I read your argument page and found it amusing. You, like other atheists, attempt to tear down the concept of "God" by building a straw man, religion, and then you tear down the straw man. I do not disagree with the idea that Middle Eastern based religions have brought nothing but havock on this planet. I believe their time has come. Science has also wrought it's own hell to the humans. However, the idea of a Creator supercedes religion and science, yet is found in both. The concept of a universal intelligence is found in science. All of the information that ever was and ever will be is present, omniscience. The energy of Creation has been everywhere since the dawn of time and is still with us, coursing through our very bodies, stimulating the clumps of gray matter in our skulls to form coherent thoughts, omnipresence. Since our brain function is based on electrical currents, tiny bits of energy, coursing through our puny little bits of star dust, providing us with "intelligence", I would venture to guess the available and existant energy present throughout the cosmos creates and Intelligence far beyond anything we can understand; yet.

The concept of a Creator is found throughout our history as a race of animals but, is not limited to religions. I believe the concept and imagery of Creator has to be altered from a jealous, wanting, expecting, almost human like being to something more. Ponder omnipotence.

My favorite description comes from the Lakota tribes of the Great Plains of N. America; Wakan Tanka = Great Mystery. In my opinion, humanity's loss of wonder and mystery has been detrimental. Remember, science really proves nothing but, speculates on everything. Real scientists admit this freely, while lay adherents hold up speculative concepts as the ultimate truth.

I apologize for my berevity and, perhaps verbal wanderings but, it is late and I have to get up for work at 4am.

Please do not hesitate to email.

By the way, I do not believe in accidents and neither does string theory. I prefer overwheling probabilty.

I do play with words. It's something I enjoy because there are many echoes of a past and of truth hidden in the usage of our many languages. I hope you don't mind some counterpoints. I didn't know if your website was the right place for a continuing discussion so I emailed. Feel free to post this, or not.

Again, point by point;

You've given me a lot to talk about, and I appreciate that.

To start off, I'm glad you found the argument page amusing -- it's supposed to be.

You are incorrect when you say that I equate arguing against religion with arguing against the existence of a deity. Although the concepts are related, they are certainly distinct. If there is a god, it could easily be a being unimagined by any earthly religion.

**Here we are in agreement, I think. If there is a God and if It is omnipotent, etc., then we have no way of comprehending It's nature.**

And speaking of straw men, I do not say that "Middle Eastern based religions have brought nothing but havoc on this planet" as you imply (perhaps accidentally). Both good and bad has come from religion, but I feel that the potential for bad (particularly in terms of allowing ones self to be led into irrational practices and beliefs) often outweighs the good.

**That is my feeling. These customs came from war like, tribal peoples and therefore have those elements embedded. These traditions being responsible for some good is true, yet some of the most atrocious acts have been committed on behalf of these churches. The bad most certainly outweighs the good.**

I disagree with your statement that the concept of a creator is found in science. I will deal with your points one at a time.

"All of the information that ever was and ever will be is present" I don't see how that can be correct. Even if the universe is completely deterministic, there is plenty of information (the population in a thousand years, for example) that is not currently in existence and could, at best, be calculated only using methods deemed impossible by chaos theory.

** If we are to believe the big bang theory, we are led to believe that all of the matter and energy present in the universe today was locked inside a speck (marble size?) and was released in a fury. "All of the matter and all of the energy", means all of the information available. Just because we can't calculate it, does not mean it is not True.**

"The energy of Creation has been everywhere since the dawn of time and is still with us" I think you're playing with words here. Energy created during the big bang is with us, that is true, but calling this the "energy of Creation" implies a creator, and you give me no reason to believe there is such a thing.

**In my mind, "the energy of creation" implies the frozen state energy found inside the (theoretical) singularity. We are, after all, composed of this stuff. Not just the electricity in our bodies. Remember, matter is just an _expression of energy. Yes, I am implying a Creator. (Stop picturing the old man sitting on a throne. :-) )**

You say that our brains use electricity and then "venture to guess the available and existent energy present throughout the cosmos creates and Intelligence far beyond anything we can understand; yet". This is like saying that my car has iron in it and since there is iron throughout the universe there must be more cars out there than we can imagine. Brains using electricity does not imply that energy is thought.

