Question for atheists (believers welcome too)

Hi,

I respect your view, but I have another question: Are you agnostic, or do you lean more toward the belief that God is real?

Personally, I don't seek God just for the sake of knowledge. I seek God in gratitude. It makes no sense to me to say something like, "Thanks for giving me life, God. Now butt out and let me live this life without you!" I'm not saying this is your attitude; I'm just speaking hypothetically. "God is everything, or He is nothing," that's what they say. Upon realizing He was not nothing, I asked what I could do for Him.

I don't know if you've ever heard this before, but a "joke" I've heard several times in my life goes something like this: The president of the UN General Assembly goes before God, and says to Him, "God, perhaps you've noticed all the technological advancements we have made. We are now capable of doing anything you can do, and we don't need you anymore." God replied, "So you can do anything I can do, can you?" As the man nodded affirmatively, God scooped up a handful of dirt and made another man. God said, "Now you try." The president reached down to grab some dirt, but God smacked his hand and said, "Get your own dirt!"

Everything in this universe was created by Him, for Him (Him/Her/It). In God's universe I am entitled to nothing. Everything I have is a gift, and I always acknowledge those who give me gifts, including God. Thank you for your response!

-santuccie

P.S.: Laughing at dumb jokes is still good for your health!!!

Your 'joke' made me laugh, but there is profound truth in what you said!!!

You are very eliquent in your speaking and very concise in your anilitical and critical thinking. To me there is no diference between science and creation as they both try to answer the same question, why am I here and what is my purose. Science at one time was lead by religion, but the closed minded people who were afraid of their authority being chalanged would not except prevailing conclusions to theories that said we were not the center of the universe, let alone our own solor system, These people coused great harm to the belife of creationism. The laws of the universe and exspressed in the general relitivity theory to me can point to nothing but devine or intelligent design. To say that life is spontanious and sprang up with no thought is paramount to a tornado plowing through a junkyard and the debreis coming down in the form, no a funtioning Boeing 747. Even over the bilions of years that the universe had to do this it would be the best outside bet in history that not only could it get millions of lifeforms correct but do it in the right order as well. Evalotion does have its place, but on a micro, not the macro level of one thing becomeing another. Micro evealution was needed to bring life in stages to the point we see it now, And even the destinktion of sevral speacies was needed. One thing leads to another and needed for the avancement of the other untill the former is no longer neede and thus becomes competative with the latter and thus must be removed from the equasion. Fundamentalist beleiving that the bible is to be taken literaly further exasperate the amnity between science and creation. Faioth is one thing but to disbelive the truth is another. the story of creation in the bible is at best an alogorical coment, taken from a document that out dates Moses's writeings some 3000 years. And even in the document itself it offers no time table between the creation of the heavens and the earth and when the spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep and said 'let there be light'. As an appologist I find your answers superb, Meaningfull and delightfull.

Man I reread my statement above, my fingers have a mind of there own, sorry for all the mispelled words and it is extinction not destinktion lol

Oh and one more thing this was meant for santuccie,

Thank you so much, freethinkingagent, for your compliments! And yah, I had to do a double-take on some of your words here and there, but I was able to understand what you were saying. I really like the point you make, when you say that the notion of unguided, spontaneous generation would be even more mystifying than a tornado's debris settling back down in the form of a functioning Boeing 747.

It's all about purpose; why some people don't get it is beyond me. Some atheists/agnostics make a good point when they say, "Well, where did God come from?" All I can say is, "Well, where did dust come from, thin air? Bottom line is, it's here, and we're here. 'I think, therefore, I am.'" And to begin to fathom that we actually have the abilities to think and communicate, to see, to hear, to smell, to taste, to touch, and even to heal...the body truly is a marvelous mechanism.

It would be quite a tall order for a bunch of chemicals, swirling around aimlessly, to come together so very harmoniously! Usually, throwing a bunch of stuff together just makes waste; sometimes even an explosion. Quite a magnificent "accident" we are, aren't we?

Yours is without a doubt the best response I've gotten thus far from a believer's viewpoint. You could very well wind up with BR if you post this again in your own space, rather than a third-tier comment. Salute!

-santuccie

P.S.: Laughing at dumb jokes is still good for your health!!!

Thank you for your response. So, are your views based mostly on science, or on contradictions in scripture?

I'd have to say, science. I'm quite convinced that all scriptures are simply stories written by men so I don't think that contradictions in scripture would contradict the existence of a God. However, attributing a 'who' to what caused our presence seems too much like a fairy tale for my likings.

Seemingly simple logic, but that doesn't close the books for me. When I think "what," I think of a "Creative Intelligence."

I read your blog, and I don't believe your reasoning has anything to do with petty semantics; I think it's personal. It's not God who (that) offended you, but Christians. For the record, I am not a Christian; I am just a plain monotheist. Some might say, "spiritual," but that term doesn't quite work for me. I don't just say that I believe in something, then leave it at that. I do pray, among other things.

I don't attempt to confine God to a name, gender, form, or persona. I take for granted that God is a conscious being, and well aware of my presence and circumstances (see my testimony in the link I provided), but that's about as far as it goes. I occasionally reference scripture, but not because I take literally every word in the Bible, and I certainly don't profess anything I have no tangible evidence to support. My beliefs have to do with biology, anatomy, probability, and personal experience.

