity you choose to call the supreme creator. This seems more like a desperate excuse for intellectual laziness than an explanation. My request was simple enough to understand, and the possible ways to address my request are as follows:

1) Provide evidence that some supreme creator entity exists or
2) Provide evidence that the universe is in need of a supreme creator or
3) Admit your ignorance and accept that this hypotheses is nothing more than your preferred speculation.

3. Natural laws? I wonder how you can say such things and deny the existence of God in the same breath!

Can you point to where I've denied the existence of god?

Do laws create themselves? Laws require the application of a conscious process of creating a rule in order to achieve an effect for which uniformity is required. It requires intelligence to determine:

a. what the need for a rule is
b. what rule would deliver the effect
c. how to ensure uniformity

Natural laws also bring about the existence of things like antimatter, neutron stars and brown dwarfs. Pray tell, what's the intelligence behind the rules that cause these things to exist?

These are without question, beyond the scope of random coincidence since random coincidence cannot think!

2. It is quite simply really. Life displays a level of orderliness and structure that random coincidence has never been able to produce. And it's not as hard as you think it is to measure the orderliness of life. For example, look at how many levels of order it takes for conception to occur.

a. asexual reproduction is possible and occurs with a lot of species. Why not man? for mankind and some other animals, reproduction requires some form of relationship. from an evolutionary perspective, we see how this relationship serves the purpose of protecting the family and ensuring survival of the offspring. but a random coincidental creation event would have no idea of purpose since it cannot think!

b. the man and the woman not have sexual organs that fit perfectly together. This is a function of intelligent design. Random coincidence cannot produce intelligent design since it cannot think!

c. once the human beings have coupled, their sperm and egg have meet at a point. The sperm have to swim in the right direction. The conditions in the vagina have to aid their survival, the egg has to also travel some distance to await the sperm. All these are evidence of operational masterpiece. Random coincidence cannot do this because it cannot think!

d. the baby grows and is ejected into life through the same canal that is tight enough to fit around a moderately sized banana fruit, yet expansive enough to eject a baby the size of a rugby ball. This is an engineering masterpiece. Random coincidence cannot be credited for this, because it cannot think!

This is four basic levels of order or structure, that are required for an even such as childbirth. Random coincidence has never been observed to bring about anything so detailed and so precisely designed, and that is what i mean by "way too ordered and structured".

I feel disinclined to respond at this point, since you're just happy to waffle on about your preferred straw man. I never mentioned random coincidence anywhere; and I've in fact, made it quite clear that invoking random coincidence as the counterpoint to your intelligent design hypothesis is another of your false dichotomies.

As for how atoms are formed, your retort is dead on arrival. I would expect you to see the argument if you are not trying to obfuscate the clear pattern in your way of clutching at straws. Nevertheless, i put it to you, that if atoms did not suddenly wake up and appear in the universe, then whatever process by which they are created, and by which they have rules that guide their nature is the product of intelligent design (and very intelligent design at that!).

You can put it to me in as many ways as you want, the fact still remains that you have yet to demonstrate that natural laws can only result from intelligent design. To do this, you have to rule out all other possibilities (remember proof of impossibility?)! Until then, you are simply speculating. I should note also, that aside from speculating, your claim further reinforces the obvious: Your ignorance is simply your god!

5. My argument is conjecture based on fact. Don't mislead yourself! Is it not a fact that everything must have a source? That is the central fact from which all conjectures i have made logically flow.

If it is a fact that everything must have a source, then surely, your god MUST also have a source?

6. Your last paragraph is bizarre. I only made speculations and conjectures in my introductory argument on why i believe in God. I then present four reasons devoid of any speculation for why i believe in Christianity.

A speculation is a speculation. It is not fact until proven! I hope you do see that if your reason to believe in god is speculative, any conclusion resulting therefrom is baseless? Certainly, your argument for your particular god could conceivably proceed logically from your set of chosen speculations and conjectures, but the same is true for any argument, no matter how ridiculous! One just needs to invoke the right set of speculations and conjectures, and viola!

It does appear that you are now thoroughly confused!

Your Ad hominem is noted!

swiz123:
so basically,what's your point

I thought I was answering your question. I should have been clearer: Nobody created water! Water, like many other chemical elements, compounds, molecules and minerals is a gift from the stars.

Water predates earth! It is probably almost as old as the universe itself. Water is synthesised during the formation of stars, and the universe is pervaded with water, in quantities far greater than you can actually imagine. Anything you've seen on earth pales in comparison.

Water is certainly no by-product of earths creation!

Jhaytee4all:
please rephrase your question to "please, are all atheists ignorant?"

they are truly ignorant, yet finding words to verify their belief. they are such conedians..... no no no... I mean they are clowns. They should really be derided for their loss.

serious, they dnt knw what they are missing. For me to say there ain't God I must really be in my wildest dream.

Far be it for me to speak on behalf of all atheists, but I can confirm that the reason I am one is precisely because I am ignorant, and I know it. What I don't get is why you think it appropriate to shame ignorance? If this is your idea of being informed, I'm not sure I want to be informed!

