You haven't answered the question.

Second, you are making appeals to emotion. Third, you are making the same [s]argument [/s] appeal gain.
[/quote]

The whole debate is about emotion and the emotional connection people have with another entity. How can you not involve emotions when you are talking about a person's relationship with another entity? My questions are perfectly valid because as far as I'm concerned they are the exact points that all of you are making.

I don't understand why all of you have such a big problem with asking that you be tolerant of people's beliefs.

[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]Epic logic fail =P[/font][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]

* Hey here's why it's irrational to believe in a god without evidence
* I agree! But it's okay because I have evidence
* What's your evidence?
* I'm not trying to convert anyone!
* Fine.. but what's your evidence?
* I'm not trying to convert anyone!![/font]

If you accept, based on everyday observation and common sense, that everything that happens has a cause that comes before it, and that cause defines how and when it will happen, you should accept that the universe, as a physical entity, has a cause. How is that irrational. Please explain.

Furthermore, you see that the universe has order and is not chaotic, as it could be.

If I walk on a deserted island and find a scribble on the sand, I assume that that scribble was made by someone, even if I have not seen that person with my own eyes, instead of assuming that the scribble was made by random movements of the sand for thousands of years, even though the latter is also possible and does not need the introduction of a new undetected entity, but relies only on elements already detected(sand,water,wind,rocks).

So, since I observe that this universe has specific laws and is understandable by mathematics, I logically assume that someone with a mathematical mind set those laws.

You on, the other hand, assume that it's just the way it is and always was. Evidence, in that regard, points to both directions.

Tell me, why am I not irrational when I see the scribble on the sand and assume someone made it, but I am irrational when I assume that the specific laws of nature of the specific universe was a result of some entity with intelligence? Explain the difference.

If you accept, based on everyday observation of, well, everything around us and common sense, that everything that happens has a cause that comes before it, and that cause defines how and when it will happen, otherwise that event/thing has no reason to emerge and no initial conditions to define how it will progress, you should accept that the universe, as a physical entity, has such a cause.

• Everyday observation would exclude quantum mechanics and relativity. Don't pretend you understand the universe. The birth of the universe is a mystery, and will remain so.
• The cliché rebuttal: assuming the universe has been created, who created the creator? If he has any magic property ("physicality"?) that frees him from having to be created, why can't the universe have that property?
• Assuming there is indeed a creator, you know still absolutely nothing about him. Maybe Russell's teapot did it. Maybe the creator is dead. Maybe I am the creator.

So, since I observe that this universe has specific laws and is understandable by mathematics, and since mathematics can be argued that have only meaning in relation to a mind that understands them(nobody on Earth was doing math before man; not consciously) I very logically assume that someone with a mathematical mind set those laws. You on, the other hand, assume that it's just the way it is and always was. Evidence, in that regard, points to both directions. Tell me, why am I not irrational when I see the scribble on the sand and assume someone made it, but I am irrational when I assume that the specific laws of nature of the specific universe was a result of some entity with intelligence? Explain the difference. [/quote]

Wouldn't any universe that obeyed a set of rules be describable by mathematics?

The only "surprising" thing about our universe is that it provides building blocks that allow something to develop which is intelligent enough to describe its environment. Different laws generally do not allow something as complex as us to exist. But even that can be explained. You just don't like the explanation. That's your right, there's nothing rational about choosing the one over the other. But it is definitely irrational to extrapolate from "we exist" to the whole lot of christianity stories.

Using logic, I would say this whole thing is undecidable. There definitely either is a god, or no god, but which one of those propositions is true cannot be determined. It is IMO irrational to actually pick one as being the truth, as it is picked for personal (psychological) reasons. This is true for both believers and atheists.

Using logic, I would say this whole thing is undecidable. There definitely either is a god, or no god, but which one of those propositions is true cannot be determined. It is IMO irrational to actually pick one as being the truth, as it is picked for personal (psychological) reasons. This is true for both believers and atheists.

How you ever seen anyone/thing setting laws?

Yeah. Me, when I program.
[/quote]
It is certainly possible that the universe is just a program running on some divine machine. But this is one of just an infinite amount of possible explanations.


But even if this is so, maybe our universe was created as follows:

allPrograms = [] : [ n : ns | ns <- allPrograms, n <- [0, 1] ]
map execute allProgramsAssuming our universe can indeed be simulated on a machine, then this program, which runs all possible universes in parallel (among other things, there's also a "Hello world" in there) actually runs our own universe. Many of the universes will have us type these messages, but only a fraction of them will actually contain the events as described by the bible. How do you know you're in one of them? Yet, still, all those universes are just running on a machine, with a creator that doesn't care (i.e. me). I hope you notice the absurdity of asking questions on this level. Anything goes.