Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
My view on god is this. The universe is mysterious. Very mysterious. It is extremely, deeply, inconceivably mysterious. We humans have been asking these questions since our ancestors started to think. Who are we? Where do we come from? What is the universe? Why is there something instead of nothing? Nowadays we're starting to scratch the surface of some of these questions. We're far, far from getting all the answers. Maybe we never will. But we'll try. But some people have a different idea. They think they can get all the answers from a book. Well, let me say this. The absurd idea that the key to the entire universe can be found in a single book is deeply, deeply, arrogant. The notion of a god that has something to do with us, is an insult to the universe. The thought that the universe was created just for us is unbelievably arrogant. In fact, religion not only insults the universe, it also insults the tireless efforts of countless humans, humans who are scientists of astronomy, geology, biology, and all the other sciences. Since the beginning of science, we have been slowly accumulating knowledge, knowledge that has brought us cellphones, computers, cars, microwave ovens, antibiotics, modern medicine. Religion has brought no such thing. No breakthroughs, no results, nothing. It is useless extra baggage on our society. Looking at the world through the glasses of religion doesn't work. Those glasses are opaque, there's nothing to see. No new knowledge to be found, no understanding.
The universe is far more mysterious and wonderful and beautiful than some god thought up by some loonies in the far past. Really, we shouldn't even be having this discussion. There is simply nothing that indicates that there is a god, and that's the way it is. We need to get out of the sandbox and take responsibility like adults.
Many people accept that either God or Satan can respectively "speak through" or "possess" an individual. How, then, do we know that the bible wasn't written by someone possessed by Satan?
The men who wrote these books knew Jesus personally, and saw him die. Not just a normal death, but by being hung upon a cross. According to the law of Moses, any man who hang upon a tree was accursed of God (see Deuteronomy 21:22-23). A dead, crucified Messiah could not possibly have been the true Messiah, much less the Son of God. These men, dejected and cowardly as they were (going so far as to deny ever having known Jesus - not in a court of law - but to a common samaritan woman!) went on to become the greatest advocates of the religion, known for the piety, consistency, and most dying as martyrs for their beliefs. Their texts universally denounce evil works and Satan himself. Were their inception a plot by Satan, who is clearly depicted as the enemy of Jesus in those very texts, it certainly was not a very good plot.
Also, I think that the fact that the disciples were convinced of the ressurection is one of the strongest arguments that it actually happened. If it hadn't, they certainly would have known.
I believe God had a place in society maybe a few hundred years ago. I am not convinced that belief has been of any use in recent times though.
Some would argue that the threat of a vengeful God reigns in people's destructive tendencies but the most peaceful societies in the world are among the least religious.
In modern times, religion seems often abused to either increase political power or effect an idealogical cause.
This signature is much better than its previous version.
The men who wrote these books new Jesus personally,
Huh. I think you've got me there! The bible couldn't likely have been produced for the sake of misleading others if there was the possibility of "peer review" amongst a group of people interested in maintaining consistency with certain, already understood ideas.
There are still plenty of holes/assumptions one could pick at, but you've answered the one I was interested in. Thanks, Primo.
Please see Matthew 19:3-12. The two passages being linked (by Jesus) here are the Genesis quote you gave above and an earlier one (Gen 1:27), and the purpose of that linkage was "Marriage is not about a property contract nor about reproduction but rather was created for the purposes of companionship". This is the purpose of the second passage (Gen 2:24). What he is teaching here is not "Marriage is intended for one man one woman" (a claim not even followed in Biblical example!) but rather "Marriage should be valued for the companionship it brings and not its economic or reproductive benefits"; and he then finishes with "It is better for those who can abstain to not marry at all". In light of this teaching I don't see how you can view the Genesis passage as an anti-gay or even pro-marriage text.
The Leviticus and Romans quotes take much longer explanation, I'll get around to it eventually but it's not very important. But keep in mind for now that they all refer to the code of laws that only Jews need obey, and only apply to males.
Dromiceius wrote:
The only interesting idea (interesting as in, no one has ever had the balls to reply to it) I've had is that there's really no way for a theist to know that their particular holy book was not, in truth, written by their particular anti-deity.
