What do you do for a living and what are your qualifications ? Just out of curiosity.

I think I already said a while back in this thread - graphic designer by occupation. I'm just another person trying to figure out the world like everyone else is. I think it's important, as human beings, to ask yourself "Where did we come from?", "Why does anything even exist at all?", "Is there a purpose to everything, or is everything completely random?"
-  and it's questions like that, as intelligent beings with the gift to discover the universe, that compel us to seek answers.

I may not have qualifications in scientific research under my belt, but the many scientists and various other people I have been quoting and linking to, DO have experience and credibility in a wide range of scientific research, moreso than anyone in this thread including myself.

And my opinions, do have research behind them, whether you want to believe that or not I couldn't care less.

I just think some of you need to start looking at the other side of the coin, instead of having the totally atheistic point of view that "science will explain everything", because quite simply it won't and from what I have seen more and more modern scientists are beginning to realise that.

by the way, I'm not 'making up theories' as you so succinctly put it.

You do that and live your life in ignorence you pillock.

Infact, after reading all your posts that is the only conclusion I can draw - you're simply not intectually equiped to deal with science.

intectually? I'm not intectually equipped?

Ah yes, the Multiverse. The multiverse that just happened to come from something, from something, from something, from... nothing.

Well, we will leave it that shall we.

I realise how crazy I sound to people like you!

People like me? You mean unbiased, rational, logical thinking people? I see..

The point of singularity isn't nothing. It is superdense. energy reacts and intereacts, that's how it 'knows'. It doesn't really know, it just does.

Now, as I have stated before, there are things AT THE MOMENT that we cannot explain sufficiently. But just because we lack the information AT THIS TIME to explain things scientifically, doesn't mean that we should give up the endeavour and go quietly and meekly into supernaturalism: "uuuuh...god gone done it".

You call me arrogant and dogmatically bound. Look in the mirror. No, really, do it, and be honest with yourself. Yes, I am biased towards Science. It has more appeal to me in that it is based on observable fact and provides me with a candle in the darkness.

lol, do you have any idea how crazy you sound? The point of singularity, I guess you're talking about the primeval atom, it just one day decided to pop out of nothing for no reason? And it just happens to contain the forces of nature: Gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force? 'It doesn't know, it just does'? Doesn't know what? Just does what? No sense make you.

I don't see how you can honestly think that that 'point of singularity' came to exist from nothing. Something wanted the universe to be created, and it wanted it to work effectively. You can't explain that just by 'energy reacting', it makes no sense. It doesn't matter how much science will ever be able to explain, it will never be explain how or why the universe was created. You need to come to this realisation, and then start asking yourself the ultimate questions "Why was the universe created?" instead of How. You will never know HOW the universe came to exist - not in your lifetime, not in anyone's lifetime, the sooner you realize this the sooner you can start appreciating the amazing 'coincidence' of everything.

What are you trying to say there, psyche?

I'm trying to say he's a fool if he thinks 'logic and reason' explains the existence of the universe, that's what I'm trying to say.

What are you trying to say there, psyche?

These gentlemen have disagreed with you time and again, and you have disregarded their opinions. Now you have descended into full-on ad hominem mode. If I were you, I would watch where I was going with this current line of posting.

I'm not going anywhere with this line of posting, I've given up with this thread... I'm not going to keep debating with a bunch of inane crackpot idiotic atheists brainwashed by science. All I wanted was a mature discussion where people can hopefully think outside of the box, but it seems that is too much to ask for this forum.

I wouldn't have had a problem responding to Ngati's post, but he is quite clearly talking a load of shit now, so I'm not going to bother responding to that crap, it gets too repetitive.

Again, atheists = MORONS. I can't see anything that indicates atheists think about things rationally or in any way that makes sense, they're all just crazy, deluded nutters. That's the only way I can think to put it.

Sir Isaac Netwon put it best:

"This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

HB btw

I think the only who's  been brain-washed is you, you sound like a deluded nutter brainwashed by science

Why?
No, really, in your own words, why?
Just because we haven't managed to understand it fully yet?
Fucking numpty? ...cool, I love your reasoning.

From what I heard the entire study of abiogenesis was scrapped, because the theory was debunked.

