@AmazinGuy@xanga - I do have a point to make....The thing is that my ability to articulate anything in non-blog-length fashion is lacking. That's why I strongly suggested the videos...

1.) The thing is that it's not coming from you. It takes you perhaps 30 seconds to google and copy/paste the video link, and it could take anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes to type a response. This is a bit unfair.

2.) There is enough material out that, there if I wanted to, I could respond with a video or article link in kind (as lostintranscension just did). A war of url addresses really defeats the purpose of a blog-debate. It'll also bore most of the audience.

But I'd gladly consider the arguments if you make them or rehash them yourself here. You don't have to be perfect (and no, I won't bite with my trolly teeth if you mess up =P )

Heck, the simple fact that chaos cannot create order is ONE sure sign that there is an intelligent DESIGN.

Sure. We can start here.

Are you talking about "Evolution" or the "Big Bang?" My response differs depending where you're applying this argument.

@huginn@xanga - The Big Bang or Evolution? I was talking about neither. I'm talking about Biblical creation.

@Stephanie_J_B@xanga - None the less, it is a bit dishonest for the poster to try to pass it off as true.

@huginn@xanga - Honestly not trying to be. But you stated two options which are equally contrary to the stance that I thought was obvious that I take. And to be honest - some might call it a cop-out...ah well - I have neither the energy nor the resources to properly or fully debate the matter. (I'm already trying to gather material for another entry about the Christian stance on marriage...as opposed to Christian marriage vs homosexuality. THAT debate is already running in pointless circles.)

@huginn@xanga - GOTCHA! Okay, I understand. Sorry. I guess neither one specifically. To me, although I know they are not truly the same, they tie in hand-in-hand. One is more in the the realm of how ANYTHING came to be, and the other has to do with how LIFE came to be. In either case, I have always gotten the notion that from mere randomness, from chance, we have what we have. If this were true, then how is it that randomness (chaos) has brought about eventual decay and erosion where it once, supposedly, brought about life and order. Not once have I seen a decaying piece of fruit sprout up a fresh apple. Call this a cliche argument, but it holds true: shake something in a bad long enough and it won't become something new...if anything, it'll be broken if the right factors in place. The laws of nature have remained the same...so how could it be that chaos/randomness suddenly changed their own rules? If chaos WAS the reason for the universe, what caused the shift so that it now leads to disarray? Logic suggests that there had to be an outside influence. Either that, or the whole argument is flawed to begin with and there was an ordered design by an outside source. And already we know that objects without any sentience cannot order themselves or anything else unless instructed to do so. In short, through the long and thick of it...we have to conclude that God is real and put everything in order.

@SeitekiChibiNeko@xanga - The OP is an urban legend. Over the yeras, I've seen versions of the same story posted on apologetic forums and disseminated en mass by email.

@AmazinGuy@xanga - And you look like Roger Federer in your Xanga pic. You're not Sweedish, are you?

@Stephanie_J_B@xanga - The message of the post would be much stronger if it were taken as a true anecdote.

The story was so elaborate and so fantastical that I took it right off the bat as a well-written argument in story-format.

The problem, though, is that many commenters here took it to be true (or plausibly true). I was assuming that the guy who submitted the post to Revelife would have been aware enough to know that the entry may be mistakenly taken as true.

But of course, I agree with your root point, the story's arguments are just as valid (logically) even if it were weren't true. It's just that the rhetorical trickery bugs me. -_-

@huginn@xanga - Well-written arguments? I don't think so. The arguments were stupid.

Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light? They're just words... Maybe heat is the absence of cold and light is the absence of darkness. The "brain" and the "evil being the absence of God" thing was a terrible counter-argument. Honestly.

Any science professor should know that faith is just as important in science as it is when it comes to religion. A nice bedtime story for naive teenagers though :P

@MrCheetah@xanga - Well-written arguments? I don't think so. The arguments were stupid.

