Who created God?

[Guest Guest]

Which tells me I finally got through to you but you can't admit it. See you in church.

Which church?

[Guest Guest]

Which tells me I finally got through to you but you can't admit it. See you in church.

You say that you take these issues seriously but you really don't. You treat this discussion the same way as you treat religion. None of it is real. It's all just a game to you. As long as you can stay safe and secure in your little cocoon of ignorance, you pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself that you've won yet another argument, because no one can ever change your mind. It doesn't take a psychologist to see what you're up to. It's a shame, because you probably have the ability to think and reason. Most people do if they give themselves a chance.

Science education is not a joke, and it cannot be reduced to one-liners. If you want to improve your fund of knowledge, you'll have to stop playing games and work at it.

[Guest Guest]

Which tells me I finally got through to you but you can't admit it. See you in church.

Why didn't you at least try to address some of the points in post #71? Take the point about evolution being a product, even a reflection, of nature itself. There's nothing mysterious about evolution once you understand it. It would help if you also understood fractals, which is a discipline that shows how complex things can come from simple parts.

People are attracted to simple explanations but the truth is that if you want to understand the world as it really is, you have to work at it. And you may not like all the answers. You'll never know until you study for a long time, with an open mind.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You are correct, serendipity has nothing to do with it. However, you seem to misunderstand everything else about natural selection. Anyone with a basic knowledge of mathematics, logic, or even computer programming knows that a negative selection process doesn't require God. Just because you are too stupid to get that doesn't mean it isn't true.

You atheists just don't get it. What you're calling natural selection is God's way of allowing life on earth to grow and multiply. Your idea of natural selection being a dumb and blind process is just nonsense.

[Guest Guest]

2dim, you don't even understand your own argument. On the one hand, you say you accept evolution but on the other hand, you say "God did it" because evolution alone is "nonsense." Apparently you expect us to take your word over the consensus opinion of the world's scientists, especially the biologists. Evolution is a natural process, as dumb and as blind as nature itself. Internally, though, it works to produce all the life we see today, and that we see in the fossil record. All the evidence points toward that and only that. This is not mere guesswork. The evidence is voluminous. You can speculate that there is a god behind the process but there is no evidence for it.

Life does not look as though someone designed it. There are too many false starts and too much suffering, which cannot reasonably be explained by blaming a mythical first couple. The dots don't even connect. A conscious designer of infinite intelligence and ability creating a process as unconcerned about the welfare of its children is what is nonsense.

Your argument is the fallacy called "God of the gaps." You say you accept evolution but you don't know enough about it to know what it is; so you can neither accept nor reject it with any intelligence. You are left believing in an ever-shrinking pocket of ignorance, as claim after claim falls to scientific investigation.

Instead of posting your usual stupid comeback in response, begin the process of reading and studying on the subject on which you presume to judge the world's leading scientists to be mentally defective. You may see another picture. Or maybe you won't but it won't be because it isn't there to be seen.

[Guest Guest]

You atheists just don't get it. What you're calling natural selection is God's way of allowing life on earth to grow and multiply. Your idea of natural selection being a dumb and blind process is just nonsense.

We get your point. It is not a useful point because it is not based on anything except your wishes.

And you're nowhere close to being qualified to comment on science. That is painfully obvious from what you write.

The worst thing is, you won't even try to learn something. You've been called all sorts of things, from a moron to an authoritarian to willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, it's all true. If we see it here, there's no question that people who know you see it. You embarrass yourself, it's impossible for you not to do it. Why do you insist on living that way?

[Guest Guest]

You atheists just don't get it. What you're calling natural selection is God's way of allowing life on earth to grow and multiply. Your idea of natural selection being a dumb and blind process is just nonsense.

Prove it. Man up and present an actual argument. You have spent four pages mocking the entirety of scientific reasoning. Why should we believe you? If you can't provide a rational defense of your claims, it is because they aren't rational. In other words, "just nonsense."

[Guest 2smart4u]

We get your point. It is not a useful point because it is not based on anything except your wishes.

And you're nowhere close to being qualified to comment on science. That is painfully obvious from what you write.

