Statistics is the science of "not knowing". We apply statistics when we don't fully understand the underlying principles, such as when we study the behavior of large populations.

The fact that I cannot predict the behavior of a single individual is by no means indicative that his behavior is without cause.

Further, it is somewhat curious that atheists run to the realm of the least understood portion of existence (QM) when they seek to deny our common intuition and observation that effects have causes.

The very fact that we CAN make precise and REPEATABLE measurements is highly indicative of the fact that the law of cause and effect IS in operation at the quantum level.

The Quran was an assigned text for a history class I took in college a few years ago, and I had to write a paper comparing it with another assigned text. I got all the way through the other book and tried very hard to do the same with the Quran. I just couldn't. But I read enough of it to get a decent grade on the paper.

Another fallacy that the cosmological argument commits is the fallacy of equivocation. The usage of the word 'cause' isn't the same throughout the cosmological argument. In the opening premis we use 'cause' as a rearrangement of pre-exisiting materials (creatio ex materia) and when talking about the universe we're talking about a creation from nothing (ex nihilo), we actually don't have any observations or understanding of the latter. Claiming that there is no difference between the two would be foolish.

Look up Kant's four antimonies, in his Critique of Practical Reason.

Hi Erikth. It's late, and I was just ruminating because of the possibility that I might have upset a few people when I revealed that I thought of myself as an atheist-Catholic today. But there is truth in this, that I can't deny. If it has been part of my purpose, or to put this another way, the totality of my life which shall be, as you mentioned in your comment, my readings of the atheist philosophers, my study of religion is all part of me.

I too believe there is truth then, in that 'this is the only life I will have'. This could be regarded even as an 'atheistic' denial of the resurrection of the body. Please, don't let these musings upset you, however, because I am beginning to feel that there is 'truth' on many different levels. For this reason, is it not impossible that I may both return to dust, and that, like Christ 'the' body 'may' be glorified.
I have been musing about what is 'whole', or 'holy' as it may be interpreted. Don't know whether you care Catholic, and appreciate the significance of the Eucharist, its 'thanksgiving', it's presence of the 'wholeness' of the Christ, i.e. God, within the simple 'wafers' of unleavened bread which are taken in an act of re-memberance, re-member ing- putting what is together, making what is - whole, holy, a unity. The 'all' is taken on faith to be 'revealed' within a simple, piece of bread. It is considered a 'mystical' presence. In this sense, then, (comparatively) it is also possible, spiritually, speaking that we may all be re-mem-bered. Those 'higher' thoughts are the truths that are spoken of as 'revealed' truths; revelation of what 'actually' IS. This then is the 'higher' plane of thought embedded in Catholic teaching, as well as in the doctrines of other 'faiths'.

There is also philosophical and theological discussion about a 'final' purpose, or end. Heaven, Nirvana, The Kingdom of Ends are a few of the terms. I thought then today, that in my search for wholeness I could both never find it, and at the same time not be aware that it is already, at this time, there as part of me. Just as it is paradoxically truth, that my being, as the totality of my life lived, contains my experience of atheism, pantheism, deism, theism, etc. etc. I have 'studied' them all.

They are all attempts, it could be thought, to contained the full, entire, complete truth. That God is to be found both within the universe, and transcendentally 'beyond' it. That there can be completeness within 'any' particular 'thing' or the Buddhist 'no-thing'. That there can always be found a 'greater unity'. Indeed that that unity is greater, as it assimilates more and more within itself a greater and great 'unity'.
So much for my musings at the moment. They are not as you may note 'complete'. I believe your intentions to help and be a good guy reflect a wholeness with your spirit. May it help you to imagine, believe, have faith, that everything you do, all the good that you put into the world, and 'into your "self" is part of a greater whole, - a unity of purpose that all of us are working towards.
Thank you for being here, just as I work up musing that something was not complete. You have helped to "put a little 'icing' on my cake, this evening.

My view of how to go about finding a purpose is based on the idea that this life is all there's going to be. So, if there is a purpose to be had, we have to find one for ourselves. Typically, people think of "their purpose" as being something beneficial to others, so to me the idea of wanting to achieve some level of altruism is kind of inevitable.

Because I believe this is the only life I will have. I would like to leave this world thought of in a good manner. So, I attempt to be a good guy when I can and hopefully I'll do good and help others as a result. If I find some kind of purpose for myself along the way then that's just icing on the cake to me.

Anyway, I believe I got off topic. My point is that when you say that according to the nature of quantum mechanics, something can appear from nothing, you aren't really saying something is coming from nothing, but rather that something is coming from the nature of quantum mechanics. If it were truly nothing, it would come from the absence of anything, including quantum mechanics. While it may be true that according to quantum mechanics matter can come from the absence of matter, it does not say that something can come from nothing,because appealing to the nature of quantum mechanics assumes that said nature exists.