So...if you're SO sure that no "God" exists...

[Oneironaut Zero]

...convince me! (I may regret this, later on, but I've been drinking, and a FOXNews segment provoked me into having a little fun. ) This is not about the Judeo-Christian God, Buddha or Shiva. It is about disputing the idea of a creator, and what just might separate the atheists from the agnostics. Remember; if the only arguments you have against a God are ones against the God of any specific religion, you are not giving credence to atheism. You are simply presenting an argument against that particular religion. This is for a more objective debate about whether or not a creator possibly exists, and how well you're able to state your case. As an (albeit drunk, at the time of this OP) agnostic, I'll try to argue from a neutral position - one that does its best to present a rationale for the possibility of a creator, against opposition. So, do your worst... (Well...maybe not your worst. I'm only one man. Don't bury me with text. )

[dragonoverlord]

[Oneironaut Zero]

/me Decides not to call 27 out on his post (that he can still see, btw. )

[♥Mark]

Actually, I don't think you're going to get much. Most of us here probably are agnostic about such a god. If I would be so bold as to speak on the behalf of the atheists here, we don't believe in that god because we don't have a reason to. Obviously this could be because of something we don't know yet which is why we don't say this god certainly doesn't exist. The main problem in asking to argue against this god is that we don't really even know what it is. Is it an intelligent being or some kind of force, energy or principal of the universe?

[Oneironaut Zero]

Actually, I don't think you're going to get much. Most of us here probably are agnostic about such a god. If I would be so bold as to speak on the behalf of the atheists here, we don't believe in that god because we don't have a reason to. Obviously this could be because of something we don't know yet which is why we don't say this god certainly doesn't exist. The main problem in asking to argue against this god is that we don't really even know what it is. Is it an intelligent being or some kind of force, energy or principal of the universe? Good reply. This is actually along the lines of what I was trying to bring about. The true (well, "true" in the Webster's sense) meaning of the word "atheist" is one that does not believe "God" exists. So, if those of you who are staunch atheists aren't really atheists, but are actually agnostic, why not get into a little more dialogue about what a possible God is, and adhere to it? So many "atheists" call themselves "atheists" because they they compare it to any one interpretation of "God." When breaking the word atheist down into what it actually means, are so many atheists not agnostic, instead? Teeheehee!! Well look, I am an atheist because I'm not the type of person to believe in something just cuz someone told me it can exist. It's the same reason why I don't believe in fairies, although I would love to believe in fairies - they are friggin' awesome. I also feel like a very strong person who doesn't need the crutch of a god... Sooo, if I were emotionally very weak, I would completely disregard the fact that there's no evidence for any kind of supernatural being because I would NEED to believe in god. But, alas, I don't. But I am not opposed to a god existing. I just can't bring myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Not even if I wanted to. Anyway look, no atheist is going to say "I know for a fact there is no god." So believing in the possibility of there being some sort of consciousness that created what we perceive is a "physical universe" is nothing but a crutch? How so? And if you choose not to say what the moniker you choose to go by implies, are you not lying to yourself? [edit: Oh...and you have the definition of "Agnostic" wrong, by the way. ]

[Mes Tarrant]

Wait, what? Can you rephrase that, O? I don't think god exists. I am an atheist. The only reason why atheists such as myself can't say that the chance of god existing is absolutely ZERO is because you can't say something like that and call yourself any kind of intellectual.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Wait, what? Can you rephrase that, O? I don't think god exists. I am an atheist. The only reason why atheists such as myself can't say that the chance of god existing is absolutely ZERO is because you can't say something like that and call yourself any kind of intellectual. Sure. An Agnostic believes that the nature of a God (a Supreme Being / Entity / Consciousness) is either unknown, or unknowable. They do not adhere to any set belief - that a God does or does not exist. An atheist makes an assertion that a God (in any common interpretation - "a supreme being," a "universal consciousness," whatever) does not exist.

