On The Existence Of God

[John Stuart Mill]

This topic, hopefully, will contain arguments on the existence of a deity.



This is rough semblance of my ideas concerning religion. Please excuse any grammar or spelling errors as I wrote this rather quickly.



Commentaries on Religion



I will here attempt the impossible, a document that will embody my heresy. This shall contain my various musings regarding religion. Those of you with faith unwavering should drop this article. It is intended for the millions who are wavering, or unhappy with their religion. To have insurmountable faith can only lead to suffering. In that light, I apologize to those who refuse to acknowledge doubt.



Three Arguments for God

The moral argument for god is as follows; god gave us the ability to discern between good and evil. It is fairly easily demonstrated that good and evil are somewhat subjective. In Assyria people believed that killing the entire population of an enemy town was good. The Greeks thought homosexuality was perfectly expectable, and the Arians (of India not Nazis) believed war was wonderful. Part of morality is imbedded in our instinct to aid survival, but beyond that it forms from environmental influences.

The first cause argument presents man with the same problem they began with. As John Stuart Mill wrote, "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the farther question 'Who made God?'" The Christians have recently countered by saying god extends infinitely through time. There is no mention of this in the bible. In any case, it is just as likely a natural system has been in existence forever.

The argument that this is the best of possible worlds is unsound. When an omnipotent god could eliminate disease, pain, and all other ailments of mankind. Why would a demonstrative god create bacteria and viruses? One must consider that this is all we know. A monster surviving on chlorine gas would likely arrive at the same conclusion.

Not that I wish to sound morbid but what if anything is the expression of gods compassion for mankind. For instance, what would be the purpose of skin eating fungus, horrible viruses and bacteria? If it was his goal to limit the populace he merely could decrease our reproductive cycle in accordance with our population. If god cannot or will not physically hug or interact with us what definition of love does he fill?


Logic

Many argue that religion is the best choice offered to humanity. Which one shepherds us to our salvation? There are perhaps thousands of dogmas most of which contradict one another; logically only one could be correct. People choose based on their environment, with little concern for what is right. I find the Greek gods as plausible as the Christian deity; both are highly improbable, but possible.

Often believers assert that there is no reason not to believe in god. Have I gambled and lost? This proves interesting when one examines the argument. Pascal was one of the earliest to propose such a reason for belief. In his wager he states one should believe in god as a form of insurance. An Omnipotent god surly will not notice the insincerity. It also assumes there are no other real forms of faith. I mean that it entails the Christian version of heaven and hell, and the belief in a single god. There have been religions that believe everyone goes to hell or a single location. Conceivably god could send only non-believers to heaven for their free spirit. The logical reasons for that belief would match Pascal's.

An omnipotent God may well be logically inconsistent. If God is omnipotent he is omniscient as well. An omniscient being would predetermine who went to haven or hell. What rational would he use to create us with the conclusion forgone? Why would a demonstrative god condemn man to such a fate? Perhaps, in his omnipotence he could give free will, but his omniscience would preclude it. Even suspending his omniscience would not prevent people's actions from being determined by God. He would merely be "playing dice with the universe."

Time is an odd conundrum for some religions. If they were the "true" religion, shouldn't they have been first. Did god send billions to purgatory for ignorance? It is indefensible to say that one church has always existed.


Jesus

There is a tale in the bible concerning a fig tree that I find quite odd. In the off-season Jesus believed a fig tree bore fruit when proven otherwise he cursed it. Paul than responded with "Master behold the tree thou cursedst has withered away." (Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell on God and Religion, 1986). Why would Jesus find it necessary to kill a fig tree when the mistake was his? Of course it was exceptionally kind of him to put devils into pigs and force them down a hill to the sea, in the Gadarene Swine. If you take these metaphorically then you could invalidate everything concerning his exploits in the bible. If one example is admitted to be wrong then who is to say that the rest is an accurate history.

The evidence for Jesus is rather unsubstantial. There are no Roman records of him, and no mention of an execution concerning anyone fitting his description. From Roman texts we can find information on notorious cereal killers, but surprisingly not Jesus. If he was truly so famous wouldn't the Roman's mention him?



