Scientific Reasoning Confirms God's Existence.....

[The_Genius]

At the time of Newton, science and the concept of God were not considered as conflicting notions. However, after amateur naturalist Chares Darwin examined cells with his primitive microscope and promoted the theory of evolution, people were forced to choose between science and God. The split between science and God was not only subjective but also ideological. Atheist scientists – who were influenced by materialist and positivist philosophies - conditioned themselves to prove that God does not exist. Their hypothesis were atheistic; any true scientist should have come up with a hypothesis such as “DOES God exist?” instead of “God does not exist”. Along with the theory of evolution - the most important atheistic myth - "steady-state theory" or the "chaos theory" became famous in the field of Science. However, all of these theories that denied creation were dismissed by science itself. ‘Atheistic understanding of Science’ played the biggest role in driving a wedge between Science and religion.

Example- In the 19th century Atheist/Materialist Science promoted ‘Static Universe Model’, a theory (found in ancient Greek philosophy) that said Universe had always existed and it was not ‘created’. This theory was erroneous and led many people to believe the universe never had a beginning. It is a clear example of how Atheist science misled people. However, after the ‘Big Bang’ theory surfaced, we have learnt two things.

1. The universe was ‘created’ out of nothing, with an explosion.
2. The universe is constantly expanding.

Finally, the flaws of Atheist understanding of Science has been demolished by Science. Most importantly, religion – long lost friend of science – has revealed the ‘Big Bang’ theory 1400 years ago.
Allah (God in Arabic) said in the Quran…


Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together(as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Surat al-Anbiya, 30)

It is We who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat, 47)

‘We’ in Arabic has two meanings. One represents ‘plurality’ and the other represents ‘deserving grand respect.’ It is clear that science and the concept of God can be perfectly compatible but atheistic understanding of science influences such divisions.


From non-being to being

Science reveals to us that cosmos came into existence out of nothing; the universe was created out of nothing and it had a beginning. Being created out of nothing is simply unimaginable by a human mind, it is actually impossible for any human to explain such unique phenomenon. Thus, being from non-being is very, very different compare to assembling objects and creating a new thing. The question is who or what can be behind this ‘being from non-being’.

An Intelligent Creator? Or random co-incidences?

The expansion of the universe

Edwin Hubble had discovered that the universe expands. The expansion of the universe is so precise and balanced, that if the expansion rate was billionth of a second slower, the universe would have collapsed. If the expansion rate was billionth of a second faster, dispersing planets would start bumping into each other and eventually, the universe would have been destroyed. It is apparent that the structure and balance of the universe (planetary system for example) is incredibly precise and the plan was to make Earth inhabitable for humans.


God is above laws of physics / logic

Firstly and foremost, we need to discuss the definition of God. Since atheists do not believe in God, we may as well take the general theist definition. God is a Spirit that is Absolute; He is the all-Powerful Creator of the universe.
Scientific discoveries have concluded that ‘time’ and ‘matter’ are not absolute and in fact, they came into existence after the Big Bang. Although Steven Hawking proposed the concept of ‘imaginary time’, something imaginary cannot be considered as ‘truth’ or ‘false’. However, theist argument is not as flawed as you may think. In fact, theist argument and the definition of God well complement each other.

1. Since God is absolute, He is not bound by time, matter or laws physics / logic. He is the Creator of time, matter and logic. Such things only bind His creation.

2. Explosion ‘never brings order’. It has been observed repeatedly that explosion only brings disorder. Thus, Big Bang is more of a ‘miraculous explosion’… if you consider the incredibly precise expansion rate of the universe.


Intelligent design

Whatever the atheist argument is, they cannot deny that the design of the universe has no flaws. It is a design of the most superior caliber. Many other delicate adjustments make this planet ideal for human life. E.g.: the size of the sun, its distance from the earth, the unique physical and chemical properties of water, the wavelength of the sun’s rays, the way that the earth’s atmosphere contains the gases necessary to allow respiration, or the Earth’s magnetic field being ideally suited to human life. We can conclude that there is indeed a plan and a perfect design in place for the survival of humanity. Astrophysicist W. Press insisted it in the simplest manner when he wrote, "there is a grand design in the Universe that favors the development of intelligent life."