SmartyPants:
1. That was my definition of who God is. As you noted in your first reply, we need a definition. Are you recanting from that position now? This definition is the subject of the postulations beneath it.

Yes, I am aware that you've defined god as a supreme creator, you just haven't justified your use of such fantastical qualifications, nor have you justified why the universe is in need of a supreme creator. So please justify, or else, you're just speculating!

2. What do you mean “life isn’t way too ordered and structured”. It seems like you’ve not understood almost the entirety of this post. What I said or implied was life is way too ordered and structured to have happened randomly. I never said life is wholly ordered and structured. You have inserted that into my comments to make your argument easier.

This is a vague statement, not a logical argument. What's the meaning of "way too ordered and structured"? Have you measured the degree of orderliness in life? If so, at what point of orderliness do you draw a line between what's created by intelligence and what isn't?

I would have thought it obvious what I meant by the orderliness and structure of life, but I see an explanation is needed. Well, life is ordered and structured in terms of how everything can be grouped into living or non-living, genus, specie, family, class, gender etc. These phenomena are way too complicated to have been random occurrences. They bear the hallmarks of intelligent design.

It requires more than chance for the contraption of conception to work the way it does. It is way too complicated to have simply just happened.

You're good at creating false dichotomies. The counterpoint to Intelligent design is not necessarily randomness. Simple natural laws can bring about order without interference from some intelligent entity.

3. This is a truly odd claim. Surely the fact that atoms interact on the basis on their electrical charges is itself evidence of intelligent design! Someone created those atoms with electrical charges, and programmed them to behave the way they do! Your assertion here is akin to that of a village man who arrives at an ATM and believes bankers are useless because the ATM’s can dispense money on their own.

Atoms were neither created nor programmed by anybody. Atoms are mostly manufactured in stars in a process called Nucleosynthesis. Look it up!

Your conclusion, quoted below, on the first part of my previous reply is completely off point since it is entirely based off a series of misunderstandings and mis-readings.

“In all, you have provided no sound arguments. Instead, you have speculated about the existence of a supreme creator; incorrectly stated that life is wholly ordered; speculated, incorrectly, that orderliness can only come from intelligence; and then proposed that our ignorance should compel us to accept as strong, the possibility of a god. It is baffling how you don't see the monumental weakness in your "line of thought". I'm not even sure you put any thought into that at all.”

Lol...boy, wouldn't that be a convenient way to dismiss my argument!? I now have renewed confidence that my summary of your thought process is apt. I would just add to that, my observation that your ignorance is your god! Your misapprehension of how atoms are synthesised and your credulous misappropriation of their existence to someone's creation and programming is definitive proof that.

On the second part, you need to take your time and read me well. First of all, your mathematical calculations do not take into account the possibility of one religion being true. If one religion is absolutely true, then all probability calculations are meaningless.

You speak of probability as though we are tossing a fair die here. But we are not. It is fairly easy to examine different religions to sift out those that are less likely to be true. It is like a football match between Man utd and Enyimba. Mathematically, the probability of either side winning is 0.5, yet if you go to bookmakers, the odds will be stacked entirely in Man Utd’s favor. Paper maths is of no use here.

If there are 5000 permutations, each of which is contradictory then we know that only one is right, and its truth is a reality that is unaffected by some abstract misapplied probablities. Your probability calculations only apply if I were to pick any one of the options at random. Hope you understand the premise of probability??

And if you find the right religion (or choose the religion most likely to be true), then it means even if religion is wrong, you are still going to win either way. You cannot dispute this with a straight face!

For the atheist however, there is no win-win solution.

Your argument is defeated by your own admission that you came to your conclusion, not through fact, but by conjecture:

SmartyPants:
My argument, i freely admit, is based not on fact but on logical conjecture, which is the best we can do in the absence of full knowledge.

Unless you don't know the meaning of conjecture! If you had definitive proof that your religion is the right one, there would be no need for debate. You would simply have shown your proof to me. However, you are working with a lot of speculations and guesses. Well, guess what? All the other religions also have their own speculations and guesses which are just as unfalsifiable as yours. This evens out the probability, meaning my math is correct! Alas, your cognitive bias with a touch of selective amnesia blinds you to this glaring truth!

SmartyPants:
There was nothing "wildly speculative" about my prelude.

Follow this train of thought and show me where the wild speculation is:

Okay

a. Life must have had a source. The source is either God or something else currently unidentified.

b. God is identified as the supreme creator of the universe who was not created but exists of Himself. That implies that God:

i. is the source of life
ii. has no source Himself
iii. is intelligent

Wild speculation 1: How do you know the universe has a supreme creator?

b. Life is the product of evident design. If life came forth arbitrarily, it stands to reason that life itself would continue to exhibit arbitrary traits. But life is way too ordered and structured right down to the minutest detail to be considered arbitrary or coincidental.

What we observe of life, is that inanimate things are incapable of intelligent design, and all orderly things are the creation of an intelligent being capable of intelligent design. This suggests that intelligent and ordered life must be the product of an intelligent creator.

