I personally believe in God less for natural reasons than for the supernatual ones. If the only reason that I believed in God was because I had been debated into it I would have surely changed since to become whatever else could outreason me.

There is no natural reason to believe in a god. And nothing supernatural exists. Doesn’t leave much but logic and reason.

I was more looking to pick a fight than to debate.

So you got a bloody nose, & are now taking flight?
Anytime you want a full 12 rounds, you come visit me at my blog.
You sound exceptionally young. Mid-20’s?
Your run-on anecdotal sentences really don’t impress me very much. You show an abysmal knowledge of evolution, this crap about ‘gee, you don’t find nothing inside of something’ nonsense (yeah, you divvy up matter, you find MORE matter, wow, that proves ‘gawd’!), I’m getting the distinct impression you haven’t fleshed out your ramblings much except on a verbal plane, which isn’t much of an epistemology (it’s easy to bulldoze a conversation, ya know).

I don’t think you will ever believe in God because I argue the textual proofs, or because I show you the odds of all the prophecies about Jesus coming to pass in his life, because if you don’t believe in the supernatural it’s rather pointless.

Oh, I’ve fought that fucking fight a few times. So anytime you want to bring it, you put up your dukes, sonny.
I can categorically slaughter those ‘prophecies’, no problem. Exegesis is how I came to my conclusions originally.

So sorry to bother you guys, but I just wanted to have an arguement that wouldn’t bother everyone else in the lunchroom. Later on.

Just what I figured. Big mouth, glass jaw.
Typical.

Jay, I think the real reason is because you realize you don’t really have an argument and cannot provide evidence for the existence of your god. So, you come here with your frustrations. Why does your god not help you out and give you the knowledge and ability to present evidence for his existence directly to your peers? Maybe it’s because your god does not exist except in your own brain?

Compounded simplicity, oh really.

Yes, really.

The most simple living cell, if every chemical bond in it were broken,what do you think the odds for it to reassemble under the most ideal natural conditions?

Probably astronomical.
Doesn’t mean there’s some supernatural agency at work. Not at all.

Molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculated the chances. 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power. Even if all the matter in the universe were converted into the building blocks of life, and chance tried to reassemble them once every microsecond for 10 billion years the chances would only be improved to 10 to the 99,999,999,916th. If we are compounded simplicity then how much greater does your god Chance have to be to explain us.

A. No gawd involved, &
B. Depends on whether the world is 6,000 years old, or billions of years old.
It’s the latter, so the imagination doesn’t quite boggle, sorry.
If you follow this link, you’ll find that you’ve actually MISQUOTED out of context (gee, whadda surprise!).
Here, under the Morowitz heading:
“Scientific ignorance also leads to the abuse of such citations, and you have to carefully pay attention to context. Coppedge, for instance, also cites (on p. 235) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (p. 99), who reports that (paraphrased by Coppedge) “under ‘equilibrium’ conditions (the stable state reached after initial reactions have balanced), the probability of such a fluctuation during Earth’s history would be…1 chance in 10^339,999,866.” In particular, this is “the probability of chance fluctuations that would result in sufficient energy for bond formation” needed to make a living cell. This statistic is laughable not only for its outrageous size, but for the mere absurdity of anyone who would bother to calculate it–but what is notable is that it has nothing to do with the origin of life. For notice the qualification: these are not the odds of the first life forming, but the odds of enough energy being available for any life to grow at all, in an environment which has reached an effective state of thermal equilibrium–a condition which has never existed on Earth. It is obvious that in an equilibrium state, with no solar or geothermal input, it would be impossible for life to gather enough energy to go on. Who needs to calculate the odds against it? Morowitz was demonstrating a fact about the effects of maximized entropy on a chemical system, not the unlikelihood of life originating in a relatively low entropy environment like the early or even current Earth. The fact is that life began in, and has always enjoyed, an active chemical system that is not only far from equilibrium, but receiving steady energy input from the sun and earth. So this statistic has no bearing on the question of the odds of life.”
Put that in your pipe & smoke it.
Don’t taste too good, do it?

Truly the word of God says that the fool says in his heart there is no God.

But the wise man says it out loud.
Psalms 14:1.
YAWN.

This number is so large that none of us can comprehend it,

Appeal to wonder. Yeesh, you folks all work off the same template, don’t ya?

so unless you can pull out a beginning of the universe story that would give you infinite time to work with it seems as though you are athiest more on belief than on the facts.

Ummm…I’ll leave that to astrophysicists, thanks.
The universe had a beginning. Time had a beginning.
Energy’s infinite.
Mind you, these are all abstract measurements for basically a ‘number so big no 1 can grasp it’.
It’s said that numbers don’t lie, but when the numbers are beyond reach?
People fudge ‘em all the time. Especially when they’re incalculable.
Quit fudging the numbers.
Pure egomania. It HAD to be something like ourselves that formed us!
Utter, unmitigated crap.

Especially since god has such lackwitted fucktards as jay defending the indefensible! Why would they take something so beautiful, complex and repeatedly tested (with consistent results) and turn it into a child’s lie?

The answer to my question is: Because the truth will kill the god-concept; and they have too much riding on god-viability. They belong to a cult-of-personality. And each day, they draw closer to the edge of the precipice. On their ledge, they can maintain the fiction, but once they’ve tipped over, their insanity will will reveal itself to them. And they will rage and go quite crazy; some will never recover.

Lost time, energy, money, prestige, face - all gone up in smoke. Poor xians - NOT!

We’ve been trying to convince them that there never was any god, that he was always in their heads and in the hands of charlatans and snake-oil salesmen. But their delusions, fostered from birth, were too strong to break the chains that kept them enslaved.

Sadly, the chains were only made of paper and words…

Has anyone heard of the “church of Chance”? Anyone here belong to that one?

Truly the word of God says that the fool says in his heart there is no God.

Your quote from your mythology book means nothing to us. If people of other faiths quote their religious texts to you, would it convince you to change religions?

This number is so large that none of us can comprehend it,

Like we said before, just because you can’t “comprehend” something doesn’t mean you make up imaginary answers.

so unless you can pull out a beginning of the universe story that would give you infinite time to work with it seems as though you are athiest more on belief than on the facts.

Don’t try to turn it around when you KNOW your beliefs are based on “faith” with zero evidence. We may never know the answers even if we had “infinite time”…which we don’t because our Earth and solar system…and probably the universe itself won’t last forever.

Do we have time to get into just how incredibly complex that we are?

2 words:
Compounded simplicity.