**It doe not imply that. However, there is much we do not understand about the universe, dark matter, dark energy, string that vibrate to create reality. The universe is no doubt a self-organizing system. Doe It have consciousness? Well, what the heck do we know about consciousness? We know that everyone experiences the world differently. We know that dolphins, whales, elephants, etc. are self aware. But, where does the definition stop. I would postulate the universe to be alive. Teeming with different _expressions of the same rudimentary stuff. I can't say It is self aware, the way us monkeys are self aware. But, if we are made up of the stuff stars are made of, then we are the universe experiencing itself.**

"The concept of a Creator is found throughout our history as a race of animals but, is not limited to religions." I don't know how you can say with certainty that the concept of a creator goes back to the beginning of our evolution as a species. That's a pretty broad statement. I would also say that believing that there is a creator is a religious belief, and therefore don't see how it can exist outside of religion.

**Cave men would bury their dead. That either implies a belief in the after life or, that corpses stink and you have to get rid of them. But, why the rituals involved? Many Native Tribes all around the world have beliefs which are more spiritual and personal, than religious and imposed. Spirituality is an inward process. Religiosity is an outward event.**

"In my opinion, humanity's loss of wonder and mystery has been detrimental." Where is this loss of wonder and mystery? If it weren't for these, there would be no science. I'm guessing that you are using these terms to mean something like "loss of faith in the inexplicable," and if so, that's not something I miss.

**Today's science is profit and personal aggrandizement driven. That's not to say there is no "good" research going on but, it seems that it is driven in particular directions, at times detrimental to our existence. Many lay people and scientists feel that we know everything and what we don't, the answers are right around the corner. We should all have faith in the inexplicable. For instance, we know cell phones work but, we don't know why.**

"Remember, science really proves nothing but, speculates on everything. Real scientists admit this freely" You're playing with words again. In a very technical sense, science proves nothing because a theory is never formally labeled as proved. However, in a practical sense, scientists consider many, many things to have been proved. If they didn't, they couldn't make any progress. This is like the creationists who argue that evolution is "only a theory" and therefore not to be taken seriously. They are misusing the vocabulary of science.

**Technical progress does not imply anything as proven. Progress happens because we are able to observe what works by trial and error. Better math reduces the error rates, yet these remain. The theory of evolution is a funny point for people to contest. It is only an observation of change. It postulate that life came from simple origins and has progressed in to more complex form. Chaos theory, in some ways, opposes this change as natural. Systems should strive towards simpler forms, ones having an easier time surviving. Yet, that is not the case. Sure, life forms have changed, perhaps even evolved but, why? Natural selection should have precluded all simplicity. Better yet, how does a flower know that a bee will be attracted to a particular scent or color? How does an ant know that leaves will grow fungus which they can then eat? It all remains a theory because it is all still mysterious. To fall in to full belief of any scientific theory is no different than becoming a fundamentalist. The nice thing about science is that it allows for a change of theory a lot easier than religion.**

"By the way, I do not believe in accidents and neither does string theory" I'm guessing that you're playing with vocabulary here again. It's true that string theory is deterministic, but that does not mean that "everything happens for a reason" or any such thing (in case that is what you are implying).

**Umm, everything happens for a reason or because of a reason. There is no such thing as an unconnected event. Let me explain. The Tsunami. People were killed because they lived near the ocean (happened because of a reason). People who moved from the coast will not be drowned by a tsunami again (the tsunami happened for a reason; people were not bright enough to know that the last one, was not the last one. Those that learned, survived the last one). It's all about using available information, which is there for a reason.**

Picture omnipotence . . . . It exists but, has not motivation to do so. We live "for" something; ourselves, others, love, religion, etc. But, why would omnipotence need to exist for anything. It has no needs, want, no motivation. Except, perhaps, for one. What would happen if "It" stopped existing . . . BANG!

