Including the universe being created by a demiurge, or by a
non-cognizent force, or being a side-effect of ongoing processes in
other dimensions.

God is my answer, and is more believable than your demurg.

Why? Explain your answer's believability without resorting to appeals
to its desirability.

That you crave a loving deity is no argument for
the existence of one.

You started out saying your answer was as good,
now suddenly you say its better. Why is it better?

The human mind cannot cope with the idea that all things lack a
beginning, and clearly neither matter nor energy on their own, the
basic building blocks of the universe, could either exist in and of
itself, or in and of its own intelligence.

Your evidence for this is?

You explain "no starting point".

You haven't demonstrated a need for one.

You resort to a deity with no
starting point, why can't I appeal to a universe without one?

You tell
us "the human mind cannot cope with the idea that all things lack a
beginning", then procede to offer us just such a proposition, namely
an eternal deity. In debate that's called Special Pleading. "Everybody
must submit to this rule-- except me".

The profession by believers is that our universe is a creation of
almighty God who is truly acknowledged as "always was, is, and always
will be". No alternative is available.

No. Philosophers agree that an uncaused cause is possible but not
necessary. In other words there may or may not be one.

All things except God have a beginning.

Undemonstrated and undemonstrable.

2. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
"design with purpose".

On the contrary, it reflects a design by chance. Why do men have
nipples? Why, if you were intended by a designer to be a biped with a
vertical spine, are your entrails attached to that spine like those of
a quadruped? Why were you designed to have to construct insulation
from cold and protection from the sun by makung clothing, instead of
being given appropriate fur?

Men have nipples so they can jumpstart a woman. But that aside, God created
man in his own image,

If triangles had gods...

but man decided to be a god himself, failed at it, got
kicked out the garden, and here we are today.

Mesopotamian fable and myth...

What we are today is the failure of man at being a god.

No, what you are today is what's evolved.
Are God's guts attached to his spine?

It consists of a central computer (brain) [...]

All easily explainable by pointing to evolution as the designer.

Just as explainable by pointing to a banana as the designer. Sorry, not an
answer.

You are an ignoramus if you think that. A scientific illiterate.

Consider the matter of vitamin C for instance. If you are cut off from
sources of vitamin C like fresh citrus fruits, you will become very
ill with a disease called scurvy. Other species don't have this
problem, their bodies can make their own vitamin C. Ours can't.

Will you dismiss this fact with a wave of the hands and the assertion
that "What we are today is the failure of man at being a god"? OK,
then tell me what apes did to so offend God, because they share the
same deficiency. They can't make vitamin C for themselves either.

Or could it be that we share a common ancestor, and our deficiency is
an inherited artifact of evolution like the suspension system of our
entrails?

3. The conception equation contained in animal forms is divided 50%
in the male and 50% in the female. We only mix the chemicals. Of special
interest is the fact that the male and female organs are of complimentary shape
in mammals. These two facts are especially conducive to support planned
design.

Lots of species get along fine without those accessories.

God's design.

Evolution's design.

4. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:

Least and greatest in whose opinion?

Biology.

No, man's conceit.
Man is creation's masterpiece; but who says so?- Man!

One level upward, the plant (simple life)

Some plants are quite complex.

Not one knows what it's doing.

Or needs to.

does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so.

Or the need.

Because it doesn't have the faculties to do so.

Or the need.

Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.
What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?

Quite likely. Just not on this planet.

Daydreaming. You can only see man to relate to.

A higher level of intelligence on other planets is daydreaming,
but supernatural creating entities aren't?

As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence.

We knowlingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man.

Yet we are surrounded by babbling preachers who insist they can do
just that!

They can't.

Then shut up and quit telling me all about a deity you can't possibly
comprehend.

Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't.
By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.

OK. Then by the same logic, there must be at least one level above
that, and another beyond that, and where do you stop?

Perfection, which may be one level up, or many.

Perfection is subjective, a matter of opinion.

God may be perfect in one person's opinion but not another's.

We don't know, but we can use
the highest level of reasoning and logic available, the version in mankind, to
aspire, to dream, to take what we see, touch, smell, hear, and taste to
ascertain the existance of something greater than us.

Then don't special plead. If the requirement for a superior
intelligence is necessary, then it's necessary ad infinitum.
If it isn't then it isn't. You don't get to truncate the argument at
a level that suits you.

You think you're so special because your species evolved a larger
brain, upright locomotion and an opposable thumb? Lots of species have
evolved those things.

