Why this scientist believes in GOD

[koshergrl]

The study also puts the lie to the meme that religious societies are the most disruptive/backward/hostile:

"Dr Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, who directed the project, said faith may persist in diverse cultures across the world because people who share the bonds of religion “might be more likely to cooperate as societies”.

I will wait for your next anti-religion falsehood with bated breath....

 

[turzovka]

Okay, I listened to it.

But what he essentially says is, the human body is a wonderful thing, therefor god must be real.

That is no argument for god. I agree that the human body is a wondrous thing. As is our world and our universe. But if anything, I would say that means god is all the less likely.

It would be easy to imagine a god who could create an amoeba or a ball of rock. But to imagine a being capable of all this? It boggles the mind.

The power, the complexity... it makes a natural process like evolution seem simplistic in the extreme. For god to be real he would need more power than anything we have ever seen and witnessed. That is not logical. He would have to be outside of everything we see and know. Again, not logical.

It's like pointing to a rainbow and proclaiming it a miracle. People used to believe that. Now we understand the mechanics of a rainbow.

Explaining creation with a being even more complex is the same kind of nonsense. It's trying to explain something we don't understand right now, with something we can never understand.

Well that’s a new and novel kind of reasoning.

So from what I can decipher, you seem to have God not unlike some kind of super hero, maybe to be found in the same comic books as superman, aquaman, thor, et al. Superman has his kryptonite and God has his limited mind which cannot overcome certain complexities.

The latest episode starts out with God in the corner of some dungeon room in his palace trying to get an amoeba to jump through a hoop in some advanced training trial. A look of exasperation clearly upon God’s face…. “Who out there can ever create a human?” we hear his mournful lament.

 

[newpolitics]

Einstein himself said God doesn’t play dice...Scientist read their own vision of cosmology into the facts, just like everyone else, Einstein should have known better. God is rife with ambiguity, if he’s out there at all.

Einstein didn't believe in a theological conception of god. He was a pantheist. He believed in spinoza's god, that nature is god and god is nature. It is an equivalency that does not need to exist, and is essentially atheism. He did not believe god had any kind of agency with which to create or control our lives.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Of course science won't give us definitive proof of the beginnings of the universe. But it can tell us how we came into existence.

They are one and the same problem.

Behold the pseudoscientific claptrap of the atheist. Behold his philosophical and theological ignorance, his irrationality, his failure to grasp even the first principles or imperatives of realty.

Of course it can't tell us why we are here. Odds are, there is no why. In fact I would say if we can show the how, the why becomes a waste of time. Because on a long enough timeline anything that can happen will happen. There no longer needs to be a why.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Hysterical doggerel. Science answers one question, hundreds more arise. Science never gets anywhere near the how either. Science can’t even affirm it’s own presupposition. You're deluded. We can't get beyond the singularity in terms of falsification. It's all mathematics and metaphysics from here on out. You atheists go on and on about how things are getting simpler and smaller relative to some arcane and imminent mastery unto the end of all the great mysteries, when in fact the more we learn, the bigger and more wonderfully complex and bizarre the cosmos gets.

The whole reason most people believe, those who have truly thought about it anyway, is that they do not think life can exist without god. That we are too complex.

There's something almost numinous about your superstition.

Once again, real science: Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Science can tell us how life can come about.

No. It can't. That's pseudoscientific baloney! The religion, the superstition of atheism.

Once again, real science: Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

We are getting closer to that knowledge every day.

Biochemical engineering and abiogenesis are not the same thing!

Utter nonsense. The opposite is true. The more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that we will never be able to resolve the matter of life’s origin scientifically. Indeed, the more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that life did not arise spontaneously via natural processes. That's just your ignorance, your magical, superstitious atheism talking. You don’t grasp the matter at all. Only ignorant, atheistic laymen and depraved academicians talk like this. The pioneers and the leading lights of abiogeneic research know better. Miller, for example, disdained these kinds of hysterical claims and those who peddled them.

Once again, real science: Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

This is why so many in the religious community fear science. It has the potential to undermine religion, if not directly, certainly indirectly.

Oh shut up with that old canard. Christians don’t fear science. Hogwash. And there’s no God in the gaps. More hogwash. I'm light years ahead of you in science, I'd be quite willing to bet. Further, it is you atheists who disregard what abiogenetic research is clearly telling us about the origin of life, what quantum physics is clearly telling us about cosmological origins.

The new atheist: he’s that smarmy, obnoxious, smarter-than-thou fool who stupidity believes that science is the all to end all of knowledge, and yet he cannot see what science is screaming at him about God.