Anyway, to each his own. I fully understand your resentment toward Christians, and I don't blame you. Any religion that spreads by the sword is not of God, yet practically every organized religion in history has done exactly that. However, I don't let other people's conduct dictate what I believe or don't believe; whether or not your reaction is what Christians would have hoped for, you give them power over you nonetheless by doing so. I prefer to figure things out for myself (see my scientific arguments and testimony in the link I provided). Thank you for your response!

Well, your reasoning could be considered partially correct. I do have a strong dislike towards religious indoctrination and how it could potentially slow down human progress in certain areas.

Contrary to your belief, when I think of what (as being the cause of something) I think of an action - without a conscience.

The whole "who" and "what" is a firm base for my beliefs but I have also delved further within the subject of God and honestly, I'm not slightly convinced. I mean no disrespect when saying this, but personal experiences don't really cut it for me.

I hope I made myself clearer there? Thanks for your well-thought-out response.:)

'I do have a strong dislike towards religious indoctrination and how it could potentially slow down human progress in certain areas.'
>>How so? Fact of the matter is, there are more believers in the world than non-believers. Why are we not still in the stone age? Is it all thanks to non-believing minority for taking the initiative, while the majority of superstitious lemmings follow the leader off a cliff? No offense, just speaking figuratively.

'Contrary to your belief, when I think of what (as being the cause of something) I think of an action - without a conscience.'
>>I see your point. So, what action have you concluded with?

'I mean no disrespect when saying this, but personal experiences don't really cut it for me.'
>>That's okay. Seeing is believing, and I can't expect you to comprehend what you haven't seen with your own two eyes. It's kind of like a bore's rendition of a joke; no one laughs at the punchline. It's more meaningful to be there in person and see one of these events pan out, moment by moment, one "coincidence" after another.

I'm sorry if your life seems that dull to you, if the whole world isn't enough to amuse you. I really do get a kick out of seeing it all in living color. But I must admit, what's even more intriguing is how lifeless, mindless, inanimate objects can possess an unconscious will to get so very organized without one iota of external influence. The stripes on a zebra or tiger, the spots on a leopard, the feathers on a peacock...masterpieces. Usually when you throw a bunch of chemicals together and jump out of the way, you get waste, sometimes combustion.

I presume you've read my arguments in the other thread. So you see my five; care to raise me ten? I'd like to read your own arguments, and see just how deep you've delved into the matter. That would help clear things up for me.

P.S.: Some of my words may sound rather stern, possibly almost hostile. Please don't be offended; this is just the way I debate. Cheers!

How so? Fact of the matter is, there are more believers in the world than non-believers. Why are we not still in the stone age? Is it all thanks to non-believing minority for taking the initiative, while the majority of superstitious lemmings follow the leader off a cliff? No offense, just speaking figuratively.

Woah, I'm terribly sorry about that. I think you interpreted my message the wrong way.:P

Of course I did mean to apply that religious people were pointless, that's just be bigotry at its finest. Obviously religious people have made contributions to society, I don't see why they wouldn't, they've got the same exact brain as an atheist.

What I meant by my statement is that religion is interfering with very important things like Evolution being taught in all schools, stem cell research, universal marriage rights, etc.. The constant interference with religion in science can become worrying at times. Especially when the religious show they don't have a firm grasp of what science really is with statements such as; "So you believe we came from monkeys?" or "So you really think there was just a big explosion and the Earth pops out of nowhere?"

I see your point. So, what action have you concluded with?

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't know yet. But I'm completely fine with not knowing. I just don't believe that these gaps should be filled in with Gods though. We've seen the illogical side to doing that with the Egyptians and Greeks. Science has the humility to admit it does not know yet and that's what I love about it.

That's okay. Seeing is believing, and I can't expect you to comprehend what you haven't seen with your own two eyes. It's kind of like a bore's rendition of a joke; no one laughs at the punchline. It's more meaningful to be there in person and see one of these events pan out, moment by moment, one "coincidence" after another.

Alright, sure thing. A Christian told me I was bound to receive a revelation soon due to my respect for Jesus? Let's see how that turns out?:D

I'm sorry if your life seems that dull to you, if the whole world isn't enough to amuse you. I really do get a kick out of seeing it all in living color. But I must admit, what's even more intriguing is how lifeless, mindless, inanimate objects can possess an unconscious will to get so very organized without one iota of external influence. The stripes on a zebra or tiger, the spots on a leopard, the feathers on a peacock...masterpieces. Usually when you throw a bunch of chemicals together and jump out of the way, you get waste, sometimes combustion.

Life, dull? My life is great! I'm free of the fear of sins and judgments in the afterlife. I can fully live my life without thinking that an eternal life lies ahead. I find it extraordinary that we, humans, have evolved into such a marvelous species.. that we're able to create inventions such as spaceships, it truly shows the wonders of the human mind. The beauty of animal shows us how Evolution managed to bring out some extraordinarily good looking things. It's nice to know they didn't pop out of nowhere in the snap of fingers. (Hey, you get your witty phrase, I get mine?:P If you're really serious with that statement though, keep in mind that it may be that's just the stereotype of a failed experience. It may be the case in certain situation, but in a lot of situations it just doesn't happen like that.)

