Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,764 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 159,045
Pageviews Today: 443,779Threads Today: 257Posts Today: 4,790
08:21 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God

 
Neesie
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 866880
United States
01/16/2010 10:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
[link to creation.com]

Fingerprints of a designer
Flew’s belief in God hinges on three aspects of nature: ‘The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life … The third is the very existence of nature’ (p. 89).

The Laws of nature
Every scientist must assume that nature acts in certain predictable, measurable ways; this is what makes scientific discovery possible. Paul Davies argued that ‘science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview’ (p. 107). However, there is really no reason why nature should follow laws; the existence of such laws requires an explanation. Three questions must be answered: ‘Where do the laws of physics come from? Why is it that we have these laws instead of some other set? How is that we have a set of laws that drives featureless gases to life, consciousness, and intelligence?’ (p. 108). Flew argues along with many other classical and modern scientists that theism is the only serious answer.

When Flew was an atheist, he argued that the universe and its laws were themselves ultimate (p. 134). Every belief has some fundamental assumption; for theists, the existence of God is the fundamental assumption. Flew, however, took the universe and its most fundamental features as that assumption. The discovery that the universe was not infinite threw a wrench into this assumption; if the universe had begun to exist at some point in time, it was reasonable to assume something caused its beginning. Because it is more likely that God exists uncaused, rather than the universe, it is logical to argue for the existence of God from the existence of the universe (pp. 144–145).

The fine-tuning of the universe
Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which seem to be finely tuned to enable life to exist. The most common atheist answer is to assert that our universe is one of many others—the ‘multiverse’ speculation. It is interesting that atheists who refuse to believe in an unseen God, based supposedly on the lack of evidence for His existence, explain away the appearance of design by embracing the existence of an unknown number of other universes for which there is no evidence—or even any effect of their evidence. In any case, Flew argues that even if there were multiple universes, it would not solve the atheists’ dilemma; ‘multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind’ (p. 121).

The origin of life

Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?—Antony Flew

The existence of physical laws which allow life to survive is necessary, but not sufficient by itself, for the existence of life. The question of the origin of life became much more complex with the discovery of DNA, a molecule comprising ‘letters’ that code for the instructions to build the machinery of life. A real vicious circle is that the instructions to build decoding machinery are themselves encoded on the DNA. That life is governed by a complex code leads to the question:

‘Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?’ (p. 127).
He pointed out that natural selection can’t explain the origin of first life. Ultimately, a vast amount of information is behind life, and in every other case, information necessarily points to an intelligent source, so it is only reasonable that there be a Source behind this information as well
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 801300
United States
01/16/2010 10:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
afro
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 865939
United States
01/16/2010 10:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Thou art a subject of the divine, created in the image of man, by the masses, for the masses.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 866906
United States
01/16/2010 10:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Some fortunate to open their horizons are blessed. What we Christians seem to take for granted are revelations to non-Christians. The lord works in mysterious ways, AMEN!
Neesie  (OP)

User ID: 866880
United States
01/16/2010 10:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Some fortunate to open their horizons are blessed. What we Christians seem to take for granted are revelations to non-Christians. The lord works in mysterious ways, AMEN!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 866906


Amen
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 866915
United States
01/16/2010 10:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762594
United Kingdom
01/16/2010 11:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Flew's thesis is not at all to do with Christianity, nor any other religion.

He's simply saying that he believes that all the 'natural' information we have discovered (e.g. DNA) was encoded by an intelligent being. We ignorant and insignificant humans call this intelligent being 'God'.

The multiverse hypothesis is interesting. But I take issue with such gratuitous profligacy. Could the being who is responsible for our universe have access to infinitely more resources to encode an infinite number of lifeless universes? If there's no being, then where did all those resources come from? Our physics at least doesn't do wastage.

Seems to me that most modern physics is still as stuck with all these questions as the alchemists and astronomers of ancient days. The physicists' speculations and language are just as jargony and plausible as the ancients' were.

My money's on Nick Bostrom and the Fermilab/GEO 600 results. These could indicate the existence of a supreme creator being or beings out there. Christianity is only one of hundreds of ways of interpreting and appreciating it/them.

Basically though, we still know next to nothing.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 851901
United States
01/16/2010 11:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
[link to creation.com]

Fingerprints of a designer
Flew’s belief in God hinges on three aspects of nature: ‘The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life … The third is the very existence of nature’ (p. 89).