Once again, real science: Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[koshergrl]

The best scientists the world has ever seen include devout Christians.

 

[koshergrl]

As well as the most respected and lauded archaeologists, anthropologists, genetecists, and mathematicians.

The most revolutionary writers, the greatest poets....primarily Christians.

 

[koshergrl]

The best rulers the earth has ever seen...the wisest, most powerful, most humane...Christians.

 

[Hollie]

Once again, real science: Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I only got part way through your self-promotional link. It contained every bad example of science loathing, brain melting, IQ reducing religious fundamentalist copy and paste nonsense I've ever seen in one location.

You shill for Harun Yahya, right?

 

[Underhill]

Okay, I listened to it.

But what he essentially says is, the human body is a wonderful thing, therefor god must be real.

That is no argument for god. I agree that the human body is a wondrous thing. As is our world and our universe. But if anything, I would say that means god is all the less likely.

It would be easy to imagine a god who could create an amoeba or a ball of rock. But to imagine a being capable of all this? It boggles the mind.

The power, the complexity... it makes a natural process like evolution seem simplistic in the extreme. For god to be real he would need more power than anything we have ever seen and witnessed. That is not logical. He would have to be outside of everything we see and know. Again, not logical.

It's like pointing to a rainbow and proclaiming it a miracle. People used to believe that. Now we understand the mechanics of a rainbow.

Explaining creation with a being even more complex is the same kind of nonsense. It's trying to explain something we don't understand right now, with something we can never understand.

Sure it's an argument for the existence of God. You might not agree, but it is perfectly reasonable.

What on earth makes you think there's no power outside the power you've witnessed with your own eyes? Talk about illogical. You are essentially saying that because you can't imagine it, it can't exist..and that logic is confined by your comprehension.

Read my post again. I said something completely different than what you are attributing to me.

The simplest explanation is usually true. It's that simple. Belief in god as an answer simply complicates things by several magnitude. It's possible there is a god, just incredibly unlikely. Much more unlikely than something as mundane as evolution.

I'm seeing a trend in your post. You continue to paint a picture of me that is not true. And in so doing seem to paint a very accurate portrait of yourself.

 

[koshergrl]

Gosh.where have I heard that before?

Well anyway you're good at mimicry. It makes up for your abysmal debate failure.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Once again, real science: Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I only got part way through your self-promotional link. It contained every bad example of science loathing, brain melting, IQ reducing religious fundamentalist copy and paste nonsense I've ever seen in one location.

You shill for Harun Yahya, right?

None of that is true. The article is origin prose from beginning to end. The science is current. The science is impeccable. It is your ignorance that is on display here.

 

[PratchettFan]

Okay, I listened to it.

But what he essentially says is, the human body is a wonderful thing, therefor god must be real.

That is no argument for god. I agree that the human body is a wondrous thing. As is our world and our universe. But if anything, I would say that means god is all the less likely.

It would be easy to imagine a god who could create an amoeba or a ball of rock. But to imagine a being capable of all this? It boggles the mind.

The power, the complexity... it makes a natural process like evolution seem simplistic in the extreme. For god to be real he would need more power than anything we have ever seen and witnessed. That is not logical. He would have to be outside of everything we see and know. Again, not logical.

It's like pointing to a rainbow and proclaiming it a miracle. People used to believe that. Now we understand the mechanics of a rainbow.

Explaining creation with a being even more complex is the same kind of nonsense. It's trying to explain something we don't understand right now, with something we can never understand.

Well, that's one of the things he's talking about. He's sharing the manner or the means by which God brought him to the faith of salvation. God spoke to him via this medium. Note that he does not offer it as a proof of God's existence, nor does he talk about the ontological proofs of God's existence in the philosophical/theological sense.

God is real, Underhill. Make no mistake about that. Others might be touched in the same way as this man via this medium. That's all.

Further, understanding "the mechanics of a rainbow", as you put it, makes it no less miraculous in the sense of its very existence, indeed, in the sense of the very existence of the cosmos in which it resides. That is to say, this talk about the so-called God in the gaps from the new atheism is nonsense. Meaningless. There is no God in the gaps and never has been. Science cannot and does not tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. On the contrary, I don’t know what science some are following, but the more we learn from real science, the more complex and weird and mysterious the cosmos gets. Each new discovery raises hundreds of new questions.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

The pseudo-intellectualism of the new atheism which claims that science is systematically erasing the mysteries of existence and, thereby, the rationale for a sentient divinity is the risible, pseudoscientific claptrap prattled by fools, including the likes of Hawking and Krauss. But more to the point, the new atheism is not the future of political and religious belief and power of this world anyway. Talk about delusions.