[♥Mark]

why not get into a little more dialogue about what a possible God is, and adhere to it? I guess the reason you don't really see that happening from that angle is because these "atheists" would avoid using the word god in such a broad context. The word god, thanks to certain religions, has come to own a fairly specific meaning. They'd probably tend to ask and ponder about such things more broadly like "how did existence start, if at all?" and would generally not tend to necessarily look at it from a creator-being angle. Not that such an angle is inherently invalid or wrong, I think it's just a matter of the fact that these people tend to think that a creator-being just doesn't seem probable. Personally, the only significant thing which suggests a creator-being is -- and don't laugh -- that the universe is ordered, structured and, if you will "designed to allow life". But that I would address simply by saying that a functional universe is an ordered universe and that since life requires something of a stable environment to exist, it's the only sort of universe life would exist in. So many "atheists" call themselves "atheists" because they they compare it to any one interpretation of "God." When breaking the word atheist down into what it actually means, are so many atheists not agnostic, instead? Yes. The reason I think they use it is one of convenience. "Agnosticism" seems to imply uniform uncertainty about all gods when this isn't really the case. The people in question, however, are quite convinced that certain gods don't exist. Those being the ones most discussed. It's just an easy way of quickly conveying one's stance, but it certainly does cause problems in that it also conveys a uniform certainty that all gods do not exist.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I guess the reason you don't really see that happening from that angle is because these "atheists" would avoid using the word god in such a broad context. The word god, thanks to certain religions, has come to own a fairly specific meaning. They'd probably tend to ask and ponder about such things more broadly like "how did existence start, if at all?" and would generally not tend to necessarily look at it from a creator-being angle. Not that such an angle is inherently invalid or wrong, I think it's just a matter of the fact that these people tend to think that a creator-being just doesn't seem probable. Personally, the only significant thing which suggests a creator-being is -- and don't laugh -- that the universe is ordered, structured and, if you will "designed to allow life". But that I would address simply by saying that a functional universe is an ordered universe and that since life requires something of a stable environment to exist, it's the only sort of universe life would exist in. Ok. I see what you mean about the labeling of "it" as a "God." Because of what we know of most religions, that could be a huge problem. In saying "God," I, too, am trying to minimize a broad idea into something that's probably can't be defined in one word, seeing as how there are so many different interpretations of it. But, (and I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Holographic Paradigm but...), the way I see it, there is a very substantial argument for the existence of a Universal Consciousness (which, yes, could be interpreted as "God", and kind of where I'm, personally, coming from), in that what lies beyond our physical senses (the waves of energy/vibration/whatever that we pick up and interpret as sight/sound/etc.) is just a system of waves. IF that is true, then I believe that it presents a case for what is commonly called "God," albeit in a less-restrictive form. Not that any of that is definitive, of course (and it's hard enough to double-back on shit that I've read before, when I've been drinking now ), but it is but one of many reasons why I think a staunch position of "atheism," as opposed to agnosticism, isn't all that logical. Yes. The reason I think they use it is one of convenience. "Agnosticism" seems to imply uniform uncertainty about all gods when this isn't really the case. The people in question, however, are quite convinced that certain gods don't exist. Those being the ones most discussed. It's just an easy way of quickly conveying one's stance, but it certainly does cause problems in that it also conveys a uniform certainty that all gods do not exist. I get what you're saying though, Mark. It does come down to semantics, more or less. But that's part of what I'm trying to get people to realize.

[wasup]

Actually, I don't think you're going to get much. Most of us here probably are agnostic about such a god. If I would be so bold as to speak on the behalf of the atheists here, we don't believe in that god because we don't have a reason to. Obviously this could be because of something we don't know yet which is why we don't say this god certainly doesn't exist. The main problem in asking to argue against this god is that we don't really even know what it is. Is it an intelligent being or some kind of force, energy or principal of the universe? Pretty much. I'm agnostic in the sense that I believe in that there could be a god just as much as there could be a large system of tunnels underneath my house inhabited by a colony of invisible pink miniature elephants and polka-dotted unicorns. There's just as much a possibility of god as any other infinitely ridiculous thing.

