Zachary

I used to wonder what brought most of the atheists to the R&S section. All along, they've just come here to troll for easy 2 points so they can earn enough points to ask the most unintelligent questions :) This would also explain why they are angry when responding twice doesn't earn them their 5 points! Afterall, 2+2 = 5 doesn't it?

1. Why is the material universe compelled to follow non-material (not composed of matter or energy) laws (i.e. Laws of Logic such as the Law of Non-Contradiction)?

2. How did all the information non-materially stored within DNA originate by "chance" when all observable cases of created information involve an intelligent sender?

If Earth's original atmosphere had oxygen, organic and inorganic materials on the surface would be oxidized, and evolving organisms would have no protection against the process = no life (hence the assumption by the Miller-Urey experiment that no oxygen was present).

If the Earth had no oxygen, then how were organisms protected by ultraviolet rays

without an ozone? = no life (odd too that organisms "evolved" to use oxygen in cellular respiration)

Note also: Hydrolysis would prevent origin/development of life in bodies of water. = no life

I have not observed physical evidence firsthand for the existence of either X or Y.

One group claims existence of X, and another claims existence of Y.

The group claiming existence of X also has collected data supporting X's existence.

I have not seen nor tested this data concerning X for myself, yet I consider X's existence as factual.

I have accepted that X exists solely because evidence for it's existence has been claimed to exist.

How can I claim X's existence over Y's is factual (assuming as well that Y doesn't exist) until I observe and test it's supporting evidence or observe X for myself?

Do those denying existence of Y (God for instance) realize how ignorant/stubborn they are for accepting X's existence as fact before observing/testing the evidence (existence of electrons for instance; I doubt the majority of people considering existence of electrons as 100% fact have seen or learned about them and their properties outside of a textbook...)? Notice too how science evolves over time. What was fact in the past is no longer factual now (electron orbit vs. orbitals anyone?). How many scientific "facts" will be altered as we expand our knowledge of the physical world?

We all are subject to faith (this doesn't mean in a deity, stop saying faith automatically infers this). Notice how I don't claim factual existence of God over another deity? It's impossible to limit metaphysical to physical. I only claim faith in the idea that He is the only true deity.

Faith = Confidence or trust in a person/entity or action/event that is not based off proof.

If this is true (assuming you prefer a dictionary of some sort for definitions), then why can't we agree that all humans capable of rational thought and willing to think in such a manner exhibit faith to some degree? Don't believe in God, that's fine. You make your own decisions and I wouldn't want it any other way. However, why do think it's possible to live void of faith entirely when you can't experience all truth visible in your life firsthand. Some things you have to take on good faith of the efficacy and proper motives of people around you. The existence of Jupiter is something most people will believe as fact despite never seing it themselves nor the data supporting such claims (I'm not denying Jupiter exists, just making an illustration). You may have seen pictures, but we clearly live in a world without deception through photoshop...

I'm not trying to persuade you into believing in any spiritual entity or realm. All I want is for everyone to realize that faith exists to some extent in their lives. I'm tired of ignorance coming from those denying this. If we disagree on other matter it's fine and dandy :)

I don't doubt their existence, but I'm trying to make a point. Why are individual people so quick to believe in subatomic particles when they haven't personally seen them? Same goes for practically any scientific observation in which you believe without seeing... How is this any different from believing in a god you can't see? You can't say, "Because intelligent people told me so," or "The masses say so!" The majority of people living today believe in some deity, so belief in none is a minority. Or is it simply that people prefer to troll?

Here's the question: Why is believing in science (it is only belief until you observe it for yourself) superior than believing in a deity when both scenarios rely on information not seen first-hand? Until you've seen a subatomic particle firsthand, you're believing in information given to you from a scientist.

Note: I adore science, and do not intend to bash it in any way.

Science cannot explain the "why's" in life. If faith in God isn't something you can follow, I understand, and my intention is not to persuade you to do so with this question. What I can't comprehend is the fact that every one of us cares about said "why's," yet so many are satisfied with just "how's." If you are not concerned with why's, then you are not using your brain to full capacity (and responding to this question wouldn't be something of interest to you...) For those of you who think you believe in just science, how would you try to fill this "meaning" void in your life? You have to turn to something other than science at a higher level of thought, I'm just curious to see what options everyone chooses.

P.S. Solipsism is a great word to mention when you want to sound "smart" and you have nothing constructive to say nor a proper defense. A majority of those who use this term believe themselves that there are no absolute truths, yet this statement is self-refuting...