Again, I will ask the obvious question… who is behind this intelligent design, an intelligent Designer or random co-incidences? You may say that forces that we understand (strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, gravitational force) the universe but that is another excuse to deny the Creator. Did these forces – part of the intelligent design - create themselves?

Argument For and Against Existence of God

Atheists always challenge theists by saying, “Prove God exists. The burden of proof is on you.” Peoples’ belief in God / religion is very old. Atheism is new compare to theism. It’s massive rise has only been noticed since the beginning of the19th century. Since atheists are the ones with a new concept or argument, they should be the ones to ‘prove’ why the age-old concept of God is wrong. Billions of people believe God exist and they have believed such from a long time. If atheists – new dudes in the block - do not agree, they should try to disprove the notion in the first place.


Evidence for God’s existence

Many atheists simply say, “Show me evidence of God’s existence or why doesn’t He show himself?” It is understandable that skeptics want evidence, but if we take the definition of God into account, He is not forced to do something whenever billions of his creatures want him to do something. A servant does not challenging his/her master; in this case, it is the Creator of all things.

Personal / emotional God?

Atheists feel the idea of a personal / emotional God or religion is ridiculous. Well it is their choice since no one is forcing them to be theist. However, even if you don’t believe in God or Elohim or Allah, the existence of a Creator is more than possible. Tell me, how scientific does the statement below sounds?

A random (since atheists deny God’s plan) and miraculous (since normal explosions never bring order) explosion called ‘Big Bang’ had brought order and then the universe began expanding at a perfect pace (just too precise)… and then forces created themselves as well and made earth habitable. The intelligent design is everywhere, starting from the solar system to human eyes to genes and DNA. This design is also random since there is no Designer…

You don’t have to be Christian, Jew or Muslim to be a rational person. It is very evident that without a Programmer / Architect, these random but perfect co-incidences could not have been successful in ensuring that human life sustains. Even if you deny the religious notion of a punisher / merciless God, the signature of the Intelligent Designer is all over the universe.

[Jack]

Since you reference nothing, I am free to presume that all your quotes and appeals to authority are of your own creation. Very good. I'm glad to see someone posting so many examples of misunderstanding and wishful thinking in one thread so that we can address the majority of these theistic beliefs without having to jump from thread to thread.

Your list is too long to rebut all at once, so let me start with a few points:

people were forced to choose between science and God.

Only by the church. Science has never demanded belief. It does what it does whether you accept it or not. Gods, on the other hand, supposedly demand love, respect and worship...belief.

true scientist should have come up with a hypothesis such as “DOES God exist?” instead of “God does not exist”.

You're mixing science and philosophy. Science suggests nothing about gods or their existence.

The question is who or what can be behind this ‘being from non-being’.

Just proposing a creator does not solve your something from nothing riddle. You need a creator with certain attributes to allow for that...gods.

Whatever the atheist argument is, they cannot deny that the design of the universe has no flaws.

To which other universe are you comparing it?

Atheism is new compare to theism.

Non-belief precedes belief, just like the non-existence of something predates its existence. We non-believers are of the opinion that gods and religion are human inventions. We see no evidence otherwise. Therefore, there was a time before men invented the gods. That was a time of global atheism. Some human societies supported pantheism and multi-gods, while others hadn't encountered the Judeo/Christian god until recently. Those societies were atheistic in regards to other concepts of gods.

We can conclude that there is indeed a plan and a perfect design in place for the survival of humanity. Astrophysicist W. Press insisted it in the simplest manner when he wrote, "there is a grand design in the Universe that favors the development of intelligent life."

So humans existed before the planet was formed? How else could it have been tailored to our needs? Humans adapted to this planet's conditions, not the other way around. Adaptation is still going on and there's plenty of evidence for it. (one of many references) Odd that the only other reference to "W. Press" I can find is here, The Rise of Islam - Harun Yahya. If he were so renowned, there should be several references to be found.

who is behind this intelligent design, an intelligent Designer or random co-incidences?

Random coincidences. They are far from impossible. We are the result of chance. Our discomfort at that thought is one of the contributing factors in the invention of gods.

Billions of people believe God exist and they have believed such from a long time.

Popularity does not equal reality.

these random but perfect co-incidences could not have been successful in ensuring that human life sustains.

You've failed to establish anything you mention is perfect. If this planet was created for us, why are there frozen poles and vast areas of desert that no one can survive in? Bad planning?