Wild speculation 2:
(1) Life isn't way too ordered and structured. There's a lot of disorder in life.
(2) Even if it were, there is no clear evidence that ordered things need be designed. I've seen the TEM images of too many naturally forming crystal lattices that are perfectly ordered just by the electronic interactions between participating atoms. This shows that order does not require intelligence!

c. We must have, therefore, as the source of life, a source which can have no source, and which is intelligent.

Wild speculation 3: Unsupported!

d. This surpasses our currently understanding of the realms of possibility. We are forced to believe in what might be thought of as being scientifically improbable.

Nonsense! Ignorance should never force anybody to take a position on anything!

e. This means we must be open to beliefs which you may ordinarily consider to sound unscientifc

Again, nonsense! You're not obliged to be open to any belief that doesn't quell your skepticisms.

d. You must therefore accept the possibility, strongly of their being a God.

Nonsense!

That is where my prelude ends, as i move on to my main argument, on how to identify the true religion.

In all, you have provided no sound arguments. Instead, you have speculated about the existence of a supreme creator; incorrectly stated that life is wholly ordered; speculated, incorrectly, that orderliness can only come from intelligence; and then proposed that our ignorance should compel us to accept as strong, the possibility of a god. It is baffling how you don't see the monumental weakness in your "line of thought". I'm not even sure you put any thought into that at all.

On your elucidation of Pascals Wager, you see, you have missed the point again. For an atheist, you know that you are either right or wrong. To be wrong means you are in deep trouble, since you will face the punishment for missing out on God.

For the religious person the choices are also i am either right or wrong but for one set of religious people, whether they are right or wrong, they have a win-win solution. If i am right about my religion, then i will win in the afterlife. The only way to choose the right religion and lose is if all religion is wrong. But if i am wrong about all religion, then i will still win in the afterlife.

So the logical goal of any rational person, should be to seek out the right religion, with the knowledge that if i am right i win, and if i am wrong i still win.

My essay, in the opening post of this thread, is a guide as to how to tell the right religion from all others.

This is a most bizarre interpretation of probabilities. Of course the choices are either right or wrong for everyone! The real question is: What are the chances you are right? Now, there are thousands of possible options out there, you've choose 1 and somehow think your odds are great? Let me do the Math for you. Let's say there are 5,000 religions(let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that atheism is also one), each having their own supporting conjectures as to why they are the right one. Now, you choose one along with its set of supporting conjectures. That leaves a possible 4,999 others which could be right, but which you believe are wrong. Given the numbers, the probability that you're correct is 1/5000 = 0.02%. This is the odds you'll have a blissful hereafter, using the wager. This means there's a 99.98% chance you'll probably end up in someone else's hell fire, or that you'll simply vanish from existence, if the set of conjectures you chose were the wrong ones.
The only way you can possibly interprete the wager in the way you have, is if you claim that all religions are correct. But in doing so, your preference of one set of conjectures over the others becomes meaningless and thus, superfluous.
I hope you grasp the math, because if you don't, I'm not sure how you're so confident in your capacity for logical thinking?

SmartyPants:
We must agree to disagree. You have to remember that i only made the argument about the existence of God as a prelude to my actual argument on the true religion.

Yes you did! In fact, your actual argument is inexorably dependent on your wildly speculative prelude.

I must say, though, that i believe that if we can admit that we do not know, then that calls us to be careful and cautious.

I agree that we must be cautious, but elevating speculations to the status of facts is the exact opposite of that!

Practicing a religion is better than taking a total gamble on your life after death.

What life after death? This is just a rehashing of the oft invoked Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is a probability function that proposes which of the two choices between your version of the afterlife and the lack of belief in one would lead to the best possible outcome. Of course, the wager would make eminent sense if these were indeed the only two options. However, by pitting your version of the afterlife against the lack of belief in the afterlife, Pascal's wager creates a false dichotomy that presumes wrong, every other version of the afterlife story; and by extension, their requirements for success. This is a real dilemma for you, since as you've "freely admitted", your conclusions are based on conjectures. There are thousands of other conjectures that equally support the thousands of other religions that exist or have ever existed. Therefore, the real probability you have to contend with isn't your proposition vs the absence of one, but your one proposition divided by the thousands of others in existence. Correct your wager this way, and you'll see how vanishingly small the chance of you being correct really is! Your chance of a blissful afterlife is almost as insignificant as mine, so rejecting your proposition doesn't give me extra worries, but, you, on the other hand, should be very worried about this terrible gamble!

Religion only enriches the lives of intelligent people, while no doubt the gullible will be taken advantage of. However this is not the fault of religion. You should have nothing against it.

Religion only enriches the lives of those who are made restless by a perfectly natural phenomenon called ignorance. There are those who are comfortable in the knowledge of their own ignorance, because they know that ignorance does not preclude intelligence. In many ways, admitting one's own ignorance enhances intelligence, for it is only in this state of admission that one is given to reasonable arguments.

SmartyPants:
I appreciate your approach but all of this is irrelevant simply because i never made any positive assertions, i made strong suggestions. Read my original post carefully, and you will see that i always said things along the line of "it is logical to think that so so so and so is true".

A premise that is not supported by logic cannot be called "logical". It is a speculation, at best!

So you cannot ask me for definite evidence for my premises, when i never made definite claims in those premises.