I presume you've read my arguments in the other thread. So you see my five; care to raise me ten? I'd like to read your own arguments, and see just how deep you've delved into the matter. That would help clear things up for me.

I'll definitely get onto that as soon as I return from dinner.

P.S.: Some of my words may sound rather stern, possibly almost hostile. Please don't be offended; this is just the way I debate. Cheers!

I definitely know the same thing applies to me. Peace be with you!:)

I've reread your posts, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'give me ten.' Do you want me to give you my precise story behind my atheistic beliefs?

It's gambling talk. "I see your five, I raise you ten," means you're increasing the bet.

I would love to read your full story. Everyone knows at least one thing I don't know; and what you know is well worth my read.

Can I chime in here? I beleive believers and religion is not the issue here in some of your arguments about 'how religion is slowing down science', I don't beleive that beleivers have a monopoly on the stem cell issue for one. It is not that they say NO stem cell reserch. We agree that the reserch is neccery. We along with alot of non-beleivers say that it is ethicly and moraly wrong, (moraly not in a belivers point of veiw, but a veiw that life is sacred) to create life for the exspress purpose of destroying it. The facts are that no substancial outcome has been developed with EMBRIONIC stem cells, all of the best results have come from adult stem cell reserch. Fact two, There is much embreonic stems cells in the placenta of a newborn. The stems cells from embrionic placents can be harvested without the destruction of life. If we do not stand up for the most defensless among us, the unborn, then who will? As for the " universal rights of marrage", wow who came up with that idea? The reason marage has always been upheld as a union between a man and woman is becouse of the equil rights under the law. If homosexuals were alowed to be maried then what about the guy who want's to marry his horse or the guy who want's to marry three women, or the guy who says I should be able to marry this 12 year old. when do you draw the line? You can't after yousay there is no exclusion under the law. all would have equil rights under the law. Cival Unions can be made by anyone, and many people and companies reconize these unions. I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with science again? Many of the world scientest are beleivers, although many are not open about it as they want to protect their correars. But to say that the Beleivers of the world are holding back science, well maybe in some parts of the world, is falacious. There would be no science as we know it if it were not for the beleivers.

Can I chime in here? I believe believers and religion is not the issue here in some of your arguments about 'how religion is slowing down science'

Has the potential to slow down science is what I said.;)

I don't believe that believers have a monopoly on the stem cell issue for one. It is not that they say NO stem cell research. We agree that the research is necessary. We along with a lot of non-believers say that it is ethically and morally wrong, (morally not in a believers point of view, but a view that life is sacred) to create life for the express purpose of destroying it. The facts are that no substantial outcome has been developed with EMBRYONIC stem cells, all of the best results have come from adult stem cell research. Fact two, There is much embryonic stems cells in the placenta of a newborn. The stems cells from embryonic placentas can be harvested without the destruction of life. If we do not stand up for the most defenseless among us, the unborn, then who will?

Well, I used the example of Stem Cell research since I've often heard that it conflicts with religious beliefs. I may be wrong, but that's just what I've read up about. Personally, I'm all for Stem Cell research and I find some of the arguments against it to be a bit too sensitive. I'm a heartless fella.;D


As for the " universal rights of marriage", wow who came up with that idea? The reason marriage has always been upheld as a union between a man and woman is because of the equal rights under the law. If homosexuals were allowed to be married then what about the guy who wants to marry his horse or the guy who wants to marry three women, or the guy who says I should be able to marry this 12 year old. when do you draw the line? You can't after you say there is no exclusion under the law. all would have equal rights under the law. Civil Unions can be made by anyone, and many people and companies recognize these unions.

It seems I may have not worded that correctly. What I meant is that all humans deserve equal rights. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Religious marriages? If the religion opposes to it, then I guess we have no say in that. But at least give the full privileges of marriage.

As for your other examples, I guess I'll handle them individually. I'm fine having a man marry three women, it does not bother my life in any way. As for marrying 12 year olds to men, there's obviously the problem of the child's awareness and ability to fully live our their.. childhood.

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with science again? Many of the world scientist are believers, although many are not open about it as they want to protect their correars. But to say that the Believers of the world are holding back science, well maybe in some parts of the world, is fallacious. There would be no science as we know it if it were not for the believers.

Once again, I did not say religion stopped scientific progression. I said it could conflict with, and therefore potentially slow down, scientific progression. These two are not the same.

k:)

Woo, thanks for leaving that response simple. XD

Hi HawaiiGopher,

Perhaps you've been too busy to post the story of how you became an atheist; that's okay. In the meantime, I just noticed awhile ago that you had a nice little debate with freethinkingagent a few weeks ago that I never had gotten to read. I posted some arguments of my own, in case you're interested. Cheers!

-santuccie

P.S.: Laughing at dumb jokes is still good for your health!!!

Isn't it great we can breath oxygen? Wich is in all eccense a bi-product waste of plants and therefor a polutent to the first forms of life on this planet! Just think, by chance the universal primordial soup first produced plants that expelled carbon dioxicide as waste, and then by chance plants that flurished in this polutent and produced as a biproduct oxxygen, these plans were ofcourse marine. And then by chance becouse of this pollutent aqudic life came into being that just so happend to need this biproduct, and so on, and so on.......................................! Untill some 10-12,000 years ago homoseapian, a mamal whos apperiance on the planet wasn't even a tick or a tock on the universal clock took over and dominated all life forms on the planet. Hurray for chance!

