It is absurd to use the word "REASON" to describe Atheism.

[Youwerecreated]

Oh fantastic, you have a list. Quite an impressive one at that. Tell me, of what use is religious superstition in the advancement of our understanding of the universe? Other than an easy go-to answer when we give up searching.

Superstition really ? No one said anything about giving but that is wrong of the science community to not give suppositions of the creator a second thought,why ? because there is strong evidence supporting a designer and when you eliminate a major factor such as the creator if you are wrong you will always be wrong.

 

[Toro]

If you wish to cite the miller and urey experiment which is the argument most evolutionist try to use as proof of amino acids forming naturally in nature.But let me show you why the experiment failed.

1953 by Stanley Miller under the supervision of Harold Urey, the first experiment to test the Oparin Haldane theory about the evolution of prebiotic chemicals and the origin of life on Earth.

Problems with the experiment.

1. They hypothesized that prebiotic chemicals could evolve naturally in the enviornment and form the first cell which further evolved to life as we know it today. They did not prove this at all. All that was formed was amino acids and a few other molecules. A cell did not form.

2. The results were conducted by intelligent humans and they were trying to show that a natural unintelligent process could form these prebiotic chemcals that would make up a cell.

3. They assumed what the enviornment was like 3.8 billion years ago without having a clue what it was like. They used circular reasoning and produced an enviornment like ours today. One of the things they didn't account for was raw oxygen that would decompose any molecules being formed in nature.

4. The biggest blow to the test was that as stated earlier only left handed amino acids work with life and forming proteins. The test produced both the left and right amino acids.

I put this as simple as I could.

That's not evidence of the existence of God. Science's inability to fully explain nature does not mean God exists, just like science's inability to describe God does not mean God doesn't exist. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that God exists because of man's inability to fully describe the universe.

I am still waiting for answers to my questions. If you are admitting ignorance on the origins question why are you so against there being a creator ? That is the only rational assumption.

How can some humans can not see the evidence of design and order in our world but believe everything originated from chaos ?

I didn't say there wasn't a creator. I said there is no evidence of God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may mean that our inability to prove the existence of God is due to the limitations of the human mind, not that God doesn't exist.

But your argument is still a logical fallacy. There is no default option.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's not evidence of the existence of God. Science's inability to fully explain nature does not mean God exists, just like science's inability to describe God does not mean God doesn't exist. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that God exists because of man's inability to fully describe the universe.

I am still waiting for answers to my questions. If you are admitting ignorance on the origins question why are you so against there being a creator ? That is the only rational assumption.

How can some humans can not see the evidence of design and order in our world but believe everything originated from chaos ?

I didn't say there wasn't a creator. I said there is no evidence of God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may mean that our inability to prove the existence of God is due to the limitations of the human mind, not that God doesn't exist.

But your argument is still a logical fallacy. There is no default option.

No you are wrong once you consider the evidence. If there is a creator and he created all things the science community will never know the truth because they eliminated design from the discussion.

It's not a fallacy when there is plenty of evidence of design in nature. If you dug up a watch on a beach would you assume it was a product of evolutuion or a product of design ?

 

[amrchaos]

I am still waiting for answers to my questions. If you are admitting ignorance on the origins question why are you so against there being a creator ? That is the only rational assumption.

How can some humans can not see the evidence of design and order in our world but believe everything originated from chaos ?

I didn't say there wasn't a creator. I said there is no evidence of God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may mean that our inability to prove the existence of God is due to the limitations of the human mind, not that God doesn't exist.

But your argument is still a logical fallacy. There is no default option.

No you are wrong once you consider the evidence. If there is a creator and he created all things the science community will never know the truth because they eliminated design from the discussion.

It's not a fallacy when there is plenty of evidence of design in nature. If you dug up a watch on a beach would you assume it was a product of evolutuion or a product of design ?

Even if the scientific community eliminated design from the discussion, there is no reason why this God can't confront the scientific community.

Of course, I am assuming this god is an intelligent being with a desire for humans to know of God. I can be wrong, but why hide from humans if you want humans to know you?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I didn't say there wasn't a creator. I said there is no evidence of God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may mean that our inability to prove the existence of God is due to the limitations of the human mind, not that God doesn't exist.

But your argument is still a logical fallacy. There is no default option.

No you are wrong once you consider the evidence. If there is a creator and he created all things the science community will never know the truth because they eliminated design from the discussion.

