They’ll just tell you that “I don’t know” is a more acceptable answer than God

From what I’ve seen, the more science advances it just proves the Bible correct.

And when I say it “advances”, I’m specifically referring to provable scientific facts rather than “theories” posed as facts, because there is a difference…although many modern scientists/academics like to say that their theories are provable facts when they really aren’t.

I’ve always taken the position that science and the Bible aren’t really at odds because all science is, is man figuring out how God manifests things in the physical realm.

I saw a comment above calling creationists “retards” but the truth is that if you know your shit, you can debate any one of such people and have them tongue tied and saying “I don’t know” by the time it’s all over with..that is, if they are actually intellectually honest and not just taking a position simply because they are against the opposing one.

I saw Ben Stein debate Richard Dawkins on this special put out probably a decade ago..Dawkins has been the titular leader of the atheistic scientific camp for many decades..by the time it was over, Stein put Dawkins in such a corner that the best explanation he could give was that an asteroid with some super resilient bacteria landed on earth and then eventually mutated into people and animals…which again, is theory and no more provable than a God who created it all anyhow..and I’d argue even tougher to swallow.

I think, though, the most compelling argument I ever heard for the existence of a creator God was based on information theory. Very few people I’ve debated were smart enough to even understand the argument, but the few who were (and who were genuinely intellectually honest), were forced to reevaluate their prior argument in a way that they never had before.

Basically it goes like this. Every language that man is aware of was created by some sentient being. Even an atheist will agree with that..everyone I’ve ever encountered will agree with that premise because it’s common sense. So, every written and spoken language had a creator or creators, regardless of which language we’re talking about. So everything from Sanskrit to English to JavaScript to HTML to Linux was created by some sentient, intelligent being or beings with a will and the desire to communicate complex subject matter in a repeatable, discernible, and consistently reliable fashion..

And then when it comes to language, there are degrees of complexity. I have always heard that English is one of the more complex spoken/written languages, though I wouldn’t know since it’s my native tongue.

But the point is that the probability numbers are already so heavily in favor of any given language having been created by a sentient creator or creators - regardless of where that particular language sits in the complexity spectrum - that it’s retarded AF to even consider the counter probability as any sort of logical, real-world possibility.. and then add to it that the mathematical probability score only exponentially increases the more complex that language is, to the point that it’s even more retarded to even question it because you’d have better odds of growing a jet engine out of your asshole and flying to mars using your own farts as fuel..in other words, it becomes so logically bulletproof at some point that it ceases to be a probability and can instead be considered a mathematical certainty...

So that’s the premise upon which the next point (which I call the kill shot) is based.

Then you move on to DNA, which is not only a language by any objective understanding/observation, but the most complex language of all languages known to man. Again, the most complex language, which is also a mathematically proven fact.

From there, it’s easy to point out the logical fallacy upon which an atheist relies: “Every known language has a creator or creators, except, of course, the MOST COMPLEX one that we know about (DNA)…and by the way, it’s also the one language that we know we didn’t create.”

So according to the atheist, less complex spoken and written languages were obviously created by an intelligent being or beings, but then the most complex language that we know of somehow magically “wrote itself.”

It’s laughable and an utterly indefensible position to take for any rational, logical human being who believes in math and probability statistics.

Thus, the atheist’s argument is destroyed under the weight of its own illogical and indefensible implicit claim.

And frankly, to take such a position - especially after an intellectually honest consideration of the “information theory” argument - reeks of sheer arrogance mixed with a healthy dose of ignorance, stupidity, or both.

In closing, I’d say that atheism is, at best, an emotional argument wrapped in the camouflage of paper tiger “facts” and “logic”. I say it’s an “emotional argument” because the only thing that can get an otherwise logical human to cling to such illogical principles is emotion. Plenty of examples, some recent and some in perpetuity throughout history. How do you get literally millions of people to abandon logic and instead wear diapers on their faces 24/7 and inject untested chemicals into their bodies several times over? Simple: by instilling an emotion of fear.

Why will a man or woman continue to allow themselves to be abused by a partner even when they know it’s illogical? Emotional manipulation, that’s why.

With atheists, it’s typically an emotion of anger from my experience, usually directed at the church or otherwise self-professed monotheists or monotheistic institutions who didn’t live up to their own professed ideals, causing emotional injury/trauma to the person in question. For that reason, I do have compassion for such people as I have been there myself. Granted, I never didn’t believe in God, but I did attribute the failings of mortals to God and therefore, aimed some anger at him as a result. It wasn’t until later that I understood man’s choices are not God’s fault and that for the fact that he gave us the freedom to make them necessarily means that he doesn’t control everything like so many of us have been taught. That’s a whole other rabbit hole to go down, though.

Interesting read. It strikes me as very simular to The Simulation Theory. Some people believe we're in a computer simulation which is why we can break down so many sciences and "rules" of our universe into mathematical equations. It's basically learning more and more about the way our simulation is coded.

That also explains the Fermi Paradox (the question "why haven't we found any signs of life on other planets even though logically the signs should be out there and already found?") for some people.

Personally, a lot of those theories like the Simulation Theory or God are hard for me to grasp. Neither is provable if true. The Bible was just written by humans, simply put. Much of it is not relevant to our day in age and many of the letters submitted to enter the Bible have no sturdy "chain of custody" or reason for most people to believe it's anything more than stories or made up. Especially since many contradic one another. If God does exist, he abandoned this project long ago and probably moved to a new side of the universe. He does not interact with us and there is no scientific grounds for a soul. Everything about our conscious thought is connected to our brains at the moment. It's very difficult to imagine something existing once the brain is dead for me.

I know there is a lot of room to speculate on what the unknowns are. We still have zero clue what dark matter or dark energy is, and while I enjoy speculating and looking at different theories - I can't blindly accept any of them to be true. Maybe they are microscopic black holes. I don't accept that as fact. That's similar to God. Maybe he does exist. Or maybe our "God" is an alien civilization that is a type 7 on the kardashev scale. We have zero way to prove either theory during our lifetime, so it's impossible for me to accept any of them as fact even though they're equally possible.