The Laws of nature
Every scientist must assume that nature acts in certain predictable, measurable ways; this is what makes scientific discovery possible. Paul Davies argued that ‘science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview’ (p. 107). However, there is really no reason why nature should follow laws; the existence of such laws requires an explanation. Three questions must be answered: ‘Where do the laws of physics come from? Why is it that we have these laws instead of some other set? How is that we have a set of laws that drives featureless gases to life, consciousness, and intelligence?’ (p. 108). Flew argues along with many other classical and modern scientists that theism is the only serious answer.

When Flew was an atheist, he argued that the universe and its laws were themselves ultimate (p. 134). Every belief has some fundamental assumption; for theists, the existence of God is the fundamental assumption. Flew, however, took the universe and its most fundamental features as that assumption. The discovery that the universe was not infinite threw a wrench into this assumption; if the universe had begun to exist at some point in time, it was reasonable to assume something caused its beginning. Because it is more likely that God exists uncaused, rather than the universe, it is logical to argue for the existence of God from the existence of the universe (pp. 144–145).

The fine-tuning of the universe
Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which seem to be finely tuned to enable life to exist. The most common atheist answer is to assert that our universe is one of many others—the ‘multiverse’ speculation. It is interesting that atheists who refuse to believe in an unseen God, based supposedly on the lack of evidence for His existence, explain away the appearance of design by embracing the existence of an unknown number of other universes for which there is no evidence—or even any effect of their evidence. In any case, Flew argues that even if there were multiple universes, it would not solve the atheists’ dilemma; ‘multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind’ (p. 121).

The origin of life

Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?—Antony Flew

The existence of physical laws which allow life to survive is necessary, but not sufficient by itself, for the existence of life. The question of the origin of life became much more complex with the discovery of DNA, a molecule comprising ‘letters’ that code for the instructions to build the machinery of life. A real vicious circle is that the instructions to build decoding machinery are themselves encoded on the DNA. That life is governed by a complex code leads to the question:

‘Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?’ (p. 127).
He pointed out that natural selection can’t explain the origin of first life. Ultimately, a vast amount of information is behind life, and in every other case, information necessarily points to an intelligent source, so it is only reasonable that there be a Source behind this information as well
 Quoting: Neesie








Garbage. No Atheists goes from being rational to an irrational christurd cultist.

That will never happen.

While I am at it, your bible god character was an evil baby slaughtering monster, and an all around a$shole.

The good news is, your nasty as$hole dumper god fugger isnt real. It's a just a make believe garbage pail god fugger. Nothing at all.


-
Neesie  (OP)

User ID: 867131
United States
01/17/2010 06:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
[link to creation.com]

Fingerprints of a designer
Flew’s belief in God hinges on three aspects of nature: ‘The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life … The third is the very existence of nature’ (p. 89).

The Laws of nature
Every scientist must assume that nature acts in certain predictable, measurable ways; this is what makes scientific discovery possible. Paul Davies argued that ‘science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview’ (p. 107). However, there is really no reason why nature should follow laws; the existence of such laws requires an explanation. Three questions must be answered: ‘Where do the laws of physics come from? Why is it that we have these laws instead of some other set? How is that we have a set of laws that drives featureless gases to life, consciousness, and intelligence?’ (p. 108). Flew argues along with many other classical and modern scientists that theism is the only serious answer.

When Flew was an atheist, he argued that the universe and its laws were themselves ultimate (p. 134). Every belief has some fundamental assumption; for theists, the existence of God is the fundamental assumption. Flew, however, took the universe and its most fundamental features as that assumption. The discovery that the universe was not infinite threw a wrench into this assumption; if the universe had begun to exist at some point in time, it was reasonable to assume something caused its beginning. Because it is more likely that God exists uncaused, rather than the universe, it is logical to argue for the existence of God from the existence of the universe (pp. 144–145).

The fine-tuning of the universe
Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which seem to be finely tuned to enable life to exist. The most common atheist answer is to assert that our universe is one of many others—the ‘multiverse’ speculation. It is interesting that atheists who refuse to believe in an unseen God, based supposedly on the lack of evidence for His existence, explain away the appearance of design by embracing the existence of an unknown number of other universes for which there is no evidence—or even any effect of their evidence. In any case, Flew argues that even if there were multiple universes, it would not solve the atheists’ dilemma; ‘multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind’ (p. 121).

The origin of life

Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?—Antony Flew

The existence of physical laws which allow life to survive is necessary, but not sufficient by itself, for the existence of life. The question of the origin of life became much more complex with the discovery of DNA, a molecule comprising ‘letters’ that code for the instructions to build the machinery of life. A real vicious circle is that the instructions to build decoding machinery are themselves encoded on the DNA. That life is governed by a complex code leads to the question:

‘Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?’ (p. 127).
He pointed out that natural selection can’t explain the origin of first life. Ultimately, a vast amount of information is behind life, and in every other case, information necessarily points to an intelligent source, so it is only reasonable that there be a Source behind this information as well








Garbage. No Atheists goes from being rational to an irrational christurd cultist.