The worst thing is, you won't even try to learn something. You've been called all sorts of things, from a moron to an authoritarian to willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, it's all true. If we see it here, there's no question that people who know you see it. You embarrass yourself, it's impossible for you not to do it. Why do you insist on living that way?

And your point is not based upon anything scientific. The entire atheist argument is based upon evolution being driven by natural selection that's free of Intelligent design, and there's no proof of that. While I can't prove I.D., logic and my faith tell me there's more to evolution than dumb and blind natural selection process. Of course when you're an atheist, you ignore any logic that flies in the face of your narrow agenda.

[Guest Guest]

We get your point. It is not a useful point because it is not based on anything except your wishes.

And you're nowhere close to being qualified to comment on science. That is painfully obvious from what you write.

The worst thing is, you won't even try to learn something. You've been called all sorts of things, from a moron to an authoritarian to willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, it's all true. If we see it here, there's no question that people who know you see it. You embarrass yourself, it's impossible for you not to do it. Why do you insist on living that way?

He worships his own opinion. That's his real conception of God: himself.

[Guest Guest]

And your point is not based upon anything scientific. The entire atheist argument is based upon evolution being driven by natural selection that's free of Intelligent design, and there's no proof of that. While I can't prove I.D., logic and my faith tell me there's more to evolution than dumb and blind natural selection process. Of course when you're an atheist, you ignore any logic that flies in the face of your narrow agenda.

Not logic, just your faith. If ID could make a logical argument that a designer was needed for natural election to work, they may have brought that up in one of the many court cases they've lost. Go ahead-make a cogent argument for your case. You cannot do it because it cannot be done. Logic shows the opposite in fact-natural selection is a simple negative selection process. Look up fractals. You've lost.

[Guest Guest]

2dim,

As usual, you're dead wrong. The point has everything to do with science, which is a set of methods. The point is not whether there is or is not a god, a tooth fairy or a flying spaghetti monster. The point is about which claims and what kinds of claims are useful and lead to knowledge, and which claims are not useful and do not lead to any knowledge.

Scientific investigation of natural phenomena has changed the world. It has expanded life expectancies by decades, given us advanced technologies that make our lives easier and more pleasurable, and allowed us to live in a way that the wealthiest people on earth could scarcely have imagined just a few generations ago.

In stark contrast with that, your speculation about a god, or intelligent designer, is not useful and does not lead to any knowledge at all. Just the opposite, it distracts people from the true and only means of uncovering knowledge about the world, the universe and life itself. Your comments about scientists - whom you insist on calling atheists - having a "narrow agenda" would be laughable if politics in the United States didn't force us to take those claims seriously. Yours is the ignorance that dumbs down our educational system to serve your agenda, which you admit is based at least in part of your faith (in other words, you can't prove it). Scientists do have an agenda but not a narrow one: to discover more about the world and how things work, and they've done it. You have an agenda, too, to promote and defend a belief system that has not added one scrap of anything to our knowledge. By those criteria - and those are the ones that make sense - yours is the narrow agenda.

As for your comments about logic, you're dead wrong. To make those comments you must overlook and ignore the many responses that have already been posted here about the intellectual poverty of your God-of-the-gaps approach, and the many times science has debunked your argument before. You still insist that the eye must have been intelligently designed, even though we now have a comprehensive natural explanation for all of it. Centuries ago, people very much like you made the same arguments against the evidence and the earth revolved around the sun - only then "atheists" were called "heretics" and were criminally prosecuted. You keep saying the same things, long after any reasonable person would stop saying them, and you absolutely refuse to admit that there may be things you do not know.

Unfortunately, there are millions of other people very much like you: ignorant and proud of it, anti-intellectual, anti-education and willing to sneer at anything you do not understand - and convinced that you're never wrong about anything, that you're 2smart4everyone. You're the one who doesn't get it. The point, and the problem, is you, your sneering at established science, your distortion of atheism, and your narrow way of looking at everything.

[Guest Guest]

And your point is not based upon anything scientific. The entire atheist argument is based upon evolution being driven by natural selection that's free of Intelligent design, and there's no proof of that. While I can't prove I.D., logic and my faith tell me there's more to evolution than dumb and blind natural selection process. Of course when you're an atheist, you ignore any logic that flies in the face of your narrow agenda.

