Hopefully everybody knows that I'm a Christian; if not SURPRISE! I’m pretty sure you do all know, but I don't talk about it that much so here's me making up for it: enjoy =D This is really long (2,459 words) but I do believe it is worth reading as it so important.
This is really the big question: Does God exist? Is there a supernatural creator of our universe? Lately there have been many publicised responses to this question, one of the most notable of these is Richard Dawkin's thesis, "The God Delusion". This is an atheistic response, in other words Dawkin's does not believe in God. So here is my evidence (actually my churches evidence, I'm just relaying) to support the existence of a supernatural creator. It's really quite interesting for anyone so please read!
The World Exists
The World does exist, as you can probably tell. I exist, you exist, Earth exists and the Universe exists. But why does it exist how did it come about? We have the "effect" which is the world, but what is the "cause"; cause and effect (yay I feel like that French guy from The Matrix, the one who... yeah that one). Dawkins would say that there was a big blob of matter which exploded ("Big Bang" theory) and eventually evolved into life as we know today. This may seem like a reasonable explanation to the creation of the World but in essence it takes as much faith to believe the Big Bang took place as it does to believe that God created it in seven days. Imagine the process which would have taken place for a big blob of matter to evolve into the intelligent and perfect life that we have today. Here is a common metaphor (with a tasty twist) to explain why a Big Bang theory is just odd: Here I have a cake:
I could call in several professionals and they could tell me: how big the cake is, how old the cake is, what's in the cake and if the cake is good for me (among other things). But there are things that they cannot tell me: who made this cake? For what purpose was this cake made? Could these experts possibly propose that my kitchen exploded and this cake was the result of that? This is just a tasty example but it holds true to our real-World situation: We have a perfectly created world. Everything just works. Our planet is in just the right location, and is just the right size, to be able to sustain plant/human life. We have just the right proportion of gases to keep us all from imploding. Was this just the result of a big cosmic explosion? Or was this created by something bigger than us. This causes me to ask a few questions about modern humans. Is the human race so self centred that we cannot believe there is something bigger than us? Can we not humble ourselves enough to believe that a supernatural God created this world? Of course we cannot know who created the universe unless the supernatural God reveals itself to us. I can't prove that he has done that by any scientific means and for that I am sorry. But it is of my opinion that God has revealed himself, and that he created this fine universe of ours. Anyway that's point one, I hope you enjoyed the metaphor because now I feel like chocolate.
The World has a Great Design
Ok so let us assume that the big blog did explode and formed itself into other blobs of stuff. Well now what? Well now, apparently, the blobs manipulated themselves (for no apparent reason) into other blobs. These blobs continued to manipulate themselves (for no apparent reason) until one of the blobs became a living organism. Isn't that a miracle? An inanimate piece of blob became a living thing! That's astounding! Or maybe not.. Human beings are incredibly intricate and fascinating things. We, like the Earth and Universe, are incredibly designed. Take for example our eye which is SO intricate (I can't be bothered explaining so you can just take a squiz at the eye's wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye). Assuming you read that: WOW! That inanimate blob sure was good at manipulating itself. I believe it is far more likely that such things were designed by a supernatural being, than that they were manipulated from a big blob. Ok point two down, three to go (hang in there!)
Morals and Ethics
Did you notice that all human beings have had some form of ethics and morals? All the way through history. We all have core beliefs and values. For example: right over wrong, love over hate, peace over war, truth over lies. Simply, we all like to be loved! Back to our blobs: for what reason does that newly formed inanimate object (which is now living: don’t worry this isn’t confusing, this is science) have to uphold the goodness in the world (another interesting question: how did those early life forms mate =/ )? Can we seriously believe that gases and tiny life forms eventually learned right from wrong? I personally doubt this (highly). Again a supernatural creator is far more logical than the miracle of ethics being brought to gas. *Insert picture of gas saying “I WUV U”* < How cute!