One disagreement I have with this is man's mind having no limits. We truly can comprehend a lot, but quantum mechanics predict that there may be far more than the three spacial dimensions, and time, being the fourth. We humans can only perceive the first three, while we are conscious of our travel through the fourth. Our minds are certainly powerful as is, but not infinitely so.

That notwithstanding, your response is terrific! You and I are on exactly the same page with regard to what chance would have to do in order to produce life as we know it without any external influence. Look at how many systems our bodies have, the organs which comprise them, the tissues which comprise them, and finally, the system in each of the cells which comprise these tissues.

All these work together to keep us alive. Remove the skeletal system, and we lie helpless like rag dolls. Remove the digestive system, and we die within two weeks if not sooner. Remove the respiratory system, and we die within minutes. Remove the nervous system, and you have nothing but a big clump of cells that can't work together. Remove the circulatory system, and nothing in the body works at all.

One topic that I find of real interest, though I must admit I only barely understand it, is handedness in amino acids. I was first introduced to this subject, and what it means for the odds against abiogenesis, when I read "Chemical soup is not your ancestor!" by Carl Wieland, an interview with Dr. Aw. You can read the interview here: http://www.answersingenes...

If you want even more ammo for your arsenal, look here (this site also covers handedness in amino acids): http://www.creationscienc...

Indeed, chance would have had a really tall order to fulfill! Between you and theprogamer, I'm not sure whose response I like better. I'll have to take some time with this. Now that I have two very powerful arguments in this thread, I will probably wait until discussions here slow to a crawl or complete stop. In the meantime, you both get all pluses from me, and many thanks. Our time together here is much to my delight. Salute!

-santuccie

P.S.: Laughing at dumb jokes is still good to your health!!!

Okay, can I intice you to think outside of the box, or actualy lets start inside the box.
lets say you are a box with five openings, thrugh these five openings you preceive the world/universe. Becouse you only have five openings you are limited in your perception.
Now lets say you have realized a flaw in your perception of the universe becouse you only can preseive the universe in five ways, To you the universe is real becouse of the openings, Now lets say becouse you now preciev your view is flawed you must now come up with a new opening to preceive the universe. With this opening now you can preceive not only the universe but the 'Creator', Only by your preception that your veiw was wrong and in error were you able to preceive a sixth opening, an opening to the mind of the Creator himself.
Ofcourse these opening are our five senses. we must come to a point in our life that we must admit that in these five sense we ARE limited, by not just quantom phisics, but in the way we can exspress and precieve the creation around us. By letting ourselves come to the conclusion that there must be another opening to the universe, the real universe, not the one we experiance inside the box, but the universe we live outside the box in connection to our Creator becomes the real universe, and there in that reality do we fully relize how little we know about anything and begin to understand the true limitlessness of our minds when conneceted to the source of all things.

I sort of get what you're saying (I had to read really slow to take it in), but I'm still not completely convinced. I won't expressly say you're wrong, though, because I don't have any way of knowing.

On the one hand, our immortal spirits might have to adhere to the effective laws in this corporal universe as long as they occupy a corporal, mortal body. On the other hand, it may very well be possible to "break out of our shell." In fact, the transformation of a born-again believer may be such an example, in that we start to see things we never saw before.

But I've yet to find passage into the very mind of God. I believe I've actually heard His voice once or twice, when a powerful "urge" told me to leave the house immediately. I've just barely caught rides to appointments on more than one occasion this way, when I was running late (the last time this happened was four years ago). But that's about the closest contact I've had.

I've been told before that there are secrets of God's design that might be too much for a mortal mind. I am of the understanding that, while an immortal spirit remains just that, the body's dependence on it evidences a certain connection. Supposedly people have had out-of-body experiences, but had to hurry to get back in before the body perished. Likewise, people are always claiming to have encountered ghosts, trapped in a world-between-worlds because of unfinished business.

These are just little details that come to mind. None of them prove anything for me, but I'm not really troubled with this, either. The fact that I have a connection to God at all is reason enough for me to rejoice. And when the time comes for us to join Him, perhaps we will for once realize our full potential.

Okay, I like your responce. I am not pertecularly saying that one needs an out of body exsperience. But more on these lines. As phisical beings we have no way naturaly to preceive the presemce of God. So at some time when we are searching for God easnestly the only way we get to preceive him is when we develope this sixth opening. This is spirit to spirit. For some people it is impossible for them to ever feel or preceive God becouse they never develope this opening. For you and I we have no doubt in the existence of God becouse we can feel him, and in the things of the natural where others see just some cells or atoms that have by chance come together, we see gret design by God. Untill a person seeks and then finds God, he will never preceive there is anything there but air. People who say," I wanted to find God, but I could not, or there was nothing there," never realy wanted to know him. Becouse he who searches, finds. It does seem at first when you search for God he runs and hides from you for a while. I beleive this is becouse like a vergin God hides himself from you untill you are to the point that nothing else matters and you are truly wanting him and not a magic ticet. Then he reveils himself to you in mind and sperit. Knowing the mind of God does not mean all of a suden I know everything, but mearly a way I exspress mental joy and peace that the world can not have, it also for me expresses the will of God, knowing that he does have a plan for me and everything else in this univers. That the universe is not the cosmic out of controle ride so many believe it is. And spiritualy finding him and trusting that he has little old you firmly in his hands, and that no matter what else happens to you or to those around you he will not drop you or loose you. People without this extra opening to the world can not preceive these things becouse they have not searched for it or asked for it. To them all there is is a universe spinning around space hap hazardly and one day it will be gone as we know it and then nothing else. This is all I mean by the statements above. And this is why some peopl will never understand creation, their minds are filled with their own words and thoughts, they cant "be still and know God".