We are only different in that we evolved all
three in rapid sucession.

And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.

And we can subjectively conclude that, logically speaking, some level
should exist higher than that, and still higher and still higher...

Not past perfection.

Whose definition of perfection?

You sound to me like those addle-pated
prelates who, after finally getting it through their thick heads that
Galileo was right and the earth does orbit the sun, supposed that the
earth's orbit must be circular. After all, it is God's perfect
handiwork, and a circle is more perfect than an ellipse isn't it?

As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that higher
level, but in no way does this negate its existence.

Nor prove it.

Exactly my point. But logic and reasoning, only possessed by mankind,

Nonsense!

begins to reveal the existance of perfection - almighty God.

Conceitedly supposes that God must correspond to his concept of
perfection is more like it!

If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the pinnacle
of life, the top -

In man's opinion.

Even your plant will agree with you.

Some plants would, some would not, depending on what man has done to
them.

How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*.

Non-sequitur.

Reason and logic.

Let's see it.

It is reasonable and logical to suppose that your idea of perfection
represents the pinnacle, the very top level of accomplishment which
the Universal Creator can achieve because _______________
Fill in the blank please.

Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the top
is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.

So is the assumption that superior intellect and unbridled power
proves you are at the top of anything but the food chain. In what way
do you consider yourself superior to say, an amoeba?

In terms of the capacity to apply reason and logic, yes.

How did that become the standard? What makes the capacity to apply
reason and logic the yardstick by which superiority is measured?

Do
you kneel before those who have a higher IQ than you do and
acknowledge them your superior in all things?

So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.

So does a demiurge. Maybe the God of the Bible is such a demiurge.
Have you considered that?

There are equal alternatives. Find one *better* than Almighty God.

His creator, who by the same logic you want me to hew to, must exist.

Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.

Such dreaming doesn't stop at that level however. It procedes
relentlessly from dream to belief to conviction to fanaticism to
mania. It incites intolerance, hatred and jihad. We have names for
such dreams-- Judaism, Islam, Christianity...

All three profess belief in the same and only almighty God.

And all have incited intolerance, hatred and jihad.
The latest round has just started, see your daily paper for details.

Like most who argue philosophically for the existence of a deity, you
have failed to bridge the gap between the reasonable concept of a
creator and the unreasonable concept of a creator such as the one you
believe in.

Wrong. I have bridged the gap between the likely concept of my creator, called
God Almighty (or even Howard if you wish), and an unreasonable joke such as
zeus, who never so much as lifted a finger.

Nope. Neither your YHWH nor Zeus can be demonstrated to have ever done
a damn thing.

We have faith in the existance of what we cannot prove, and thus ascertain the
existance of God almighty.

Imagine the existance of God almighty.

And as his creation, we can use our human powers of
logic and reason to view that which we experience in sight, sound, taste, touch,
and smell to conclude that a supreme creator surely exists.

You haven't done so yet. Demonstrate please.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:08:48 -0800, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:

*****
Evidence of God - duke32, circa 2002AD
1. The belief that a supreme being is the creator of the universe is
based on a profession by those that believe that is equal to, but no
less than, any profession that our universe exists for any other
alternative reason that can be imagined.

Including the universe being created by a demiurge, or by a
non-cognizent force, or being a side-effect of ongoing processes in
other dimensions.

God is my answer, and is more believable than your demurg.

The human mind cannot cope with the idea that all things lack a
beginning, and clearly neither matter nor energy on their own, the
basic building blocks of the universe, could either exist in and of
itself, or in and of its own intelligence.

Your evidence for this is?

You explain "no starting point".

The profession by believers is that our universe is a creation of
almighty God who is truly acknowledged as "always was, is, and always
will be". No alternative is available.

No. Philosophers agree that an uncaused cause is possible but not
necessary. In other words there may or may not be one.

All things except God have a beginning.

2. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
"design with purpose".

On the contrary, it reflects a design by chance. Why do men have
nipples? Why, if you were intended by a designer to be a biped with a
vertical spine, are your entrails attached to that spine like those of
a quadruped? Why were you designed to have to construct insulation
from cold and protection from the sun by makung clothing, instead of
being given appropriate fur?

Men have nipples so they can jumpstart a woman. But that aside, God created
man in his own image, but man decided to be a god himself, failed at it, got
kicked out the garden, and here we are today. What we are today is the failure
of man at being a god.