Any Atheists in the House?

[smutnut]

Originally Posted by Donny

What a stupid, stupid post.

If that ain't calling the kettle black LOL

Okay,

Now I lay me down to sleep
I pray the lord my soul to keep
If I day before I wake
I pray the lord my soul to take

Like I didn't go to Sunday School

[Evil1]

Originally Posted by Donny

What a stupid, stupid post.

Mouth writing checks your ass is afraid to cash? I've told I "just have to have faith".. Just have some faith jesus will be there for you? Why wouldnt he be? Your one of his children, You are a unique and special snowflake, you are precious, he will save you.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by smutnut

No, it's really not. It's silly. If you take infinity into account and the fact that we do exist it's just a random chance that applies to physics. We will also cease to exist one day and then probably one day IN INFINITY exist once again.

It's sad but it's really that simple.

Nothing about human existence proves their is a God, even slightly except we are so desperate to understand ourselves that we had to make one up back when our minds were that simple.

This post demonstrates your lack of knowledge of complexity. I'll give you one example:

Have you heard the story that states something along the lines of, "If you stuck a group of monkeys into a room and sat them down to peck away on typewriters, given enough time they'd write out the complete works of Shakespeare." ?

Mathematically, it has been proven that even for one of those monkeys to type out one SONNET he would need more years than there are atoms in the entire UNIVERSE. The universe, as dated by scientists, hasn't existed that long. And if that's not long enough for a monkey to type a sonnet, it's definitely not long enough for life to exist as we know it. That is why the likes of multiverse theory has arisen. Multiverse theory is much harder to swallow than an intelligent First Cause.

[Phillipmcd1]

Originally Posted by Evil1

Ok lets take the amtrack test. We meet on some train tracks, you use jesus to survive, just stand there and pray. ill go with science, science tells me if I get the fuck off the track I'll be fine. After I find where your head rolled off to we can discuss the results.

He has the Free Will to stand there....or move.
“It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

[Donny]

Originally Posted by smutnut

If that ain't calling the kettle black LOL

No, my friend, it is not. His example is stupid because free will has already been covered. I'd have the free will to allow myself to be killed by a train. That has nothing to do with God's existence.

[OverdueNudes]

Really? Monkey's typing Shakespeare? That's what you're going with? Holy shit. I can see clearly now, praise jebus.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by OverdueNudes

Really? Monkey's typing Shakespeare? That's what you're going with? Holy shit. I can see clearly now, praise jebus.

Your ignorance is showing. The Infinite Monkey Theorem is a well known example used by atheists. Google it.

[smutnut]

Originally Posted by Donny

This post demonstrates your lack of knowledge of complexity. I'll give you one example:

Have you heard the story that states something along the lines of, "If you stuck a group of monkeys into a room and sat them down to peck away on typewriters, given enough time they'd write out the complete works of Shakespeare." ?

Mathematically, it has been proven that even for one of those monkeys to type out one SONNET he would need more years than there are atoms in the entire UNIVERSE. The universe, as dated by scientists, hasn't existed that long. And if that's not long enough for a monkey to type a sonnet, it's definitely not long enough for life to exist as we know it. That is why the likes of multiverse theory has arisen. Multiverse theory is much harder to swallow than an intelligent First Cause.

Really? You are comparing monkey's typing shakespeare (which is actually monkeys typing some type of novel) within a limited lifetime, to infinity?

You do realize we do exist, right? Even if there is no God, right? I don't even want to get into the multiverse theories or any other theories with anyone who doesn't think their isn't a chance that there is no god, so that pretty much settles that...

[Phillipmcd1]

Originally Posted by smutnut

We are so desperate to understand ourselves that we had to make one up back when our minds were that simple.

Something to think about

[OverdueNudes]

How come adults stop believing in Santa but not all stop believing in Gods? Santa has thousands of books and songs too. This is bullshit. SAVE SANTA!!!

[Donny]

Originally Posted by smutnut

Really? You are comparing monkey's typing shakespeare (which is actually monkeys typing some type of novel) within a limited lifetime, to infinity?