There's far more to rebut in your posting, but I can't address them all right now. I'll be back, though.

[Scribbler1]

I stopped reading after this:

Example- In the 19th century Atheist/Materialist Science promoted ‘Static Universe Model’, a theory (found in ancient Greek philosophy) that said Universe had always existed and it was not ‘created’. This theory was erroneous and led many people to believe the universe never had a beginning. It is a clear example of how Atheist science misled people. However, after the ‘Big Bang’ theory surfaced, we have learnt two things. 1. The universe was ‘created’ out of nothing, with an explosion. 2. The universe is constantly expanding.

There is no factual evidence to conclusively prove ANY of this. That is why they are called "theories". Even Stephen Hawking had to deny his OWN long standing theory about black holes. Not that this makes him right NOW, but it illustrates the fact that we just don't know much about the universe and have a VERY hard time comprehending mind-bogglingly huge stretches of time and distance.

Besides, the Big Bang theory doesn't say the Universe was created from NOTHING. A quantum singularity is SOMTEHING. It's another theory that it was so compressed it spawned the universe as it expanded. It makes sense as when you look at the atom, the solar system and the galaxies you see a LOT of space between the bits of matter. It is theorized that that space wasn't there before the BB.

But it is, like all the others, a theory. You can grab onto a theory to PROVE your religion and you can grab a different theory to DISPROVE the existence of God. In the end it is still belief without proof. If Professor Hawking can go thirty years saying one thing and then ADMIT he was wrong (and have the guts to admit it is pretty noble, IMO) it should prove one thing conclusively, that we sometimes just don't know.

Believe what you want, but science is a lot closer to truth than any religion I have ever seen. And SCIENCE can be wrong, so where does that leave any "scientific" proof supporting religion.

[Zhavric]

Wow. There's so many silly wrong-headed assertions there it's hard to know where begin.

First, let me begin by (partially) agreeing with you. There shouldn't be a barrier between god & science, but this does not work to the advantage of theists. You see, most theists believe in Non-Overlapping MAgisteria (NOMA for short). NOMA is the standard line of reasoning which dictates matter of spirit are the province of religion while matters of the natural world are the province of science. TG has attempted to attack NOMA on the grounds that science supports religion, but we all know this is not the case.

Claims made by theists enjoy no immunity from science. A thing caused an explosion-like event a long time ago / subtely moves molecules around to cause planets to form & life to emerge / is capable of monitoring the brain waves of all intelligent life & re-arranging the universe based on the desires of specific individual life forms... How is that NOT the province of science? These are all claims which either do or do not happen. We have no evidence at all they happen and considerable evidence to the contrary.

In fact, the universe is exactly as we'd expect to see it in the absence of a god-intelligence.

Many atheists simply say, “Show me evidence of God’s existence or why doesn’t He show himself?” It is understandable that skeptics want evidence, but if we take the definition of God into account, He is not forced to do something whenever billions of his creatures want him to do something. A servant does not challenging his/her master; in this case, it is the Creator of all things.

The atheists are right. The hypothesis that god exists is no more special than any other hypothesis. It needs evidence. Right now, it has none. Your argument is a tremendous cop-out. Instead of providing evidence, you're just whining about not having to be responsible for providing evidence.

"I shouldn't have to turn in my home work on the grounds I didn't complete it."

Sorry, but you get an F for 'failure'.

[Osborn F Enready]

Whether or not science was at one time in line with religion doesn't much matter, since it became factually against it once they started "dating" the things on earth, and the earth itself.

Science deals with tangible reality, universally (and without national borders, or global borders), as well as giving an ability for logical extrapoloation of theories through varied processes.

Religion is an individually subjective philosophy.

When people allow their individually subjective philosophy to OVERCOME their perception of the tangible, scientifically explained, natural world, is when there are problems.

[another day]

*yawn*

propaganda is boring.

[Eclipse]

Not much left to argue. Might as well eat some of the scraps left over.

Quote by: The Genius Scientific discoveries have concluded that ‘time’ and ‘matter’ are not absolute and in fact, they came into existence after the Big Bang. Although Steven Hawking proposed the concept of ‘imaginary time’, something imaginary cannot be considered as ‘truth’ or ‘false’.

