H: In my view, none of these properties of the universe prove the existence of a god. Opposites (i'm still a little confused on this in general, and more importantly how it pertains to a god) among other things are simply properties of existence if you will. Gravity was mentioned before. Logically, this can simply be a property of the universe without any cause. When we study our surrounding, we find properties of those surroundings. But the point is, the surroundings are bound to have some properties. We are just unlocking them one at a time. I fail to see the connections between the properties we have unlocked thus far and any higher power. In fact, in my view modern science has debunked the Christian bible. (I don't know much about Taoism). Greg: I mentioned particular properties for particular reasons, which I used to suggest that they did provide for an indication of God's True Presence, but if you don't respond to those particulars, then the discussion deteriorates into a review of opinions and leads nowhere. Quantum Physists determined Gravity to be the first Law of Physics created in the first second of the Big Bang trying to undermine Eistein's Theory of Relativity, and at this point it infers considerably more then just a property of the Universe without cause because chance could not FORESEE the need for Gravity to be first, or the need for it to be the weakest force. If you ignore this moment in Creation then it is easy to explain ALL of Creation as just properties of our surroundings, because ALL of the those properties evolved from this point. But Gravity is responsible for ALL of the material Universe evolving just so, try to imagine how it might have been if the strong nuclear force had been first. With chance being the only source of determination, the odds for any Law of Physics being first would be equal. H: : But my reaoning for not believing in a "God" does not simply lie in science. Perhaps more importantly it lies in Logic. But what do I mean by "God". Do I mean any higher form of power? Not really. I mean a personal God who oversees us, judges us, created "this" for us, but won't directly communicate with us. This gambling, game playing God is another story all together from something like "Flow" or "Chi". I've seen some evidence for Flow, but nothing concrete. Greg: God has directly communicated with Mankind on many occassion, just not in such a manner that each and everyone of us realizes. He oversees us for the purpose of improving the chance that His Creation will realize a beneficial outcome while still approving of our having Free-Will. He is more interested in how we judge ourselves then in being our judge. He does not gamble, His Will will come to pass whether we choose to be a part of it or no. It is we who are the game players, not He. You judge His being on the basis of religious institutions with political agendas instead of on the Nature of His Creation. A Creation where ALL Life provides for ALL Life, is Truth throughout, actually provides instruction through positive and negative reinforcement, and naturally evolves into an ever improved form of consciousness seems to me the more appropriate basis upon which to Judge.