Life Beyond Death

One would suppose that there was a logical reason for belief in an afterlife. The reality unfortunately is far removed from that comfortable parable. This begins to ring true after considering several facts. What can a person perceive before they are born? The answer to that simple question should be obvious to any. There is no reason to believe that your consciousness will survive when your body decays. Without your mind functioning you can perceive nothing; I do not see why this still will not hold true to death. How and when is an immortal soul instilled in a newborn? Why has God not provided the Christians with an answer? Another compelling example of why our consciousness does not survive death becomes evident when we view individuals with brain damage. If there is a component beyond the brain that houses our memory why is it inhibited by damage? Many instances exist of virtuous men being rendered vile through injury. If we contained within us some greater essence this would not occur. A prominent reason for belief in the afterlife is near-death experiences. These hold evidence that only serves to contradict their assertions. In a last ditch attempt to restart the body all neurons fire before death, which shows its effectiveness by the many survivors.



Pagan Parallel

Pagans and Christianity seem to go hand in. Their similarities are numerous, and are seldom discussed for obvious reasons.

Take for example a mythic flood reproduced. The Greeks have a tail concerning a flood shockingly similar to Noah's ark. After Agamemnon's distasteful treatment of Zeus (fed him human flesh) he decided to wash the world of all evil. His flood killed all but two saved by Prometheus. They then created the beginnings of humanity from stone. This seems to be an amalgamation of Adam, Eve and the flood.

The Holy Ghost, Holy Father and son, are the being known as god. This is a blatant attempt to woo pagans. Why would an omnipotent being need to be split into many parts? If it were all-powerful it would not need such distinctions. If you would like to read more on this subject the Unitarians make a fine point.


Faith

For my purposes faith constitutes a belief in something without factual evidence. This in its vary essence denies it rationality. All those who wish to legitimize faith do so in vain.

Most organized religions show definite signs of fear. If they were the only truth what would they have to fear? The pain caused by religions is unimaginable; through the crusades and inquisitions they preformed atrocious acts of violence. Imagine the innocent women killed in the ignorance of witch-hunts. For Ignorance and faith go hand in hand. If you are the only one who is write you must reject all deductions contrary to your belief even if they are grounded in fact. They therefore must be afraid of ideas that could potentially usurp their ideology. That is derived from the belief that anything that challenges their faith is the work of Satin. Christians as a general rule have a great deal of fear in anything relating to Satin. Faith causes fear and fear causes faith and the mistress of fear is cruelty.



Harm Inflicted

The rejection of science though never puzzling has drastically affected humanity for the worse. The steadfast rejection of such theories as evolution has curtailed our understanding of life. Religions adverse reaction to science was one of the causes of the dark ages. An example of this prejudice is Bertrand Russell court case where he was removed from teaching for writing in the judge's words "books that are immoral and full of rubbish."


Reasons Behind Belief

People are desperate for a purpose. They will attach themselves to a multitude of fallacious causes. Being a social animal it is our instinct to desire usefulness. It is a cruel twist of fate that this desire causes so much futile behavior.

Is it not everyone's dream to live forever? For some it is illustrated in a quest for an heir, for others in religion. Our frontal lobe gives us the unique ability to see that we will die. It was inevitable that at some point in our evolution religion was necessary to keep order. Imagine keeping order in a society that knows death without understanding.


Egocentric Behavior

The majority of religions also have an extraordinarily egocentric view of the world. They all share a belief of unquestioning supremacy. This intrinsic trait unfortunately leads to beliefs that relegate others to the status of heathens and heretics. The exception to most of these basic rules of organized religion is Buddhism. They search for an inner truth and peace. Though in no way does it point to them being the true religion. In reality this focus on the enlightenment of the self only keeps them from fearing other nonbelievers. It also encourages helpful behavior to the community because in doing this they are helping themselves reach nirvana. In a religion of one who needs followers? Their egocentricities just come out in a more productive fashion.


Atheists/Agnostics in History

This is merely to show that atheists and agnostics are not terribly uncommon. In fact they are found among some of the most learned circles. Some of these notable people are Bertrand Russell, Darwin, George Orwell, Marie Curie, Einstein, H.G. Wells, Sigmund Freud, Hemingway, Voltaire, Samuel Clemens, John Lennon, and Matt Groening. Leaders of the secular American Revolution such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Pain, Benjamin Franklin, and others were against religious dogma. The Founding fathers would have been dismayed by the increasing connection of faith and patriotism. I implore you not to be swayed by mere numbers but by what they represent.