Time is not an object. It is a measurement. Let us say that there was existence before this universe, then nothing, then existence again and we have our universe as we have it now. There is an inability to measure time between those two periods of existence. It could have been seconds, millions of years, or googleplex years. An inability to measure does not mean that it is not there. That's why it would be "imaginary". Although I'm not sure what Hawking meant, that's my spin. Anyway, on to the theistic stuff.

Quote by: The Genius However, theist argument is not as flawed as you may think. In fact, theist argument and the definition of God well complement each other.

Of course. :rolleyes: My chocolate compliments my chocolate cake.

Quote by: The Genius However, after amateur naturalist Chares Darwin examined cells with his primitive microscope and promoted the theory of evolution

That is a pretty dry explanation of what happened. I smell insult. I will not bother to explain, I'm sure you understand where his theories come from. Here's some more evidence. His theory was that of Natural Selection. It led to the theory of evolution but Darwin himself could not explain it well. He was missing a systematic explanation for how characteristics were inherited. He knew it was not 100% correct but he could not, by means of the day, prove anything other then the latest theory of inheritance of a blend of parental traits. He knew that this theory, if true, would lead to dilution. The missing explanations came into light with the science of genetics.

I have found that looking at singular excerpts of the Quran leave out what is said before and after and whatnot. Here is my source for the following.

Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see is firmly established on the throne (of authority). He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He doth regulate all affairs, explaining the signs in detail, that ye may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord.

Raised the heavens? From the Earth?

Quote by: The Genius Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together(as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Surat al-Anbiya, 30)

Sounds like there was no Big Bang theory embedded in this. The Earth was created and then he raised the heavens or clove it asunder from earth. Isn't there a similiar Greek/other ancient myth? One where sky was seperated from earth? And see the water...all living beings...what about clay as I will mention below?

And it is He who spread out the earth, and set thereon mountains standing firm and (flowing) rivers: and fruit of every kind He made in pairs, two and two: He draweth the night as a veil o'er the Day. Behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who consider! And in the earth are tracts (diverse though) neighbouring, and gardens of vines and fields sown with corn, and palm trees - growing out of single roots or otherwise: watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who understand!

Mountains were not placed, they were formed. Does the Quran explain tectonic plates? No. The mountains were "set thereon". Spread out the earth?

Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man from sounding clay from mud molded into shape; when I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit fall ye down in obeisance unto him.

Hello? Clay? I thought we came from water in the Quran? Feel free to sort this out for me.

[The_Genius]

Lol... Now that's the type of responses I expected. I'll get back to all of you.

[Eclipse]

Do not the rejecters see that the skies and earth were bound together then we disunited [or separated] them (Fataq in Arabic) ..." (Koran 21:30)

This goes to further the lack of big bang and more of sky from earth that can be found in some ancient myths.

[The_Genius]

Wow. There's so many silly wrong-headed assertions there it's hard to know where begin.

You mean where to begin?

Claims made by theists enjoy no immunity from science. A thing caused an explosion-like event a long time ago / subtely moves molecules around to cause planets to form & life to emerge / is capable of monitoring the brain waves of all intelligent life & re-arranging the universe based on the desires of specific individual life forms... How is that NOT the province of science? These are all claims which either do or do not happen. We have no evidence at all they happen and considerable evidence to the contrary.

Firstly, the right spelling is ‘subtly’. :)

Secondly, who is the creator of science? Man. Man uses science to understand how God has created nature. Atheistic understanding of science has not had much of a success anyway.

The atheists are right. The hypothesis that god exists is no more special than any other hypothesis. It needs evidence. Right now, it has none. Your argument is a tremendous cop-out. Instead of providing evidence, you're just whining about not having to be responsible for providing evidence.

The evidence is everywhere. Intelligent Design for example. I guess you are sitting in your room. Look at your PC, your books, your shoes, your pen, and of course, yourself… Someone has created them, with a purpose. Same logic applies to the universe.

"I shouldn't have to turn in my home work on the grounds I didn't complete it." Sorry, but you get an F for 'failure'.

Coming from someone who believes we should replace moral values with every single “crazy instincts”? Lol… That’s funny.

[The_Genius]

You're mixing science and philosophy. Science suggests nothing about gods or their existence.

No. Atheistic understanding of science suggests nothing about God. However, the Anthropic Principle clearly suggests that there is a plan behind all of these.