That will never happen.

While I am at it, your bible god character was an evil baby slaughtering monster, and an all around a$shole.

The good news is, your nasty as$hole dumper god fugger isnt real. It's a just a make believe garbage pail god fugger. Nothing at all.


-
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 851901



your post shows your Ignorance. My post didnt not say Flew became a christian. it says he now believes in God.

Last Edited by Neesie on 01/17/2010 06:05 AM
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
Neesie  (OP)

User ID: 867131
United States
01/17/2010 06:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Flew's thesis is not at all to do with Christianity, nor any other religion.

He's simply saying that he believes that all the 'natural' information we have discovered (e.g. DNA) was encoded by an intelligent being. We ignorant and insignificant humans call this intelligent being 'God'.

The multiverse hypothesis is interesting. But I take issue with such gratuitous profligacy. Could the being who is responsible for our universe have access to infinitely more resources to encode an infinite number of lifeless universes? If there's no being, then where did all those resources come from? Our physics at least doesn't do wastage.

Seems to me that most modern physics is still as stuck with all these questions as the alchemists and astronomers of ancient days. The physicists' speculations and language are just as jargony and plausible as the ancients' were.

My money's on Nick Bostrom and the Fermilab/GEO 600 results. These could indicate the existence of a supreme creator being or beings out there. Christianity is only one of hundreds of ways of interpreting and appreciating it/them.

Basically though, we still know next to nothing.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 762594


Read the bible it is a wealth of information on our origins and almost anything you want to know.
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
tkwasny

User ID: 809721
United States
01/17/2010 06:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Garbage. No Atheists goes from being rational to an irrational christurd cultist.

That will never happen.

While I am at it, your bible god character was an evil baby slaughtering monster, and an all around a$shole.

The good news is, your nasty as$hole dumper god fugger isnt real. It's a just a make believe garbage pail god fugger. Nothing at all.


-
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 851901

How old are you? Really, be honest this once. How old are you?
ºº

User ID: 836425
United Kingdom
01/17/2010 06:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Co-incidence?


A few days ago I was helping my wife to get ready to go out, and she asked me to fasten a black and white bead necklace around her neck.

But me, being clumsy as I am, somehow managed to break it, sending the beads scattering all over the floor.

Well, I picked them all up and threaded them back on in an attempt to fix it again.

It was then that I noticed something a bit peculiar. I am familiar with morse code, and I noticed that at one point, the beads, being black and white, were arranged to form the word 'The' in morse code.

As I looked more carefully at the necklace, I was astonished to find that one continuous portion of the necklace beads actually spelled out the phrase "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." in morse code.

That can't be co-incidence. And anybody who says it is must be mad.
The chariots of God are tens of thousands, and thousands of thousands.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 865377
Australia
01/17/2010 06:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
God should be a four letter word
Noe~Lot
User ID: 867062
United States
01/17/2010 08:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
The "word" GOD is a new word (since the 6th Cen) and was the Protestants alternative to Roman-Latin DEO (from Gr.deomai) meaning 'sought/petitioned', representing the Greek THEOS "a concept/ idea" but the real word in Hebrew is EL ('to/toward') and ELaH ('a goal/ objective'), the not getting "it" to having one is a fool.

GOD is from the older Roman AVM (Agni Varuna Mithra) source being the Hindu AUM last sounds breathed of shivA vishnU brahMa and as GOD is their Latin explanation:

Genera (Creator)
Opera (Sustainer)
Demoli (Renewer)
Wingedlion

User ID: 858477
United States
01/17/2010 08:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
[link to creation.com]

Fingerprints of a designer
Flew’s belief in God hinges on three aspects of nature: ‘The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life … The third is the very existence of nature’ (p. 89).

The Laws of nature
Every scientist must assume that nature acts in certain predictable, measurable ways; this is what makes scientific discovery possible. Paul Davies argued that ‘science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview’ (p. 107). However, there is really no reason why nature should follow laws; the existence of such laws requires an explanation. Three questions must be answered: ‘Where do the laws of physics come from? Why is it that we have these laws instead of some other set? How is that we have a set of laws that drives featureless gases to life, consciousness, and intelligence?’ (p. 108). Flew argues along with many other classical and modern scientists that theism is the only serious answer.