Then don't claim they are logical. I can concede that your conclusions are logical conjectures, but they are constructed on speculative premises. You will observe that I have only attacked the premises themselves, and refrained from discussing your conclusions.

One major premise of my entire argument is that we do not know certain things for scientific fact. How then can you ask me for scientific evidence?

I asked for scientific evidence because you claimed your premises were logical. I wouldn't have engaged you if you clarified that they were speculations.

Even where i said inanimate things cannot bring forth life, what i actually originally said was "it is very unlikely".

Okay, but this is a speculative opinion.

My argument, i freely admit, is based not on fact but on logical conjecture, which is the best we can do in the absence of full knowledge.

No, your premises are based on wild speculations, not logical conjectures! The moment your premises are unraveled, then your ostensibly logical conclusions are exposed for their fallacies.
Even if your premises were logical conjectures, I hope you understand that logical conjectures are not the same as logical proofs; the sole distinguishing factor of the former being the lack of complete evidence. No one is obliged to accept claims based on incomplete evidence because they fear consequences that are of the same incomplete evidence. Doing so is the opposite of logical; it is succumbing to fearmongering.

Finally, I don't agree that this is the best we can do. The best we can do is acknowledge our ignorance until we know better.

SmartyPants:
You've said so many things so i may naturally miss out on some of them in my reply. To deal with what i believe is the major issue in your post,

Or deliberately evade them and shift the goal posts.

I have said there must be a source of life which is also the source of itself. You are now challenging me on whether or not inanimate objects can bring forth life.

Aye, indeed, you have! I'm not asking you to make claims, I'm asking you to back up your claims with logic. Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated any logical reasoning in that claim; just pure conjecture.

A cement block is used to make a house. Does a house therefore come from a cement block? Does it come from wood? It comes from a number of building blocks but something had to put it together. Inanimate objects lack the capacity for design, organization and putting things together. So even if the building blocks of like were inanimate, what we see of life is that it requires intelligent beings to design, organize, and put things together.

Now, let me school you in logic because I don't think you quite appreciate the enormity of your burden. When you state that inanimate objects cannot bring forth life, this is a negative CLAIM. To prove such a claim, it is not sufficient to cite a lacklustre example of cement and blocks, you must develop a Proof of Impossibility argument that systematically and unequivocally rules out every possibility of life coming from inanimate objects. You have failed to provide such a proof, and instead, based your claim on the assumption that all inanimate objects must behave like cement blocks and houses! Yet still, there is no evidence that life requires intelligence to design it.

And if and when we discover a higher form of intelligence, than man, we can then study that to make inferences about its creator. To refuse to study man as the highest known form of intelligence, however, on the completely unsupported argument of the possibility of there being more intelligent sources of life is illogical.

No no no! It doesn't work this way! You cannot accuse me of making unsupported arguments; I haven't made any arguments in fact. That I suggest counter examples to your claims doesn't mean I think they are true! It is just to highlight your faulty logic by showing that you have failed to rule out all the other possibilities before arriving at your conclusions. It is you who has based your argument on unsupported assumptions. I am quite happy and unashamed to admit my ignorance.

As for mules and ligers, i expect you to immediately see that the animals that are mated to bring forth these creatures are from the same family. Mules come from horses and donkeys, Ligers from Lions and Tigers; same family in each case. And it is not possible at all, to mate animals from different families.

Yes, so let's talk about families, then. These creatures belong to the same family, not the same species! I brought them up as a counter example of things reproducing "other kinds". There are examples of cats in the same family, sub-family even, than cannot hybridise due to speciation. The point here, is that the lines you draw are arbitrary, and do not exist in nature. Life is more of a tree with branches, than discrete points. When you go as far down on these branches as possible, every living thing will converge at the trunk, to some primitive ancestor. That includes trees, birds, humans, bacteria and so on. We are all one big biological family. Were it possible to trace your great great progenitors to a few millions of generations away, chances are, that you would eat them in a heart beat because they would look like small tasty fish!

As for my points. i pointed out the logic behind my choice of each test. Everyone can come online and say oh this or that is nonsense. I'm here for the logical minded, so if you can, point out why each test is not logical as a test of being the true religion.

I also defined God as being supreme, so i don't see why you have to ask me why or how He should make demands of us. Inherent in the quality of being supreme, is the ability to do as He pleases.

I don't need to point out why your tests are not logical, I just need to point out that the premises from which your tests are derived are illogical, and I have successfully done that! You have to fix the faults in your main premises first, then we can discuss your specific criteria: A list of your faulty premises and how to logically address them are as follows. You must address them all. Of course, you can address them differently than I have suggested. All I ask are two things: (A) That you kindly mention which one you're addressing to make this discussion more organised, and (B) that your arguments are logically sound (you must know by now that anything you call logical will be thoroughly scrutinised). Do this, and I would be convinced!

1) Show that this god is a living thing. To do this, you have to either:
(a) Provide direct observable evidence that this god exists, or, otherwise,
(b) Provide an 'Impossibility Proof' that life cannot have emerged from inanimate objects. (If you choose this route, bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)

2) Show that this god is an intelligent thing. To do this, you must either:
(a) Provide direct observable evidence that this god is intelligent, or, otherwise
(b) Provide an 'Impossibility Proof' that intelligent life cannot have evolved from other primitive forms.