You do realize we do exist, right? Even if there is no God, right? I don't even want to get into the multiverse theories or any other theories with anyone who doesn't think their isn't a chance that there is no god, so that pretty much settles that...

No credible scientist gives the universe a dating of "infinity years", my friend. Even the highest number of years that has been credibly proposed does not allow for enough time for us to reach the complexity required for our existence. It's just not mathematically possible.

[Phillipmcd1]

Originally Posted by OverdueNudes

Really? Monkey's typing Shakespeare? That's what you're going with? Holy shit. I can see clearly now, praise jebus.

An infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters could write the complete words of Shakespeare is the example

[OverdueNudes]

Donny what could make you become an Atheist? What would have to happen to change your mind?

[Donny]

Originally Posted by OverdueNudes

Donny what could make you become an Atheist? What would have to happen to change your mind?

I've already been there: I was an atheist at one point in my life. I decided to follow the evidence to where it leads. Modern science has provided evidence that clearly points to an intelligent First Cause.

[OverdueNudes]

Originally Posted by Donny

I've already been there: I was an atheist at one point in my life. I decided to follow the evidence to where it leads. Modern science has provided evidence that clearly points to an intelligent First Cause.

But it hasn't.

An atheist would become a NON atheist if gods presented themselves.

So how can gods never presenting themselves keep you a believer??

[smutnut]

Originally Posted by Donny

No credible scientist gives the universe a dating of "infinity years", my friend. Even the highest number of years that has been credibly proposed does not allow for enough time for us to reach the complexity required for our existence. It's just not mathematically possible.

That's pretty much what I was saying, except that it will start over again. Unless of course you believe in God. Then it can't of course.

God would make things a bit finite

[Evil1]

Originally Posted by Donny

Modern science has provided evidence that clearly points to an intelligent First Cause.

hahah, yeah ok. So... who's got it right? You, the jews, or the muslims? Who would win in a street fight? God or Allah?

[smutnut]

Originally Posted by Donny

I've already been there: I was an atheist at one point in my life. I decided to follow the evidence to where it leads. Modern science has provided evidence that clearly points to an intelligent First Cause.

The evidence

I'm sorry I can't take that. What evidence even remotely shows there is a God?

[Phillipmcd1]

Originally Posted by Donny

Modern science has provided evidence that clearly points to an intelligent First Cause.

What's your thoughts on the majority of the most elite Scientists are non-believers

[Donny]

Originally Posted by smutnut

That's pretty much what I was saying, except that it will start over again. Unless of course you believe in God. Then it can't of course.

God would make things a bit finite

You miss something: even if the universe kept expanding and contracting on itself, starting over and over again, there has not been enough time in THIS version of the universe for the complexities of our existence.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by Phillipmcd1

What's your thoughts on the majority of the most elite Scientists are non-believers

Which scientists are we talking about? Biologists or physicists? Because biologists don't really study complexity, and there are a lot of physicists who believe in the existence of God. FYI: Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin both believed God exists.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by Evil1

hahah, yeah ok. So... who's got it right? You, the jews, or the muslims? Who would win in a street fight? God or Allah?

Again, this thread discusses the existence of God. The various versions of stories that claim to tell God's story have no relevance on whether or not God exists.

[OverdueNudes]

Originally Posted by Donny

Which scientists are we talking about? Biologists or physicists? Because biologists don't really study complexity, and there are a lot of physicists who believe in the existence of God. FYI: Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin both believed God exists.

Obviously the ones that study the "modern science that clearly points to First Cause" you mentioned numb nuts. Not just any scientists.

[smutnut]

Originally Posted by Donny

You miss something: even if the universe kept expanding and contracting on itself, starting over and over again, there has not been enough time in THIS version of the universe for the complexities of our existence.

That's complete crap. Cause we do exist and if you have any education at all, you know we are really not that complex. Only on ourselves and until we reach the next level, like maybe studying the brain and stuff.

We are now growing body parts. How less complex do you want us to be?

You love this witch doctor shit, but it is complete crap.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by smutnut

The evidence

I'm sorry I can't take that. What evidence even remotely shows there is a God?

Have you been paying attention at all in this thread? I've listed several pieces of evidence that points to the existence of God. Complexity being one of them.