Great post there, I love the reflection you put into your posts. However, as a firm atheist, I obviously disagree with you on certain points.

We, "non-believers", may indeed go into 'great depths' to assert our non-belief but that's because we're so rooted on rational and logical thought. We want to be completely sure that we're not making an illogical decision beforehand. After much reading, we tend to come to the conclusion that belief in any deity is irrational.

Your first part argues about the popular "how can a beginning have a beginning?" argument. Of course, here the term atheist cannot really be applied. Atheist is simply a lack of belief in any gods. We're now delving more into the scientific atheist category. I'm guessing you're going for the stereotype of an atheist then; one who believes in Evolution and the Big Bang. Which is, indeed, mostly the case.

Now, if that's the case, then the atheists you describe should not claim anything yet about the beginning. We may speculate, but obviously have no concrete evidence as to how it all began. The closest we've gotten is the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, we've yet to find a rational conclusion. Nonetheless, to us, a magical creator with infinite intelligence is extremely illogical.

Afterwards, you mention Einstein (who ironically had big atheistic leanings:P). You use the common theist argument that we can't just have arrived 'by chance.' The thing is, we can call it chance but that's misleading. Let us say there's a 1 in 1,000,000,000 "chance" that life can form on a planet. Knowing that an estimated 50 billion galaxies can be seen on modern telescopes, it doesn't seem too odd to me that life could have formed on Earth or any other planet. We are probably one of many planets with life. (How we became so intelligent is explained with evolution.)

Now I've been eagerly awaiting to ask this question throughout my whole post. With the amount of reflection you put into this you surely don't believe in a personal God, do you? By this I mean the typical ones; Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, etc..? Seeing your reasoning behind how man often asks many questions, you don't reasonably think that we didn't invent these gods to comfort ourselves? I don't know, it's just something I find odd about organized religions. That they can easily state their God is real but all other Gods are false when History shows us most Gods were invented..

Hawaiigopher, Some good questions here and thankyou for asking. I will try not to let you down.
First I will deal with the assumtion that a beleiver has not used rational enteligent thought in his coming to the conclusion that there is a Creator. All be it that most have this blind faith that there is a God/Creator becouse they read it in their holy book, is not the reason that I and many others have used rational thoght to come to the same conclusion. You said Einstine was an athiest, mthis is not all together true. What he said was that he did not beleive in a personal God, and that his earlier coments in letter saying he was an athiest was a responce to the cardnal who attacked his relitivity theory, saying that to a jesuit priest he would always be an athiest, 1 becouse he did not believe in a personal god and 2 becouse he was a Jew. He did how ever beleive in a God of order and harmony. And stated the perfection of the universal mechanism did have design. His un-belief in a personal God that was concerned in the affairs of man though was well documented.
Now i will say this, when you have used logic to sift through the weight of materials surounding the begginings of the universe, and have ued every bit of rational thought and have no answer, then the answer may lie in what you preseive as irrational thought. The laws of thermo dynamics illistrate that there is a reaction for any action in direct responce, and you can not get something from nothing. Further more mater without movement has no energy. So how then can you have matter apear in the universe, and then have that matter explode from itself creating large amounts of energy from a singularity of no movement. In fact if all the mass in the universe was put to gether in one point, it would then create a gigantic black hole from wich nothing would ever exet and would colapse itself under its gigantic mass. I hopothosis that the universe as we know it was created by purpose and design, becouse the next thing you would have to understand is NOTHING, i mean nothing ever existed in the universe, no light, no energy, no gravity and so on, and most of all no thought. No phisical universe existed. So time did not exist either.
So now to explain the Universe where nothing exist you must leave our universe of darkness and go to a diferent universe, one of light. So how does one create something from nothing? The essence of God, that is I beleive that the creator or the light placed inside this universe a part of himself, and instead of colapsing the mass he exspanded the mass in fision. You should read up on the God molocule, I am not sayin this is the actual molcule of god but it is a missing elament that explains how life could have began in the first place.
It is not only the highly unprobable odds of life beginning, but the odds of doing it in the right order as well. Even lookingh at evolotion I see the design of God at work. How amasing is it that everything came in its correct place. If "nature" was a chance incounter that created life, then if it got just one thing wrong in the chain of evolution and the oragins of life then there would be no life to speak of.
Now on the next part I could realy get myself in trouble, so I will only say that i do beleive in a personal God, but not neccerly one described by moderen day Christians and monthiest, and on the contrary I beleive there are other gods as well, And the only way that I can say i am not a poloy thiest is to say even though I beleive in these other gods, I do not beleive they are all powerfull, that they too have a God over them.