Encounters with God
This point will be a little less black and white for those who aren't from a Christian background or have never really known anything about Christianity/other Religions. Thousands (I'm sure it's closer to Millions+) of people have testified that they have had an encounter with God - through the ages. I don't mean they all had an angel appear to them and tell them they were to conceive a child (although that was one of them). I’m referring to far more practical encounters: God speaking to them, random acts of kindness which deeply impact peoples lives etc. etc. Some of these things may be done by man, but in many cases they were inspired and acted upon because of God's influence. Even if you don't believe that this is true you just have to look inside yourself to find an example of this point: Emptiness. Everybody feels it at some stage. We all feel empty and sad at some time. We feel like there's something missing! In some cases I'm sure that something is food, and in some cases I'm sure that something can be filled with a simple hug. But that something will return and that something hungers for something greater than a hug (no I’m not referring to hunger anymore LOL). Have you ever stopped to think that, that something is God? That, that something is the longing for a relationship with the supernatural creator of the World? People have the human urge to "thirst" and for this there is water. Thirst proves water. They both exist. So we have the "thirst" for something else, does that not (help) prove that there is something to fulfil this thirst? I'm not saying these are definite truths. I'm just putting these things out there for you to judge and make your own decision. You get fed all the negative opinions from the media etc. so why not get yourself informed on the other side? Pure awesomeness, let us continue to the final point (finally this has taken me ages)!
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Yay! Easter: yay! Easter eggs: yay! Easter bunnies: yay! Hot cross buns: yay! Long weekend: yay! Resurrection of Jesus Christ: yay? Umm yeah that is a yay. =D This final point is the one which Dawkins (you may have forgotten he's the guy who wrote "The God Delusion", remember I said that ages ago?) completely neglected in his novel. This was a stupid decision by him because the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the absolute core of Christianity. This is the core "happening" which brought about the Christian faith. Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from our own sins. His blood is the ultimate sacrifice for a World lost. But hey, did it even happen? I shall try to help prove that it did =D Firstly let me give you a brief description of the story for those who don't know:
*** Go to the next "***" if you already know this story ***
Jesus Christ was born from the Virgin Mary and grew up to become a great prophet. He spoke of his father (God, creator of the Universe and such) and performed many miracles (water into wine, walked on water, fed thousands with a few loaves of bread etc.). Eventually he came to the time where he needed to fulfil his reason: to sacrifice himself for mankind. You may know the verse (John 3:16):
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
So yes God scarified his only son for us, to save us from our sin. Jesus was not a popular fellow among the Jews and religious figures of this time. He spoke against their practices and garnered a large following (he cured sickness at the touch of his hands which is apparently a big thing). So eventually he was betrayed by one of his own (Jesus needed to experience all kinds of evil, but that's another matter which you can research alter if you so choose). He was then taken and crucified on a cross and placed in a tomb with a 2 tonne rock and 2 guards guarding it's entrance. Anyway after three days he was resurrected and over 500 people saw him after the resurrection. Later he was taken up into heaven where he now resides with his father.
*** COME BACK ***
Hello again! Anyway as I was telling the other children Jesus was seen by 500 people after his resurrection. Assuming this is correct we have several theories as to how this happened: * The religious figures of the day (who were in charge of the guards etc.) took Jesus from his tomb: effectively staging a resurrection. This is incredibly flawed as the last thing the religious figures wanted was a resurrection of their enemy! They wanted Jesus to stay dead and buried. This would also conflict the 500 testimonies (all individual) - I'll get to these later. * Jesus survived the Crucifixion and escaped his tomb!!! Let me remind you all that Jesus was not super-strong. He took the form of a mortal like us and had no super power (except super coolness!). How this could have gone down: So after being crucified on the cross (and stabbed with a pole - so that his insides started seeping out =/) Jesus came out of unconsciousness, which he was apparently in, and stood up (awesome!) and moved a 2 tonne rock and took down both guards. At which stage he went around proclaiming his resurrection ("look I'm alive") even though he would have looked totally gross. People would have pitied him, not worshipped him. So yeah "poo-hoo" to this option. * Jesus' disciples smuggled Jesus out of his tomb. This is a very persuading argument. Surely this would be a great idea of the disciples. They had been following him and dedicating their lives to him and then he just went and died; leaving them with nothing! It would have been convenient to proclaim that Jesus was resurrected and beamed into heaven! But this doesn't hold true to the events that took place years later. It is noted in the Bible (w00t Bible = awesome!) that the disciples of Jesus later went through much persecution to hold honour to their Saviours name. Many of them died for their belief. Why would they do this when they made the whole thing up? Wouldn't they just say: "kidding!" And have a laugh with the roman guards? I doubt this option also. * On the matter of the 500 testimonies of people seeing God: either this is true or 500 people had the same delusion/hallucination. This is probably a greater miracle than the resurrection itself. But the validity of the author of these testimonies could also be false. This is something which cannot be proven right or wrong. The fact is that they exist and we can choose to believe them or denounce them.