There is no "anti-deity" in the Abrahamic tradition as I understand it. God is in full control, is the author of evil (Isaiah 45:7 I am the one who forms light / and creates darkness; / the one who brings about peace / and creates calamity. / I am the Lord, who accomplishes all these things. and Amos 3:6 If an alarm sounds in a city, do people not fear? / If disaster overtakes a city, is the Lord not responsible?), and uses evil for his own purposes; Satan is a trustworthy lieutenant who will one day no longer be neccessary and will then be destroyed. The entire idea of two opposing deities seems to be Zoroastrian in origin.
Dacicus wrote:
Boco wrote:
The Mosaic code defines four sexes
Reference?
Numbers 5:3 You must expel both men and women; - the translation masks this but this actually reads "from male to female" implying a spectrum. This and other references (including actual real-world bilogy) caused keepers of the law to develop two additional legal categories, the androgyne (a hermaphrodite) and the tumtum (one who has no sexual characteristics or one whose sex is called into question). The law is generally interpreted for an androgyne as the more restrictive if there is a difference between male and female. (it should be noted that because female homosexuality is not restricted, an androgyne is permitted to marry a woman (but not a man), but that since reproduction is impossible, this is an option and not a requirement).
The legal discussion is very long and makes more references than I quoted but for the most part is irrelevant since it applies only to Jews. Look up the term "tumtum" and you'll find it, probably.
Dacicus wrote:
Boco wrote:
The ressurection will occur on this Earth
It's not this earth, it's a new one, as the passage you posted says.
The point is, it is not in any sort of Heaven and is not immediate.
Dacicus wrote:
Boco wrote:
No. Animals do not possess the correct kind of soul.
Since you're using that passage from Isaiah to indicate what will happen after the Resurrection, and it largely consists of changed animal behaviors, aren't you contradicting yourself?
Not at all. Nothing of an animal is preserved after death, so no particular animal will be ressurected. But animals will still be around.
Dacicus wrote:
Boco wrote:
Lesbianism has never been restricted and this is intentional.
What leads you to say this?
I'll discuss it later. But in the meantime, what text at all mentions lesbianism negatively? (I'll give you a hint: there's only one Biblical passage that could possibly ever be construed to, and it's a stretched reading of Romans 1 which you already referenced: other depictions are positive or neutral)
Baxter wrote:
Boco wrote:
No. Animals do not possess the correct kind of soul.
This directly leads me to the question: What is your stance on evolution?
I don't see any particular religious reason to discount the very blatantly obvious findings of science, including this one. In any case, evolution is a theory that explains the history, development, and differentiation but not origin of life. Anyone who denies it is stupid for two reasons: one, not having bothered to learn what the actual science is; and two, not having bothered to learn what the actual religion teaches.
Baxter wrote:
Boco wrote:
Lesbianism has never been restricted and this is intentional.
Oh, didn't know this. You sound like there is a good reason why this is also; I'd like to hear it. (To me, it somehow sounds like something men made up.)
It's more "there is (or was) (religious and cultural but not moral) reason to restrict male homosexuality" than "there is reason to be liberal about female homosexuality". I'll talk about it more sometime when it's not 5 AM.
Warp wrote:
This is the stupidest and most useless thread in the entire site. Just lock it, please.
You seem to have no problem participating in an off-topic derailing of the Ask Bisqwit thread, which this thread was created to house, so I don't really see your objection. Could you clarify why you think this?
nfq wrote:
oh my god boco, are you a christian...
What's the problem?
Anyway, to answer the question which I don't think you even intended to ask, I don't think most conservative Christians would think so, solely because I don't believe Trinity and actually think it's more spiritually harmful than helpful doctrine. I identify as a back-to-basics Abrahamic monotheist called a Child of Noah.
primorial#soup wrote:
The men who wrote these books knew Jesus personally, and saw him die.
This is not precisely true, as most of the Gospel texts are second-hand accounts and the majority of the New Testament was written by Paul, who never once met Jesus and only converted to the religion after Jesus's death. But Peter was an influential leader in the early church and was Jesus's direct disciple so likely ONE of the many, many divergent early Christan communities knew what they were talking about. (there was no unified early Christianity by the way, but then again, that's the point of most of Paul's letters).