3) Show that this god is a supreme creator. To do this, you must:
(a) Provide an 'Impossibility Proof' that this god was not created from other preexisting things, your proof must also show that
(i) There can't be many interdependent creators and
(ii) This god continues to create, even till this day.

5) Show that this god cares to make demands of us. To do this, you must:
(a) Provide direct evidence from this god. Bear in mind that appeal to authority is a known logical fallacy. The source of this evidence must therefore be indisputable.

6) Show that this god's demands are in the form of religion. To do this, you must, again:
(a) Provide direct evidence from this god.

Now you have your job cut out for you.

SmartyPants:
Re 1 & 2, I may not have stated all the premises of my various arguments clearly, but one of them is my belief that logic never fails. But it would fail when it comes to the question of where the source of life came from unless there is something we are not considering in the proper logical light - Logic would lead us to believe that (a) Life must have started from something and (b) There could not possibly have been an infinite stream of sources of life So given these two conditions, there is a third logical conclusion: there is one original source, from whom or from which everything began, whose source is in Himself. I say, this is God. Why God?

1) I don't understand your premise (b). What do you mean by "infinite stream of sources of life"?
2) Your conclusion does not make any sense. Is "god" just a placeholder for the original source of life? And why do you think this source could not have emerged from inanimate objects?

A second premise for my arguments would be the fact that whatever is created must retain some clues as to the nature of the creator. An auxillary premise to this would be the belief then that inferences about the creator would be best sourced from the highest form of intelligence He created. Therefore if we want to learn about God using logic, we would want to observe the most intelligent being He created, and make inferences about Him. I therefore infer that God must be intelligent since He could create intelligent beings. I also infer that He must be supreme since He alone has no known source.

Your second premise is spineless! So far, you have defined "god" as the original source of life. You have merely stated, but not demonstrated that this original source is the perpetual source of life. You also believe you know what the most intelligent creation is (which I think is presumptuous), and that this most intelligent creation must have been created by the original source. Making many sloppy assumptions isn't the hallmark of a good logician.

But what if inanimate things could do that too?

Our study of science indicates that things can only bring forth of their own kind. Birds do not reproduce plants, nor vice versa. Different forms of life cannot create another. It is therefore illogical to suggest that intelligent life could have come from inanimate sources.

"Our"? I don't think we've had the same level of exposure to science. What forms of life do you imagine created mules and ligers? Secondly, since your study of science indicates that things can only bring forth their own kind, I wonder why your logic hasn't led you to believe we are all gods!? It's poor sportsmanship to shift the goal post at your whim! I asked you to show that inanimate objects cannot produce life, not tell me what I already know about self-replication. Reproduction isn't the subject of discourse, origin of life is.
That life is self-replicating is a granted, this does not mean the first form of life did not emerge from inanimate objects. We know life is composed mainly of H, C and O. The absence of any of these, and life cannot exist as we know it. I believe these are inanimate objects. So again, show that inanimate objects cannot produce life, before you make stupid claims like that.

But then if an intelligent creator could exist of Himself, then perhaps the intelligent beings on earth are the creator?

If that were so, we would be to explain where we came from and how we came to be. Since we have no idea of this at all, this idea does not hold true. It also leaves unaccounted for, explanations about the origin of the birds, trees, seas and other planets. Supposing the intelligent life one earth exists of itself, what about the unintelligent life? A single intelligent source makes more sense as an explanation for all creation. What about the completely inanimate life? However, we all admit that we do not have much knowledge about the true source of life, and therefore we have to assume that all things are possible with this source of life.

Wow!!! It is astounding how you can manage to mix your smartest and stupidest remarks in one sentence. Yes! We all admit we do not have much knowledge of the true source of life. As such, "we have to assume that all things are possible with this source"? I do not know much about how you made your breakfast this morning, so I have to assume you're capable of making every kind of food in the world! Genius!!

How about just admitting you do not know?

That's not good enough. Once you can accept the strong possibility of their being God, then you must ask what are the potential consequences of not following His dictates?

No, first you must ask yourself why this god is capable of making any demands of you, or if it cares to make any such demands. A question which you have evaded as many times as I've asked it.

What about other religions?

That's where my four pronged argument comes in:

1. Does the religion show God's relationship with man from the beginning of time?
2. Was the main proponent of the religion completely faultless, and a time-relevant example?
3. Does the religion offer a connection with God that goes beyond rules of good conduct?
4. How strong is the testimony of its earliest witnesses?

By process of elimination, you will find that only Christianity genuinely ticks all four boxes.

Your four pronged nonsense are just arbitrarily made up criteria to justify your preferred fairy tale. Everyone has their own criteria for their preferred fairy tales too!

SmartyPants:
Let me start by saying that you clearly have not understood one significant part of my argument. My introduction of the concept of infinity was merely as analogy, an illustration if you prefer. The point, presented in more simple terms simply was: If you trace everything backwards, we reach a point human understanding cannot go beyond. This is the question of where God or any other alleged source of life came from. Science and logic offer no explanation but religion does. The only question we have is whether or not we accept the terms offered by religion. Are we together at this point? I would hope yes.