One more thing, never trust a man who tells you he knows what God wants but, I think you already know that ;-)

First, I appreciate your responsiveness. Please do not mistake my insistent intrusion as a sign of ideaological aggression. I enjoy discussing these subjects with disembodied minds because there is no room for preconceived notions based on visual input.

Now, to the good stuff . . . . Your first sentence sums up the single biggest barrier to the human condition. Just like the Tower of Babel story, our language is often a shadow of our thoughts and intentions and has led to many misunderstandings. Allow me to clarify.

I am by no means a scientific type. I have a passion for knowledge and have given some time to studying a variety of subjects. Physics is one of these.

The first Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted. Energy is the information carrier for the universe, nay, it is the universe. I used to picture the universe as a container but, the more I read in to quantum theory and string theory, the more I realized that the universe is an expression of this thing called Energy. This means that all information for the universe to "Be", is here since all of the energy contained in the universe was released at the time of the big bang. This leads me to believe that all possibilities exist. It has been theorized that matter pops in to and out of existence all of the time. So, even non-existence is a possibility and now it becomes a game of probability.

I believe the underlying spirit of several of your arguments is a question of the eistence of free will (this is a sudden guess, because I guessed it . . . suddenly). In a universe where all "information" exists, free will has no place. However, when probability becomes the governor of information, you can see choices (especially "minor" ones) as the building blocks of our lives.

"Ineffectiveness of information" is a function of our ignorance not a testament to existence. We can not calculate where or when a star will form yet this does not stop a star from forming. The information to complete this process is present and it is only a matter of probability.

In any case, let's get back to that God thing. As a species, we have always tried to explain our "condition." Spirituality was the first attempt and languages were invented to describe these "explanation." Religion was the second, more "organized" attempt. Science is the third, and it also has it's languages. Many, many languages and all disparate. This is why an atheist can not understand the "religious" explanation and ignores the spiritual (typically.) Even among scientists , chasms have existed. Theoreticians used to descibe the luminiferous aether as the substance through which all matter "flowed", which was ridiculed by those coming of age and professing we move through an vaccum, yet they seem to have returned to the notion of a lumineferous aether only now they call it dark matter and dark energy. If we are to pay attention, we would realize they were all describing the same thing (which already exists) only refining their language and enhancing their picture, which is still completely obfuscated.

To profess Mr. Darwin's theory as the ultimate explanation for life on this planet is to ignore an important fact. Mr. Darwin only describes "events" in his theory. He does not explain who or what pushed the scales of probability to tip in favor of life on an otherwise lifeless and violent planet. After all, "we live in a perposterous universe" (Sean Carroll, University of Chicago, based on astronomical observations.) He never addresses why species simply "appear" in the fossil record or how they develop their complex behaviors, except to say they "evolve." Why is self awereness needed for survival? We now know of several species besides our own which we consider self aware. How did the first plant figure out that bees like nectar? How did the first leaf cutter ant figure out that by expanding massive amounts of their energy cutting leaves, bringing them back to their nests and cultivating fungus to eat is the best method of survival? How did they know the fungus would grow on the leaves if they peed and puked on them?

I have faith in the inexplicable because I know we don't know "bleep." The phone companies know how to get the phones to work but, that does not mean they know why instant communication is possible. I was taught nothing was faster than light, yet quantum entanglement say that information can and does travel instantly. An "entangled" pair of particles can affect each other's behavior instantly even if they are at opposite ends of the universe!

I guess what I'm saying is there is sooooooo much we don't understand that discounting the existence of a Creator (not deity) based on the shenanigans of some who profess they know god personally is not grounded in logical deduction, only on the speculations of a few visionaries. Theoretically we should never have evolved not only because the universe itself is anomaly, but because we are completely unadapted to physical life on this planet. Even our "closest" relatives are completely independent of their self awareness when it comes to survival. Apes are completely capapble of sustaing their physical life. We are a weak species. The sun gives us skin cancer and the cold gives us frost bite. Why did evolution go that route?

Science is wonderful but, it doesn't explain anything. It only describes what we observe. So, why do we observe? After all, why would small bits of the universe need to study other bits of the universe?

Ouch . . . I think I just got carpal tunnel.