[Mes Tarrant]

Teeheehee!! Well look, I am an atheist because I'm not the type of person to believe in something just cuz someone told me it can exist. It's the same reason why I don't believe in fairies, although I would love to believe in fairies - they are friggin' awesome. I also feel like a very strong person who doesn't need the crutch of a god... Sooo, if I were emotionally very weak, I would completely disregard the fact that there's no evidence for any kind of supernatural being because I would NEED to believe in god. But, alas, I don't. But I am not opposed to a god existing. I just can't bring myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Not even if I wanted to. Anyway look, no atheist is going to say "I know for a fact there is no god."

[Keeper]

Teeheehee!! Well look, I am an atheist because I'm not the type of person to believe in something just cuz someone told me it can exist. It's the same reason why I don't believe in fairies, although I would love to believe in fairies - they are friggin' awesome. I also feel like a very strong person who doesn't need the crutch of a god... Sooo, if I were emotionally very weak, I would completely disregard the fact that there's no evidence for any kind of supernatural being because I would NEED to believe in god. But, alas, I don't. But I am not opposed to a god existing. I just can't bring myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Not even if I wanted to. Anyway look, no atheist is going to say "I know for a fact there is no god." Wouldn't that make you more of an Agnostic then an Atheist?

[Mes Tarrant]

Wouldn't that make you more of an Agnostic then an Atheist? No, because I live my life thinking there is no god. I don't ever dwell on the possibility because I think it's a waste of time. An agnostic goes through life thinking that there's some supernatural force of some sort which probably hasn't been represented accurately by past and current religions. Something like that.

[Keeper]

No, because I live my life thinking there is no god. I don't ever dwell on the possibility because I think it's a waste of time. An agnostic goes through life thinking that there's some supernatural force of some sort which probably hasn't been represented accurately by past and current religions. Something like that. The Agnostics I talk to all say they don't bother about it either because you will never know anyway ... They say you can never know He does exist, and you cannot say for certain He does. Often they only talk in a religious debate to tell off both sides. Aside from that last bit, doesn't that look like your opinion? [Edit] At least around here, those that call themselves atheist assert that certain gods do not exist, but admit that they cannot ever be completely certain (about this or anything, being only human). Further, they are agnostic in regard to more vague definitions of god ("the creator") such as the one in this post which leaves it to a very broad range of possible things. So ... in practice they are more Agnostic then Atheistic? When I debate about God, I always (or almost always) call Him the Creator because I know that if my theory is correct, then virtually every religion came from the original relationship, and if this is the case, then it becomes very difficult to specify which view of God is the most accurate. I hope I put that across right.

[♥Mark]

Wouldn't that make you more of an Agnostic then an Atheist? At least around here, those that call themselves atheist assert that certain gods do not exist, but admit that they cannot ever be completely certain (about this or anything, being only human). Further, they are agnostic in regard to more vague definitions of god ("the creator") such as the one in this post which leaves it to a very broad range of possible things.

[Omega Weapon]

...convince me! (I may regret this, later on, but I've been drinking, and a FOXNews segment provoked me into having a little fun. ) This is not about the Judeo-Christian God, Buddha or Shiva. It is about disputing the idea of a creator, and what just might separate the atheists from the agnostics. Remember; if the only arguments you have against a God are ones against the God of any specific religion, you are not giving credence to atheism. You are simply presenting an argument against that particular religion. This is for a more objective debate about whether or not a creator possibly exists, and how well you're able to state your case. As an (albeit drunk, at the time of this OP) agnostic, I'll try to argue from a neutral position - one that does its best to present a rationale for the possibility of a creator, against opposition. So, do your worst... (Well...maybe not your worst. I'm only one man. Don't bury me with text. ) Because there is aboslutely no reason rationally to believe in a higher creator. Not a single piece of evidence, or one logical a priori argument. Find out if you really are an Atheist. Would you call yourself agnostic about the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun, because you can't be 100% sure it doesn't exist? Also all you're doing is fluttering around with definitions. The vast majority of 'atheists' are in the 99% sure that a God doesn't exist level. To say any more would be completely paradoxical to many of the points atheists try to triumph. Anyway how does what label you give someone matter really as long as we know their view? This isn't contribution, its just pedantic. Note- By your reasoning Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist.