Once again, I guess I'll just respond to your argument.:D I know this just seems like we're going round and round but I love hearing what the other side has to say. So, here I go..

Einstein was indeed not an atheist but a deist. However, the fact that he did not believe in the written gods made me say he had more atheistic leanings. He used logic to conclude that written gods must have been made up, which I find is quite respectable. Although I do not agree with him and believe that environment played a huge effect on his belief, I won't explore too much into that.

Science is not yet at its peak, far from it. The fact it has not discovered many things does not mean it will never discover it. It just means there is progress to be made and based on what I've seen, I believe we can eventually find out how we got here. (Please, do spare me the faith talk though. I'm not saying you will, but I've had it delivered to me so many times it gets tiring. Simply put, I do not need faith to lack a belief in a God or believe that science can make tremendous advancements.)

As for your scientific reasoning, I mean no disrespect when saying this, but atheists have already constantly pointed out the fallacies in creationists' scientific reasoning. I think the following site probably holds much better answers than me on those subjects; http://wiki.cotch.net/ind...

Now, onto your next point, the fact that we're too good to have been processed together by chance. Once again, I believe the word 'chance' is extremely misleading. (Ironically, scientists also believe the fact that we could have been made by chance is equally improbable.) Evolution, in no way, states that we were made by 'chance.' Far from it actually. We went through a huge process of natural selection, that lasted billions of years. How do we know this is true? We have proof to support our claims. A quick Google search has found a better site to explain it though; http://www.freethoughtped...

I find your belief to be quite interesting but I don't quite understand how you came to your conclusion. Would you consider the God you believe in to be a deist God, that is to say - one who is not concerned by our actions but simply created us? Please, do elaborate on your beliefs and what led you to your conclusion. I'm very interested.:)

I do beleive in evolotion, there is no escapeing the facts of evolotion on a micro scale, that is minute changes that further the speicies. But I totaly reject a macro evolotion, that is one thing becomeing a totaly diferent species. On the celluler level Darwin beleived that cells were just blobs. The point is at this time no body can prove the ORAGINs of life. They can show an evolotionary chain of events, but can not show one thing becoming another with out a doubt. So any argument from ether side is a stalemate.

So am I a Deist??????? You realy do want me to get in trouble don't you? Let me try to explain my "faith". It is near east and middle east in oragin, and probaly has not been observed in the way I do for over 3500 years. It is monothiestic, but if I tied to explain it it would come across polythiestic in nature. It is the combined theology of Sumer, Cannanite, and hebrew. When understanding the origanal Druvidic, Akkadian, and Ugarit Writings as well as the Hebrew and Aramaic text. You get a different picture of God and dare I say it, 'the gods'. To say more would put me at jepordy with fanitics on all sides. In the Creators most destinct entity He is not involved with his creation, But there is two powers of heaven, Along with God/Creater was a co-creator who was of the same essence as the Creator, This Co-Creator is a personal God, as the other is pure spirit. In the hebrew there were those called "beney Elohim" or sons of God, The Co creator thogh is distingeshed as "The Son of God" definate article, This is thousands of years befor Jesus. When in the scriptures where Elohim was talking to Elohim, The scollars would place a differnce between the two as the first Elohim as The spirit invisable God and the second as "the Word of God", the word of God was a phisical aperation of God, it was not just an autoble voice, as " the Word of god came to me, and stood over me". The Elohim even though the word is a masculin plural was always writen in structure of Singularity, while at other times it was ment plural as in the sons of God. It is the Sons of God where most of the inter action between men com in to play. God the creator has never been directly involved with man. In the greek languge the definate article Son of God was mistranslated as only begotten son of God, but the greek word here should read the "Unique Son og God" This son of God is seperated from the others and also shares the name of God as the others do not, The Son of God is the uncreated essence of God the Creator. If you realy want to know more i will say more, so the answer to am i a deist, is Yes and No.

PART 1
Of course I don't get e-mail updates for third-tier comments here, since I am the OP. But I find this discussion quite interesting, and thought I might chime in...

We, "non-believers", may indeed go into 'great depths' to assert our non-belief but that's because we're so rooted on rational and logical thought. We want to be completely sure that we're not making an illogical decision beforehand. After much reading, we tend to come to the conclusion that belief in any deity is irrational.
This sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. While evolutionists frequently point out to creationists that a "theory" is something which is generally accepted for evidential support although unproven, I should point out to you that the atheistic "conclusion" in opposition to theism is itself out of sequence in scientific methodology. And that's definitely something to have a look at: While religious people in general say "I believe," the atheist outright proclaims, "There is no God!"

According to the guidelines of scientific methodology, after a question has arisen, and observations have been made, a hypothesis is generated. After a number of experiments and analysis, interpretation of data yields a conclusion. This conclusion is then subjected to peer review, and the cycle returns to step 3.

