Well, that test went pretty well.
So, i figure the best way to go about this is addressing your post point by point so i can have some continuous line of thought. I thought a bit on the train home, but this is not by any means going anywhere in my head as of now, so we'll see...
Warning: I am venturing into areas where i have a) never been before, b) have no facts, arguments or logic behind it (although it may exist somewhere), and c) have not really thought about. Therefore, since you seem to have addressed the issue before, i may say some retarded stuff and/or blatantly false things, so bear with me.
"It's the same deal... we haven't directly observed a big bang, no, but science continues to find new evidence supporting it, while religion continues to be based on faith- which is, to me, about equal to nothing."
Correct me if i am wrong, but i believe evidence for the Big Bang theory lies in observations of the universe expanding, right? I believe that red shift and microwave background heating is in effect evidence for single point origin of the universe, or at least it rings a bell in that sense. However, these phenomenon remain within the realm of evidence for single point origin of the world. If you play the tape backwards, the universe will start from one point. Evidence for a massive cataclysmic explosion, perhaps. However, it can also lead to the conclusion of creation from a single point. This point only holds of course if these phenomena infer single point origin (which i assume is what it would want to prove). Still, this evidence can tell us two things.
Also, your last part of that sentence tells us a bunch. Ill address this at the end.
"Regarding the probability thing, though... Complexity in the physical world can be defined as a measure of the probability of the state of any given system. Therefore, if you are applying our laws of probability to the genesis of the cosmos (when you say the probability of something coming out of nothing is zero), then God can't escape from the fact that He is, without a doubt, an incredibly complex system and is therefore much less likely to exist than is a simple space containing material governed by certain laws."
See my previous post in simple complexity.
I agree with you in your first sentence. In fact, it is one of my main deciding factors in believing in creation. The inherent complexity to this world baffles my mind when it is supposed to come from a chaotic mix of time and chance. To me, the fact that everything is so intrinsically linked and functioning in harmony amid an incredible complexity lends itself to the idea of a being creating the world. Now, i have to admit i had never thought of reversing this concept and applying this to the being that created the world. Obviously, God would have to be more complex than creation to create it (or would he?). However, i feel that the nature of God is (you address this further, ill get there) not something we can comprehend. He is said to be a spirit. What are the properties of spirits? Omnipotent, eternal, omniscient beings? Well, obviously besides what those adjectives imply, but their physical reality? i could not tell you. But, more on the nature of God below.
"What I mean is that ANY statement you make about God is inherently false. And I really don't see the point of believing in that God."
On this matter, i feel i have to disagree. Now, in the terms we are dealing with, it is true, i cannot make any assured statements on the physical nature and physical properties of God. However, i do believe that God has revealed certain things about himself, his origin. In comes the Bible. We can argue forever on the validity of the text, but as you said and as i maintain, these things are accepted based on faith. Massive cop-out, i know. This situation annoys me aswell, as i would like to think of myself a man of science.
In the Bible, it says at the very start "In the beginning, God..." That's my position. And given our lack of knowledge on the extent of simplicity in simple quantums added to the fact of the unknown beyond spiritual nature of God, i think it is fair to say that i at least could not tell you which is more probable to have existed, and neither do i think it is possible.
Hmm... is that an actual conclusion we can draw? Seems like a bullpoop one... "well, we can't know, durrrrr"
where now?
Ah yes, the matters of faith.
Well, as you have said, you do not feel a need for religion and matters of faith. All the power to you. Really, if you are assured on your position, rock on. I on the other hand do not understand the world unless in the context of the Bible and God. I have doubts, but i do find intrinsic... beauty in the world around me which leads me back to God. We have two separate conclusions, they are both in opposition, so be it. I do not feel either one of us will convince the other.
I would like to thank you for a very interesting discussion. I will definitely be thinking about these things more in detail for a while... I do not know if this discussion can go any further, as i feel i have exhausted what i know. Going on would simply make me enter a realm of saying complete BS with no thought (if it wasn't already the case).
Anyways, have fun on your finals. Thanks for the great food for thought.