[smutnut]

Originally Posted by Donny

Again, this thread discusses the existence of God. The various versions of stories that claim to tell God's story have no relevance on whether or not God exists.

Then what does it even matter. You are pulling your own God out of your ass and wanting us all to worship him. I don't get it.

[OverdueNudes]

Originally Posted by Donny

Have you been paying attention at all in this thread? I've listed several pieces of evidence that points to the existence of God. Complexity being one of them.

Complexity is not evidence. Nor is anything you mentioned.

[Mr Pheer]

Originally Posted by jigg

Who's the Christian God?

Haha! Good question

Ask Donny. Doesnt matter what religion, really. I was just using a modern example.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by smutnut

That's complete crap. Cause we do exist and if you have any education at all, you know we are really not that complex. Only on ourselves and until we reach the next level, like maybe studying the brain and stuff.

We are now growing body parts. How less complex do you want us to be?

You love this witch doctor shit, but it is complete crap.

"we are really not that complex"
^^^ That is probably one of the most ignorant things you've written in your entire life. Study the complexity of even a single cell. Study the complexity of an eyeball. Study the complexity of just about any life form whatsoever.

[smutnut]

Originally Posted by Donny

Have you been paying attention at all in this thread? I've listed several pieces of evidence that points to the existence of God. Complexity being one of them.

this is all ambiguous bullshit. complexity in your own personal eyes doesn't make something complex and doesn't prove there is a God even if it were actually complex.

[Mr Pheer]

Originally Posted by Donny

Study the complexity of an eyeball.

May we use one of yours?

[OverdueNudes]

Your several pieces of evidence are just ideas that you think help strengthen your faith. We're talknig about evidence OF Gods, not evidence of theories about Gods. Are YOU even paying attention?

[smutnut]

Originally Posted by Donny

"we are really not that complex"
^^^ That is probably one of the most ignorant things you've written in your entire life. Study the complexity of even a single cell. Study the complexity of an eyeball. Study the complexity of just about any life form whatsoever.

I think I understand you now. You're smart. Everything is complex. Thus there is a God. Simple really. good night. Really this time.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by smutnut

Atheism is an extreme determination that nothing else that matters that is a higher power could possibly exist. Agnosticism is the denial of responsibility.

It basically comes down to - what the fuck does it really matter? if you think God is supreme why even bother praying. He can't answer your prayers because he has bigger plans than you.

the bible says we can't understand God's ways yet there are churches everywhere making you commit to things we can't understand.

I say it is all irrelevant. If God exists, he doesn't matter to your everyday life no more than the daily life a a single cockroach should matter to you. It can't. It's just semantics within our own logic.

It's really that simple be you left or be you right...

prayer might not get you a parking spot or a ticket to concert BUT prayer can alter human emotion and perception, AND changing your emotion and perception can change YOUR life AND if something must change in any given 'human' circumstance it might as well be 'you'. pretty simple really...

[Donny]

Originally Posted by smutnut

Then what does it even matter. You are pulling your own God out of your ass and wanting us all to worship him. I don't get it.

Where have I said that? This thread, as I've repeated many times, discusses the existence of God. Personally, I lack the missionary drive to convert anyone to my religious beliefs. I really don't care whether or not you choose to be a Christian or a non-Christian. But the existence of God is not a religious belief. I love debating such things.

I also love debating Christianity, but that would be a new thread. Perhaps I'll start that thread once this one has run it's course.

I promised my little cousin we'd watch an episode of Vampire Diaries before she has to go to bed, so this has to be my last post for now or it'll be too late to keep that promise. Thanks for being civil. I've enjoyed our discussion so far.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Donny

Three dimensions of nature that point to the existence of God:

1. The fact that nature obeys laws.
2. The dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter.
3. The very existence of nature.

WHY does rational thought exist? WHY does nature obey laws? WHY do subatomic particles exist? WHY does life itself exist? Chemicals combine together, sure. But LIFE is not attained by combinations of chemicals. Self awareness is not attained by combinations of chemicals. How did LIFE come from non-life? And WHY did reproduction begin?

There is no proof for this, on either side.