Okay. You caught me trying to be nice. =/

@MrCheetah@xanga - I am a teenager and I thought the whole thing was pretty stupid.

@scramBledmegZntoasT@xanga - Where did God say not to attempt to prove His existance?

@huginn@xanga - Nope. I'm far from Swedish. Well, I don't know. I know I'm part Scandinavian. Is that close to Swedish? And I have no idea who Rodger Federer is.
Correction: I don't have a problem with science. I have a problem with the logic of The Big Bang Theory. Because whether it was a bunch of matter already there or whether it just somehow "appeared", it was in disarray to begin with (according to the theory). Now, we already have verifiable proof that order cannot come from chaos on its own. Order, by its very definition and nature, suggests some sort of intelligence is in the works. So, according to The Big Bang Theory and given the laws of nature that we have today, one is wrong. They conflict. The laws have remained constant even before we recognized them. By these very laws, there had to be something/one to put it into motion. "God" can actually be explained through the Bible. It's the closest thing to understanding His mystery, short of actually speaking to Him face-to-face as we would another person. The answers are there, if we'd just look.

I see "chance" as more confusing. Because before there was supposedly nothing - just a mess - and then it all came together. And let's say, to save on argument, that those laws of nature WERE there. All the same, the chance of a highly detailed and functioning universe coming out as a result is almost beyond calculation if there are merely simple laws of nature. Just because Legos have form and function doesn't mean they have the means to put themselves into order with a purpose.
On the other hand, Supposing "God" put it all in place - created, ordered, and initialized - makes a lot more sense than random chance, no matter what the previous factors. It's like telling a box of dominos to set themselves up in an intricate manner so they all fall against each other in a really cool way and then waiting for the first one to tip itself over. It isn't going to happen. Because the laws of nature show than no object can act on its own without an external force. No matter how much we cannot prove definitively/empherically that God is real, there are strong signs that there is far more than mere chance.

It's an unvalidated assumption that the creator is subject to the same conditons of the created. So to say that God is subject to decay is to say that He exists within His own creation and only within His creation. But if there were truly absolute nothingness except for God - neither outside Him nor inside - then there would be nothing to influence entropy (as I understand the word...it's not part of my normal vocab). If God exists outside the creation, then He is not subject to the conditions of it. Therefore, the laws of nature will not effect Him and He will not decay. In otherwords, chaos does not have any part outside of creation.
It's also an assumption without validation that creation included chaos. The nature of chaos is contrary to order, which is contrary to God's own nature and design. The only way to be sure of that, I know, is to have evidence, somehow, of what the original design was like. I admit, I presently have neither the resources nor the words to describe what it was like prior to the beginning of the decay of the world. What I can say - though this might be more related to a morality issue than one of science (but somehow, I can assure you it is related very closely) - is that if we have chaos and decay now, then there was at one point a time when it was perfect. However you can think to describe perfection in scientific terms, I know not. So if God is order-incarnate and is the source of order in His creation, and decay/chaos is why things fall apart into disarry, then somehow, there had to be another influence that cause the chaos and/or a severance from the Source of order.

Lastly, the idea of cause and effect has been shown to have an absolute beginning. (But, it is my loss that I cannot remember where I heard this statment made to validate the claim I make.) But examples can be still seen within our own observation. Let's take that example of dominos lined up. If the dominos existed within its own universe, then we'd be "like God" in the sense that we are the outside source instigating the fall of the dominos. Now the same arguement could be attributed to God, I suppose. Who's to say that someone didn't "start Him"? In theory, it makes sense. But already science research has even shown that the universe itself had an absolute beginning. Granted, if God started it all, then that doesn't exactly prove my point. It just shows that specific things had an ultimate beginning due to an outside source. Now, I have little more I could present at the moment to state how God IS the primo-numero uno. At the very least, this, I think, leans strong towards the idea that there IS first first and that the universe is an example of that fact...a representation.