It's not a fallacy when there is plenty of evidence of design in nature. If you dug up a watch on a beach would you assume it was a product of evolutuion or a product of design ?

Even if the scientific community eliminated design from the discussion, there is no reason why this God can't confront the scientific community.

Of course, I am assuming this god is an intelligent being with a desire for humans to know of God. I can be wrong, but why hide from humans if you want humans to know you?

God is allowing us the chance to choose for ourselves and my faith tells me he will confront us all in the near future. He has set a time and day for this and no one knows when it is but he did give give us identfying factors to know when it is near.

We are all living life and making decisions but the question is are we wise with our decisions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I didn't say there wasn't a creator. I said there is no evidence of God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may mean that our inability to prove the existence of God is due to the limitations of the human mind, not that God doesn't exist.

But your argument is still a logical fallacy. There is no default option.

No you are wrong once you consider the evidence. If there is a creator and he created all things the science community will never know the truth because they eliminated design from the discussion.

It's not a fallacy when there is plenty of evidence of design in nature. If you dug up a watch on a beach would you assume it was a product of evolutuion or a product of design ?

Even if the scientific community eliminated design from the discussion, there is no reason why this God can't confront the scientific community.

Of course, I am assuming this god is an intelligent being with a desire for humans to know of God. I can be wrong, but why hide from humans if you want humans to know you?

You can know God through his works,his word, and persistent prayer. But the revealing will come in time.

Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels of Heaven, but only My Father.

We all have a choice before us that is what this life is all about.

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, my brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
2Th 2:2 that you should not be soon shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word or letter, as through us, as if the Day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let not anyone deceive you by any means. For that Day shall not come unless there first comes a falling away, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth, that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?
2Th 2:6 And now you know what holds back, for him to be revealed in his own time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only he is now holding back until it comes out of the midst.
2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming,
2Th 2:9 whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all deceit of unrighteousness in those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, so that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,
2Th 2:12 so that all those who do not believe the truth, but delight in unrighteousness, might be condemned

 

[amrchaos]

No you are wrong once you consider the evidence. If there is a creator and he created all things the science community will never know the truth because they eliminated design from the discussion.

It's not a fallacy when there is plenty of evidence of design in nature. If you dug up a watch on a beach would you assume it was a product of evolutuion or a product of design ?

Even if the scientific community eliminated design from the discussion, there is no reason why this God can't confront the scientific community.

Of course, I am assuming this god is an intelligent being with a desire for humans to know of God. I can be wrong, but why hide from humans if you want humans to know you?

God is allowing us the chance to choose for ourselves and my faith tells me he will confront us all in the near future. He has set a time and day for this and no one knows when it is but he did give give us identfying factors to know when it is near.

We are all living life and making decisions but the question is are we wise with our decisions.

Then I choose that this god you are referring to does not exist. Why should I believe in something that wants me to know him then turn around and say it is up to me to believe?

In this light, faith seems more like a joke than something that should be taken seriously.

 

[Toro]

I am still waiting for answers to my questions. If you are admitting ignorance on the origins question why are you so against there being a creator ? That is the only rational assumption.

How can some humans can not see the evidence of design and order in our world but believe everything originated from chaos ?

I didn't say there wasn't a creator. I said there is no evidence of God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may mean that our inability to prove the existence of God is due to the limitations of the human mind, not that God doesn't exist.

But your argument is still a logical fallacy. There is no default option.

No you are wrong once you consider the evidence. If there is a creator and he created all things the science community will never know the truth because they eliminated design from the discussion.

It's not a fallacy when there is plenty of evidence of design in nature. If you dug up a watch on a beach would you assume it was a product of evolutuion or a product of design ?

Again, you are making leaps in logic by concluding that because we don't understand it, it must be because of God. That is neither proof nor evidence. If a watch was on the beach, I don't assume God created it. I don't understand the mechanics of a watch. That doesn't mean God made it. It just means I don't understand it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I didn't say there wasn't a creator. I said there is no evidence of God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may mean that our inability to prove the existence of God is due to the limitations of the human mind, not that God doesn't exist.

But your argument is still a logical fallacy. There is no default option.

No you are wrong once you consider the evidence. If there is a creator and he created all things the science community will never know the truth because they eliminated design from the discussion.

It's not a fallacy when there is plenty of evidence of design in nature. If you dug up a watch on a beach would you assume it was a product of evolutuion or a product of design ?

