Originally Posted by Donny

Is this an invitation to share my thoughts on what I believe to be evidence of an intelligent First Cause (God)? If so, I'm happy to do so.

One particularly powerful bit of evidence for God from a theist?s perspective is the very fact that you and I are having this conversation to begin with. Richard Dawkins (the famous atheist evangelist) can?t explain why we are capable of rational thought, nor why our minds are capable of logic and order. I see the mind as glowing evidence of a creator. You do not. I see emotions as evidence of a creator. You do not. I see mathematical formulas as evidence of a creator. You do not. And do it goes, and so it goes.

So many atheists make the same mistake as the likes of Richard Dawkins:
You?re seemingly unaware that logical positivism was discarded in the 50s, by the very scholars who brought the concept into existence in the first place.

In case you don?t know what that term means, here is a web definition of logical positivism:
?A form of positivism, developed by members of the Vienna Circle, that considers that the only meaningful philosophical problems are those that can be solved by logical analysis.?

God is indeed a philosophical debate.

From a book by Antony Flew?s:
?[Atheist Evangelists like Dawkins] show no awareness of the fallacies and muddles that led to the rise and fall of logical positivism? It would be fair to say that the ?new atheism? is nothing less than a regression to the logical positivist philosophy that was renounced even by its most ardent proponents. In fact, the ?new atheists,? it might be said, do not even rise to logical positivism. The positivists were never so naive as to suggest God could be a scientific hypothesis-they declared the concept of God to be meaningless precisely because it was not a scientific hypothesis. Dawkins, on the other hand, holds that ?the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question?? I seek to show that our immediate experience of rationality, life, consciousness, thought, and the self militate against every form of atheism, including the newest.?

One problem, in my opinion, is that so many of you so-called ?atheists? are so far opposite from scientific minds that you revere the word ?scientist? as if such a person holds the keys to knowledge. That?s simply not correct. God is not a scientific discussion. God is a philosophical discussion.

This next quote comes from John D Barrow, who is an English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician. He is currently Research Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He obtained his first degree in mathematics and physics from Van Mildert College at the University of Durham in 1974. In 1977, he completed his doctorate in astrophysics at Magdalen College in the University of Oxford. He did two postdoctoral years in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. In other words, he?s not an idiot.

Of Richard Dawkins he said:

"You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you?re not really a scientist. You?re a biologist [to Barrow, biology is little more than a branch of natural history - now let's continue the quote]. Biologists have a limited, intuitive understanding of complexity. They?re stuck with an inherited conflict from the nineteenth century, and are only interested in outcomes, in what wins out over others. But outcomes tell you almost nothing about the laws that govern the universe.?

The biggest problem for those who don't believe in an intelligent First Cause is that they cannot explain complexity.