Debate on 5 Non-Biblical arguments for the existence of God

a) The First law of thermodymanics is not "something cannot come from nothing"; otherwise it would be contradicted by a number of quantum phenomena where something comes from nothing.b) Why should the First Law, presumably a description of behavior within the universe, be expected to apply to the universe itself? Unsupported assertion. Random mutation and natural selection give rise to order; crystals are highly ordered but never is it asserted that crystals are always the product of anything but the laws of physics. a) The existence of atheists like me shows that there's no such thing as an "inherent belief in a creator."b)This is simply assertion; there's no reason to believe that any of this is true. a) Kin selection shows that many moral systems can be attributed to survival advantage.b) The extensive variance of moral systems between cultures, as well as the existence of human sociopaths, demonstrates that there is in fact no "innate awareness of right and wrong." If there were, all cultures would agree on what is right and wrong; they do not. I submit that no conception of God is truly infinite or perfect, despite assertions to the contrary; especially the Christian God, who is both highly limited and far from perfect.Since no human has in fact succeeded in conceptualizing a perfect, infinite God, your proof fails on that count. Furthermore, even if I succeeded in conceptualizing something perfect, that doesn't mean that that thing is compelled to exist. I can posit the Perfect Island; no amount of positing will cause that island to come into existence.Ok, well, that was simple enough. Next!

If no Santa Claus exists, then how did the belief of Santa Claus come about?If no Easter Bunny exists, then how did the belief in the Easter Bunny come about?People believe dumb things. That's how belief in God comes about. I didn't "choose to reject God." I don't believe in God. That's it. I have no belief in God, so there is no inherent belief in God. If there was, I would have it, and believe in God.I don't believe in God.

Actually, we do. Many social animals develop very complicated systems of behavior, systems that often place the good of the group over individual benefit, even individual survival. Meerkats shreik at incoming predators, an action that is individually quite maladaptive but protects the group. Chimpanzees have a well-known sense of "fair play"; if two chimps perform the same task, but are rewarded differently, the chimp that got the shaft will refuse to play again.There's plenty of altruism and complex social morality in the animal kingdom. Of course, because you're already sure that animals don't have morals, you'll concoct ad-hoc rationalizations to explain these behaviors as "different" in animals, even though the results are the same as we see in humans.

It comes from human social organization. "Morality" is the set of codes we develop and internalize in order to function not as individuals, but as a society.Why do we do this? Because forming societies is the only thing we're good at; we don't have claws or poison stingers or any other survival weapons.

Sure there is. Social animals regularly engage in behaviors that are personally detrimental but beneficial to the group. Says who? Because other animals don't have the language capacity to make up myths? Except for creationists, that seems to be true. It's a pity more humans don't do this, though. I'd say you have it backwards. We made up God in our own image.

I wouldn't say that they exhibit a moral sense, because I don't believe that there is such a thing.But animals exhibit many of the same social behaviors we do; behaviors that, when humans do them, we say stems from "morality." I say, it's all kin selection, humans or animals.

How d you identify which things are effects, and which are not, without committing circular reasoning like you did in the other thread?