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
I didn't ask you anything for a good reason; your arguments make no sense, and your ideas are uninteresting... they also aren't sincere. There is no point in responding to them.
huh? that's gay man :/ you know, i'm actually not even religious, i just had to make some arguments for god because i felt like there wasn't enough christians here. and btw, it was god who made me call you a fool, so don't blame me. you should respond, my answers were intelligent if you just ignore the fool in the beginning.
Boco wrote:
Anyone who denies it is stupid for two reasons:
i don't deny evolution but i deny the current theory of evolution because it sounds stupid. do you really believe that all creatures evolved from a few of organisms in the ocean, then crept up to land and metamorphosised into all the billion different species?
and a brainless evolution couldn't design so many different animals. there has to be an intelligent designer. "personally" i believe we were first some kind of spiritual beings, then we d/evolved into material beings.
What's the problem?
nah, i'm just messing around. in my country christians are so rare that if people see one they usually react: oh my god is he a christian? but i know that in the USA 99% are christians.
I don't believe Trinity and actually think it's more spiritually harmful than helpful doctrine.
That was kinda obvious. You however did respond to my questions, even though I said: Baxter wrote:
I'm asking these questions to people who consider themselves theists
The questions weren't meant for someone like you to be answered, if they were, I wouldn't have mentioned I'm interested in answers from theists only.
nfq wrote:
i just had to make some arguments for god because i felt like there wasn't enough christians here
Arguments for god? You make it sound like you believe in god (even though it's obvious you don't), and use weak arguments no single believer would give. Good thing you posted a perfect example in this post I'm responding to: nfq wrote:
btw, it was god who made me call you a fool, so don't blame me
Religious people (I think) believe in there being good and evil choices, and what your afterlife will be like is at least partially determined by the choices you make. If, like you suggest, everything was predetermined, people were predetermined to make bad choices. God couldn't possibly think bad of something you did, if you were predetermined to do it. I'm not even sure if you could even call it a choice. This way, your afterlife would be predetermined as well, and not influenced by yourself. I think you see this as a flaw in religious belief... and are trying to point it out by saying stuff like what I just quoted. This doesn't make sense with your statement that you are trying to make some arguments for god, because you think there are too few christians. It is this what I mean by not being sincere.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
nfq wrote:
Chamale wrote:
Name a specific animal which COULD NOT have evolved.
dog.
(reversed it becomes: god)
It's funny that you mention dogs, because they are one of the best demonstration of evolution in action. Dogs evolved from wolves into all the little breeds you see today, from the meanest rottweiler to the tiniest poodly ratdog. The mechanism for selection was different, of course, men selected which animals would breed instead of nature, but everything else was exactly the same.
and a brainless evolution couldn't design so many different animals.
Why not? Personal incredulity is not an answer. It has been proven a million times that evolution happens. You could argue that some designer was behind the scenes, directing things, but that designer is not a theory, has no proof, nothing to test, and is also superfluous - not needed. Besides, if you wanted to tackle the question of life in any honest way, you would have to ask the next question. Who created god?
He may exist, and he may not. Whether he does or doesn't, the concept of him and the ideas behind the concept should be used to better ourselves.
This is my thought.
If, like you suggest, everything was predetermined, people were predetermined to make bad choices. God couldn't possibly think bad of something you did, if you were predetermined to do it. I'm not even sure if you could even call it a choice.
Romans 9:9 For this is what the promise declared: [Gen 18:10,14] “About a year from now I will return and Sarah will have a son.” 9:10 Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac – 9:11 even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling) – 9:1226 it was said to her, [Gen 25:23] “The older will serve the younger,” 9:13 just as it is written: [Mal 1:2-3] “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! 9:15 For he says to Moses: [Ex 33:19] “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 9:16 So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 9:17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh: [Ex 9:16] “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 9:18 So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden.
9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?” 9:20 But who indeed are you – a mere human being – to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, [Isa 29:16] “Why have you made me like this?” 9:21 Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use? 9:22 But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction?