As it were, Darwinian evolutionists are dealing with the ever-growing problem of "irreducible complexity," which Darwin himself said would make his theory "absolutely break down." And proponents of the theory of evolution by mutation have yet to provide a single example of mutation adding data to DNA. When Richard Dawkins was tricked into admitting creationists into his home, and they asked him this question, he paused for a moment, asked them to stop rolling the film, and was then about to kick them out of his house. After they pleaded with him for a moment, he filmed a response in which he attempted to defend not mutation, but natural selection.

Months later, Dawkins wrote a rambling essay that never even scratched the surface of the question which had prompted him to start writing. Until someone can propose a workable model which demonstrates the spontaneous generation of coded information, there can be no such thing as a "conclusion" that "belief in any deity is irrational."

We may speculate, but obviously have no concrete evidence as to how it all began. The closest we've gotten is the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, we've yet to find a rational conclusion. Nonetheless, to us, a magical creator with infinite intelligence is extremely illogical.
What strikes me as illogical is a notion which bypasses the question of how physical matter came into existence in the first place, and starts talking about a Big Bang. I can't speak for anyone outside of myself, let alone a majority of atheists; but it is my suspicion that you are more opposed to the world's religious doctrines than to the mere idea of Intelligence in precession of life.

What I have here is nothing more than a "hypothesis," but it seems to me that, at some point in time, physical matter originated out of nothing. That to me is no less of a miracle than the miracle of life itself.

Let us say there's a 1 in 1,000,000,000 "chance" that life can form on a planet. Knowing that an estimated 50 billion galaxies can be seen on modern telescopes, it doesn't seem too odd to me that life could have formed on Earth or any other planet. We are probably one of many planets with life. (How we became so intelligent is explained with evolution.)
I am not a mathematician, but even I could tell you in a second that the figures you give here in your ratio of odds isn't anywhere near the actual mark. The DNA in every living cell holds enough information to fill an encyclopedia of 4,000 volumes. There are biochemists whose entire careers are devoted to the decoding of this information, yet all they have at this point are bits and pieces. And the more they learn about the code, the more of it they realize is actually essential to cellular functionality; much more now than the lousy 2% that Dawkins claimed all those years ago.

As it were, Microsoft's huge, cumbersome Windows Vista doesn't even begin to compare to the information we're talking about here, even if 85% is junk DNA. To create all that information, these nucleic acids would have to be dancing around with each other for eons, linking together and breaking up again, trial after trial.

The total quantity of molecules in the visible universe supposedly comes to 1080 (ten to the power of eighty), which really is a big number. But the trials it would take to produce the DNA code for just one cell, let alone millions of earthly species, each of which has billions or even trillions of members, numbers far more than a google. And again, the number of molecules in the visible universe is less than a google.

This is just a theory until proven, but it seems to me that intelligent intervention makes a lot less waste and a lot more sense than chance in this case. And I am of the understanding that a lot of these biochemists, who spend their 9-5 (and OT) each day studying cells, are saying the same thing.

Einstein was indeed not an atheist but a deist. However, the fact that he did not believe in the written gods made me say he had more atheistic leanings.
Again you return to the issue of opposition against doctrine, rather than ID. Are you saying you are as of yet indecisive about whether an Intelligent Force, be it material or immaterial, actually created the material? The quick definition of "atheistic" in OneLook Dictionary Search says, "rejecting any belief in gods." This means essentially that a true atheist believes there neither is, nor ever was, a God. It sounds to me like you're not really an atheist, which I have suspected ever since I read your blog about Christians.

Science is not yet at its peak, far from it. The fact it has not discovered many things does not mean it will never discover it. It just means there is progress to be made and based on what I've seen, I believe we can eventually find out how we got here. (Please, do spare me the faith talk though. I'm not saying you will, but I've had it delivered to me so many times it gets tiring. Simply put, I do not need faith to lack a belief in a God or believe that science can make tremendous advancements.)
Why do atheists (and apparently those who think/thought they are atheists) get so offended when someone refers to atheism as a "faith?" The very first definition in the very first dictionary returned in my OneLook results on "faith" (the Encarta) says this: 'belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.' Not only are there people like me with testimonies for you to contend with, but science itself has a long way to go before it can disprove Intelligence as having preceded life. As long as you believe in your heart that you and everything you see around you was not created by Intelligence, you are operating on faith that it happened by chance...by accident.

Perhaps the problem here is that the word "faith" might seem to some to suggest gullibility, something the atheist must avoid entirely as long as they intend to pursue their claim of having all the "facts." Unless you feel you have to be better than religious people, there is nothing wrong with the word "faith." If it bothers you that much, that means you're hiding something. And when you hide something, that means you yourself believe it to be wrong. And that's not speculation, that's psychology...that's science.

As for your scientific reasoning, I mean no disrespect when saying this, but atheists have already constantly pointed out the fallacies in creationists' scientific reasoning. I think the following site probably holds much better answers than me on those subjects; http://wiki.cotch.net/ind...
There are fallacies on both sides. Evolutionists always like to say that creationists start with a conclusion and try to work their way back from there. What both sides actually have, after all this time, are merely hypotheses. Evolutionists still say today that if famous creationists had lived until Darwin's day, and see the "compelling evidence" for evolution, they would have become evolutionists themselves.