1) Now you acknowledge that "science and logic offer no explanation". In your first post, you tried to pass the lack of explanation off as some kind of logical operand, so this is a welcome improvement.

2) You speak as though the boundary of human ignorance is stagnant, and your argument seems to be that ignorance should therefore be termed "god". To claim there's a point beyond which human understanding cannot go is hasty and presumptuous. Even if such a point exists, how do you know that the source of life is this point? What makes you believe science cannot decipher the source of life?

3) Like religion, there are several other hypotheses that attempt to proffer an explanation for the things that lie beyond scientific epistemology. There is also simple admission of ignorance. Richard Feynman is reputed to have said: “Some people say, How can you live without knowing? ...I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know.” So what I want to know is how, of all these possibilities, you get to give religion this much preponderance. So no, the question isn't yet whether or not we accept the terms of religion, it is why rule out the other competing hypotheses as well as the easiest and most honest position; admission of ignorance?

Now to who is God? For the purpose of this discussion, God to me is the Supreme Creator of all that exists. How did i arrive at this? First i believe all that exists must have an origin. By an examination of the intricacies of the things that have been created, i inferred that the creation is profoundly complicated and highly intelligent, and therefore must come from an intelligent source.

You seem to be making the argument that intelligence begets intelligence. If this is the case, your use of "supreme" as a qualifying superlative is merely a thought terminating device, not a logical deduction. In this kind of construct, a supreme creator can never exist because their intelligence will have to be explained by the existence of another intelligence ad infinitum. Conversely, if a supreme creator can exist by inference, without needing to have been created by another intelligence, so too can intelligent life. Your arbitrary rule aside, you have not even explained why there must only be one supreme creator. Why can't many interdependent creators exist? A wristwatch is equally an intricate device, yet we don't have supreme creators for wristwatches. There was the creator that conceived the design, the creator that made batteries, the creator that made the teeth gears, the creator that made the straps, the screen, etc. Either ways, even if intelligence necessitates deliberate creation as you've claimed, your appeal to a "supreme" creator is still a presumptuous contrivance.

Can an inanimate object produce life that is dynamic, intelligent and capable of creating things itself? It sounds highly unlikely. So i assume that the source of all creation must be intelligent, and must have life.

As far as we know, life is composed of inanimate objects, so it is you who has to explain why inanimate objects cannot produce life!

My search for more answers about God, is the subject of my original essay, the conclusion of which leads me to my belief of the other attributes of God such as His supremacy.

Your belief in the supremacy of a deliberate, single god has many layers of presumptions which I have unraveled! Also, that your conclusion leads you to believe in god's supremacy is also now circular, since you have already defined god as the supreme creator.

25!; the number of times you invoked the word "logic" and its derivatives in you lengthy post. It would seem your excessive use of that word is a Freudian slip intended to mask what your subconscious already recognises as a travesty of that very same word, "logic"! Logical arguments generally do not require any stamp of identification, let alone 25! So, allow me to bring your consciousness to perceptive parity with your subconscious.

I will not attempt to highlight all of your illogical leaps, as it will take too much of my time, but the ones I highlight will amply demonstrate to you, that there is nothing logical about you argument. Hopefully, you'll then go back to the drawing board to map out a more logical argument as to why you are a Christian, or be forced to admit that logic is not at all a compelling factor in your professed faith.

SmartyPants:
I personally choose to believe in God because it is hard to imagine any other explanation that, itself, would not raise further questions – incidentally, the same question scientists and doubters ask of the religious-minded: where did the source come from? Since something cannot logically come from nothing, this will continue to be a mystery. What is clear though, is that everything must have come from something. The answer clearly then, is that the source of life must be something or someone, that defies all human understanding of what is possible. Does this mean logic is wrong?

Here, you have not defined what "God" means. All logical terms, including, nay, especially axioms, must be defined. You treat "God" as an axiom without a definition. How can you then hope to make any kind of sensible argument about god?

Our understanding of logic, appears to me to be the problem, and not logic itself. We tend to view logic as being an arithmetic process, a step by step approach to the inevitable answer, however, I believe logic can also be geometric, a sequence of computations that lead to an undefined, indefinite answer we like to call infinity. Understanding life and existence requires that we must apply the same thought process. In answering the question of where God came from and how God created the world, I submit it to you, that we are at the analogical point of infinity. Thus, logic does not at all preclude the existence of God.

Here, you attempt to justify the lack of definition of god by invoking infinity or whatever the heck you were talking about! That's just undiluted bunkum! Anything without definition, including infinity, is outside the scope of logic. Logic is a language of precision, not a whimsical appeal to ignorance. Stop trying to redefine it!

The atheist at this point, smartly, would probably quip, “but even if you believe in God, which religion do you believe is true?” This presents a genuine logical challenge, but like all logical challenges, there is a logical approach to the answer. There are probably hundreds of religions, each one professing to be the correct and true way to God. Logic has it that if there is a God, and no two religions agree on how to worship Him, then either all of them are wrong and no one really knows about God, or one of them is right and all the others are wrong. This should make every religious person pause and seriously question themselves and their beliefs.