Point of this passage: 1. Sarah's conception of Isaac was revealed one year before it happened. 2. Before Jacob and Esau were born to Rebekah, it was revealed that the younger would be the heir and not the older. 3. When Moses demands God give him visble proof of his authority, God does so, but then immediately says that his favor would not neccessarily extend to those Moses is leading, because he will choose individually. 4. The only reason Pharaoh was allowed to gain power and to enslave the Jews was so that Moses could cause the Exodus - Pharaoh' entire empire was allowed to happen only for that one event, and Pharaoh's actions were dictated by God. 5. Drawing from all of these things you see that free will is not a valid assumption; God only gives free will to some (not all) people, with the others having been "prepared for destruction", desined for some purpose that does not involve their eventual ressurection.
In other words, God does't think bad about you doing something you were predestined to do because someone who is predestined has no more will than a hammer and is put to the same purpose, and once there are no more nails to drive into the wood the hammer will be discarded as useless. Those without free will don't matter and there's no reason to give a second thought to them once they have been destroyed after fulfilling their predestined purpose. "Everything" is not predestined, but predestination is a fact of the universe, at least as far as these traditions hold.
EDIT: Think of it like The Truman Show. There are real people with free will (Truman) running around, but the majority of "people" are paid actors who are not held morally responsible for their actions because their actions are more or less scripted.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Boco> In any case, evolution is a theory that explains the history, development, and differentiation but not origin of life. Anyone who denies it is stupid for two reasons: one, not having bothered to learn what the actual science is; and two, not having bothered to learn what the actual religion teaches.
Plus points for this answer. But i'm going to be aggressive anyway: what when science finds and understands the origin of life? (I assume that it will, sooner or later.) Where will god hide when earthquakes, lightning, diseases and the origin of life is taken?
Blublu> Why is there something instead of nothing?
I try not to think about this one too much.
primo> The men who wrote these books knew Jesus personally, and saw him die.
The gospels are commonly dated to years 70-110. Biblical scholars find it unlikely that any of the apostles wrote them.
primo> I think that the fact that the disciples were convinced of the ressurection is one of the strongest arguments that it actually happened.
I think that's an extremely weak argument. People of different faiths are convinced of all sorts of things. Is the fact that the davidians were convinced that David Koresh was Cyrus the Great reborn (to the extent that they were willing to die for it) a strong argument that he actually was?
-----
And honestly: virgin birth? Wouldn't you put your 5$ on Joseph?
No muslims around? That would be refreshing.
Arguments for god? You make it sound like you believe in god (even though it's obvious you don't), and use weak arguments no single believer would give.
i believe in god, but not the christian version, so i guess my arguments are a little different.
Truncated wrote:
what when science finds and understands the origin of life? (I assume that it will, sooner or later.) Where will god hide when earthquakes, lightning, diseases and the origin of life is taken?
science never understands anything entirely, they only think they do. for example, scientists don't know the cause of lightning.
Blublu> Why is there something instead of nothing?
I try not to think about this one too much.
why not? i think it's an interesting question.
Blublu wrote:
Dogs evolved from wolves into all the little breeds you see today, from the meanest rottweiler to the tiniest poodly ratdog. The mechanism for selection was different, of course, men selected which animals would breed instead of nature, but everything else was exactly the same.
how did wolves transform into so many different dogs? what has crossbreeding have to do with evolution?
It has been proven a million times that evolution happens.
Evolution is supposed to happen over a time of millions of years, so how could it be proven?
I do believe in evolution a little. For example, because we use our brain so much, we will have a bigger brain in the future. And because there are different human races, in the future all the races have blended into one. But that's it. We won't evolve beyond that, we won't start morphing into elephants or horses.
You could argue that some designer was behind the scenes, directing things, but that designer is not a theory, has no proof, nothing to test, and is also superfluous - not needed.
I don't understand how you can not see that animals are designed.
Besides, if you wanted to tackle the question of life in any honest way, you would have to ask the next question. Who created god?
how did wolves transform into so many different dogs? what has crossbreeding have to do with evolution?
This is perhaps a bad example. The evolution of wolves was largely guided by the hand of man. The tamer wolves were domesticated and cared for, which gave them a solid chance of survival. They gradually got very time. Sometimes people would breed dogs for large or small size, short or long hair, until they reached such speciation as with Great Danes and chihuahuas.