That's just the problem though. You don't appear to have even reached Critical Thinking 101

lol, I could say the same about you. You're still stuck thinking science can explain everything. You are DELUDED if you can think science can explain everything.

The Scientists you mentioned in the last post may well have believed in god, but there are also many just as stellar who don't

It seems a LOT of scientists believe in a "higher power" that purposefully constructed the laws of the universe. How can you honestly believe that the very complex laws of nature and the universe came about through random chance? That makes you sound like a fucking crackpot. I can't see any reason to believe or consider anything you say, because you're an absolute nutter, just like every other moron atheist in this thread. Plain and simple.

I am more inclined to believe the knowledgeable words of these scientists and other great minds that I have quoted, that work in the fields of astrobiology, astrophysics, astronomy, cosmology and physics instead of some deluded crackpot geologist that studies rocks.

havn't you put me on your ignore list about 6 times?

magic of science - how logic and reason can unlock the mysteries of the universe, pretty magical imo

Logic and reason, lol. Aaaaah yup, that explains everything!

so can you explain how god magicing up the universe does count as magic? or are you going to continue your strat of ignoring question sand just posting abuse because you have nothing behind your world view except some feelings + ignorance + stupidity

I'm not going to get into a debate with any of you any more, I've shared some of my thoughts and I get ridiculed and flamed for it, so fuck you idiots I'm not going to go to the effort of sharing my thoughts if I just treated like a fool for it.

Oh, I'm sorry you didn't take the time to read it in its entirety. I, at least, took the time to read all of your posts (well, everyone's posts :/ ).
If I'm acting like a cock, then you're a chicken for not presenting any evidence and just flat out coming forward with emotional responses, and your feelings, or presenting dubious research from dubious sites.

Thanks, finally, for your excellent sign off. I will hold that close to my chest for all eternity (or until I die).

I can thus, reciprocally, wish you freedom from your shackles of ignorance and superstition and that one day you discover peace and tolerance, along with your intelligence.

Nah, see, it's because you're just acting like a pompous know-it-all dickhead now,  you might think you know it all but you don't know shit. You're a fucking geologist, you study rocks. You're not studying the incredible complexity of nature and the universe, so of course you don't appreciate the underlying mechanics as much as what other scientists do.

You think the Hadron Collider thingie is going to be able to recreate the Big Bang? I fuckin' lol'd. They're only studying the conditions AFTER the Big Bang, there's absolutely no way they can scientifically explain what happened before the Big Bang or how it happened.

That dude Jerry Bergman isn't credible? Funny, he's got shitloads more credibility than you will ever have. I read his entire article, then read a rebuttal from an atheist to his article, then he ripped apart that rebuttal and no-one else has attempted to critique his essay thus far. If you think his article is a load of shit, let's hear your rebuttal to it. Abiogenesis IS impossible anyway you fucking numpty. I have to say, atheists are some of the stupidest motherfuckers I have ever encountered, it's like they filter out certain information and only listen to other information, or they are too just too goddamn stubborn to appreciate things that they cannot understand. Atheists = morons.

And then there's morons like kill3r who give me shit for copying and pasting text from an article, even though I've explained it to him like 5 fucking times already and he can still can't process it through his thick head. Look up your own information you fucking dingbat if it's such a problem, it's not that hard. Aswell as Gingerbread man, who whinges and moans like a little bitch for no fucking reason other than no-one likes him and the world hates him because he's an oversized Ginga.

Those quotes from scientists were taken out of context? Lol, bullshit, none of them look they are taken out of context to me - that's you just being an arrogant know-it-all prick.



Here's some more just to spite you:


Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy):

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."


Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".


Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."


Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist):

"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."


Robert Jastrow:

 "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."


Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."


Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."


Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."


Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

"When you are searching for truth you should use every possible avenue, including revelation," said Dr. Murray, who is a member of the Pontifical Academy, which advises the Vatican on scientific issues, and who described the influence of his faith on his work in his memoir, "Surgery of the Soul" (Science History Publications, 2002).

Since his appearance at the City College panel, when he was dismayed by the tepid reception received by his remarks on the incompatibility of good science and religious belief, Dr. Hauptman said he had been discussing the issue with colleagues in Buffalo, where he is president of the Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute.

