Look, Rational Faith, I'm not even an atheist, but I'm going to suggest you stop embarrasing yourself and everyone else who suspects there might be something beyond the material world with blanket and patently indefensible assertions about how things had to happen.  All you're going to get is requests that you back up any of your assertions, and you can't back up any of the ones you've made so far save maybe one.  And that one, "Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place." is something most of the atheists around here agree about.  As biologists have demonstrated again and again, life didn't just "fall into place" but is the result of a natural process that is anything but accidental.

You say that the earth could not have existed long enough for life to have developed by natural processes.  Okay, what's the time limit on how long the earth could have existed?  There actually is one, but without the benefit of science you have no idea what that limit is.  You have no way of saying whether life could have evolved in the time we have.

I think there may have been an intelligent force that designed the universe, but I have no proof for it so I don't go around telling people that it must be true.  I could be wrong.  I've been wrong about a lot of stuff. 

Here's what you need to do:  educate yourself about science so you won't just be a target for ridicule.  I'm going to suggest you start with a book by a devout fundamentalist Christian who nevertheless has somehting intelligent to say about science because he's a genuine scientist as well.  Try Francis Collins's The Language of God.  Granted, many of the people on this board will be happy to tell you all the flaws in Collins's book, but at least he has a reason to believe as he does. 

But before you come into a battleground like this, you ought to arm yourself with a little knowledge.  Read the other side.  Read Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.  Go from there.

I disagree with the idea that you ought to have a published thesis before you can make assertions about the existence of God,but I think you ought to have a little more than broad unsubstantiated statements unsupported by even a scintilla of research or thought.  Sorry to be so hard on you, but your post came up when I logged on with the good intention of carrying on a serious or at least a silly discussin with these atheists and I have to start off reading this ill-informed and highly unpersuasive post.  If you're a Christian (and I'm not assuming you are--athiests often assume I'm a Christian) seeking to fulfill the grand commission by sitting on your ass in front of your computer and spouting inanities, think again.  If you're a Pagan, for the gods' sake stop embarrassing me.

Thandarr 

StMichael, I haven't responded to any of your threads yet for the simple reason that I haven't made it through most of them.  The sheer volume of words you use to convey simple ideas is a deterrent.  I don't want you to take that the wrong way.  It's just that you do sometimes go through New Jersey to get to Oregon from California.  I appreciate the concise nature of your previous post.

Anyway, your arguments seem to boil down to these statements:

Faith is a type of knowledge whereby we accept certain truths according to a higher authority

 Demonstrably incorrect.  It is, however, necessary to believe in a deity.  Every single piece of knowledge  comes from some natural occurence in the universe.  Even "revelation" necessarily is a natural experience.  If I hear a voice in my head, that's evidence.  (Just not scientific!)  There's no faith involved, just bad logic that goes like this:

1) I have X evidence that is not scientific or falsifiable.

2) X points to Z, which is not rational

3) Therefore, Z exists, even though it's irrational.

 The second point I find is this:

I would argue that, as things in the world, though unintelligent (such as rocks, stones, trees, chipmunks, gasses) act in such a manner as to achieve an end, it would seem that a higher intelligence directs the natural world.

 This argument rests on several baseless presumptions:

1) the world was made for humans.

2) there is an "end" to the process of evolution.

3) there is such a thing as a "best good."

In order to believe the world was made for humans, you have to believe in god, so you can't use 1) as a proof of god.  It's an ad hoc argument in addition to being circular.

The current theory of evolution has only one determining factor: survival.  The species that are alive at this time are here because they survived.  That's the only "end" that we can observe scientifically.

Even the words, "best good," beg the question, "Best good for whom?"  If you answer humanity, you have to refer back to (1) which, as I demonstrated, cannot be used to support god belief.

 The fact that life exists only proves that conditions were such that life could exist, not that life is, in and of itself, a goal.  The only way to make life a "goal" is to presuppose god and create another circle.

No need to apologize.  Just information, and maybe a hint that you could condense some of your answers without losing the substance.  I'm a particular fan of Occam's Razor.

As to your responses to my faith/reason statements:

Paragraph one presupposes the existence of faith as a means of acquiring knowledge, and can't be used as justification for faith being valid.

Second, the reason that falsifiability and science are the only standards is that they are the only physical extension of logic, which is the description of the process by which we connect with the physical universe.   If you substitute anything other than a religious tenet in your statement, it becomes obviously ridiculous:

 In other words, I cannot arrive at any knowledge of whether or not the "abduction by aliens" is true by natural reason.

Ok, then since you can't prove the abduction by aliens, my only choice is not to believe it happened, right?  The person who believes they got an anal probe on the flying saucer is delusional.

 Third, how could Christians possibly reject that "X leads to Z" when X is an "article of faith" that proves to them that "God exists?"

Fourth, this paragraph is just nonsense.  It basically says, "Everything is totally natural, unless it's supernatural, in which case, it proves the existence of the supernatural."  Duh.