Just proposing a creator does not solve your something from nothing riddle. You need a creator with certain attributes to allow for that...gods.

I am assuming you have a good explanation for ‘being out of nothing’ concept. Tell me about it.

Non-belief precedes belief, just like the non-existence of something predates its existence. We non-believers are of the opinion that gods and religion are human inventions. We see no evidence otherwise. Therefore, there was a time before men invented the gods. That was a time of global atheism. Some human societies supported pantheism and multi-gods, while others hadn't encountered the Judeo/Christian god until recently. Those societies were atheistic in regards to other concepts of gods.

Not really. You are saying it the other way around. It’s God who created man, not the opposite.

So humans existed before the planet was formed? How else could it have been tailored to our needs? Humans adapted to this planet's conditions, not the other way around. Adaptation is still going on and there's plenty of evidence for it. (one of many references) Odd that the only other reference to "W. Press" I can find is here, The Rise of Islam - Harun Yahya. If he were so renowned, there should be several references to be found.

No, humans came after the planet was formed. We can’t float in the space and live our life like some sort of “nomads of the sky”, can we?

Random coincidences. They are far from impossible. We are the result of chance. Our discomfort at that thought is one of the contributing factors in the invention of gods.

How many random co-incidences were needed to make earth inhabitable? If you believe the ridiculous “one cell organism” theory, you would know that a huge amount of luck and chance were needed for that very first cell to survive. I don’t think the word ‘luck’ or ‘chance’ is very scientific.

Popularity does not equal reality.

I never claimed such. I meant, since atheism is a newer school of thought - with a minor following - the burden of proving God’s non-existence is on them.

You've failed to establish anything you mention is perfect. If this planet was created for us, why are there frozen poles and vast areas of desert that no one can survive in? Bad planning?

There are many other places where you can survive. Are you saying frozen poles should now melt? No, it would only affect the ecological balance of this planet in a bad way.

[Jack]

No, humans came after the planet was formed.

Then how was the planet formed so perfectly for human life, as you claim it was? It was formed to support something that wasn't around yet? Were freeways built before there were cars to use them?

Quote by: The_Genius Billions of people believe God exist and they have believed such from a long time.

Quote by: Isherwood Popularity does not equal reality.

Quote by: The_Genius I never claimed such.

Yes, you did. The number of people who believe something says nothing about its validity or reality.

It’s God who created man, not the opposite.

Do you accept the reality of Zeus? If not, why not? Humans have been creating and then dismissing gods since they first started to question their world. Atheists go one step further and reject the whole notion of gods.

There are many other places where you can survive.

But if the gods created this world for us, if it's perfect for our lives, why are there any regions at all that are not habitable by man?

And through all this you've still failed to offer any evidence of the " Scientific Reasoning (that) Confirms God's Existence". You've failed to support your own contention. All I see is that you don't value or understand science much at all.

[Suburbanite]

I think one thing you're forgetting is that many scientists and other free thinkers have been in conflict with the church, before Darwin.

[Nono]

Suburabanite! Holy shit! You been in deep freeze or sumthin?

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: The_Genius I never claimed such. I meant, since atheism is a newer school of thought - with a minor following - the burden of proving God’s non-existence is on them.

The problem is that there are an infinite amount of beliefs an atheist is able to have; the only one linking her to other atheists is her lack of theism (or religion). There are atheists who didn't grow up being exposed to religion, while some who claim science is the "truth", others still who believe in other metaphysical phenomenon other than God (like the Tao). I myself am an Ironist, an ametaphysical atheist. I don't believe in God, nor science, nor being able to "prove something real" only that it is helpful. I guess that makes me a utilitarian and a pragmatist.
The most important thing for you to understand is that atheists can not ever disprove the existence of God; they don't have the vocabulary for it. The words they use to explain life are just different than the ones a theist uses, and they are incommensurable and contradictory.
It is a limitation of sorts that thinking differently attributes itself to. A theist would suffer the same limitation trying to prove God exists is an atheist vocabulary. Again, incommensurable.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Nono Suburabanite! Holy shit! You been in deep freeze or sumthin?

Yes I have, my toes are thawing as we speak

[rez]

Quote by: The_Genius At the time of Newton, science and the concept of God were not considered as conflicting notions.