When Flew was an atheist, he argued that the universe and its laws were themselves ultimate (p. 134). Every belief has some fundamental assumption; for theists, the existence of God is the fundamental assumption. Flew, however, took the universe and its most fundamental features as that assumption. The discovery that the universe was not infinite threw a wrench into this assumption; if the universe had begun to exist at some point in time, it was reasonable to assume something caused its beginning. Because it is more likely that God exists uncaused, rather than the universe, it is logical to argue for the existence of God from the existence of the universe (pp. 144–145).

The fine-tuning of the universe
Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which seem to be finely tuned to enable life to exist. The most common atheist answer is to assert that our universe is one of many others—the ‘multiverse’ speculation. It is interesting that atheists who refuse to believe in an unseen God, based supposedly on the lack of evidence for His existence, explain away the appearance of design by embracing the existence of an unknown number of other universes for which there is no evidence—or even any effect of their evidence. In any case, Flew argues that even if there were multiple universes, it would not solve the atheists’ dilemma; ‘multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind’ (p. 121).

The origin of life

Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?—Antony Flew

The existence of physical laws which allow life to survive is necessary, but not sufficient by itself, for the existence of life. The question of the origin of life became much more complex with the discovery of DNA, a molecule comprising ‘letters’ that code for the instructions to build the machinery of life. A real vicious circle is that the instructions to build decoding machinery are themselves encoded on the DNA. That life is governed by a complex code leads to the question:

‘Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?’ (p. 127).
He pointed out that natural selection can’t explain the origin of first life. Ultimately, a vast amount of information is behind life, and in every other case, information necessarily points to an intelligent source, so it is only reasonable that there be a Source behind this information as well








Garbage. No Atheists goes from being rational to an irrational christurd cultist.

That will never happen.

While I am at it, your bible god character was an evil baby slaughtering monster, and an all around a$shole.

The good news is, your nasty as$hole dumper god fugger isnt real. It's a just a make believe garbage pail god fugger. Nothing at all.


-
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 851901




Well, is He real, or is He not? If He is real, then He is guilty of destroying the wicked child eaters, if He is not, then He is not guilty of anything and you are obsessed over an imaginary creation of your own mind, which would make you insane. If He does not exist, and you really believed that, then you would not waste your time writing about Him. You're such a spiritual retard, you confuse even me.

Last Edited by Wingedlion on 01/17/2010 08:30 AM
"Glory is what happens when faith overcomes adversity."
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 434868
Netherlands
01/17/2010 01:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
[link to creation.com]

Fingerprints of a designer
Flew’s belief in God hinges on three aspects of nature: ‘The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life … The third is the very existence of nature’ (p. 89).
[...]
 Quoting: Neesie


Flew's argument boils down to God-in-the-gaps.
Rather lame and unsophisticated for a philosopher who willingly admits he isn't keeping up with science anymore.

And Neesie, you don't want this guy as your spokesperson.

Flew rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Reality Is B.S

User ID: 867243
United States
01/17/2010 01:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Co-incidence?


A few days ago I was helping my wife to get ready to go out, and she asked me to fasten a black and white bead necklace around her neck.

But me, being clumsy as I am, somehow managed to break it, sending the beads scattering all over the floor.

Well, I picked them all up and threaded them back on in an attempt to fix it again.

It was then that I noticed something a bit peculiar. I am familiar with morse code, and I noticed that at one point, the beads, being black and white, were arranged to form the word 'The' in morse code.

As I looked more carefully at the necklace, I was astonished to find that one continuous portion of the necklace beads actually spelled out the phrase "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." in morse code.

That can't be co-incidence. And anybody who says it is must be mad.
 Quoting: ºº

How fat is your wifes neck? That must be the longest string of beads in history.
Throwing more erroneous useless information into the original arguement.
Atheist

User ID: 859455
United Kingdom
01/17/2010 01:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God

Atheist
Atheist

User ID: 859455
United Kingdom
01/17/2010 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
God should be a four letter word
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 865377


CUNT?
Atheist
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 749713
Canada
01/17/2010 01:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
[link to creation.com]

Fingerprints of a designer
Flew’s belief in God hinges on three aspects of nature: ‘The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life … The third is the very existence of nature’ (p. 89).

The Laws of nature
Every scientist must assume that nature acts in certain predictable, measurable ways; this is what makes scientific discovery possible. Paul Davies argued that ‘science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview’ (p. 107). However, there is really no reason why nature should follow laws; the existence of such laws requires an explanation. Three questions must be answered: ‘Where do the laws of physics come from? Why is it that we have these laws instead of some other set? How is that we have a set of laws that drives featureless gases to life, consciousness, and intelligence?’ (p. 108). Flew argues along with many other classical and modern scientists that theism is the only serious answer.