[Spartiate]

...convince me! (I may regret this, later on, but I've been drinking, and a FOXNews segment provoked me into having a little fun. ) This is not about the Judeo-Christian God, Buddha or Shiva. It is about disputing the idea of a creator, and what just might separate the atheists from the agnostics. Remember; if the only arguments you have against a God are ones against the God of any specific religion, you are not giving credence to atheism. You are simply presenting an argument against that particular religion. This is for a more objective debate about whether or not a creator possibly exists, and how well you're able to state your case. As an (albeit drunk, at the time of this OP) agnostic, I'll try to argue from a neutral position - one that does its best to present a rationale for the possibility of a creator, against opposition. So, do your worst... (Well...maybe not your worst. I'm only one man. Don't bury me with text. ) Hard to answer without knowing more details about the god you are proposing... But if you're talking about some conscious being that is at the origin of everything we know, then it's just vastly simpler to assume that it's a product of human psychology and our attempts to rationalize... everything into a concept we can understand (something exists ---> somebody had to make it). You know how the human brain attempts to "fill in the gaps" when it's missing information, our minds can't accept unknowns. We could also easily interchange "a conscious being we can't possibly comprehend" with "physics and cosmology we can't possibly comprehend", but people cling to the notion of a god because they believe that if god chose to create them, then there was a purpose behind it. Purpose is another human concept, and it's very difficult for us to accept that pretty much everything around us has none. So of course, we invented a way for everything to have meaning. It really boils down to: A supreme being created everything we know. vs We created a supreme being to make sense of everything we don't know. (And yeah, I ignored everyone who was arguing semantics there ...)

[Oneironaut Zero]