I should clarify my statement about presupposing the world to be made for humans.  Theological arguments necessarily assume that humans have a special position in the universe.  If we weren't special, why would god have singled us out for his divine plan?  This is circular:

"We know that god exists because we're special in the universe.  We know we're special because god singled us out.  We can see that he did this by noting the fact that we exist now, and in order for us to exist, we must be special to god."

 In response to (2), evolution has an end, even if temporary, which is the 'function' that evolves.

Having an end presupposes intelligence, and creates yet another circle.  A natural process is just that.  You can no more say that evolution has a goal than you can say that Haley's Comet has a goal.  If you do, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate intelligence behind evolution.  Since evolution is very well explained as a natural process needing no intellect, this argument falls flat.

I believe it is clear, on a different level, that a perfect or best good exists because we can speak of something being 'better' than another (this can lead to a seperate proof for God's existence ),

This again presupposes a special place for humans.  It's fine to talk about better or best, but it always has a limit based on the question "better or best for what or whom based on what?"

 I do not see how the fact that life is a goal in itself would presuppose God.

A goal requires an intellect.  Rocks do not have goals unless they are being assigned one by an intellect.  "Life," meaning all life, cannot be demonstrated to have an intellect capable of assigning itself a goal.   Therefore, it is a presupposition to assign it an end.  Life simply is.

How about you learn something about logic.

The burden of proof always lies on the claimant.  You don't owe me a proof for the non-existence of leprechauns, nor do any of us owe you a proof for the non-existence of god.

i'm sorry if i'm being ignorant of this, but it is simply too late for me to delve into deeper threads in this forum

but why cannot matter be created? If i recall (and please correct me if i am wrong for saying this) Nuclear chemistry has defied the law of matter in saying that matter cannot be created nor destroyed in any process; (i apologize in advance if this post does not make sense) 

Not another one expecting us to prove God doesn't exist!

In response, even if we assume matter was never created and existed from eternity, we would still have to posit a cause of the existence of matter that would be necessary per se. Second, matter could argued to be scientifically shown to be created if we assume that physics is correct in Big Bang theory. 

In response to Sapient,

I have been proving the existence of God, and have offered one proof for His existence. I could offer more, but I think this particular debate would profit from carefully examining one argument and concentrating our attention therein before moving on.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

In all honesty that statement regarding immaturity wasn't backing up theists at all, I was just pointing out that comment wasn't needed in this thread, not because it was making fun of God, but the fact that its off topic, just as my immaturity comment wasn't needed, for that I apologize

Atoms aren't continuous in motion, someone had to set it in motion, otherwise atoms would be stagnant

It was specifically addressing how the topic title itself is flawed, it doesn't get any more on topic than that.

You're right, apology accepted.

What Peer Reviewed essay or piblication do you have, or published article by the National Academy of Sciences do you possess with which you can back up your claim that Processes require a creator?  We eagerly await your reply.

 Right... *Eyes roll out of head*

So if I roll 616 pairs of dice and they all come up as 5, god had his hand in it?

If we didn't exist would that mean god doesn't exist? 

question sir

If Supercomputers are so complex, then why build complex systems that are flawed? (considering computers crash every so often)

You are thinking for a human standpoint, not a supernatural standpoint (and i can't speak for the supernatural cause well... i'm not lol); Let me put it like this from my perspective

Those kids in third world countries dying of malaria is the result of the human nature (i.e. wars, etc.)

Answer:

Because we are imperfect and create things that are imperfect.

God by definition is perfect, therefore all things that come from him MUST be perfect.  Perfection can not create imperfection, otherwise this thing ceases to be perfect.  Likewise, an imperfect thing cannot create perfection.  You're either perfect or you're not, there is no gray area here.

 Wait...you're saying we have to look at it from a supernatural standpoint, but nobody that has lived has been supernatural, so how can anybody claim to know what that supernatural standpoint even is, or even if it exists?!  What would you say if I said there is a Purple Snarfwidget Standpoint™?  Would you take me seriously?  What if I told you I knew it existed, but nobody that has ever lived has verified the standpoint.  Would you still take me seriously? 

I would hope not.  Not even if I believed it as much as you believe in your unknown, thusfar unproven, and thusfar non-existant standpoint.  Belief does not prove anything.  Just as opinions cannot be held as evidence unless given evidence is presented to prove that opinion.  You have not done this.  In fact I have repeated asked for evidence in this thread.  I have asked you directly for it.  You ignored me.  So how can anybody here take your claims seriously?

But all the good stuff that happens is the work of God?  I hope this isn't your case, it's rather flawed.

Lets say it's not, you still don't want to play this hand.  You say it's human nature...okay, who created nature?  Beyond that, who created disease?

Further, how is HUMAN nature responsible for diseases we didn't create?!  Again, I'd like Peer Reviewed evidence here.  I demand it, in fact.

I'm still waiting for your other naked assertions to be backed by Peer Reviewed papers, and published articles by some of the top scientists.  Chop chop this is now the second time I've asked you.