When Flew was an atheist, he argued that the universe and its laws were themselves ultimate (p. 134). Every belief has some fundamental assumption; for theists, the existence of God is the fundamental assumption. Flew, however, took the universe and its most fundamental features as that assumption. The discovery that the universe was not infinite threw a wrench into this assumption; if the universe had begun to exist at some point in time, it was reasonable to assume something caused its beginning. Because it is more likely that God exists uncaused, rather than the universe, it is logical to argue for the existence of God from the existence of the universe (pp. 144–145).

The fine-tuning of the universe
Not only does our universe follow finely tuned physical laws, but laws which seem to be finely tuned to enable life to exist. The most common atheist answer is to assert that our universe is one of many others—the ‘multiverse’ speculation. It is interesting that atheists who refuse to believe in an unseen God, based supposedly on the lack of evidence for His existence, explain away the appearance of design by embracing the existence of an unknown number of other universes for which there is no evidence—or even any effect of their evidence. In any case, Flew argues that even if there were multiple universes, it would not solve the atheists’ dilemma; ‘multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind’ (p. 121).

The origin of life

Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?—Antony Flew

The existence of physical laws which allow life to survive is necessary, but not sufficient by itself, for the existence of life. The question of the origin of life became much more complex with the discovery of DNA, a molecule comprising ‘letters’ that code for the instructions to build the machinery of life. A real vicious circle is that the instructions to build decoding machinery are themselves encoded on the DNA. That life is governed by a complex code leads to the question:

‘Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?’ (p. 127).
He pointed out that natural selection can’t explain the origin of first life. Ultimately, a vast amount of information is behind life, and in every other case, information necessarily points to an intelligent source, so it is only reasonable that there be a Source behind this information as well








Garbage. No Atheists goes from being rational to an irrational christurd cultist.

That will never happen.

While I am at it, your bible god character was an evil baby slaughtering monster, and an all around a$shole.

The good news is, your nasty as$hole dumper god fugger isnt real. It's a just a make believe garbage pail god fugger. Nothing at all.


-
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 851901


You are assuming most athiests are rational?

NO. A lot of athiest's THINK they are rational-but when one really examines their belief system, the rationality breaks down into defensiveness and bullying. Your post is an example of this.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 749713
Canada
01/17/2010 01:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Garbage. No Atheists goes from being rational to an irrational christurd cultist.

That will never happen.

While I am at it, your bible god character was an evil baby slaughtering monster, and an all around a$shole.

The good news is, your nasty as$hole dumper god fugger isnt real. It's a just a make believe garbage pail god fugger. Nothing at all.

-
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 851901


Actually, You are an example of a disgusting human being irregardless of your belief system. sociopathic?
Neesie  (OP)

User ID: 867736
United States
01/17/2010 10:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
God should be a four letter word


CUNT?
 Quoting: Atheist


do you worship cunt Atheist?
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis
ºº

User ID: 836425
United Kingdom
01/17/2010 11:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Co-incidence?


A few days ago I was helping my wife to get ready to go out, and she asked me to fasten a black and white bead necklace around her neck.

But me, being clumsy as I am, somehow managed to break it, sending the beads scattering all over the floor.

Well, I picked them all up and threaded them back on in an attempt to fix it again.

It was then that I noticed something a bit peculiar. I am familiar with morse code, and I noticed that at one point, the beads, being black and white, were arranged to form the word 'The' in morse code.

As I looked more carefully at the necklace, I was astonished to find that one continuous portion of the necklace beads actually spelled out the phrase "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." in morse code.

That can't be co-incidence. And anybody who says it is must be mad.

How fat is your wifes neck? That must be the longest string of beads in history.
 Quoting: Reality Is B.S

That story wasn't entirely true. I was just seeing if anybody would fall for it.
The chariots of God are tens of thousands, and thousands of thousands.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 868108
United States
01/18/2010 11:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Leading atheist? Is he the former head of the Atheist Church?

hiding
Atheist

User ID: 859455
United Kingdom
01/19/2010 09:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Leading atheist? Is he the former head of the Atheist Church?

hiding
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 868108



Yes!

Haha.

We have a church and representation, didnt you know? I guess you never got the fax!
Atheist
Neesie  (OP)

User ID: 867736
United States
01/19/2010 09:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God
Leading atheist? Is he the former head of the Atheist Church?

hiding



Yes!

Haha.

We have a church and representation, didnt you know? I guess you never got the fax!
 Quoting: Atheist


I do believe that many atheists have an almost religious fervor to promote their non belief. but a church? NO
.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

C. S. Lewis





GLP