Does God Exist? (Part 2)

1) I admit there are questions we cannot answer about the creation theory. But there are also lots of questions science cannot answer about the macroevolution theory. That means we both accept our positions on a degree of faith. Science is based on what we can observe and test. With that in mind, let’s look at some of the scientific problems with evolution: * We observe microevolution. Small changes over time can change a bass into a salmon. But after all those changes they are both still fish. We do not observe salmon changing into lions and pigs. Yet, macroevolution claims an even larger shift – bacteria eventually turned into Beethoven. There are a few theories, but no scientific proof that this can happen. * We observe that animals lose genetic information over time (this is natural selection), they do not gain it. To create more complex organisms, bacteria must have somehow gained vast amounts of genetic information. There is no proof for how this could happen. * Evolution says that life came from non-life. There is no clear explanation for how life actually “sparked” into existence. Macroevolution claims that non-living proteins and amino acids eventually gained the ability to self-replicate and became conscious. But science cannot answer how this jump to life occurred. * Scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang, nor can they explain where all the elements that “banged” into existence came from (they could not just have exploded from nothing). These are just a few. There are holes in evolution just like there are holes in creationism. To answer your questions, I do not personally believe Genesis is meant to be a totally literal account. I believe God still created everything, but I believe the point of Genesis 1 is to show us through metaphor how god works and what he values. As a side note, God referring to himself as “Our” confirms the Christian belief of god as trinity. Christians believe god is made of three united parts – father, son, holy spirit. 2) How things work and what they mean are two different things. Of course I understand that is how emotions physically work. But we must then draw meaning from that. Going back to your diamond example, you are right that diamonds really have no value beyond what humans decide. If emotions are the same, then they have no real value either. This is a philosophy called Existentialism, and I disagree with it. I choose to believe that there is something more, something deeper to human consciousness than simply muscle, bone, and hormones. If you do not, then we can agree to disagree. 3) You contradict yourself when you say atheism would help soldiers not want to risk their lives, which will reduce wars. But then you say people like firefighters risk their lives anyway because that’s “not what they think about.” Why are soldiers different then? You told me to look at reality instead of focusing on philosophy – so I will tell you the same thing: Believing less soldiers in the whole world = less wars is purely philosophical and does not happen in reality. We simply need to read history to see this. 4) You are right by saying it is obviously wrong to assume all God believers are good people. I never said this in any of my arguments. I said the opposite – that no one is a good person, including Christians. That is the whole point of Christianity – that we all need to be saved from sin. Your prison percentages prove nothing. They just prove that 39% of prisoners CLAIM they are catholic. It does not prove they actually are, or that they actually believe. Plus, a lot of people convert AFTER they enter prison. It is easy for someone to claim a religion – it is hard to actually believe it and live it. It is interesting you claim Japan is one of the safest countries in the world, yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, it has the third highest suicide rate in the world. I understand your point that atheists can be “good” people and that law systems can declare laws. But I again challenge you to look deeper at the bigger picture. Morality is a very deep and philosophical issue, you cannot just brush over it by assuming most people know what good is (which is very false). Yes, law systems exist and act as higher authorities. But Nazi Germany also had a law system. North Korea has a law system. Saddam Hussein had a law system. Humans are very unreliable higher authorities, which is my whole point. Saying that most people know what’s good and bad is very wrong. Not everyone calls Bin Laden a terrorist. Millions of people call him a hero. At one time Germans loved Hitler and voted him into power. I would challenge you to broaden your assumptions about history and human nature. The central point is that morality must either be objective or subjective. Objective morality means it is a fact, Subjective morality means it is up to interpretation. The definitions of “good” and “bad” are completely subjective without god. Yes, people like us can still choose to act according to our definitions of good. But those are just personal preferences, they are not objectively good or bad. With subjective morality, your personal opinion about what is good is no better than anyone else’s. The moment you impose your personal belief on someone else and say “hey, what you’re doing is wrong!” you are appealing to objectivity. I have never heard a convincing argument for how objective morality can exist without god. 5) Like I said, I am fully aware of what the Old Testament says. The Bible teaches that the price of sin is death. Anything that is sinful invites death. The whole message of the Bible though is that we are all sinners in need of saving. I am just as deserving of death because of my sin as a murderer is. That is why after Jesus died the Bible says we are now free under a New Covenant – because his death paid for all sin. It is easy to shoot down individual verses by themselves, but this is typically called "taking things out of context." To answer if hell is unfair, I ask you if prison is unfair? We do the same type of thing to each other here on earth and we call it "justice." If people break the law, they are separated from society and thrown in jail - sometimes for life. Is this unfair? Is this unloving? No, it is holding people accountable for their choices. I do not understand how when God does the same thing - holds us accountable for our choices - he is seen as an unfair tyrant, especially when he offers freedom with an open hand. I like to think I have an open mind, I love reading and asking questions. I have even read atheist books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. But I have never found satisfying answers to life's deepest questions in atheism. At this point, I have not seen anything that would make me lose my faith in God. Thanks for this great discussion. I love this topic and I enjoyed thinking about your points. I would be happy to talk with you again sometime.