He lives. He is risen. He loves you. Repent and know the eternal joy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now is the day of salvation!

He is free to believe as he pleases, as are we all. However, he is no more qualified on this than anyone else. His opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

A tiny chance that God may exist?! Stop it! The material and ontological (rational and mathematical) arguments for God's existence utterly demolish the irrational fanaticism of atheism!

See also: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...evers-in-god-academic-claims.html#post6859326

Do not be conformed to the foolishness of this world, but be transformed by the Spirit and the Word of God. The day of salvation is now!

Been there. Done that. Bought the post card.

No you didn't.

I believe what Underhill was saying was he used to be a Christian??

 

[Underhill]

Been there. Done that. Bought the post card.

No you didn't.

I believe what Underhill was saying was he used to be a Christian??

He doesn't think I could be a christian and no longer be one.

I know it's nonsense. But it is biblical making argument pointless when dealing with a zealot.

 

[koshergrl]

Once again, real science: Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I only got part way through your self-promotional link. It contained every bad example of science loathing, brain melting, IQ reducing religious fundamentalist copy and paste nonsense I've ever seen in one location.

You shill for Harun Yahya, right?

None of that is true. The article is origin prose from beginning to end. The science is current. The science is impeccable. It is your ignorance that is on display here.

Hollie maintains that Oxford researchers are fundies, and their research is "alleged" and "non-peer reviewed". What a dolt.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, I listened to it.

But what he essentially says is, the human body is a wonderful thing, therefor god must be real.

That is no argument for god. I agree that the human body is a wondrous thing. As is our world and our universe. But if anything, I would say that means god is all the less likely.

It would be easy to imagine a god who could create an amoeba or a ball of rock. But to imagine a being capable of all this? It boggles the mind.

The power, the complexity... it makes a natural process like evolution seem simplistic in the extreme. For god to be real he would need more power than anything we have ever seen and witnessed. That is not logical. He would have to be outside of everything we see and know. Again, not logical.

It's like pointing to a rainbow and proclaiming it a miracle. People used to believe that. Now we understand the mechanics of a rainbow.

Explaining creation with a being even more complex is the same kind of nonsense. It's trying to explain something we don't understand right now, with something we can never understand.

Well, that's one of the things he's talking about. He's sharing the manner or the means by which God brought him to the faith of salvation. God spoke to him via this medium. Note that he does not offer it as a proof of God's existence, nor does he talk about the ontological proofs of God's existence in the philosophical/theological sense.

God is real, Underhill. Make no mistake about that. Others might be touched in the same way as this man via this medium. That's all.

Further, understanding "the mechanics of a rainbow", as you put it, makes it no less miraculous in the sense of its very existence, indeed, in the sense of the very existence of the cosmos in which it resides. That is to say, this talk about the so-called God in the gaps from the new atheism is nonsense. Meaningless. There is no God in the gaps and never has been. Science cannot and does not tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. On the contrary, I don’t know what science some are following, but the more we learn from real science, the more complex and weird and mysterious the cosmos gets. Each new discovery raises hundreds of new questions.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

The pseudo-intellectualism of the new atheism which claims that science is systematically erasing the mysteries of existence and, thereby, the rationale for a sentient divinity is the risible, pseudoscientific claptrap prattled by fools, including the likes of Hawking and Krauss. But more to the point, the new atheism is not the future of political and religious belief and power of this world anyway. Talk about delusions.

He lives. He is risen. He loves you. Repent and know the eternal joy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now is the day of salvation!

He is free to believe as he pleases, as are we all. However, he is no more qualified on this than anyone else. His opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

Gibberish. Once again, we have the blather of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty nancing about as insight. Certain aspects of my evaluation of the evidence in terms of ultimate ramifications and my metaphysics are open to debate. The science itself is not!

You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you know it.

The science is current and correct, accurately and objectively reported. Your argument in this regard is not with me, but with the very best, peer-reviewed findings of abiogenesis' leading lights from Miller on.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, that's one of the things he's talking about. He's sharing the manner or the means by which God brought him to the faith of salvation. God spoke to him via this medium. Note that he does not offer it as a proof of God's existence, nor does he talk about the ontological proofs of God's existence in the philosophical/theological sense.

God is real, Underhill. Make no mistake about that. Others might be touched in the same way as this man via this medium. That's all.