Why are the laws of nature so precise, universal and tied together? Why does the universe even bother to exist? Einstein called the answer to questions like this “the mind of God”. That’s how he explained it. And before you say Einstein didn’t believe in God, here is a quote from him:

"I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”

Einstein also said, of atheists, “What really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of their views.” He renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. He very much believed in a “superior reasoning force,” a “superior mind,” an “illimitable superior spirit” and a “mysterious force that moves the constellations”, of which he was speaking about God. There are many well known scientists who believed the same way.

Even Charles Darwin was a theist. He wrote:

"[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

Many modern day scientists reflect this exact same belief.

if you must use this much text to try and explain or justify a 'god' you are definitely playing mental hopscotch with yourself... in my expereince, the more text, the less substance

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by smutnut

It's like reading the Greek Myths which are much better written.

Christianity is based on Greek myth, and the Greek part takes place in the Catholic Church between young boys and priest

[Phillipmcd1]

Originally Posted by Donny

Which scientists are we talking about? Biologists or physicists? Because biologists don't really study complexity, and there are a lot of physicists who believe in the existence of God. FYI: Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin both believed God exists.

American National Academy of Sciences, only 7% believe in a God. I also have a study that shows that prayer has the same results as chance, in some cases worse than chance but you didn't go there so I'll shut up about that. And Darwin was agnostic, he didn't convert on his deathbed.

Darwin said "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age." He agreed that Christianity was "not supported by the evidence", but he had reached this conclusion only slowly.

The "Lady Hope Story", first published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were rejected by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.

[buzzard]

God is a hydra headed word.
Reality exists. Existence exists. No other explanation needed.
To ask who created existence is an infinite regression question.

Existence exists. Always has and always will.

Why put a mythical GOD in place of reality?
If you do and you're honest, then you should also ask who created god.
.

[xholly]

Originally Posted by Donny

You miss something: even if the universe kept expanding and contracting on itself, starting over and over again, there has not been enough time in THIS version of the universe for the complexities of our existence.

what makes you say this? there has been exactly enough time for the universe to evolve to the point we observe around us.

the monkeys writing shakespere is used as an example of infinity.

[Vjo]

If "you" (each of 7 billion people) on ave pray or think of God for 5 seconds/day then every second of every day 100,000 prayers or thoughts are being fired off to God.

Just kind of fun with numbers.

So I figure IF there is a God he is tired of us and surely things are not as simple as the Catholic church says where we all sit around and pray ect all day. That is way too simplistic besides..

do you really want to spend the rest of eternity with your relatives or even people in general?

I am afraid we are but like the deer, the flowers and the trees. Just biology that is advanced at different rates and which decays at different rates.

But I WANT to believe.

[jimmy-3-way]

Originally Posted by Donny

Three dimensions of nature that point to the existence of God:

1. The fact that nature obeys laws.
2. The dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter.
3. The very existence of nature.

WHY does rational thought exist? WHY does nature obey laws? WHY do subatomic particles exist? WHY does life itself exist? Chemicals combine together, sure. But LIFE is not attained by combinations of chemicals. Self awareness is not attained by combinations of chemicals. How did LIFE come from non-life? And WHY did reproduction begin?

There is no proof for this, on either side.

Why are the laws of nature so precise, universal and tied together? Why does the universe even bother to exist? Einstein called the answer to questions like this “the mind of God”. That’s how he explained it. And before you say Einstein didn’t believe in God, here is a quote from him:

"I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”

Einstein also said, of atheists, “What really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of their views.” He renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. He very much believed in a “superior reasoning force,” a “superior mind,” an “illimitable superior spirit” and a “mysterious force that moves the constellations”, of which he was speaking about God. There are many well known scientists who believed the same way.

Even Charles Darwin was a theist. He wrote:

"[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

Many modern day scientists reflect this exact same belief.

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.

Best part about being an atheist?

I've never wasted one second of my precious, short life thinking about stupid circular arguments to convince believers not to believe.

[Evil1]

Originally Posted by OverdueNudes

How come adults stop believing in Santa but not all stop believing in Gods? Santa has thousands of books and songs too. This is bullshit. SAVE SANTA!!!

