"I can't vouch for other religions but christianity is clearly
against war."
Whether "Christianity" is for or against war is irrelevant what matters is the result, and Christianity like many religions before it have caused much suffering and war, The Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades?
"Cyde, you believe it is illogical, therefore you have faith in that logic"
...... Planes built according logical principles fly, planes built on illogical principles do not.
"Wars are not caused by religion. Human greed, pride and fear are root causes. The people commiting these otrocities
are using religion as an excuse."
Whilst many religiously related wars are not directly caused by religion they are fueled by them. Furthermore in many wars religion DOES have an active part to play in the cause.
"your problem mostly is you combine every religion and attack it, this is the equivilent of attacking the words of every scientist that ever lived, and because one was wrong, refuting the idea of science. "
All religions are based on irrational beliefs, all therefore are equally illogical and equally improbable. Of course each one claims that "theres" is the right one.
"logic, as you have assumed, gives us the best possible answer, this is not always the correct one. what logic dictates means nothing. what is actually correct is all that matters. "
But logic IS ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON, of course what is actually correct is what matters, but we have no way of independently viewing reality; THE ONLY WAY of getting close is through logical reasoning.
Which person do you think is more likely to be correct? The person who believes the Earth is flat (illogical) or the person who believes its spherical (logical)?
"just curious, how did you logicaly conclude there was no god?"
The same way you concluded that there is no tooth fairy.
Actually i thought about a lot of different things:
How do we work out whats real; Why do I believe there is a keyboard under my fingers? Why don't I believe in the tooth fairy? Why are people religious? Why did religions come about? Are religious arguments valid? (you will notice that many people have been reduced to arguing against LOGIC ITSELF, which would be funny if it wasnt so tragic) Does science point towards a creator? If there was a creator would we expect science to point towards him?
My conclusions were that A) Belief in God is illogical and motivated entirely by human factors B) The ONLY way to work out the nature of the world around us is through logical deductions the alternative is to live in a dream world where there is no line between imaginary and real.
"lack of evidence then logicaly would conclude evolution does not exists. since believe it or not, they hold just about the same quantity of proof as each other"
No....
"proof of god."
This should be good.......
"1)
Genetic code perfected almost 4 billion years ago. just a few million years after the first organism. much to little time to evolve.
implying that the genetic code already existed before the first organisms"
Utter nonsense, 1) It is totally meaningless to say that the genetic code is "perfect". 2) We have no genetic code from anywhere near that time period anyway.
Furthermore you have no idea how longer chemical evolution takes, no one does.
"2) the lack of evidence that this so called evolution breeched species. (all it was was natural selection throughout history from many different allready existing species. supposedly)"
A statement founded on ignorance, there is mountains of evidence supporting evolution.
"The Universe is not eternal. there had to have been something first, to create the energy, or at least replenish the kenetic energy that is lost after time. what caused the beginning of the universe? once what, how? once how or who, what was there first and how did it get there"
It is believed that the universe is indeed finite and did indeed start BUT your argument like all other religious arguments is DEEPLY flawed for several reasons:
A) Time BEGAN with the big bang. Since you cannot have a "before" the big bang, is it meaningfull to look for a "cause"?
B) EVEN if there was a "before", which there wasn't, there would have been no laws of physics, all our concepts of causality are built upon the laws of physics etched into the universe, without them they cease to be meaningfull, so the question dissolves.
C) EVEN IF there was a before, AND we could expect a meaningfull answer, God is STILL not a reasonable answer, why? Because he SOLVES NOTHING, if you insert God into the problem you are left with exactly the same problem you've just pushed it back a stage: Who made the universe? God. Who made God? Errrrrrrr.. same problem.
So you see God solves nothing. He is not a solution to the problem of creation, which isnt a meaningfull problem anyway: If we ever do find an "answer" it will not "mean" anything to us, it will be written in the language of mathematics.
Claiming God is the answer to the problem of creation is no different to claiming God is the solution to any other problem (except its even less valid, for the reasons provided), look at the past: Whenever something was unknown religion would site God, science would keep quiet for a while then find the real answer.
"People often have "near-death experiences" and things like that, but when was the last time you heard of a "near-ceasing-to-exist experience"
Near-Death experiences are very well understood by medical science.
"The universe cannot be eternal. if it was eternal there would be no kenetic energy left"
This is nonsense.
"even in an event where there could be multiple replenishments of kenetic energy, with an eternity before it to use this energy, that to would be gone. The universe then would still exist but would be quite unihabitable"
Nonsense again, the universe does not "use up" Kinetic energy.
"This theoretically could happen many times. the expansion and contraction of energies, but eventually the kenetic energy would wear out."
Wrong.
"thus the universe cannot, according to our logic"
Only your logic, physicists have other ideas.
"However, there may be factors on this subject I'm not aware of. and my thinking may be scientificaly flawed."
There are, and it is.
"however, this, or a another theory close to it shows the improbability of an infinite Universe"
There is no such theory. If the oscillating universe theory is true then there is no reason why the universe could not have existed and continue to exist for eternity constantly being "reborn" via the crunch-bang patter. However currently we do NOT believe it to be true because the universe shows no signs of contracting under gravity in fact rather than the universe's expansion slowing down it seems to be speeding up.