You are dead wrong. Science is all about investigating phenomena from a perspective of scientific naturalism, drawing conclusions as the evidence supports them, remaining open to new evidence that can change prevailing theories, acknowledging that many questions remain unanswered, and continuing to investigate to learn more. That is exactly the perspective that those of us who disagree with you are operating from.

You are also dead wrong in your "conclusion" that logic supports your hypothesis. I put "conclusion" in quotation marks because it seems to be more of a pre-determined view, or at best a conclusion of choice, which isn't a conclusion from the standpoint of logic and reason. It's just believing what you wish to believe. Here is why logic does not support you.

1. Your "conclusion" is based on a premise that the world or human beings, or something or other - where you draw the line is not at all clear, and I doubt that you know - cannot be explained without a god. There are at least two problems with that:

a. You cannot explain the designer. So your internal logic fails because it suffers from the same problem that you claim is fatal to science, only more so. At least science has some solid explanations that we know are true. You have none.

b. Science has already explained many things that people once claimed could only be explained by the existence of a supreme being. So your "logic" fails because its premises lack any support, in fact have been disproved many times.

2. Everything we know about nature, we know from observation and scientific investigation through natural means. There is not a shred of evidence to support the existence of a supernatural being transcending reality as we know it. Favoring the explanation that has not a shred of evidence to support it over explanations that are supported by mountains of evidence is wildly illogical.

3. By your own admission, you insert a fudge factor, which you call faith. Faith can mean many things but obviously, you use the word to mean that you fill in the gaps with belief - you take a leap of faith to believe what you cannot prove. That is also illogical. You are mixing methods of thought. It's like trying to solve a math problem, then just making up a few steps to get the result you want. You're not doing math at all. In your case, you're not using logic at all once you insert the fudge factor of faith. When you don't have enough evidence to support an answer, the logical approach is to admit that you do not know.

But hey, I'm open to learning something new. Tell us WHY your conclusion is more logical than the conclusion that says "the only evidence we have is of a natural world, so there is no good reason to believe in a god. I can't prove that there isn't a god but then I can't prove there isn't a tooth fairy either, or Zeus, or a thunder god. No one can live by believing everything that cannot be disproved. Therefore, I simply tell the truth - there is no evidence of a god - and live as best I can. Why isn't that the most reasonable and logical approach?" Try answering that question honestly, taking into account the three points made above. And if you think one or more of those points is flawed, tell us why. We know you can't do it. You'll confirm that further either by your silence or by making another moronic one- or two-line remark that does not address the relevant points. Prove me wrong. That is what a discussion like this should be all about.

[Guest Guest]

Of course when you're an atheist, you ignore any logic that flies in the face of your narrow agenda.

You keep judging people you don't even know. I would love to see grandpa and grandma again, and live forever in the loving arms of a supreme being who would put us all in a paradise where we would live forever and ever. I would love that. But I see no evidence of that. Seems to me, you're the one with the agenda.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You keep judging people you don't even know. I would love to see grandpa and grandma again, and live forever in the loving arms of a supreme being who would put us all in a paradise where we would live forever and ever. I would love that. But I see no evidence of that. Seems to me, you're the one with the agenda.

I always wonder if people like you suddenly find religion when faced with a life threatening situation with themselves or family members. They say there's

no atheists in fox holes. i guess that speaks to the sincerity of your beliefs.

[Guest Guest]

I always wonder if people like you suddenly find religion when faced with a life threatening situation with themselves or family members. They say there's

no atheists in fox holes. i guess that speaks to the sincerity of your beliefs.

One fantasy after another and another . . .

Seriously, dude, is that all you got?

[Guest Guest]

I always wonder if people like you suddenly find religion when faced with a life threatening situation with themselves or family members. They say there's

no atheists in fox holes. i guess that speaks to the sincerity of your beliefs.

Ah, yes, another one of your little lullabies that you God-babblers use to sing yourselves to sleep at night. Only, like most of the stories you tell, it's not true. Plenty of atheists die at peace with themselves and the world. Roger Ebert the film critic comes to mind.

And even if your little fantasy was true, would it prove that your sky-god is real? Not at all. All it would prove is that people believe in a god not because it's true but because they're afraid. So you see, your little fantasy supports atheism.