O, if i may. Think about the past and evidence of a creator or god. There has been non that definitely proves the existence. True enough, but this is where the line between "evidence and proof" gets blurred. Many atheists ask for "evidence," when they immediately dismiss anything that isn't "proof" as "not evidence." I'm sure you've seen it happen often. For a start, faries are ideas that have been created by individuals. These ideas have over time been used in stories, fairytales and more and the majority can admit that it is based on an idea, there is no proof in the existence of faires. The idea may be widespread and words can be twisted, people tend to create rules around ideas and maybe even expand the idea so far that in their mind they wish that this idea could become a reality. They suddenly decide that because there is nothing to disprove it, there must be a chance of its existence. That, I've agreed with. I can come up with the idea now of a flying pig with shoes for eyes, it sound absurd not only for its nature, but if it gains any form of social The idea of a god would have been created many thousands of years ago, well before christianity began, the idea of a creator filled in that gap of how are we here. It is appealing to those who want a quick answer to the universe and since it something that explains the complexitys of the world and even the universe it became more socially accepted, however it is still a belief without evidence. What you have to remember O is that god is an idea, not something that was true, it may be socially accepted by many, but it does not mean that people should believe it because the majority do. We all share different beliefs and there are many things we disagree on. For example we all can safely say that there is a moon in sky, and that is because evidence backs it up, there is no belief involved. God however has no evidence, it is solely belief based on a bigotted, racist ideaology that got blown way out of proportion when people began embracing the idea. Again, you are basing your idea of a "God" on the "man in the sky" interpretation. Does any interpretation of a creator have to revolve around the one that has been personified in the Bible and other "Holy" books? Or are there other possible avenues that we could explore the concept of "A Creator" through? That's part of what I'm getting at. Is the denouncing of an organized (and probably misperceived) idea of a Creator synonymous with the denouncing of any sort of creator-concept? If not, would the idea merit more inquiry into what other interpretations might be correct? And if there are other interpretations that could possibly be correct, and have more evidence to show for them than those established and organized religions, is Strong Atheism the most logical stance, or is neutrality? Those questions are probably the best way that I can show the crux of my position, and probably my impulse to start this thread (...assuming I had any reasoning behind starting this thread. Heh). Oh...and another thing I don't understand. Why do some admitted agnostics argue for the atheists? Just for the sake of arguing? Because it's the best way to get information from both sides. I love to make both arguments, against opposition. It gives me better understanding of my own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, without allowing them to be completely one-sided. Did any of us say there is no chance of a god existing? Of course there is a chance, but just as infinitely small chance of one existing as any other thing. Do you believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists? Do you believe it COULD exist? Again, I could give you that argument, if we were solely talking about the "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, smite-the-if-you're-lusty" God. But are there not other interpretations that might fit the moniker? Actually, forget the word, itself, as some suggest. Do you think there is as much a chance of the FSM existing as there is a Supreme Being? A Supreme Consciousness, as it were? I think all of the atheists here have made clear that they are open to evidence, just like any rational, intellectual person would be. I'll keep that in mind. However, this does change that actively believing that there is no God, is not a leap of faith. Sure, in the face of evidence to the contrary, you could be willing to change your mind. You would be facing something that counters your faith that there is no supreme entity (in all its forms). But, with the information that we have now, the lack of sufficient enough evidence to believe that there is a God, I think, is not necessarily sufficient enough to believe that there is none. There is that gray area of neutrality. This, I suppose, is where the atheist/agnostic wordplay argument dwells. The universe being intelligently designed doesn't imply an anthropomorphized deity... it implies the undefinable and unknowable nature of infinity which we reside in... If anything, it could mean an intelligent system of which we are a part. Exactly. For us to consider God, we must consider, first, there are already many established interpretations of God, in organized religion. So, right off the bat, the concept shows multiplicity. Taking it further, someone may not believe in the Christian God. Is that person atheist? Not necessarily. What if he believes in the Muslim God. What if he believes in Zeus? Now, if the toggling of "atheist/theist" changes for such a thing, how many more interpretations of God, could it change for? If someone believes in a higher consciousness, an entity not described by organized religion, but more of a Super-Brain outside of it all, if you will, is that person an atheist, or has he found belief in something that could be accurately attributed to the name "God?" I'm saying that it doesn't matter to me personally. I would never call myself an agnostic because the notion of God is just as absurd as the notion of a three legged talking carpet. The intellectual value of agnosticism and considering Santa Claus to be possible is identical. See most of the above - particularly what I said to wasup about the FSM, and my reply to SolSkye about the "atheist/theist" name and the many interpretations of God. Surely there are fitting interpretations that are much more logical to consider than Santa Claus. Agnosticism is to acknowledge those possibilities, and is more intellectually valuable than settling on one interpretation of an idea, that you do not believe, and denying all others, thus denying merit in the exploration of those other interpretations, for truth. Hard to answer without knowing more details about the god you are proposing... But if you're talking about some conscious being that is at the origin of everything we know, then it's just vastly simpler to assume that it's a product of human psychology and our attempts to rationalize... everything into a concept we can understand (something exists ---> somebody had to make it). You know how the human brain attempts to "fill in the gaps" when it's missing information, our minds can't accept unknowns. I've never really subscribed to Occam's Razor, in that I don't really believe that "simpler" is synonymous with "most likely." We could also easily interchange "a conscious being we can't possibly comprehend" with "physics and cosmology we can't possibly comprehend", but people cling to the notion of a god because they believe that if god chose to create them, then there was a purpose behind it. Purpose is another human concept, and it's very difficult for us to accept that pretty much everything around us has none. So of course, we invented a way for everything to have meaning. For the most part, I agree with most of that, from the standpoint of that I know why many people decide to believe in a God, or even welcome the possibility, but I don't necessarily believe that having a God, whatever the interpretation, implies purpose. So yeah, I agree that linking the two is a leap of faith, and one that is often made for the reason you stated above. It really boils down to: A supreme being created everything we know. vs We created a supreme being to make sense of everything we don't know. True enough.