Meaning

Some have questioned the rationale for an unbeliever's life, but perhaps they should look at the reason in their life. I look at life in this manner. I enjoy life conversing, arguing, friends etc.; why would I diminish that time when I'm so amused. Even when I understand that the interaction between my memories and instincts determine everything I do. So what if chemicals released in my brain creates pleasure and pain, for in the end why not choose pleasure.

Why do we die? Is that not the question being asked by billions of believers? It is fairly easily explained, though I may be wrong. Organisms developed a death clock, as a matter of phrase, because they would over compete. The colonies with this mutation would survive and propagate within the limits of its food source.


Summary Statements

The essence of blind belief is lack of knowledge; perhaps with these questions they can begin to learn. If people would open their minds to various approaches, that would be a victory in itself.

Edited May 15, 2007 by John Stuart Mill

[AKammenzind]

"The Holy Ghost, Holy Father and son, are the being known as god. This is a blatant attempt to woo pagans. Why would an omnipotent being need to be split into many parts? If it were all-powerful it would not need such distinctions."

I do not think that it is at all an attempt to woo pagans, considering the church's long-held stance on "wooing(sp?)" them has been forced conversion and inquisitions.

It wasn't always the case as with father son and holy spirit. That only developed after quite some time (The council of Nicaea) and in that context it seems more of how the church thinks that humans should understand god.

If one is to make an arguement against god, it should not be one so related to the church (which is, after all, a human invention.)

I shall quote Epicurus.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

Try as I might I cannot find a riddle which better explains the god problem, and also have yet to find a believer who could answer in any way other than to say "God isn't malevolent, he just works in mysterious ways!" which is, in my eyes, a laughable non-arguement.

[insidius]

'Proving' "god" exists defeats the purpose of faith.

Organized religion, while I do not agree with it (I am spiritual and believe that communion with god is a more individual, personal thing) is not inherently wrong or flawed, man makes it so.

Most arguments I've seen against religion are more accurately against the flaws of man, not the 'flaws of god' or the flaws of religion. Fanatics and radicals are a good example of this.

[John Stuart Mill]

I’m assuming you have not heard of the Arian contoversy (yet another group with the title Arian). In any case, they refused to believe in the holy trinity for exactly the reason I stated. The conference at Nicaea was held during the reign of Constantine (the first Christian emperor) the vast majority of Rome was still pagan. They wanted some means of attracting the masses.

[insidius]

"The Holy Ghost, Holy Father and son, are the being known as god. This is a blatant attempt to woo pagans. Why would an omnipotent being need to be split into many parts? If it were all-powerful it would not need such distinctions."

If you really want to learn more about where the trinity comes from, I would recommend studying the Qabalah, the Tetragrammaton, and the Torah. The Qabalah and the Tetragrammatic Forumula in particular, then the Torah if you're so inclined. The Qabalah is a sort of key to the puzzle that is the Bible (Torah).

Read "The Mystical Qabalah" by Dion Fortune, "A Practical Guide to Qabalaistic Symbolism" by Gareth Knight, and "Sefer Yetzirah" by Aryeh Kaplan, in that order.

You will gain a lot more insight (should you truly choose to gain it) about this and many other topics of 'biblical' interest.

[John Stuart Mill]

"The Holy Ghost, Holy Father and son, are the being known as god. This is a blatant attempt to woo pagans. Why would an omnipotent being need to be split into many parts? If it were all-powerful it would not need such distinctions."

If you really want to learn more about where the trinity comes from, I would recommend studying the Qabalah, the Tetragrammaton, and the Torah. The Qabalah and the Tetragrammatic Forumula in particular, then the Torah if you're so inclined. The Qabalah is a sort of key to the puzzle that is the Bible (Torah).

Read "The Mystical Qabalah" by Dion Fortune, "A Practical Guide to Qabalaistic Symbolism" by Gareth Knight, and "Sefer Yetzirah" by Aryeh Kaplan, in that order.

