

[ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]

= 
= Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
=      assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
=      to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
=      we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
=      "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"

One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
(at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
reasonable alternative exists.

As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).

[ ... ]

= 
= It may be that one day man not only can create life but can also
=      create man.  Now, I don't see this happening in my lifetime,
=      nor do I assert it is probable.  But the possibility is there,
=      given scientists are working hard at "decoding" out "genetic
=      code" to perhaps help cure disease of a genetic variation.
=      Again, though, must there be "why" or a "divine prupose" to
=      man's existence?

I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining, 
reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any*
technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.

= 
= > When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
= > presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will.  And one
= > the requires a kind of "faith" too.   By taking such a hard line in
= > your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.
= 
= As far as we can tell, man falls into the "mammal" catagory.  Now,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That preposition sort of precludes an absolute, doesn't it?  Without an 
absolute conclusion, what are we left with?  I believe the word "faith"
works nicely.

=      if there were something more to the man (say, a soul), then
=      we have yet to find evidence of such.  But as it is now, man
=      is a mammal (babies are born live, mother gives milk, we're
=      warm-blooded, etc.) as other mammals are and is similar in
=      genetic construction to some of them (in particular, primates).
=      For more on this check out talk.origins.
= 
= > But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
= > you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
= > reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity".  From your remarks,
= > it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
= > religion and not others.  Even an atheist should have enough faith in
= > Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
= > be animated by some enduring values.
= 
= Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
=      Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
=      quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
=      thus all must be true...

Well then, with an *equal* scale, and under an *equal* standard, investigate
them all, and discover where God is ( or *whether* he is, for the denial of
God is ultimately a statement of faith, non-falsifiable as His existence 
may be). 

For isn't this the purpose of religion - to discover, and in discovery, to
*know* God?

You don't mind if a few of us send up a prayer on your behalf during your
research, do you?  After all, if we of Christ are deluding ourselves, you
really have nothing to worry about, eh?

Until the King returns,

Jason