Again, you are making leaps in logic by concluding that because we don't understand it, it must be because of God. That is neither proof nor evidence. If a watch was on the beach, I don't assume God created it. I don't understand the mechanics of a watch. That doesn't mean God made it. It just means I don't understand it.

Uderstanding the formation of cells is a very strong reason to conclude it could not happen on it's own. It's not the leap you think it is.

All the brightest minds in science have no clue how it can happen through a natural unintelligent process.

All of nature presents too many coincidences for an unintelligent process as the source,a designer better fits the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Even if the scientific community eliminated design from the discussion, there is no reason why this God can't confront the scientific community.

Of course, I am assuming this god is an intelligent being with a desire for humans to know of God. I can be wrong, but why hide from humans if you want humans to know you?

God is allowing us the chance to choose for ourselves and my faith tells me he will confront us all in the near future. He has set a time and day for this and no one knows when it is but he did give give us identfying factors to know when it is near.

We are all living life and making decisions but the question is are we wise with our decisions.

Then I choose that this god you are referring to does not exist. Why should I believe in something that wants me to know him then turn around and say it is up to me to believe?

In this light, faith seems more like a joke than something that should be taken seriously.

If you can't see that faith is required to believe in some scientific theories you are blind.

Psa 14:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.

Pro 14:16 A wise one fears and departs from evil, but the fool rages and is sure.

I see a lot of this in these threads.

 

[Toro]

No you are wrong once you consider the evidence. If there is a creator and he created all things the science community will never know the truth because they eliminated design from the discussion.

It's not a fallacy when there is plenty of evidence of design in nature. If you dug up a watch on a beach would you assume it was a product of evolutuion or a product of design ?

Again, you are making leaps in logic by concluding that because we don't understand it, it must be because of God. That is neither proof nor evidence. If a watch was on the beach, I don't assume God created it. I don't understand the mechanics of a watch. That doesn't mean God made it. It just means I don't understand it.

Uderstanding the formation of cells is a very strong reason to conclude it could not happen on it's own. It's not the leap you think it is.

All the brightest minds in science have no clue how it can happen through a natural unintelligent process.

All of nature presents too many coincidences for an unintelligent process as the source,a designer better fits the evidence.

But again, that is neither proof nor evidence. It is your theory.

Because we don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have a much better understanding of atomic structure today than we did 200 years ago, but that didn't mean protons and electrons didn't exist 200 years ago. We just weren't able to identify the atomic structure.

But the argument can also be used for the existence of God. Just because we cannot prove God exists doesn't mean God does not exist.

And even if God exists, it doesn't mean it's a Christian god either. It could be something very different.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Even if the scientific community eliminated design from the discussion, there is no reason why this God can't confront the scientific community.

Of course, I am assuming this god is an intelligent being with a desire for humans to know of God. I can be wrong, but why hide from humans if you want humans to know you?

God is allowing us the chance to choose for ourselves and my faith tells me he will confront us all in the near future. He has set a time and day for this and no one knows when it is but he did give give us identfying factors to know when it is near.

We are all living life and making decisions but the question is are we wise with our decisions.

Then I choose that this god you are referring to does not exist. Why should I believe in something that wants me to know him then turn around and say it is up to me to believe?

In this light, faith seems more like a joke than something that should be taken seriously.

Think of it this way instead of just trying to justify your feelings try reaching out to him and if you are genuine you will feel him and eliminate all doubt.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again, you are making leaps in logic by concluding that because we don't understand it, it must be because of God. That is neither proof nor evidence. If a watch was on the beach, I don't assume God created it. I don't understand the mechanics of a watch. That doesn't mean God made it. It just means I don't understand it.

Uderstanding the formation of cells is a very strong reason to conclude it could not happen on it's own. It's not the leap you think it is.

All the brightest minds in science have no clue how it can happen through a natural unintelligent process.

All of nature presents too many coincidences for an unintelligent process as the source,a designer better fits the evidence.

But again, that is neither proof nor evidence. It is your theory.

Because we don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have a much better understanding of atomic structure today than we did 200 years ago, but that didn't mean protons and electrons didn't exist 200 years ago. We just weren't able to identify the atomic structure.

But the argument can also be used for the existence of God. Just because we cannot prove God exists doesn't mean God does not exist.

And even if God exists, it doesn't mean it's a Christian god either. It could be something very different.

You are not getting it, we understand cells and how they are formed you are speaking from ignorance now.