Evolution is supposed to happen over a time of millions of years, so how could it be proven?
Various fossils have been found, of prechelonians, premammalians, preornithids, fish with legs, etc.
Nothing created God. God has always existed.
Why not take away the middleman and say the Universe has always existed?
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
Although this topic does interest me as a theist, I feel no desire to participate in this discussion. I just know that it would be a big waste of time on my part and that talking to a brick wall would produce a more fruitful conversation.
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
nfq wrote:
And because there are different human races, in the future all the races have blended into one. But that's it. We won't evolve beyond that, we won't start morphing into elephants or horses.
I think you do not understand evolution. I suggest reading a book, or at least a good article, about it before you dismiss it completely. I really can't blame you for not believing it if you think it's about humans morphing into horses at random moments in time.
I do believe in evolution a little. For example, because we use our brain so much, we will have a bigger brain in the future.
Why not take away the middleman and say the Universe has always existed?
The universe is pretty much just another word for God. There is not so much difference in saying that God designed animals or saying that the living universe did.
RT-55J wrote:
I just know that it would be a big waste of time on my part and that talking to a brick wall would produce a more fruitful conversation.
The point of discussion is not to convince others about something, the point is that it's fun.
Blublu wrote:
I think you do not understand evolution. I suggest reading a book, or at least a good article, about it before you dismiss it completely.
I haven't bothered to read much about it because I know it's not true.
That idea is called Lamarckism, and it is wrong.
How then do you explain that every successive generation is more enlightened than the preceding one?
I know it's true because there were once giants on earth who had a bigger brain than us (because they had used it so much), but after the crossbreeding (Genesis 6:4) we now have small a small brain.
How then do you explain that every successive generation is more enlightened than the preceding one?
Each successive generation is more "enlightened" than the preceding one because the preceding generations have already done the original thinking necessary to become enlightened. The successive generations can learn from the past generations without having to come up with the ideas themselves. The increase in human knowledge is explained by neither Lamarckian nor Darwinian evolution. It amazes me how so many people equate intelligence with knowledge. The human brain has not changed much in tens of thousands of years. Humans living 20,000 years ago, for example, were not any less intelligent than humans are now. Bring a human baby from the past to the present and his or her intelligence would be indistinguishable from other present-day humans.
The standard notions people have of Darwinian evolution can't be applied to humans. No other living species on Earth have health care systems, etc. Darwinian evolution is "survival of the fittest." The definition of "fittest" in the human context is not the same as it is in the context of other animals (or plants for that matter). In addition, the only reason why evolution cares if an individual is fit is so that the individual lives long enough to reproduce. The evolution of humans all comes down to which genes get reproduced the most often and become more prevalent in the gene pool. So even if being more intelligent equates to being more "fit" in the context of humans, do more intelligent people have more children than less intelligent people? I am getting dangerously close to eugenics here. Evolution only cares if the genes get passed on to future generations. And finally, the mutations necessary for evolution are inherently impossible to predict. This further makes it difficult to see where human evolution is heading. Then there is also the possibility that in the future people will be genetically engineering their children (again getting dangerously close to eugenics.)
I shall here address some of the issues raised in this thread.
The only interesting idea (interesting as in, no one has ever had the balls to reply to it) I've had is that there's really no way for a theist to know that their particular holy book was not, in truth, written by their particular anti-deity.
Perhaps not always, but there are sometimes ways to find out. One should consider if, the author having ill intentions, he would have anything to gain, and if he or she is not being honest about what he would gain or lose. If an individual writes something that most people would benefit from following, but which the target audience knows or practices already, it shows that he can't afford to help people and he should be viewed as suspicious. Of course, the author could very well be who he claims to be, but not WHAT he claims to be.
Dromiceius wrote:
Many people accept that either God or Satan can respectively "speak through" or "possess" an individual. How, then, do we know that the bible wasn't written by someone possessed by Satan?