You will gain a lot more insight (should you truly choose to gain it) about this and many other topics of 'biblical' interest.

I doubt that in the aforementioned books there is a reference to the trinity. It was first expressed during the first council of Nicaea. Though, it draws from passages in the gospel of john, which can be interpreted in a variety of manners. Edited May 15, 2007 by John Stuart Mill

[newsman]

"From Roman texts we can find information on notorious cereal killers, but surprisingly not Jesus."

Cheerios throughout the holy land trembled at the wrath of Herod. Sorry it had to be said.

Seriously, though, I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole. Sparks tend to fly when the existence of god enters discussions. Seems I opened a can of worms when I merely questioned the existence of Dr. Moobs. I'm not touching the god question... Edited May 15, 2007 by newsman

[insidius]

"The Holy Ghost, Holy Father and son, are the being known as god. This is a blatant attempt to woo pagans. Why would an omnipotent being need to be split into many parts? If it were all-powerful it would not need such distinctions."

If you really want to learn more about where the trinity comes from, I would recommend studying the Qabalah, the Tetragrammaton, and the Torah. The Qabalah and the Tetragrammatic Forumula in particular, then the Torah if you're so inclined. The Qabalah is a sort of key to the puzzle that is the Bible (Torah).

Read "The Mystical Qabalah" by Dion Fortune, "A Practical Guide to Qabalaistic Symbolism" by Gareth Knight, and "Sefer Yetzirah" by Aryeh Kaplan, in that order.

You will gain a lot more insight (should you truly choose to gain it) about this and many other topics of 'biblical' interest.

I doubt that in the aforementioned books there is a reference to the trinity. It was first expressed during the first council of Nicaea. Though, it draws from passages in the gospel of john, which can be interpreted in variety of manners.

And where do you think the concept came from?

In any event, before you pass judgement, I suggest (again) to read the texts and judge for yourself.

[AKammenzind]

I'm assuming you have not heard of the Arian contoversy (yet another group with the title Arian). In any case, they refused to believe in the holy trinity for exactly the reason I stated. The conference at Nicaea was held during the reign of Constantine (the first Christian emperor) the vast majority of Rome was still pagan. They wanted some means of attracting the masses.

I know my history quite well, but I don't think it was to woo pagans so much as to woo upper-class Romans in general. Concepts like the holy trinity made christianity seem much more like one of the mystery religions which were oh so popular in Rome.

To convert a patrician family would mean much more than converting a bunch of groveling plebs. Christianity started as a grass-roots faith but Constantine surely could have seen that to make it the state religion he needed to convert someone of greater importance than your average lion-food

I was not so much arguing the point, but rather arguing its emphasis because it was a historical point. (it no longer attracts pagans, and hasn't served that purpose (or needed to) that I can think of since Theodosius I.)

Edit: typo Edited May 15, 2007 by AKammenzind

[John Stuart Mill]

I'm assuming you have not heard of the Arian contoversy (yet another group with the title Arian). In any case, they refused to believe in the holy trinity for exactly the reason I stated. The conference at Nicaea was held during the reign of Constantine (the first Christian emperor) the vast majority of Rome was still pagan. They wanted some means of attracting the masses.

I know my history quite well, but I don't think it was to woo pagans so much as to woo upper-class Romans in general. Concepts like the holy trinity made christianity seem much more like one of the mystery religious which were oh so popular in Rome.

To convert a patrician family would mean much more than converting a bunch of groveling plebs. Christianity started as a grass-roots faith but Constantine surely could have seen that to make it the state religion he needed to convert someone of greater importance than your average lion-food

I was not so much arguing the point, but rather arguing its emphasis because it was a historical point (it no longer attracts pagans, and hasn't served that purpose (or needed to) that I can think of since Theodosius I.)

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]

Those Patricians did belong to unusual cults, but they were still mostly pagan. My goal was to illustrate that it obviously arose from something other than divine providence. Why would god seemingly state one thing and than alter his statements to appease patricians, plebeians or whoever else. It is a valid point that attacks the dogma of Christianity. If it is based on unsubstantial tenets the religion loses credibility. . Edited May 15, 2007 by John Stuart Mill

[AKammenzind]

I would agree that it was not divinely inspired, and is certainly a concept created for worldly political reasons (this is Rome after all)

"It is a valid point that attacks the dogma of Christianity. If it is based on unsubstantial tenets the religion loses credibility. ."