[Serkat]

Well, what type of God do you propose? In any case, if it is a creator, it must be a separate being, because 'creation' is an act and only separate entities can act, within the meaning of that word 'acting'. And once it is a being with the ability to act, you would usually go as far as to say that it is some sort of "spirit" with vaguely psychological properties which just so happen to be quite similar to your own. In fact, it would be hard to interpret this any other way, because "acting" is in itself directly connected to the concept of both subjectivity and human psychological experience. We know acting from our own psychological day-to-day-life and we use the word in that frame of meaning and none other. Because there is none other. Once we conclude that something - anything - created the universe, we imply that this certain something bears human properties, because it can act and is therefore a separate entity with a psychological component to it. Once you propose that god is an entity, you can basically go fuckfarts all over the concept and attach many other properties to it because there is absolutely no valid reason to assume that god would be a separate entity that has the ability to act. Why would it even have the ability to act? That's a purely arbitrary proposition. Once you assign any type of remotely human attribute to the god in question (such as capability to act or intelligence), it seems to me to be transparently obvious that you are merely projecting your own human properties into the unknown. Why is god not a stupid elk, incapable of doing things? If evolution is true, why would it just so happen that the randomness of human existence seems to be a relatively exact model of what the creator of the universe looks like? Isn't it rather strange that only because your brain creates the illusion of self-directed action, it just so happens that none other but the creator of the universe himself would bear such a close resemblance to yourself, being capable of exactly that perceived self-directed action? Anthropocentrism, I figure.

[Universal Mind]

(Insert generic Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy here.)

[wasup]

(Insert generic Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy here.) [insert generic response referencing irrelevance here]

[Omega Weapon]