SO! Clearly the most (or at least closest) logical explanation is that Jesus Christ truly did rise from the dead! MASSIVE YAY TO THAT (sorry for the lack of enthusiasm earlier). Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins.. Why did you not mention the resurrection in your thesis? I'll use a metaphor to help explain how silly it was of him not to:
A man sees several rats in his living room. He is disgusted by the little rodents and acquires a broom to "shoo" them out. He is successful and loudly proclaims, "I have removed all animals from this house!" At this point the Elephant sitting on the sofa looks up from his magazine and responds, "Good job."
Oh silly metaphors why are you so addictive? Anywho, Dawkins leaving the resurrection out of his thesis is the same thing. He has dealt with many small issues (quite badly in my opinion) but left out the main issue which is the core of Christianity: the Resurrection. That’s the conclusion of the last point (can you believe it?)
Hopefully I have made my points clear and understandable. I do ultimately believe in the existence of Jesus Christ for these reasons and for the greatest reason of all: faith. I believe that all points like the ones stated above are merely conjecture (on both Christianity's side and Atheism's side) so it is left to faith to believe in either one of these beliefs. Yes I believe it takes faith to be an Atheist, whether they want to admit that is another matter. Please do not hesitate to ask me about any of this or any other question you have. Or better yet attend church to see what it's all about.
I am SO happy I have finished typing. I've been going for an hour straight (plus a half hour editing, yeah I know I probably missed heaps)! But I'm incredibly happy I did so. If one person reads all of this it will have been totally worth it. Thank you to anybody who reads this: good job!
Post edited by: Sxcriley, at: 2008/03/22 00:12 "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." - Rick
The topic has been locked.
Re:Does God Exist?
Date: 2008/03/22 20:37
By: MooYak
Status:
Am I truly the first person to take a whack at this flawed post? Bravo! Get your ass over here! We need your sharp wit and much reviled (and yet endearing) logical consistency.
But as I am alone for now, I'll do my best to dissemble this post that you are obviously proud of.
Point 1. - Argument from the first law of thermodynamics. Something cannot come from nothing because it violates conservation of energy.
Refutation: Actually, something can indeed come from nothing. We know this from evidence shown using quantum field theory, where particles can pop into and out of existance. Now, the big bang theory is about the development of the universe. You do not know this, so I forgive it. It does not explain anything that may have occurred before the BB, although there are many theories being proposed about this as well, most of which have nothing to do with an outside entity. (Who must exist outside of all known forms of being, if he created it all.)
In your argument for this first point, you committed an illegal logical act. You used an argument based on "hits" rather than "misses". You take into account those ideas that support your argument rather than the whole of things. Assuming you did not realize this (it's actually a natural mistake we all make at times) I will point them out.
We have a perfectly created world. Everything just works. Our planet is in just the right location, and is just the right size, to be able to sustain plant/human life.
This is bad logic. What makes this world "perfect" is that it supports life as we know it. We humans and the creatures around us have developed to exist in an environment where oxygen is our key ingredient for sustaining life. It is in just the right location to support life as we know it, which is suited to a temperate climate. Did you know though that at the bottom of ocean trenches, life can exist from only the heat created by only volcanic activity? It does not need the sun, but only needs that energy that comes from the earth itself. It's not extremely unlikely that life exists on jupiter's moon europa below the ice's surface. Many scientists would love to have a peek under the frozen ice surface to take a look at the liquid water below. But anyway, like I said, the logical error of your point here is assuming that Earth is particularly special for a reason. Remember this. If Earth was not in the proper place for humans specifically to exist, but we where instead elsewhere in a different place, different atmosphere, and had followed a different evolutionary process... chances are we would also believe ourselves to be specially placed. Life is indeed rare, but the likelihood of it is not nearly as rare as you think.