"I think almost without exception the people I have spoken to are scientists and they do believe in the existence of a supreme being," he said. "If you ask me to explain it - I cannot explain it at all."

Dr. Collins said he believed that some scientists were unwilling to profess faith in public "because the assumption is if you are a scientist you don't have any need of action of the supernatural sort," or because of pride in the idea that science is the ultimate source of intellectual meaning.

But he said he believed that some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"

Yeah I'm not going to read that, or going to respond to any of it - I read a bit of your post and you are talking an absolute load of shit now Ngati.

And I'm sick of you people acting like a bunch of cocks for no reason, so fuck all of you

Have fun believing that the the world, the universe and everything magically appeared to due to completely random chance! you dumb fucks

Because what you're going to do is go to the Institute for Creation Research or Wikipedia and copy one of their lists - it will say something like "creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly"

Negative. I obtained those quotes from a variety of sources. They are quotes from well respected and incredibly intelligent people from around the world. I'm not sure exactly what the point is that you are trying to make, if any..

yawn, i'm off, night.

please do.

Will post some more soon, or tomorrow.

You are telling me stuff I already know about Newton, Einstein and Copernicus. But as for Darwin, though he was agnostic, as i've already posted, even he admitted that the laws of nature, so unimaginably complex, could only logically have been created, which of course, implies a Creator.

You managed to miss all the other scientists I quoted, including modern-day ones, expressing their belief of God and how it relates to science.

Debating with people like you is like pissing into the breeze.

lol, yet here you are, debating. Quit being a noob.

According to a 1996 survey, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god.This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.

You shouldn't rely on statistics from a survey to come to that conclusion that religion and belief in God are 'dying out'.

Your opinion, it is subjective - flawed from the outset.

Opinion shared by many others it seems.

Wow, a list.

And that's a only very small fraction of them. Would you like to see more?

For starters Hawkins is agnostic.

Thanks for that enlightening bit of information.

Anyway, none of this matters - religion is slowly, but surely dying. Go into first year physics, chemistry, biology or geology class at University and ask who doesn't believe in evolution, who who thinks the earth is 4000 years old, who believes in god. You will get some people - but ultimately they will drop out, or just make shitty scientists and end up working at a council in a trivial role.

So to you, the opinion of some first year students are more credible than that of some of the greatest scientific minds in modern and recent history? You are kinda clutching at straws a bit now, aren't you?

None of this matters? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I don't know where you heard religion is dying, but it isn't - and a growing number of scientists around the world are starting to openly admit they believe in God or a  'Supreme and intelligible Creator', or already do, or consider it a very real possibility as evidenced by the above quotes not including the many I haven't listed. As I've already said, evolution and God can logically co-exist, whereas evolution without God or some kind of supreme Creator, doesn't work, because if you follow it right back to the end of the spectrum, you can't logically or scientifically evolve something from nothing, can you?

As an atheist you need to explain how your belief that everything came from nothing by extreme coincidence would work, and start asking yourself those questions, otherwise why would you be an atheist?

Again I will quote Lord William Thomson Kelvin..

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us...the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."

It's difficult for a scientists to openly admit that they believe in God, because it undermines their credibility in the eyes of the scientific community due to the stigma attached to it.

Having survived through the Hannibal4Life and krasher era, I think this era is most definitely the worst and deepest pit of ignorance we have all come to face. Definitely a competitor for the Dark Ages.

So there must have been a delusional atheist era too? or is that still going..

Right up until they cant

Which is what...? :sly:

No. This is not.

What the f*ck is it then? If we call it an argument all we're going to acheive is bickering like idiots and acting like a child like Arnifix, instead of actually discussing. Think about it.

You are trying to table ideas which have long, long, LONG ago been disproven.

Oh really? I didn't realise the big bang theory, the theory of the primeval atom, the expanding universe theory and other theories had all been disproven. Incredible!

i just read the first chapter fo the god delusion he seems FULLY atheist in that. EDIT: LOL hawkins not dawkins!