This accusation can not be supported in any way. The Bible contains several derogatory statements directed at Satan. He would not have had any reason to write this about Himself. The name was, prior to the publication of this work, unknown in Europe. Therefore He could not possibly gain anything from including these statements, such as appealing to a wider audience. The only people who could possibly be interested in including negative statements about themselves while pretending to be someone else would be people who already had a strong negative reputation. This pattern is supported by events occurring today. Some dishonest people will try to lure people out of organizations that are opposed to them by starting false organizations of the same type.
Huh. I think you've got me there! The bible couldn't likely have been produced for the sake of misleading others if there was the possibility of "peer review" amongst a group of people interested in maintaining consistency with certain, already understood ideas.
Well, we don't see the logical connection here. Of course the Bible was written to have some consistency with what people believed in Europe. They had to make some compromises, but they still got their message across that was not believed by anyone else before. It happens all the time.
primorial#soup wrote:
Their texts universally denounce evil works and Satan himself. Were their inception a plot by Satan, who is clearly depicted as the enemy of Jesus in those very texts, it certainly was not a very good plot.
Also, I think that the fact that the disciples were convinced of the ressurection is one of the strongest arguments that it actually happened. If it hadn't, they certainly would have known.
The first paragraph is exactly right. But don't forget that there are other parties involved, too. Look closely for another enemy of Jesus, who didn't have the luxury of the option not to be his enemy.
If we had proof that the disciples really were convinced of the resurrection, it might have suggested that it happened. But we don't know that. The so-called disciples may just as been have been a lying band of scammers. There are other instances in history where people have believed, and still believe, events that could not possibly have happened, and there may even be thousands of "eye-witnesses" who saw something that wasn't there.
asteron wrote:
I believe God had a place in society maybe a few hundred years ago. I am not convinced that belief has been of any use in recent times though.
Some would argue that the threat of a vengeful God reigns in people's destructive tendencies but the most peaceful societies in the world are among the least religious.
In modern times, religion seems often abused to either increase political power or effect an idealogical cause.
Common sense tells us that a belief is necessarily useful if and only if it is true. A belief in any God must be either true or false. The truthhood of any such belief is of course static. It can't be true today and false tomorrow. The truth is that the most common world religions were man-invented for the purpose you describe, so they haven't themselves been abused. They were always detrimental to the societies where they were practiced.
Baxter wrote:
Also, in most religions, being gay is considered a sin. But if the souls of men and women are the same, then wouldn't it be the same for two men or two women to fall in love, just like a man and a women? In afterlife you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, if the quote from Bisqwit is true.
We feel that it doesn't make sense to mix different religions. In all religions apart from Christianity, it can not be assumed that the statement is true. But if we assume it as factually true, it still only applies to souls in "Heaven" and not to a man on Earth. However, the general consensus is that the souls of men and women are indeed different.
nfq wrote:
i believe in god, but not the christian version, so i guess my arguments are a little different.
Your arguments are different because of who you are, not because of who you believe in. You may not know where your beliefs come from, but they have been implanted in your from birth. You have been told of a certain history and a future by your creators that is not true. The future where all human races will coalesce into one that will exterminate the original races and take over the Earth will not take place. There will be a war and the hybrid race will lose.
AQwertyZ wrote:
The definition of "fittest" in the human context is not the same as it is in the context of other animals (or plants for that matter). In addition, the only reason why evolution cares if an individual is fit is so that the individual lives long enough to reproduce. The evolution of humans all comes down to which genes get reproduced the most often and become more prevalent in the gene pool. So even if being more intelligent equates to being more "fit" in the context of humans, do more intelligent people have more children than less intelligent people? I am getting dangerously close to eugenics here.
The concept of fitness is relative to the external environment. Animals can change the environment to direct the evolution of another species to their advantage. Because people are capable of advanced intelligent thought we are especially prone to doing so, but we often forget the fact that others can do the same to us. Left to their own devices, humans would not have established universal health care or punished intellectuals. This is a consequence of manipulation by others with the goal to make us weaker.
The universe is pretty much just another word for God. There is not so much difference in saying that God designed animals or saying that the living universe did.
I think it's generally implied that God is sentient.
I don't believe in God mainly due to the concept of parsimony which basically asserts that it cannot exist.
That, among other things. I tried to believe but I just don't see how a deity can exist.