[Guest Guest]

I always wonder if people like you suddenly find religion when faced with a life threatening situation with themselves or family members. They say there's

no atheists in fox holes. i guess that speaks to the sincerity of your beliefs.

You think that way because you only see things from your narrow, close-minded, I'm-right-about-everything perspective. When I was in high school, I told a classmate that I felt sorry for her because she didn't believe in God. As I matured and realized that all the stories about a god or gods are made up, I realized how arrogant I had been, without intending to be. If you don't open your mind and admit that you could be wrong, you will always imagine how other people think and feel, and you'll be wrong about most of it. Stop being so defensive and try to think about some of the points that have been made here.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Ah, yes, another one of your little lullabies that you God-babblers use to sing yourselves to sleep at night. Only, like most of the stories you tell, it's not true. Plenty of atheists die at peace with themselves and the world. Roger Ebert the film critic comes to mind.

And even if your little fantasy was true, would it prove that your sky-god is real? Not at all. All it would prove is that people believe in a god not because it's true but because they're afraid. So you see, your little fantasy supports atheism.

There's no way you could know that any atheist dies at peace with himself or the world, that's just another atheist fantasy. I'm more inclined to think that an atheist on his death bed is consumed with self doubt and conflict.

[Guest Guest]

There's no way you could know that any atheist dies at peace with himself or the world, that's just another atheist fantasy. I'm more inclined to think that an atheist on his death bed is consumed with self doubt and conflict.

You're such a moron. If there's no way for me to know, then there's no way for you to know either. Oh, but wait, I forgot, you're never wrong. You live by different rules. In fact, I think you are God - or at least you think you are. You really do worship your opinion. That's your real God.

Anyway, nice try changing the subject. Please explain why sentient creatures double as food, if an omniscient and omnipotent god designed the world and everything in it.

And kindly explain how there is so much disorder and imperfection if everything began with a perfect god, who made everything just as he wanted it.

And of course . . . who created God?

[Guest Guest]

There's no way you could know that any atheist dies at peace with himself or the world, that's just another atheist fantasy. I'm more inclined to think that an atheist on his death bed is consumed with self doubt and conflict.

Then there's no way for you to know that there are no atheists in foxhones. Mr. Ebert seemed to be very much at peace with his life, which he thought he had lived fully and well. It's not hard to spot a sense of peace and contentment in someone.

And you did it again. You can't just pick up someone else's bullets and throw them back. They've already been used, and you don't have a gun to put them in.

[Guest Guest]

There's no way you could know that any atheist dies at peace with himself or the world, that's just another atheist fantasy. I'm more inclined to think that an atheist on his death bed is consumed with self doubt and conflict.

We're not the ones who feel compelled to make up a fairy tale about sky-god who will make sure we live after we die. We are content with our lives as they are, and don't expect anything more. Apparently, you god-babblers aren't satisfied with what you have.

[Guest 2smart4u]

We're not the ones who feel compelled to make up a fairy tale about sky-god who will make sure we live after we die. We are content with our lives as they are, and don't expect anything more. Apparently, you god-babblers aren't satisfied with what you have.

You don't expect anything more from your empty lives? You sound seriously depressed. My advice to you is visit a church this Sunday and you'll begin to feel better. Hang in there.

[Guest Guest]

You don't expect anything more from your empty lives? You sound seriously depressed. My advice to you is visit a church this Sunday and you'll begin to feel better. Hang in there.

As someone said, you are an authoritarian who thinks he is never wrong about anything. I don't know why you bother writing here, or anywhere else. There's no meaning in anything you write, if you make remarks like those. You're a consummate ass. Sorry you had to look up the word.

[Guest Guest]

You don't expect anything more from your empty lives? You sound seriously depressed. My advice to you is visit a church this Sunday and you'll begin to feel better. Hang in there.

That's right, just repeat yourself over and over and over. Make sure your message is clear, unyielding and stupid. It's what you right wing authoritarians do.

[Guest Guest]

You don't expect anything more from your empty lives? You sound seriously depressed. My advice to you is visit a church this Sunday and you'll begin to feel better. Hang in there.

You get the last word in a lot of discussions, don't you. Don't be too quick to flatter yourself. It doesn't mean what you think it means.