He is, he is a 'fanatical' atheist, in the most extreme, and quite possibly has an agenda behind his motivations. His book sucks aswell, and most of his theories have been debunked or don't receive much acknowledgement afaik. He follows the ideas of Darwinism, yet Darwin himself eventually admitted there was no way his theories could logically work, and that the complexity of nature and the universe had to have been designed by something. For some reason everyone jumped on the idea of evolution and started praising it as the most amazing discovery in science, but in Darwin's own words:

“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”

psyche you haven't yet explained how god can exist. if we have to be designed then the god concept must also, as it's far more complex and awesome than the meat sacks filled with arrogance beleiving the universe is totally jsut made for them to look at.

I already explained this to you, many many pages ago, I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing for your benefit because you are too slow to keep up.

Actually the fact we exist is proof there is no  almighty god, because humans have too many flaws to have ever been made by a perfect being.

I addressed this concept in one of my earlier posts. I don't think many people believe God is ABSOLUTELY perfect (though I could be wrong), when you really think about it how can something be perfection? Something can always be improved in some way. But I'd say pretty damn close to perfection, imo, if it has the ability to create a complex universe for life to live. Assuming one does believe in God, the fact that everything may not have gone to plan, I don't think that's something we can fault the Creator for, considering it still gave us the privilege to exist in the first place, and especially if it is true that we brought our own demise upon us.

Only if God is proven to exist beyond questionable doubt.

That is the crux, isn't it.

Who knows, maybe the very first primeval atom that set off the event of the Big Bang was created by a super-intelligent alien race, and the universe is their experiment, we are but a miniature zoo for their entertainment. Or perhaps we are but one small universe inside a huge Multiverse. Though that would probably challenge the theory of the Big Bang. Maybe we are in only one of many alternative realities, and anytime someone makes a conscious decision a quantum flux in the universe splits off into a seperate reality that is the result of the alternate decision that may have existed.


Ultimately, the existence of everything came from nothing, to put it in simple terms. Now, it's going to require something amazingly incomprehensible to explain exactly how that could happen, a scientific explanation just can't cut it.

Ngati Grim mentioned the Large Hadron Collider, which seeks to recreate the conditions, some time in the next 1000 years or so, that lead to the Big Bang. The funny thing is, it's goal is only to study the conditions of the Big Bang, not how the 'primeval atom' came to exist, or where it even came from, there's just no way of explaining that. An interesting thing I noted, after watching a documentary about the Big Bang, about how in the first few of moments from the creation of the atom, and I quote: 'light burts out from within the darkness' *, which when you think about fits in well with the book of Genesis:

1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Coincidence? Maybe. I find that pretty powerful though. Remembering the Bible was written a long time ago when we knew nothing about the creation of the universe, a lot of people thought the universe had just always existed back then. It's things like this that are probably one of the reasons a lot of modern scientists are beginning to believe in God, or already do, even if some of them won't openly admit it, otherwise risking their reputation and career. And of course some of the very early pioneers of science were deeply religious, or had their own beliefs about God themselves. From what i've heard a lot of scientists that research, study and learn about how everything works, firmly believe they are discovering the work of God, or at least a higher entity that clearly must have inconceivable knowledge, that we simply cannot comprehend, to make everything so sophisticated and complex, yet chaotic at the same time, and make it all work.

Imagine how the world of science felt when they discovered the Big Bang, that yes indeed - the universe was created and came into existence at some point. That right there is almost EVIDENCE of God, to say that yes, we were created, we were given the gift of life and the gift to EXIST. For some that must have been like a damn-near revelation, but now of course the atheists, that don't want to believe in or have anything to do with God, are going to shit themselves and scurry to come up with all kinds of solutions and explanations, "the reason we exist comes down to purely coincidental luck", "We evolved from something, from something, from something from.... nothing. All purely by chance and the 'science' of natural selection" ect.


and although i'm not a Christian or religious in any way, and I have yet to read the Bible and learn all about this Jesus character, I have to admit I am interested to, from what i've seen there are lots of amazing, influential, thought-provoking scriptures and stories beneficial to mankind in there that are well worth reading, a lot of it backed up by historical evidence (of course there will always be debates about inconsistencies, literal interpretations ect. ect.)

*note: the light was in fact, an immense burst of radioactive light and energy, according to scientists. Also note, the  Big Bang is still only in the stage of theory.

/long post is long