Isn't it rather strange that only because your brain creates the illusion of self-directed action, it just so happens that none other but the creator of the universe himself would bear such a close resemblance to yourself, being capable of exactly that perceived self-directed action? This is a good point. I like the idea of self directed action in a creator as projection; I hadn't thought of that before.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Well, what type of God do you propose? Well, it's not so much one that I propose, as it's definitely no complete idea, but the foundation of it would be a sort of autonomous awareness about the universe. It kind of blends in with the all-being-one interpretations of God and holographic theory in that our conscious streams are part of a whole. (Sorry, gotta kinda go into all this, for some context as to where I'm coming from ): ======================== A very brief - and rough - explanation of Implicate/Explicate Order theory (which is what really opened my eyes to the possibility of the whole Holographic Universe thing) is that the Explicate Order is the universe as we experience it through our senses. We see/feel touch something, and perceive it as actually being round/red/rough/smooth. We see a "car." We see a "person." The Implicate Order is the actuality of those things - that we do not directly experience. It is the broadcast airwaves, from every channel, that hold all of the transmitted material that radiate through the air, before we pick up the images of our favorite show on Channel 9 (The Explicate Order, once again). Going further, it implies that these things that seem so separate are simply a part of a system of waves. Every car, person, rock, bolt, etc. is just a wave of data that represents a certain thing. Our experience is our own wave pattern interfering with another. That is how we come to see and hear things (according to the theory). It also implies that our consciousnesses are intertwined, within the implicate order, because we are all a part of the same system of waves. In the explicate, we feel that we are individuals, because that is really all that we're equipped to perceive, but in the explicate, we share a connection. Bohm uses the analogy of millions of tiny whirlpools, seemingly individual - however, on the surface, they are connected and, indeed, water (information, data) flows in and out of them, to and from each other, constantly. (And again, I can't say that I understand every bit of the theory. It's just one I've been interested in. I'm still reading on stuff about the whole thing.) ========================= If that is true (and you can read up on it, if you want to, as it's never been logically refuted in the scientific community, and even "vexed" Einstein), then is there not the possibility of a Super-Consciousness? If the "smaller, seemingly individual" portions of consciousness are self-aware, is it not possible that the Singularity of these combined consciousnesses is not also self-aware? Or maybe that would be getting into the argument of whether there is a Collective Conscious, or a Collective Unconscious. I dunno. But, were it self-aware, this system of waves, would it not fit the moniker of a supreme being, such as a system of Army Ants share such a tight network of intelligence that the colony is often considered as one Superorganism? In any case, if it is a creator, it must be a separate being, because 'creation' is an act and only separate entities can act, within the meaning of that word 'acting'. And once it is a being with the ability to act, you would usually go as far as to say that it is some sort of "spirit" with vaguely psychological properties which just so happen to be quite similar to your own. In fact, it would be hard to interpret this any other way, because "acting" is in itself directly connected to the concept of both subjectivity and human psychological experience. We know acting from our own psychological day-to-day-life and we use the word in that frame of meaning and none other. Because there is none other. Once we conclude that something - anything - created the universe, we imply that this certain something bears human properties, because it can act and is therefore a separate entity with a psychological component to it. Hmm. I see what you mean. I would suppose that, even if this "Super-Consciousnes" exists, it doesn't necessarily mean that it created this "physical universe" that we experience. Perhaps the universe was more a byproduct of that Super-Con? I would see how that wouldn't necessarily fit the idea of a "Conscious Creator" so much as the idea of "A system of waves that creates what we experience as the physical universe." I dunno, though. One could argue that Creator would be a fitting enough title for that system of waves, but I definitely get your point. If it wasn't a conscious action to create the universe, could we give this super-consciousness credit as being "our creator," or did it just happen? Once you propose that god is an entity, you can basically go fuckfarts all over the concept and attach many other properties to it because there is absolutely no valid reason to assume that god would be a separate entity that has the ability to act. Why would it even have the ability to act? That's a purely arbitrary proposition. Once you assign any type of remotely human attribute to the god in question (such as capability to act or intelligence), it seems to me to be transparently obvious that you are merely projecting your own human properties into the unknown. Why is god not a stupid elk, incapable of doing things? I'm not too sure. We have not really closed the book on whether lower-life forms are conscious, as far as I know. (Yes, there are arguments that go on forever, I know. But I don't think the scientific community, as a whole, is certain). Should this be a Super-Organism that "created" (meaning simply "is a host of") this universe, could its intelligence be nothing more than knowing it exists? Not really a system of (relatively) complex thought? Hmm. I dunno. Maybe not. Because, if it was a host of all of this shared data, surely it would be able to think with complexity? No? I dunno. I'm just throwing shit out there. If evolution is true, why would it just so happen that the randomness of human existence seems to be a relatively exact model of what the creator of the universe looks like? That's just it. I'm not sure it does. If the holographic principle is true, then the "creator" (I'll use that in quotations, to mark that I'm no longer referring to a "I created the Universe" creator, but a possible Super-Conscious) doesn't really look like anything. It just..is. Isn't it rather strange that only because your brain creates the illusion of self-directed action, it just so happens that none other but the creator of the universe himself would bear such a close resemblance to yourself, being capable of exactly that perceived self-directed action? Anthropocentrism, I figure. Should consciousness actually be intertwined and/or there is a complex network of things going on that we, as of right now, can't see (which theories such as entanglement/non-locality; Schr.'s Cat; etc. are skating with evidence of) I wouldn't see it as all that weird. But yeah, as of now, most evidence I know of points to you being right about anthropocentrism.

[Sornaensis]

...convince me! (I may regret this, later on, but I've been drinking, and a FOXNews segment provoked me into having a little fun. ) This is not about the Judeo-Christian God, Buddha or Shiva. It is about disputing the idea of a creator, and what just might separate the atheists from the agnostics. Remember; if the only arguments you have against a God are ones against the God of any specific religion, you are not giving credence to atheism. You are simply presenting an argument against that particular religion. This is for a more objective debate about whether or not a creator possibly exists, and how well you're able to state your case. As an (albeit drunk, at the time of this OP) agnostic, I'll try to argue from a neutral position - one that does its best to present a rationale for the possibility of a creator, against opposition. So, do your worst... (Well...maybe not your worst. I'm only one man. Don't bury me with text. ) I don't have to do shit. The basic laws of logic law out the fact that any claims to truth must bear proof.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I don't have to do shit. The basic laws of logic law out the fact that any claims to truth must bear proof. For the love of God (or lack-thereof) at least read the entire OP, and not just the title and the first two words. This is was a light-hearted attempt to hear people state their cases about the topic, not to provoke some knee-jerk reaction of "No! YOU FIRST!!!"