You've been reading somebody who was doing quote mining, probably Michael Behe, William Dembski, or Phillip Johnson, somebody like that. There is a paragraph in the Origin of Species where he says that, oft-quoted by the pious like yourself, where he writes specifically about the eye, but they conveniently leave out the next paragraph. Go back to the book, you're still wrong. Nothing has ever been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex.
And what I'm saying, and what all of science says, is that you're dead wrong. Postulating a designer explains nothing, it just avoids an explanation, god did it, no further explanation is necessary or even possible, end of the research program.
Well, a while ago, people would say that if the Big Bang was true, who caused it? Before that, people would say, ok gravity sucks, but who made gravity?
Chaos is what unlearned people call what they don't understand. So far, pretty much whatever we've investigated has turned out pretty ordered.
And by yours, everything must have had an origin, and the only thing that could do this is some magician you call "God". Well, sorry, but that is assumption. As I said earlier, according to latest theory, things pop in and out of existence naturally, not supernaturally.
So, what you are saying that it takes faith to view the lack of evidence of the existence of god and conclude that there probably isn't one. Sounds like a leap of faith to jump to that conclusion to me.
I was merely pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. I am far from being an atheist and my eyes are filled with the wonder of creation. But I do find your simplistic views of a magic being and all the dogma surrounding it an insult to the intelligence of humans and the Creator alike, repugnant.
That's the first time you've asked about that one specifically, unless I missed a post somewhere, but you're a little out of date, that one's been explained. Do your own research if you're really interested, I don't have the time. Behe's claims about irreducible complexity have all been explained, but he carries on making a fool of himself. Every time science explains one of your challenges you guys dredge up something else and insist that if science doesn't already have an explanation for it, or can't instantly produce one, divine design must be right. Finding a fossil that fills a gap in the fossil record, for instance, will never satisfy you, it just creates two new gaps to fill and you fasten on those. And you'll never run out of unexplained things to fasten on, because science doesn't have explanations for everything and doesn't claim to. It's religion that does that, science claims only to have a reliable method for finding explanations. The arguments you've advanced so far amount to the argument from design and the god of the gaps argument, with a few logical fallacies like begging the question thrown in. None of them go anywhere useful, they explain nothing while claiming to explain everything, and cutting off attempts at finding better ones. If biology had accepted the divine design explanation for the flagellar motor, nobody would have bothered looking for the real one. If you want to understand biology and evolution, or anything really about the natural world around you, religion's not the place to look.
Yes, it does, and that makes it a logically indefensible position, but it's not the position of most atheists I've encountered. There's a subtle but important distinction between firmly believing that there is no god and simply not believing that there is one.
Of course. In my pov, science consistently tears apart religious claims and I have faith that it will continue doing just that as it needs to in its strive to explain our universe to us. And the more it does this, the probabilities of gods diminishes, at least they do in the way they've been described so far.
The silly bugger should sign its works then. Or at least produced something to show that it was the manufacturer. As of yet, there's nothing conclusive that can be claimed by any god. Not even their own existences.
Who is they?
Quite. Disbelief is not a form of belief.