We have just the right proportion of gases to keep us all from imploding. Was this just the result of a big cosmic explosion? Or was this created by something bigger than us.
Ask yourself this. Assuming evolution was correct, how do you think evolution would have formed us? Do you really think it would work against our benefit and form us to be destroyed by our environment? No. Evolution adapts to it's environment, and this is more evidence for it than for creation.
This causes me to ask a few questions about modern humans. Is the human race so self centred that we cannot believe there is something bigger than us?
Is the human race so self centred that we must believe ourselves to be so special in this universe? If I where to say that superior aliens created the human race, that would be more scientific and plausible than to say that god did it. But do you know why there isn't acceptance of such a theory? Because there's no evidence supporting it, while there is loads of evidence supporting evolution and the development of the universe. (Don't worry, I'll post links at the end)
Point 2 - Argument from the second law of thermodynamics. Evidence of creation from Design.
Refutation: I really must say it, because it's bugging me. You say Dawkin's name in your post, but this argument here is something Dawkin's and countless other biologists have annihilated again and again and again. This is really not worth the time. Read about why it's a shit theory, I'll even provide a link at the end.
Point 3 - Argument from morality
Refutation: The development of morality actually serves the evolutionary process quite nicely. I don't go around killing my fellows, I protect them. I don't hate my fellows, I love them (and they live happy productive lives as a result) Something I would like to point out is that your example here is utterly absurd. Gas does no know right from wrong, gas exists and does what its properties demand of it. Cat's don't know right from wrong, they do what their instincts tell them to do. Interestingly enough, chimps seem to have developed social rules of right and wrong. Omagawd, could this be evolution?!!?! And we as human's don't even know right from wrong. In fact, many people doubt the very existance of right and wrong. Is it right to kill a man to stop him from killing a man? This is also one that we should be wary of, because it wasn't too long ago that it was morally wrong to love someone of the same sex. Morals are not definitive, your argument suxorz.
Point 4 - Argument from personal experience
Refutation: If I may, I would like to partially counter this with my own argument from personal experience. Up until about two years ago I was a Christian. You might not believe that, but I was. I believed in creationism, the resurrection, the holy trinity, virgin birth, and participated with fervor in a mission trip to Kenya where I spoke at a two week long series of evangelical meetings. If you doubt how serious my convictions where, then ask yourself how an unconvicted individual can live under barbaric conditions for two weeks and still baptize 200 people. You want to know how I changed my mind? Circumstance my boy. Ignorance is indeed bliss, and once I actually started listening to people and stopped denying the world around me, my ignorance was shattered like glass. You feel depressed at times, but you likely blame it on the devil or yourself. I feel depressed and I know it's something I share with the rest of humanity. Emptiness and thirst my arse, it's naught but excuses to draw in the sheep. Emptiness remains under a different guise. But as a "convicted" young man, I know this argument won't phase you, so know it doesn't work on me either, because I've been there.
Point 5 - Argument from eyewitnesses/ historical accounts
Refutation: Once again I have to scold you for using Dawkins, because I'm reasonably sure you have not read his book. Be that as it may, should you have done so, might I point you to.... oh, iono, the hundreds of other books you still have to go through. Have fun.
Anyway, might I ask to see each of these 500 accounts? I see some in the Bible, but they where compiled by the church hundreds of years after the assumed fact, and they ignored the ideas of several "heretics" who didn't agree with them. Your new testament is not compiled by god, but by politicians. You doubt Jesus was mortal and immortal at the same time? *stab*
But that happens a lot in the Bible. That book you so love, where women and children are oft massacred by virtue of being different. Now, what we can do is say that it was cultural, but with God guiding them, I would presume (maybe I'm going to far?) that their culture would be as close to perfect as one can find. Of course though, things change in the new testament. So does that mean we can now ignore the old? Of course, silly me. God must have had a change of heart. Oh, but we burn in a lake of fire at the end of time? Oop, guess not.
Be all that as it may, I have a few points of my own.