This would be good for argueing against the teachings of the church, but not against the existance of a god. The only reason I made that comment is because of the title of the post. I thought it would be relevant to point out that there is most certainly a difference, the church being an organization and the other merely a concept.

[John Stuart Mill]

I would agree that it was not divinely inspired, and is certainly a concept created for worldly political reasons (this is Rome after all)

"It is a valid point that attacks the dogma of Christianity. If it is based on unsubstantial tenets the religion loses credibility. ."

This would be good for argueing against the teachings of the church, but not against the existance of a god. The only reason I made that comment is because of the title of the post. I thought it would be relevant to point out that there is most certainly a difference, the church being an organization and the other merely a concept.

The title of my post was “Commentaries on Religion”. I suppose, I didn’t stick to my topic header. I should have titled it a “Critique of Dogmatic Ideology”. That would have been general enough to encompass almost anything. However, I highly doubt it would have received the same number of views.

[AKammenzind]

I would agree that it was not divinely inspired, and is certainly a concept created for worldly political reasons (this is Rome after all)

"It is a valid point that attacks the dogma of Christianity. If it is based on unsubstantial tenets the religion loses credibility. ."

This would be good for argueing against the teachings of the church, but not against the existance of a god. The only reason I made that comment is because of the title of the post. I thought it would be relevant to point out that there is most certainly a difference, the church being an organization and the other merely a concept.

The title of my post was "Commentaries on Religion". I suppose, I didn't stick to my topic header. I should have titled it a "Critique of Dogmatic Ideology". That would have been general enough to encompass almost anything. However, I highly doubt it would have received the same number of views.

I thought "On The Existence Of God" was topic, but that aside it is a good point that bold headers bring more views! If it weren't so bold I might have had significantly less to do over the last hour and a half or so

[John Stuart Mill]

I would agree that it was not divinely inspired, and is certainly a concept created for worldly political reasons (this is Rome after all)

"It is a valid point that attacks the dogma of Christianity. If it is based on unsubstantial tenets the religion loses credibility. ."

This would be good for argueing against the teachings of the church, but not against the existance of a god. The only reason I made that comment is because of the title of the post. I thought it would be relevant to point out that there is most certainly a difference, the church being an organization and the other merely a concept.

The title of my post was "Commentaries on Religion". I suppose, I didn't stick to my topic header. I should have titled it a "Critique of Dogmatic Ideology". That would have been general enough to encompass almost anything. However, I highly doubt it would have received the same number of views.

I thought "On The Existence Of God" was topic, but that aside it is a good point that bold headers bring more views! If it weren't so bold I might have had significantly less to do over the last hour and a half or so

i also titled my post. My topic was called On the Existence of God.

[sicklecow]

The Teleological Argument for God

The chances of our world forming out of practically nothing in a way to sustain intelligent and emotional life were so insanely small that it is actually MORE PROBABLE that a deity exists/existed to facilitate the process than it is that all events were truly random.

[james]

Without getting too much into it, I'd say that if there is a God, it isn't the God in a classical sense. I doubt he/she/it interferes with our lives at all, answers prayers, or controls any part of the environment.

I'm more of a deist. To me, God is like a watchmaker. My God doesn't have any problems with science, logic, or the natural order of things. The Bible, Qur'an, Shastra, Book of Mormon, etc. are all creations of man, and commentary on human nature with different twists.

[AKammenzind]

The Teleological Argument for God

The chances of our world forming out of practically nothing in a way to sustain intelligent and emotional life were so insanely small that it is actually MORE PROBABLE that a deity exists/existed to facilitate the process than it is that all events were truly random.

That is an opinion.

I don't think there is any comparison at all between the chances of us having been developed, and the existance of a supreme being. We can calculate, roughly, the probability of a planet developing intelligent life with what we know of the universe. It may be correct, and it may not, but we can make an estimate at the chances knowing how many planets there are, and how many (one) we know for certain to have intelligent life.

How would you propose we calculate the probability of there being a god? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

[Gaara]

'Proving' "god" exists defeats the purpose of faith.