Crutch for the emotionally fragile that are incapable of dealing with the possibility that human death could actually be the end. You have to admit it sure sounds good, grandma and grampa waiting for you in heaven where you get to spend eternity in paradise, it's easy to see how thats appealing to those less evolved. Of course the only way to get there oddly enough is to accept jesus at church, do exactly what they say, and hand over money (and small male children) weekly.

[Evil1]

Originally Posted by Donny

"we are really not that complex"
^^^ That is probably one of the most ignorant things you've written in your entire life. Study the complexity of even a single cell. Study the complexity of an eyeball. Study the complexity of just about any life form whatsoever.

Study the complexity of Cerns Large Hadron Collider!

Oh shit! sorry, man made.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by Evil1

Ok lets take the amtrack test. We meet on some train tracks, you use jesus to survive, just stand there and pray. ill go with science, science tells me if I get the fuck off the track I'll be fine. After I find where your head rolled off to we can discuss the results.

Or do you not have faith in your god? Cash the fuckin check your mouth writes.

You have faith in the laws of physics. I too have faith in those same laws. If I have faith in the creator of those laws, I will have faith in the laws he created, will I not? The ancient writings, including the Bible, tell me to be mindful of natural law (physics).

You forget the Bible is full of things like the sanitary way to butch meat, draining the blood and all, don't eat shellfish if refrigeration hasn't been invented, don't start a project without without planning ahead, etc. "Don't stand on train tracks" would fit right in.

"Thou shalt not screw thy neighbors wife, for thou neighbor mighteth kick thine ass." You didn't think all that was arbitrary did you? Most of the biblical admonishments are pretty much warnings to pay attention to things that can hurt you, like trains, seductive evil women, etc. That's why so many of them take the form "the wise man does this, the foolish man does that." "The wise man stays clear of trains, the fool gets drunk on the tracks" would fit right in.

[Vjo]

"oh my God" and "God dammit" have to be said literally about one hundred thousand times since you read this sentence.

"oh MY God"

Everyone thinks somehow "they" are close to God. That he hears their prayer. Even I do. But the math shows you that he is a a busy guy feeling all the prayers.

Yet pure atheism leaves no hope and is a lonely place. Remember Carl Sagan who on his death bed would not believe. Right or wrong Atheism takes tremendous courage.

Some would rather have hope than none which is not only undestandable but maybe philosophicly a better way to live life.

Albeit a life of fantasy and to embrace the real truth is probably the best way.

[keysync]

Please tell me what your god thinks of fathers that molest their defenseless children.
And I mean defenseless. Under 5 years old to start with.
WTF is up with that?

[jimmy-3-way]

Originally Posted by Vjo

Yet pure atheism leaves no hope and is a lonely place. Remember Carl Sagan who on his death bed would not believe. Right or wrong Atheism takes tremendous courage.

Amigo - you are completely wrong. Atheism requires no courage at all, would you say that it requires courage to reject Santa or Thor or Darth Vader? Of course not.

[theking]

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.

Pigshit.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Donny

Three dimensions of nature that point to the existence of God:

1. The fact that nature obeys laws.
2. The dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter.
3. The very existence of nature.

WHY does rational thought exist? WHY does nature obey laws? WHY do subatomic particles exist? WHY does life itself exist? Chemicals combine together, sure. But LIFE is not attained by combinations of chemicals. Self awareness is not attained by combinations of chemicals. How did LIFE come from non-life? And WHY did reproduction begin?

There is no proof for this, on either side.

Why are the laws of nature so precise, universal and tied together? Why does the universe even bother to exist? Einstein called the answer to questions like this “the mind of God”. That’s how he explained it. And before you say Einstein didn’t believe in God, here is a quote from him:

"I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”

Einstein also said, of atheists, “What really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of their views.” He renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. He very much believed in a “superior reasoning force,” a “superior mind,” an “illimitable superior spirit” and a “mysterious force that moves the constellations”, of which he was speaking about God. There are many well known scientists who believed the same way.

Even Charles Darwin was a theist. He wrote:

"[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

Many modern day scientists reflect this exact same belief.

Pigshit.