The more pertinent question a smart atheist would ask is: "If you believe in god, what makes you think this god cares about religion?"

Contrary to what most people believe, faith and logic do not necessarily contradict. Quite on the contrary, I believe that God expects us all to apply some logic in our search for truth. For instance, it is written in Romans 1: 19-20:
‘because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shewn it to them. For since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse’

This verse of scripture points out that God expects people to make inferences about Him, by examining the things He has made (see the highlighted portion), and this calls upon our capacity for logical reasoning. Through the process of reason, certain assumptions can be made about God and His relationship with human beings.

I'm skipping this because you've mentioned that it isn't relevant to your argument...moving on

First of all, we must believe that God wants humanity to relate with Him, and that if any religion is true, it must have been given to man directly by God. The second assumption that logically follows this is that if God gave man a religion to follow because He wanted us to connect with Him, and God existed before the creation of man, then He would have given mankind this religion (set of instructions for worship) right from the beginning. This logically tells me that any religion which does not logically trace its origin to the beginning of time cannot be the true way. Any religion which can point to a specific point in time along the timeline of human existence, as being the period when a particular person received a religion from God, then has to explain why God did not want the people before them to have this religion. Christianity, through Judaism, traces its origin all the way back to Adam and Eve, who are held to have been the first people created on earth.

At this point, you haven't defined god, you haven't shown that this god is purposeful or, for that matter, is a living thing capable of thought, yet you are already attributing personal pronouns to it, you already know that it "wants humans to relate to him", you already know that this god cares about religion, you already know how it prefers to convey religion to man, you already know when this god would have preferred to contact man about religion, etc. By making these unjustified claims about how god operates, not only have you shamelessly defecated all over logic, you've also directly contradicted your previous "logical" argument that god occupies an "undefined, indefinite" "point of infinity".

Okay, I will stop here because I have given you enough reason to reconsider what your "logical" claims.

First of all, since you have failed to address the paradox of an omniscient god "testing" us, ostensibly to find out what it already knows about us, I'll assume you have tacitly acknowledged that this was a problematic argument. As such, I'll not torture you any further with this conundrum of yours.

Moving on:

iamgenius:
You talked abt creating somtin and wanting the created thing to worship the creator. What I mean by worship here is not just praising and adoring our creator alone. If God wants us to worshio him only, He would have created us in a state of constant worship and we wont be able to do anything else.

Okay, so here it seems you're arguing that since we don't automatically default to worshiping god, the act of worship might not be the purpose of our existence after all. I especially applaud your use of the conditional statement. There's yet hope that your logical circuit is still functional.

The right way to phrase this relationship of worship is that God is entitled to and deserves all acts of worship to be directed to him and no one else does.

You make it sound like worship is a compulsion, is it compulsory to worship?

Islam considers that being good to one's parents is an act of worship. How can this benefit God? The real need for worshipping God is in US humans.

I don't need to worship a god to be good to my parents, so I find no need to worship at all.

Islam doesn’t view ‘spirituality’ separately from everyday activities. In Islam everything is ‘spiritual’ because all actions must be in accordance with God’s pleasure. This view comes from the Islamic creed and the Muslim’s understanding of tawhid (the oneness of God).

The concept of worship in Islam is more inclusive than other religions. It includes all the activities of life not just the familiar acts of worship like prayer, fasting and charity.

Yes, I know what Islam teaches, I just don't accept it as important to my existence.

For example, kind treatment to the neighbours, the wife, friends and work mates is a form of worship if it was done to please God. The list goes on to include many other things like sleeping, feeding your children or even having a sexual intercourse with your spouse. All these are acts of worship in Islam. Other religions are mere personal relations between Man and whatever deity is worshipped. I slam is a whole way of life.

I am capable of all these things without the slightest desire (or need) to please a god. Recalling your own logical statement above, if god wanted me to dedicate these activities to its worship, it could simply have put the desire in me to do so. Without such a compelling desire, it is not clear why I should dedicate my mundane activities to god's pleasure.

Another way of answering this question is to understand that our knowledge is fragmentary and finite, so we will never be able to fathom the totality of God’s wisdom. As previously mentioned, if we comprehended all of God’s wisdom, it would mean we would become Gods or that God would be like us. Both are impossibilities. Hence, the very fact that there may be no answer to this question indicates the transcendence of God’s knowledge. In summary, He created us to worship Him due to His eternal wisdom, we just cannot comprehend why.

I agree that our knowledge is finite. So, it begs to be known how, with your finite knowledge, you've deduced that a god exists, wants to be worshiped, has selected a 5th century desert Arab to teach the whole world how to worship it, codified these instructions in a book of a particular language (never mind the thousands of other languages in existence), and wants us all to dedicate something as private as our sex lives in worship. Forgive me, but this seems extremely improbable and petty to the extent that I consider your god story a total joke. If this god wants to be known and worshiped, then it should stop hiding behind a 1400 yr old book, simply come out and make its intentions clear in languages we all can understand. This is what I can cope with, not vague speculations about transcendent knowledge that my finite mind "just cannot comprehend".