Organized religion, while I do not agree with it (I am spiritual and believe that communion with god is a more individual, personal thing) is not inherently wrong or flawed, man makes it so.

Most arguments I've seen against religion are more accurately against the flaws of man, not the 'flaws of god' or the flaws of religion. Fanatics and radicals are a good example of this.

Faith is believing in something you can't see. Just like insidius said, "proving it" defeats the purpose of faith.

Don't know why religion is an allowed topic @ HC. Most forums don't allow it since it's not something you can prove; either you believe or you don't.

[AKammenzind]

'Proving' "god" exists defeats the purpose of faith.

Organized religion, while I do not agree with it (I am spiritual and believe that communion with god is a more individual, personal thing) is not inherently wrong or flawed, man makes it so.

Most arguments I've seen against religion are more accurately against the flaws of man, not the 'flaws of god' or the flaws of religion. Fanatics and radicals are a good example of this.

Faith is believing in something you can't see. Just like insidius said, "proving it" defeats the purpose of faith.

Don't know why religion is an allowed topic @ HC. Most forums don't allow it since it's not something you can prove; either you believe or you don't.

Most forums I've seen that take religion out don't allow it because some people get upset about it very easily, it's just one of those things I suppose. It's hard to prove much either way, but there is much to talk about... the nature of god, arguements for and against organized religion, different views on the same religion, the list goes on.

Personally I find religion fascinating, and can't see why people should not discuss it. Really people should discuss it, because if there was noone to discuss their beliefs it would mean that blind obedience to religious dogma is the rule.

[nofrendo]

View On God:


“The Babel fish,” said The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy quietly, “is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

“The argument goes something like this: ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’

“‘But,’ says Man, ‘The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’

“‘Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

“‘Oh, that was easy,’ says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

[insidius]

Without getting too much into it, I'd say that if there is a God, it isn't the God in a classical sense. I doubt he/she/it interferes with our lives at all, answers prayers, or controls any part of the environment.

I'm more of a deist. To me, God is like a watchmaker. My God doesn't have any problems with science, logic, or the natural order of things. The Bible, Qur'an, Shastra, Book of Mormon, etc. are all creations of man, and commentary on human nature with different twists.

It's funny that way. It's impossible for us to say what god is. The sentence ends there: "God is." Being a finite incarnation, we just have no concept for the infinite. As soon as we begin to classify god as being a certain thing (God is power, god is love, et al) we lower god to a temporal and static level, a manmade concept, while god just IS. God is all things and encompasses everything. It is only possible for us to describe god's works, not what god is.

When people talk about science and religion being opposites (it especially amuses me when religious folk claim this), it's like they're forgetting their own beliefs. As though science were some extraneous concept outside of god, or that it somehow opposes god.

[LilTank13]

The "argument" of probability of intelligent life forming on its own versus the probability of there being a god isn't a true argument, due, infact to "probability", is somewhat weak. I do not believe in organized religion, but do believe in a god. The funny thing about statistics is that they can be manipulated to say what one wishes. Probability is a statistic. Seeing as we haven't mapped the universe, we can't estimate a probability of other intelligent life. Not to say there isn't any, but we sure as hell haven't concretely discovered it. Why is the idea of intelligent design that hard to believe. If our beginning supposedly came out of the "primoidial soup" theory, why can't the results be replicated? Many scientists have tried, yet to no avail. It is simple chemistry right? One would think that if all of the molecules were there, with a (lucky) streak of lightning, the most basic of amino acids would form, right? Wrong. It has been tried many, many times, and nothing has happened. Further, the fossil record works to prove some sort of intelligent design. The theory of puctuated equilibrium is laughable. Why are there very similar fossils, skeletons, et cetera, of one species, than out of no where, a completely new species? Point mutations don't work this way. Point mutations don't build up to form a new species all of a sudden; there should be an eventual and logical, progressive new species, not huge jumps, as demonstrated by the fossil record. Furtheremore, to think that we evolved from the most simple of anaerobic, prokaryotic bacteria is also laughable. The thing I don't get is the intellgent design advocates not necessarily believing in a god. Wouldn't their designer be seen as some type of diety? Just a thought... I believe in Jesus. Not necessarily man's Jesus, but Jesus nonetheless.