Point 1 - Where did God come from? Now, if you read Dawkins, you would be familiar with this. God is assumed to have been around forever, yet he is infinitely complex. Now, going by your arguments from design, who designed the designer? He is too powerful and complex to not have a designer. Maybe he existed forever... but then, why can we not then presume that the matter that composes the universe has been around forever? Why would we need a designer at all? Now perhaps there is a creator behind the creation of that matter, who knows, that's something we may or may not one day find out, but for now I'm not placing my bets.
Point 2 - What makes your god better than Allah? What makes your theory better than that of the Hindus or your concept of right and wrong better than a Buddhists? How do we know that the celtic gods are not the true gods? All you have is that you grew up believing yours. If you grew up in India, chances are very good you would believe in Vishnu with just as much fervor. In fact... how do we know Lucifer is not the true god, and yours just a petty wannabe despot seeking to steal free will and thought from the "light bearer"?
Point 3 - Faith. Blind belief. I believe in science because it supports it's arguments using reason and previously established facts. I do not understand every complex theorem and mathematical equation behind them, because it would take multiple lifetimes to do so. That's why we have networks and scientists use them to work together to expand knowledge. What do you have? You have traditions and stories where any two bit loser who can listen and talk can learn and these stories and be convicted of their truth not by reason, but by emotion and downright manipulation. Your idea that atheism relies on faith enrages me. Why? Because it is indicative of the ignorance behind the argument. Why don't we point out scientology, the one religion everyone hates nowadays. Does it take as much faith to not believe in scientology as to does to believe it? I don't believe so. Another example. Does it take as much faith not to believe in Ragnarok as a literal event that will occur just as norse mythology dictates, as it does to believe it? Once again, I think not.
It takes no faith to not believe in something. THAT is what atheism is. Atheism is NOT belief in evolution or anything. It is belief in what is shown to be true. I can kick you, thus, chances are good you exist. I know plenty of atheists who don't give a rats ass about creation or evolution, but care only about living their lives. I know Christians who are good people, but you know what the problem is? The religious are leading the fight against gay rights. The religious are stopping science from researching certain areas of study due to foolish convictions. Stem Cell research for instance. The religious are digging their heels in and opposing global warming. The religious are trying to make me live their fucked up life because some barbarian scumbags 2000 years ago decided to put together a book of bullshit to control their people.
And so I find myself violating my own code. I am allowing my emotions to guide me in the last couple paragraphs, so I must apologize. I meant no offense if you took any.
You seem a fine person Sxcriley, I have nothing against you as an individual, but I disagree deeply with your way of thinking, but I know I will not change your mind. What I just posted, if you chose to read it, is a defense of my own decisions, and an attempt to show you a glimpse of why I made them. Neither of us hold any hope of turning this debate, as I'm sure you know, so chances are I won't post in it again unless a particular point is brought up.
peace - cameron
(Sorry, forgot to include the links, here they are. If you want more, or anything on a particular subject, please let me know.)
Your post was very well written and I admire your fervour. I agree with many of Dawkins views such as forcing children to accept a particular belief; children should be able to make a choice when they are good and ready. I am also not in favour of people using religion as a way to persuade the tide of politics; the two should be kept separate. As long as they don't pass laws which would make it illegal for me to practice as a Christian, or do something against my faith; I'm totally cool with them being separate.
My post was more to justify my faith and show that I have reasons for believing it (so although I read your post I'm not going to debate it). I'm sorry for saying Atheism requires faith, but I believe it. Clearly not to the same extent as that required in Christianity, but I do believe there is a level of faith involved. Faith in the scientists for example.
Anyway, thank you for your post.
P.S. On the "500+" I have not personally seen these testimonies (I have merely heard reference to them many times - in and out of church), but at the same time you haven't seen all the reports supporting evolution so I'll call that even. "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." - Rick
The topic has been locked.
Re:Does God Exist?
Date: 2008/03/23 00:46
By: BravoLima
Status:
What can I say?
A petrie dish is incubated for a week. The bacteria has apt conditions to survive, the bacteria thrives. The petrie dish is then placed outside of living conditions for the bacteria and they all die. The petrie dish goes on to be used in other experiments, after being thoroughly disinfected, and the bacteria never again exist in the universe.