I thought Newton was a "mathematician","physicist", and "natural philosopher" who studied nature and the physical universe. Anything that he himself as a scientist could not explain was attributed to god. Two hundred years later, scientist's have made more discoveries that further explained Newton's questions.

Quote by: The_Genius However, after amateur naturalist Chares Darwin examined cells with his primitive microscope and promoted the theory of evolution, people were forced to choose between science and God.

Too bad Mohammed did not make the prediction of Natural Selection in your magical book, "The Quran" because you would of used that science just like how you used the Big Bang as evidence. Maybe you should tell a Christian why the Big Bang actually occurred, because even though they believe in the same "confirmed" god as you, they do not agree that the Big Bang occurred.

If the Big bang is real, then why not evolution? God made the big bang and consequently evolution. No religious nut is forced to choose between science and god because they, like you, can just say "god designed science".

Quote by: The_Genius The split between science and God was not only subjective but also ideological.

There is no split, god designed everything including evolution. What is your malfunction?

Quote by: The_Genius Atheist scientists – who were influenced by materialist and positivist philosophies - conditioned themselves to prove that God does not exist.

Did they teach you that in Quran school? What is an "atheist scientist"? What is no hard about studying the physical universe? Explain to me how studying nature contradicts your dogma?

Quote by: The_Genius any true scientist should have come up with a hypothesis such as “DOES God exist?” instead of “God does not exist”.

There you going using that word "true" again. How exactly can a scientist go about testing god? Do you know what science is? Science studies how things in nature work. God is above nature, therefore, impossible to study. Do you actually think science should follow your method of discovery? For instance this...

Quote by: The_Genius The evidence is everywhere. Intelligent Design for example. I guess you are sitting in your room. Look at your PC, your books, your shoes, your pen, and of course, yourself… Someone has created them, with a purpose. Same logic applies to the universe.

No, the same logic does not apply to the universe. Your layman bullshit undermines current human knowledge and anything reasonable that exists on Earth.

Quote by: The_Genius Along with the theory of evolution - the most important atheistic myth - "steady-state theory" or the "chaos theory" became famous in the field of Science. However, all of these theories that denied creation were dismissed by science itself.

I want you to give me a 2 page essay on what Quantum Mechanics is. To make this assertion means that you are ignorant of the most important discoveries of science.

Quote by: The_Genius Example- In the 19th century Atheist/Materialist Science promoted ‘Static Universe Model’, a theory (found in ancient Greek philosophy) that said Universe had always existed and it was not ‘created’. This theory was erroneous and led many people to believe the universe never had a beginning. It is a clear example of how Atheist science misled people.

If it completely contradicts the Quran then it is atheist/Materialist Science. If it completely agrees with the Quran then it is perfect credible science. True or False?

Quote by: The_Genius However, after the ‘Big Bang’ theory surfaced, we have learnt two things. 1. The universe was ‘created’ out of nothing, with an explosion. 2. The universe is constantly expanding. Finally, the flaws of Atheist understanding of Science has been demolished by Science. Most importantly, religion – long lost friend of science – has revealed the ‘Big Bang’ theory 1400 years ago. Allah (God in Arabic) said in the Quran…

If it completely agrees with the Quran then it is perfect credible science.

Quote by: The_Genius From non-being to being Science reveals to us that cosmos came into existence out of nothing; the universe was created out of nothing and it had a beginning. Being created out of nothing is simply unimaginable by a human mind, it is actually impossible for any human to explain such unique phenomenon. Thus, being from non-being is very, very different compare to assembling objects and creating a new thing. The question is who or what can be behind this ‘being from non-being’.

A being that could create a computer would have been unimaginable by the human mind 1400 years ago. A being that could create a machine that could fly like a bird and transport hundreds of people would have been unimaginable by the human mind 1400 years ago. It would have been impossible for any human to explain such phenomenon back then. Thus, it was really god who invented such grand objects.

As you can see your reasoning is so backwards, I don't even know why I am even responding.

[Athena]

Quote by: The_Genius At the time of Newton, science and the concept of God were not considered as conflicting notions. However, after amateur naturalist Chares Darwin examined cells with his primitive microscope and promoted the theory of evolution, people were forced to choose between science and God. The split between science and God was not only subjective but also ideological. Atheist