A practical way of looking at this question is explained in the following illustration. Imagine you were on the edge of a cliff and someone pushed you into the ocean below. This water is infested with sharks. However, the one who pushed you gave you a waterproof map and an oxygen tank to be able to navigate via safe areas in order to reach a beautiful tropical island where you will stay forever in bliss. If you were intelligent, you would use the map and reach the safety of the island. However, being stuck on the question Why did you throw me in here? will probably mean you are eaten by the sharks.

This is not at all practical, nor is it a useful illustration. If I need a map and an oxygen tank to get to this blissful Island, that means the body of shark infested water is vast enough that I will be eaten before I ever get to the Island anyway. Given such vast space, it is impossible to outswim hungry man-eating sharks, nor will a waterproof map and an oxygen tank make for effective defensive tools against them. But yes, you're probably right that I'd desperately try to locate this Island for the lack of other options. Although, in the unlikely event that I make it out alive, I'd still seek revenge against the muthafvcking basterd who pushed me into shark infested water without my consent. Thankfully, life is not a shark infested water and it affords me plenty of options.

For the Muslim, the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions are the map and the oxygen tank. They tell us how to navigate the path of life safely. We have to know, love and obey God, and dedicate all acts of worship to Him alone. Fundamentally we have the choice of harming our own self by ignoring this message, or embracing the love and mercy of God by accepting it.

Oh lawd! I should, at this point, amend my concession, because If I had the Qur'an and prophetic traditions (I imagine you mean ahadith) as my map and oxygen tank to navigate a treacherous sea, I'd most probably just give up before attempting to survive! These documents are either riddled with vague nonsense, contradictions or scientific inaccuracies. In all cases, a combination of at least, two of those! You get it twisted my friend, you bring enormous harm to yourself by embracing the poisonous trash in those documents.

stephenmorris:
AgentOfAllah,such an intelligent agent of a god that doesn't exist.I used to be scared of your moniker before I became irreligious,I pondered in my heart why will a man call himself an agent of Allah,if he is not an Islamic extremist tracking down blasphemers on nairaland.lol

But as time flew and my beliefs evolved,I read more of your posts and I found out that you are a freethinker and atheist.

You really served this so-called genius wisdom,that's if he will choose wisdom.Your responses are legendary.

Lol...An Islamic extremist, I'm not! But I most certainly am tracking down blasphemers on Nairaland. I get along with most of them

iamgenius:
And your parents created their sperm?

Actually, just one of them; my dad, his testicles to be precise, created sperms. The other, as you can imagine, was my mum, whose ovaries manufactured unfertilised eggs, one of which was penetrated by a sneaky little fast swimmer fashioned by the said testicles. That fast swimmer and my mum's nurturing host egg were the precursors to my eventual existence.

Thus far, it appears you're just happy to dwell on this tangential discussion, as long as it helps you evade responding to my rebuttals to your original argument; that is, being created to worship and to be tested by god. So I hope when you're done with this line of questioning, you can redress the absurdities I've highlighted in my original objections to your god argument. I prefer not to answer any more of your questions until you respond to me, as I have generously responded to you.

iamgenius:
Did U create yourself?

This question has nothing to do with the simple points I raised about the paradox of an omniscient god testing their creation or the insecurities of an omnipotent god demanding to be worshiped all the time.

That said, I'll indulge you, so no! I did not create myself. If the credit of my creation should go to anybody, it should be my parents.

iamgenius:
Why do we have brain then? To think brother.

So let's think together

You are even likening humn beings to a computer, machines are only programmed to do specific works unlike human being I can choose to do and undo.

Why do you think humans can "choose" to do and undo any more than self-learning computers can? I see choice as nothing but a useful illusion.

So God test us if we would use our brain to recognise him as the only Supreme God.

I have used my brain, and all it tells me is that such a god as yours doesn't exist!

Whereas He know from the beginning who will worship him and who won't, that is a trial.

If god knows from the beginning, who will/wont worship it, isn't the so-called trial an exercise in futility then? Given this admission of yours that god already knows it all, you especially, must agree with me that choice is therefore, an illusion. For if god, who created you, already knows all your choices, is it possible to surprise this god which an unexpected "choice"? If not, you haven't made any choice, you have just succumbed to the infallible prediction of your creator!

1) On being created to be tested:
There is an inherent paradox in the idea of an omniscient being creating things in order to test them. For to test a thing is to attempt to determine its response to the tweaking of one or more controlled variables. An all-knowing being needs not test anything because they, by definition, already know all.

2) On being created to worship the creator:
I can't think of a more cowardly and simultaneously megalomaniacal thing to do. This just makes your god seem like they're suffering from self-esteem issues.
I don't know what you will make of a very intelligent person who creates a self-learning computer for the sole purpose of coming up with new ways to worship and adulate them, for the whole of the computer's existence. I know that I wouldn't think much of that person's intelligence. So how do you want me to accept this from a god that is infinitely more intelligent, presumably, than the most intelligent human?

I hope this op can appreciate the principles behind my rejection of their god. It has more to do with the senselessness of being created to worship and/or be tested by an omniscient being, than it has to do with the said contradiction between the presumed purposes of my creation.