Queer,
I appreciate the thought and effort you put into your arguments against belief in God, but at the same time I have to say that most of what you said while it might seem plausible, in fact was not based on anything that could be proved scientifically. Evolution, ET, chance and the rest of it are fine as theories but in reality until they can be tested and proved beyond doubt then it is just conjecture, and thus unscientific, except from a research point of view.
You said, in relation to my last reply to your thread:
“Sorry, but i didn’t understand the last part of Ur essay about limitedness and dependence of everything known to us proving that God exists.”
It’s not hard to understand but perhaps the explanation was a bit sketchy. Here’s a more detailed example of limitedness and dependence.
To solve the question of man, life and universe let us start by observing what we know in certainty about these three. All of the previous information we have of these three, tells us that they have certain similarities and unchanging rules. Man, life and universe are limited, indeed all we can perceive is limited. What we mean by limited is that it all has a starting point and an end point, and is not unlimited and infinite.
We can see that man is born and dies, and man cannot grow beyond a certain size in height and weight. All of life is similarly limited, and the earth, moon and stars likewise have a starting and end point. The life of a star or galaxy may be a very long period of time, but they are definitely limited in that they all have a starting and ending. The universe is a very large place but it is a finite space, and is not unlimited. No scientist has been able to bring a definite evidence that suggests the universe has no limits. So to suggest that it is infinite means we are going beyond the bounds of what we can rationally asses. Such a thought requires us to challenge ourselves to find any example in our world of perception that is unlimited, no matter how hard we search we cannot find such an example. All we can perceive is limited, finite.
A second attribute of man, life and universe is that all of these are needy and dependant. Needy in that to exist, they must have assistance from something else, they are not self sustaining. Man needs food and water to survive. Plants and animals similarly are dependant on a water cycle which in turn is dependant on the sun, which is dependant upon the relationship with the galaxies, and burning mass. Nothing that we can perceive can survive independent of other things, there is nothing in our perception that is self-subsistent. So things exist but do not have the power of existence.
The fact that is inextricably interwoven with these facts of being limited, finite, dependant, and needy is that ultimately there has to be a Creator or initiator for it all. The sum of all finite and dependant things is something which is finite and dependant, dependant on what ? Dependant on something to start, and sustain life, and something to plan and develop the complex interrelationship between all living things. We see things that exist without any difficulty or question, but nothing exists of its own nature as independent and in complete control of its own creation, or able to sustain itself. There can only be one solution to the question of Creation, that an unlimited Creator has accounted for all we see and perceive. Anything that is finite must have been created, otherwise it would not have come into existence. All limited things depend on something for their sustenance. There can be no doubts over these points, challenge yourself to bring any example, all limited and dependant things are created.
A second way of looking at this argument shows that if we contemplate about all we perceive as being limited and dependant we can only explain it in two ways; either;
All we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which inturn depends on still another thing, ad infinitum, or
All we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and that is accordingly eternal, unlimited.
The first alternative is false because it does not provide an explanation of how anything came into existence to begin with, it simply puts of giving reason, or from whence they cane, it is therefore illogical, incomplete and without an answer for us. Therefore we deduce that all limited and dependant things depend upon something that exists by its own nature. The arguments start when a description or perception of a creator is desired.
When we contemplate upon the Creator, we deduce that it can only be either of three things; Created by something else, Creator and created at one and the same time, or eternal self-subsisting. To be created means that it is limited and therefore part of the creation and therefore not the ultimate creator. It is absurd that something can be creating itself and exist at the same time. Therefore the Creator can only be eternal and not dependant on anything in any time or space. This attribute of eternity, or of infinity cannot be fully perceived by us, man is limited and cannot perceive everything. If we hear a knock at the door, we have a strong feeling that there is someone behind the door, but we do not know who, we can only speculate. To speculate upon the essence or description of the Creator is not necessary, and can only be unproductive. We are concerned to prove the existence of a Creator, rather than speculate upon that Creator detailed description which is in any event beyond us.
The desire for greater understanding of something so important in our lives is only natural. To gain greater understanding of something we cannot perceive, and we cannot perceive something that is infinite and totally independent, requires that we seek verifiable data from that creator. To peculate about the Creator can only lead to misery and error as the unknown cannot be deduced by our limited minds.
Sorry about the length of this piece but I thought a comprehensive explanation was the best solution.