But years later, as microscopy develops, biochemists say that Darwin might actually have converted to creationism (or at least some manner of theism), had he lived to see what they can see today. And I believe this myself; I mentioned above that Darwin did offer up hypothetical possibilities of refutation for his theories, which is plainly scientific and very respectable of him. He said his theory would essentially fail if it could be demonstrated that organs were vastly complex, and intermediary developments of these organs could not be found.

This is the battle cry of theistic (and religious) biochemists today, called "irreducible complexity." And yet evolutionists from various professions are saying this is all pseudoscience? I don't think so; I call it denial, and specifically denial on the part of the evolutionist. When you link to a page in a public encyclopedia, I suggest you at least try to cross-reference some of the points in question, and also give us some clue as to what exactly you're getting at.

PART 2
Now, onto your next point, the fact that we're too good to have been processed together by chance. Once again, I believe the word 'chance' is extremely misleading. (Ironically, scientists also believe the fact that we could have been made by chance is equally improbable.) Evolution, in no way, states that we were made by 'chance.' Far from it actually. We went through a huge process of natural selection, that lasted billions of years. How do we know this is true? We have proof to support our claims. A quick Google search has found a better site to explain it though; http://www.freethoughtped...
One of the first things I notice in the clearly atheist-composed article (again in the public Wikipedia, of all places) you link to is this: 'Like many theological arguments, the Argument from improbability only works if one is intellectually dishonest or ignorant of the facts. When relaying this claim, theists always leave out a critical part of the process that nullifies the validity of the argument from improbability.'

I read on, enthusiastically hoping for examples and sources, but I get none. Every atheist attacks the theist, saying they are ignorant of "the facts." Ask them to provide "the facts," and the back off. Why? Conveniently, this last article of yours also mentions the biochemist creationist's common argument with regard to proteins, then omits a direct response. Why?

Finally, I ask you to actually read some of the points at the end, proposed by the evolutionists you side with. In fact, take a moment right now to read this particular argument slowly: 'Time is a major factor in the evolution of complex organisms. Technically it may be possible, that if you have enough monkeys banging on enough typewriters, for a long enough time, they may produce the complete works of Shakespeare. This sounds and is ridiculously improbable, but not impossible. However, imagine if each monkey who couldn't type was killed, and each monkey who demonstrated higher cognitive abilities pursuant to writing, was given a reward. You could in all likelihood dramatically increase the probability that monkeys would develop into creatures more capable of creating literary works. Multiply this over the course of millions of years and billions of generations of creatures and it does not look like a random thing. This is how natural selection works.'

This to me doesn't sound too far detached from the idea of an immaterial, Creative Intelligence. According to Darwinian evolutionists, this universe somehow has laws to eliminate the weak or unproductive, and reward the strong or productive. But instead, these evolutionists want us to believe that such laws are just there. "Intelligent law is one thing, but Intelligence is a big no-no!" Why?

Both atheists and theists have made some dumb statements throughout history; we are only human. But to presume, and then proclaim, that your opponent is making mistakes and jumping to conclusions while you are not is just silly. You make it sound like you yourself are supposed to be God (No offense; I'm just making a point.). And then you say you have "proof" of something evolutionists themselves state is merely a "theory." See the fallacy in that argument?

What we have is "evidence" in that organisms have grown in complexity over time, yet even in Precambrian life we have yet to find these "protocells" that Darwin believed (and Dawkins still believes) must have existed in the beginning. We have found anaerobic life forms, but not protocells. Nor have we found a single instance of evolution by mutation, yet some evolutionists who hold to this hypothesis still say like the others that the creationists (including biochemists) are the ones who don't understand scientific methodology. Why?

With the amount of reflection you put into this you surely don't believe in a personal God, do you? By this I mean the typical ones; Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, etc..? Seeing your reasoning behind how man often asks many questions, you don't reasonably think that we didn't invent these gods to comfort ourselves? I don't know, it's just something I find odd about organized religions. That they can easily state their God is real but all other Gods are false when History shows us most Gods were invented..
I didn't read freethinkingagent's entire response in which this question is answered, but it looks like he is essentially non-religious, as am I. When you ask this question, it appears as though my suspicion as mentioned above may be correct. Has someone impressed upon you that the existence of a Creative Intelligence depends entirely on human doctrine? If that's what you believe, I'd say you might not have given this quite as much thought as you suggest. There are lots of people in this world who claim to be "spiritual" rather than "religious," and with good reason.

As far as your question of God being able to interact personally with humans, I would have to ask you if you ever took the time to read my testimony as linked to in the opening of this discussion? You say you are very much a proponent of rational and logical thought, so let me play a game of logic with you. Regarding the authenticity of my testimony, we have but three possibilities: 1) I am lying. 2) I am crazy. 3) I am telling the truth. Care to tell me which you think it is?

I made a typo, by the way. I mentioned "google" in one of my arguments; I meant "googol."

Dang! You always blow my mind

LOL, it's probably mostly my English. It makes me sound smarter than I really am.

But I am one of those people who won't just stop when I think I'm right. I do my homework, and I do look for arguments that can refute my own. I can also accept correction, and will even post updates myself when I find something I didn't know about before.

But the last time I found myself wrong was 13 years ago, when I was agnostic. I read some arguments with an open mind, and got converted (partially). Since then, I have seen things I can't explain scientifically; all I can do is testify, and that's exactly what I've been doing.