Further, understanding "the mechanics of a rainbow", as you put it, makes it no less miraculous in the sense of its very existence, indeed, in the sense of the very existence of the cosmos in which it resides. That is to say, this talk about the so-called God in the gaps from the new atheism is nonsense. Meaningless. There is no God in the gaps and never has been. Science cannot and does not tell us anything about the why or the ultimate origin of existence. On the contrary, I don’t know what science some are following, but the more we learn from real science, the more complex and weird and mysterious the cosmos gets. Each new discovery raises hundreds of new questions.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

The pseudo-intellectualism of the new atheism which claims that science is systematically erasing the mysteries of existence and, thereby, the rationale for a sentient divinity is the risible, pseudoscientific claptrap prattled by fools, including the likes of Hawking and Krauss. But more to the point, the new atheism is not the future of political and religious belief and power of this world anyway. Talk about delusions.

He lives. He is risen. He loves you. Repent and know the eternal joy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now is the day of salvation!

He is free to believe as he pleases, as are we all. However, he is no more qualified on this than anyone else. His opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

Gibberish. Once again, we have the blather of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty nancing about as insight. Certain aspects of my evaluation of the evidence in terms of ultimate ramifications and my metaphysics are open to debate. The science itself is not!

You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you know it.

The science is current and correct, accurately and objectively reported. Your argument in this regard is not with me, but with the very best, peer-reviewed findings of abiogenesis' leading lights from Miller on.

There was no science in either the article you linked or in the op-ed it linked. None. Not a shred. There was a good deal of ranting, but no science. Likewise, there was no science in your post, only unsupported claims and allegations.

I will not mimic you by tossing out personal insults. I can only say that if you think science is not open for debate, you have no understanding of science. Science is always open for debate. That is one of the primary things which differentiates it from religion.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No you didn't.

I believe what Underhill was saying was he used to be a Christian??

He doesn't think I could be a christian and no longer be one.

I know it's nonsense. But it is biblical making argument pointless when dealing with a zealot.

Oh, make no mistake about it. I'm a zealot for Christ. For the sake of argument, given that Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead, should there be any other kind of Christian but a zealot? We are after all taking about a matter of eternal life or death. Anyone who believes on Jesus Christ, if not a zealot, is a fool. Spare us the ol' song-and-dance that Christians are irrational or obtuse.

Okay. You're claiming to have had a genuine, spiritual, rebirth experience with God . . . and then you walked away?! You're claiming to have believed what I believed? What happened to your zealotry?

Granted it's not impossible. The Word does talk about such persons in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. It's a spiritual thing. But you appear to be relating your conversion in some sort of intellectual sense sans any initial repentance of faith unto salvation.

Either way, you're in a dangerous place spiritually. Please, let the Holy Spirit lead you to repentance. Don’t harden your heart.

 

[there4eyeM]

The universe is full of magnificence and what is, to us humans, mysterious. For many, that is enough. The beauty, the complexity, the simplicity are fascinating and marvelous. We don't have all the answers.

Projecting answers doesn't really seem to serve much. If God exists, God understands that. All human error must be understood and forgiven for God to deserve the title. If God does not exist, then error does not matter.

Sincere thought and contemplation are nevertheless the highest human endeavor. What is truly heartbreaking is that so many people are so immersed in petty materialism that they are ready to destroy the magnificent just to obtain what is essentially feces. Add to this tragedy that many religions and religious figures encourage this, and it is clear why they are so often rejected.

 

[Underhill]

Oh, make no mistake about it. I'm a zealot for Christ. For the sake of argument, given that Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead, should there be any other kind of Christian but a zealot? We are after all taking about a matter of eternal life or death. Anyone who believes on Jesus Christ, if not a zealot, is a fool. Spare us the ol' song-and-dance that Christians are irrational or obtuse.

Okay. You're claiming to have had a genuine, spiritual, rebirth experience with God . . . and then you walked away?! You're claiming to have believed what I believed? What happened to your zealotry?

Granted it's not impossible. The Word does talk about such persons in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. It's a spiritual thing. But you appear to be relating your conversion in some sort of intellectual sense sans any initial repentance of faith unto salvation.

Either way, you're in a dangerous place spiritually. Please, let the Holy Spirit lead you to repentance. Don’t harden your heart.

I had what I thought was a genuine experience yes.

I now recognize it for what it was. Delusion and hope. The bible is right in a sense. When it talks about belief as evidence. When it talks about the importance of fellowship, worship, prayer... all of these things are absolutely necessary.

Because the moment you stop surrounding yourself with such things, you realize how insane the whole mess is.