It seems to me that the debate really comes down to differing belief systems.
For the athiest, the belief is something like this:
All space, time and matter miraculously came into existence by some process we know not how. Then somehow, this matter exploded (we have no idea how this happened though). After a long period of time, stars galaxies etc. all formed and whilst many theories abound there are all educated guesses with many problems.
From here, matter somehow organised itself into self replicationg single celled organisms which were able to reproduce and then over time, these cells as they replicated due to genetic copying mistakes were all able to add the additional information for fins, wings, lungs etc. leading up to the pinnacle(at least for now) of humans -all by a serious of random genetic copying mistakes. Not asking for much faith as this point hey?
And the results of these random explosions and genetic copying errors leads to me on my keyboard punching out letters on my computer which someone somewhere can read and make sense of.
Logically then, if this is all we are, then life is indeed futile and all morality is relative and indeed we are nothing more than a collection of random atoms, then why believe anything I say or what anyone else says on this thread?
The alternative is to believe that there is some creator who was involved in the process. If this is the case, then is it logically to assume that the creator will have interaaction with the creation? If so, then should we search to find out about this creator? Does the creator give us a basis for morality, knowledge and a way to explain the world?
For the athiest, the belief is something like this:
All space, time and matter miraculously came into existence by some process we know not how. Then somehow, this matter exploded (we have no idea how this happened though). After a long period of time, stars galaxies etc. all formed and whilst many theories abound there are all educated guesses with many problems.
From here, matter somehow organised itself into self replicationg single celled organisms which were able to reproduce and then over time, these cells as they replicated due to genetic copying mistakes were all able to add the additional information for fins, wings, lungs etc. leading up to the pinnacle(at least for now) of humans -all by a serious of random genetic copying mistakes. Not asking for much faith as this point hey?
And the results of these random explosions and genetic copying errors leads to me on my keyboard punching out letters on my computer which someone somewhere can read and make sense of.
Logically then, if this is all we are, then life is indeed futile and all morality is relative and indeed we are nothing more than a collection of random atoms, then why believe anything I say or what anyone else says on this thread?
The alternative is to believe that there is some creator who was involved in the process. If this is the case, then is it logically to assume that the creator will have interaaction with the creation? If so, then should we search to find out about this creator? Does the creator give us a basis for morality, knowledge and a way to explain the world?