Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 18895415)

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...

Originally Posted by OverdueNudes (Post 18895411)

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

Originally Posted by OverdueNudes (Post 18895426)

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

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895428)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895422)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895428)

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

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895428)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895428)

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

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 18895431)

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

Originally Posted by Phillipmcd1 (Post 18895435)

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

Originally Posted by Evil1 (Post 18895433)

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?

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895437)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895436)

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.

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 18895434)

The evidence :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895438)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895441)

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.

Originally Posted by jigg (Post 18895219)

Who's the Christian God?

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 18895440)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895441)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895448)

Study the complexity of an eyeball.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895448)

"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.

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 18895248)

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...

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 18895442)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895270)

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.

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 18895333)

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

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895437)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895436)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895270)

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.

Originally Posted by OverdueNudes (Post 18895421)

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!!!

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895448)

"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.

Originally Posted by Evil1 (Post 18895395)

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.

Originally Posted by Vjo (Post 18895494)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895264)

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.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895270)

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.

Originally Posted by Babaganoosh (Post 18895187)

Lack of proof.

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895270)

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?

Originally Posted by Donny (Post 18895183)

If so, what are your reasons for disbelief in God?

Originally Posted by jimmy-3-way (Post 18895500)

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.

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18895587)

Why does the fact that humans cannot explain everything about the universe and our existence have to mean by default that god did it? Why is a simple "we don't know yet" not sufficient? We once thought the earth was flat. Ancient Aztecs worshiped the sun and sacrificed thousands to appease it. Science eventually busted these myths and more will fall in the future. Sooner or later science will explain a lot about our existence. Saying that god is the only answer to the mysteries of the universe is a total cop out. You're taking the easy way out because you are too impatient for the real answers to come by way of science.

If you are going to explain the universe and our existence with the god theory then you have to explain who or what created god. You are explaining what seems to you to be incredible with something that is even more incredible. It's an argument of infinite regress.

Originally Posted by Harmon (Post 18895213)

Originally Posted by inthecrack (Post 18895587)

Why does the fact that humans cannot explain everything about the universe and our existence have to mean by default that god did it? Why is a simple "we don't know yet" not sufficient? We once thought the earth was flat. Ancient Aztecs worshiped the sun and sacrificed thousands to appease it. Science eventually busted these myths and more will fall in the future. Sooner or later science will explain a lot about our existence. Saying that god is the only answer to the mysteries of the universe is a total cop out. You're taking the easy way out because you are too impatient for the real answers to come by way of science.

If you are going to explain the universe and our existence with the god theory then you have to explain who or what created god. You are explaining what seems to you to be incredible with something that is even more incredible. It's an argument of infinite regress.