Oh, yes, of course! Sorry if I inarticulately implied that energy is somehow effortlessly "converted" to matter when obviously matter is much more frequently and easily converted to energy! But is there any evidence to suggest (or even any theory to suggest) that energy can emerge from nothing? (i.e. "Be created?")

Well, I don`t know if anyone would argue that this universe functions very intelligently! But do you mean "sentiently?" Is sentience mandatory for a perfect, even "intelligent" design to function? Or is that something we assume, the way we assume a computer program cannot exist without the programmer preceding it?

Sounds like a variation on the quote, "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, none is possible."

A succinct summary of faith vs. reason.

Well...there are more factors in play that allow for more potential genetic combinations. I always thought that the subject of "mutation" was a curious one. In school, I learned that mutation was "random," but that made no sense to me. There is nothing random, ever. Everything follows cause and effect of something...even if predicting the outcome is incalculable due to all the potential combinations. So...with more factors in play, the "process" of evolution could appear to speed up, as there is a greater likelihood for there to be a pertinent mutation. All it would take is one huge mutation and BAM! a baby could be born with a different shaped head (or a more advanced brain) and a new "species" of human (in the evolutionary chain) could be born. Obviously, this is all just theoretical, as is the concept of evolution itself, however convincing or accepted it is in science...or whether it is absolutely true or not.

I was investigating these premises to show that they were false.
I would just like to just say, logic is true, infinitely all knowing all powerful supernatural God(s) can't exist.

Rand stated, in her way, that existence has primacy over consciousness and A is A, so God can't be the infinite omnipotent creator and designer.

You mean give you a reason to consider pink unicorns? I can't. But if faith in God does not require a reason, then why should faith in pink unicorns?

Pardon me; I was "faithfully" reiterating what I had been taught. Energy can be changed, redirected, even perceived as matter--but it cannot be "destroyed." Similarly, it does not just "appear" out of nothing. Am I missing something?

Why not, if it that is its blueprint/design/function? Is it because...it is incomprehensible to imagine that a program can exist without a programmer? If so, why is it somehow easier to imagine that a programmer can function without a program/incentive to drive it? At the very least...would it not make more sense to perceive that "creator and creation" could be indivisible from one another?

Solver, I agree with the above quote from Ayn Rand. So...I wonder why we are investigating premises that neither one of us seems to accept as fact. Perhaps we are investigating whether or not these statements could even possibly be true?

If God exists, there is no reason to suspect that anything would occur any differently or more mystically than the way things already exist. I reject the notion that "some things are beyond human comprehension." Some things are obviously beyond calculation, but that is due to a lack of tools (brain calculation function) or available data with which to assimilate the issue.

Once someone claims that something is "beyond human comprehension," that one is confessing a limit to one`s own unflagging determination to engage in and pursue reason, and furthermore admitting a lack of comprehension for how logic itself is infallible. (The process of rational thinking or comprehension may be flawed, but logic, itself, which is, by definition "merely" the "language of truth," can never be flawed.)

If existence has primacy over consciousness, then "creation" could, theoretically, refer to an organization of already existing elements into what we perceive to be reality today--rather than an abiogenetic emergence of life. Theoretically, design and causality could be poetically viewed as the same instigator. "God" could well be a semantical personification of "the way things are/unfold."

That's sad for those who don't experience the reality of existence. I have been out of my body but I don't think quite dead enough to see more than my surroundings. I know most will only believe scientific reductionism and the reports of their massive egos. The only strangeness I felt was that the 3D world where my body lives is unreal. My solid (to me) hands could go through all substances as if made of steam. I wish I could have moved on a little more because I would never want to return here. I know realists and hard bitten men of reason believe only what their 5 senses perceive. Yet, there is a sixth sense and it resides just as our own an octave higher on the keyboard. Don't worry, you will never get it until you experience it. I was just as hard bitten as Dr. Alexander. I was a plant engineer for 35 years and was trained by Newtonian physics to believe only what multiple samples of my 5 senses perceived. So, this is not a put down in any way. But reason also makes room for the unreasonable. Otherwise I doubt the Wright Brothers would have succeeded.

Very well stated. My brother is often surprised that I am a "strong" Christian who has gone on mission, witnessed to others, etc, yet I appreciate Ayn Rand and agree with much of what I see on the Gulch. I respect others and do not mind healthy debate, even going so far as to admit when "I don't know" or don't have all the answers.. Surprises me how many Christians can not react with patience and grace when dealing with perspectives other than their own...

I'll use what Rand wrote (as copied from above),
“I'll give you a hint. Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

Premise: God(s) exist.
Premise: God(s) are one or more infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s) which created and designed everything.
The description above fit some of the characteristics of many Gods worshiped today. yet if they exist, there is CONTRADICTION.

Instead of admitting one or more premises is wrong, I got things like, “You limit the parameters to what you can comprehend. God, in His fullness, is beyond human comprehension.”

At that point the rules of logic won't convince a believer. And if this infinite contradictory God is real, known logic is pretty much meaningless.

I do not reject the notion of a limited God being real, as in the statement, "Money is her God."
I do not live my life for any God.

There is also Rand saying,
"Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.
Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to "design" is not "chance." It is causality.
Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.
Is god infinite? "Infinite" does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity without identity... But A is A. every entity, accordingly, is finite."

I don`t see how existence can ever "not exist." That makes no sense. By its very term, existence implies infinity. What defines this "existence" may change--but existence itself is irrefutable. Also... there can logically be no such thing as "nothing" except as a comparison to "something." (i.e. "I have a pen in one hand, nothing in the other.")

Also...why does existence presuppose that a divine entity must have created it? Couldn`t there be a "Grand Original Design" infused into the very causality of existence? Perhaps, if there is a divinity to be celebrated/worshiped, it is the very intricacy of "Truth" itself, and its language by which we can comprehend the unfolding of said existence--logic.

*I thought I published a similar post to this already--but I couldn`t find it on this thread, so I tried to recapitulate. Apologies if I indeed repeated myself.

I choose existence exists, always has existed and always will exist. Existence precedes everything, it is the starting point and the ending point. From there, man has infinite choices on how to interpret or ignore various theories, but that can only happen after existence.
I have a slightly different take on religion. I do not see an either-or complete conflict. I think it is a matter of, post existence, how we interpret God. I see God as a guide, supporter, but not all controlling. I do not think he grants what we pray for, rather is a source of strength when we must ultimately cope with the toughness of existence as it is. We do not change existence, merely how we respond to it, which may be an infinite number of ways. Our choices determine how we fit in our existence. We can make it rough for ourselves, or we can deal with the issues of existence as they come along, and find a more peaceful fit in existence. In the end, we always have choices in our existence, but we have to function within the existence that exists. One philosophy professor friend told me of a woman, who took to her bed, waiting for God to help her. The man told her to get out of bed, that God helped those who helped themselves. He was putting her into the setting of seeing that existence exists, and she had better deal with it.

This has been a stimulating discussion the last couple of days, but I need to lighten things up for just a moment.

Time keeps on slippin', slippin, slippin into the future.

I want to fly like an eagle ....

OK. I have had my Steve Miller rock 'n roll break, and am ready to discuss again.