 

[Toro]

Uderstanding the formation of cells is a very strong reason to conclude it could not happen on it's own. It's not the leap you think it is.

All the brightest minds in science have no clue how it can happen through a natural unintelligent process.

All of nature presents too many coincidences for an unintelligent process as the source,a designer better fits the evidence.

But again, that is neither proof nor evidence. It is your theory.

Because we don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have a much better understanding of atomic structure today than we did 200 years ago, but that didn't mean protons and electrons didn't exist 200 years ago. We just weren't able to identify the atomic structure.

But the argument can also be used for the existence of God. Just because we cannot prove God exists doesn't mean God does not exist.

And even if God exists, it doesn't mean it's a Christian god either. It could be something very different.

You are not getting it, we understand cells and how they are formed you are speaking from ignorance now.

We do not understand the origins of cellular formation even if we understand how cells are formed. Your argument - "We understand how cells are formed and they could only be formed by an intelligent designer" - is theory, not evidence or proof that God exists.

 

[Si modo]

But again, that is neither proof nor evidence. It is your theory.

Because we don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have a much better understanding of atomic structure today than we did 200 years ago, but that didn't mean protons and electrons didn't exist 200 years ago. We just weren't able to identify the atomic structure.

But the argument can also be used for the existence of God. Just because we cannot prove God exists doesn't mean God does not exist.

And even if God exists, it doesn't mean it's a Christian god either. It could be something very different.

You are not getting it, we understand cells and how they are formed you are speaking from ignorance now.

We do not understand the origins of cellular formation even if we understand how cells are formed. Your argument - "We understand how cells are formed and they could only be formed by an intelligent designer" - is theory, not evidence or proof that God exists.

It's not theory, either - at least not a scientific theory. It's a belief. ID is not a scientific theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are not getting it, we understand cells and how they are formed you are speaking from ignorance now.

We do not understand the origins of cellular formation even if we understand how cells are formed. Your argument - "We understand how cells are formed and they could only be formed by an intelligent designer" - is theory, not evidence or proof that God exists.

It's not theory, either - at least not a scientific theory. It's a belief. ID is not a scientific theory.

Please address this article since you claim ID don't have a scientific theory. This theory is supported by the evidence.

Courtesy of ultimatereality.

Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined

 

[Si modo]

We do not understand the origins of cellular formation even if we understand how cells are formed. Your argument - "We understand how cells are formed and they could only be formed by an intelligent designer" - is theory, not evidence or proof that God exists.

It's not theory, either - at least not a scientific theory. It's a belief. ID is not a scientific theory.

Please address this article since you claim ID don't have a scientific theory. This theory is supported by the evidence.

Courtesy of ultimatereality.

Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined

ID is not falsifiable - there exists no data set, either real or hypothetical, that falsifies ID (ie. some data or observation that God didn't do it) - thus it is not and cannot be a scientific theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's not theory, either - at least not a scientific theory. It's a belief. ID is not a scientific theory.

Please address this article since you claim ID don't have a scientific theory. This theory is supported by the evidence.

Courtesy of ultimatereality.

Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined

ID is not falsifiable - there exists no data set, either real or hypothetical, that falsifies ID (ie. some data or observation that God didn't do it) - thus it is not and cannot be a scientific theory.

That article did not say anything about God. Do you agree with their explanation or not and if you didn't why ?

 

[Si modo]

Please address this article since you claim ID don't have a scientific theory. This theory is supported by the evidence.

Courtesy of ultimatereality.

Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined

ID is not falsifiable - there exists no data set, either real or hypothetical, that falsifies ID (ie. some data or observation that God didn't do it) - thus it is not and cannot be a scientific theory.

That article did not say anything about God. Do you agree with their explanation or not and if you didn't why ?

Irrespective of what that article says, ID is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ID is not falsifiable - there exists no data set, either real or hypothetical, that falsifies ID (ie. some data or observation that God didn't do it) - thus it is not and cannot be a scientific theory.

That article did not say anything about God. Do you agree with their explanation or not and if you didn't why ?

Irrespective of what that article says, ID is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable.

Ok I understand you can't prove or disprove God .I don't agree with that because this evidence does support a designer but can't you see the problem this evidence presents for a natural unitelligent process creating life ?

If the science community continues to reject evidence of ID because they can't prove whether God exists or not are they really looking for the truth in science ? Design is evidence of intelligence not nonintelligence.