Questioning beliefs.

NoteI would like to remove “RNA World Hypothesis” from the list of beliefs, since I’m becoming increasingly agnostic on the issue of the origin of current life, since some form of autocatalytic origin would also work equally well. Though I can argue for it if Pro objects. ClarificationsI’ll now define my beliefs. Existential nihilism is the idea that there’s no intrinsic value to life, i.e. a living being and a rock have no fundamental difference that changes there philosophical value. Epistemic skepticism is the position that no knowledge is certain or definite, and that all knowledge is questionable, i.e. there is no knowledge in the sense of “justified true belief”. I think those are the complex ones. Response“You are an atheist and believe in the big bang and I'm sure you know that the big bang just expanded the universe and not create it, so what created the universe?” The question has a core assumption sans any justification – the Law of Causality, i.e. the idea that the universe had to be “created”. There are a variety of possible positions (e.g. retro-causality, simultaneous causation, ekpyrotic universe theory), but I lean (somewhat) towards a position that the universe was created ex nihilo, i.e. “from nothing”. Basically, it’s the idea that the universe wasn’t caused. Any cosmological position based on the physical laws, including the Law of Causality, has to assume the principle of the uniformity of nature, i.e. the idea that the physical laws are present everywhere. But the question of the universe’s own causation is outside the universe, as such there wouldn’t be any physical constraint. Sans the universe, there wouldn’t be time directionality either, so the causal principle breaks down.[http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...] I ascribe to a temporal philosophical position called eternalism, viz. the idea that terms such as “past”, “present”, and “future” are incoherent, and the universe is part of a tenseless four-dimensional block. Let me explain this. A standard view of the space-time continuum based on special relativity is that there are three dimensions of space, and a “fourth dimension” of time, which is unclassified. Eternalism classifies time as a spatial dimension, thus making the idea of an “arrow of time” unreal and illusory. What justifies this position? Rietdijk and Putnam (and, later, physicist Roger Penrose) used special relativity and planes of simultaneity to justify time as a spatial dimension, which in turn justifies eternalism.[ http://en.wikipedia.org...] How is this relevant? Eternalism holds that “change” doesn’t ontologically happen, and, as such, neither does causality, especially of time itself, which would mean the universe wasn’t caused. Thus, the universe probably wasn’t caused via. eternalism, and needn’t have been. QuestionsOK, I’ll present my own questions. 1. Why do you think gay marriage is “immoral”? I’ll attempt to convince you it isn’t. The concept of “morality” can be considered relative to circumstances, so nothing can definitely be “immoral” except basic undermining actions such as murder and rape. Secondly, there’s no reason to deny people rights to marriage – marriage is an entirely personal affair, and should be privatized, or it would just be over-interference of the government. 2. Why do you think God exists? And, if I refute all justifications you present, would you genuinely change your beliefs? Note that I’m not attempting to change your beliefs for any reasons other than winning this debate, :P. 3. Why do you support progressive creationism? While much more rational than other forms of creationism, it still denies evolution. Evolution does occur. Basically, evolution is made of two processes – genetic mutations + selection. We know both occur. More justification below. Progressive Creationism vs. EvolutionGenetic MutationFirst, we must understand *what* a “genetic mutation” is. Basically, it’s a mistake in transcription of DNA. We know genetic mutations occur since they cause cancer. SelectionSelection is the process of adapting characteristics to suit the environment. This can perfectly be seen in the case of the Galapagos finches, which have survival modifications in the beak. Sexual characteristics are also modified and observed in nature. ConclusionBasically, I’ve justified my agnostic atheism and challenged: (1) progressive creationism, (2) theism, and (2) the supposed “immorality” of gay marriage.