For a week of relative time, a petrie dish somewhere in the universe exists. For a week, it feels like an eternity for the bacteria. For a week, conditions are lucky enough to be conditional for human life, somewhere in the universe. Out of all desolate expanse of energy and lack of energy, there's a petrie dish in a small corner of the universe. Hasn't been there long, and it won't be here much longer. A couple more days, couple more billions of years, then one day that petrie dish won't be survivable. It's light may disappear, the bacteria may end up killing themselves, another petrie dish may crash into it, or the bacteria might just run out of food on the petrie dish and simply fade away. The petrie dish may become disinfected, and may be used some time again, some time later, some where else in the universe. Then there will be once again bacteria, attempting to determine just what the hell is going on on their little petrie dish, somewhere in the universe. And there will of course be people wondering just what the hell this bacteria has been smoking.
There will be a day when all of this will end Sxcriley. Will your ilk be standing on the shores, saying that God's just tired of us? Wants to move onto a new project? Was that what the dinosaurs was supposed to be about? There's nothing perfect about our existence, and there's nothing permanent about the Earth's existence. It's vulnerable, it's extremely lucky that nothing has ended it's life yet, but it can happen to us like it did to the dinosaurs.
For the brain-dead drones reading. This has not been a statement of fact, not to be taken literally; take it like your Bibles if you will, that way I can't be wrong. This was a 'metaphor' of sorts, much better than your cake sxc , no matter how hungry it made me.
I haven't bothered to come down to earth to deliver anything more factual for two reasons. Mooyak's probably already covered that, and with this subject, I could use facts and logic 'till I'm blue in the face, and it would serve me no good. I know, I've tried.
Believe what you will Sxcriley, you'll find out when you discontinue your existence, anyway, so You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The topic has been locked.
Re:Does God Exist?
Date: 2008/03/23 15:38
By: titojtd
Status:
BravoLima: I've seen you post a ton in the religion forum, and even though I feel like I've got a good gist of your religious views, I've still got to ask: What are your religious views? Do you label yourself as anything? "Try not. Do or do not, there is no try."
The topic has been locked.
Re:Does God Exist?
Date: 2008/03/24 01:02
By: BravoLima
Status:
Hmm? I thought it would have been quite obvious, I'm an atheist. The religion forum isn't just for religious people, if that's what you're leading towards. I still like to discuss religious topics like I would political ones. I'm not a conservative, but I can discuss conservative discussions (if I can hold my stomache down ).
As far as labels go, I may not adhere to everything 'atheistic'. I do believe that science is all we have, and will be instrumental in us finally understanding our universe, not just giving ourselves easy answers along the way. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The topic has been locked.
Re:Does God Exist?
Date: 2008/04/02 02:01
By: the_crampo
Status:
I believe in science because it supports it's arguments using reason and previously established facts.
I dont like it when people say that - i agree that science has integrity and that stories do not. but science is constantly being rewritten to change science's world-view depending on new equipment technology processes and so on that dig deeper into the maze of the universe.
we our limited by our experience and i have a problem with it when scientists say that their facts are irrefutable because of reason and pre-established facts.
this comes into the realm of philosophy but anyway, i personally dont think that you can make such a utterly complete and perfect statement for something that is constantly changing.
The topic has been locked.
Re:Does God Exist?
Date: 2008/04/03 03:23
By: BravoLima
Status:
Unfortunately, there's a difference between science and scientists. Science I trust, scientists I do not. Too often they're meek and feel the need to 'fill the gaps' with improbable theories, or are affected, unfortunately, as all humans by their own prejudice and morals.
Can anyone really make any statement? Everything we know is opinion or our own perception afterall? But I'm sure as hell not going to say, "in my opinion", before everything I say.
In any case, I'm giving my reason to be an athiest and not a theist or deist. So I think the statement's quite justified. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The topic has been locked.
Re:Does God Exist?
Date: 2008/04/07 09:43
By: the_crampo
Status:
BravoLima wrote: In any case, I'm giving my reason to be an athiest and not a theist or deist. So I think the statement's quite justified.
science and atheism DO NOT go together hand-in-hand.
atheism is the opposite of deism.
science is not the opposite of deism.
If you base science as a reason to be an atheist you are barking up the wrong tree. Deism is disproved by philosophy not by science.
, no matter how hungry it made me.
