1) There is also no evidence that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, thus it is scientifically irrational to say so. Are you asserting the positive belief in his tasty goodness? (Ramen)

2) If there is no known evidence that any object or substance has ever come into being by it’s own volition, without something else apart from that object or substance, being involved in the process…then where did your amazingly powerful and complex God come from?

3) I’m honestly not really sure what you’re talking about on this point. If it makes you feel better I’ll concede that while something obviously happened at the beginning of the universe I for one am willing to admit that we don’t know for sure what it was (yet). Do you mean to suggest to me that people thousands of years ago who thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth figured it out? Really?!

You ought not be ragging on George Bush’s lack of intelligence too forcefully there my friend.

Super J

I am inclined to think you, or Richard Aberdeen, are a case of what many call “Poe’s Law”, for there is no other explanation for your comment posted above!

Try to scientifically refute this…

The problem with trusting in Richard Dawkins is, he’s not a real scientist. No real scientist would ever say there is no God, because of three very specific scientific reasons noted below. If Dawkins doesn’t know if there is a God, then he say so; otherwise, he’s plainly just a liar and a fraud:

1) There is no evidence that there is no God, thus it is scientifically irrational to say so.

2) There is no known evidence that any object or substance has ever come into being by it’s own volition, without something else apart from that object or substance, being involved in the process.

3) There is no evidence that anything in motion has ever come to be in motion by itself, without something else first causing it to be put in motion. (Quite obviously, Socrates, Newton and Einstein, who all three believed in God, could argue circles around Dawkins, as can also, any grade school child with half a brain.)

Thus, the entire position of Richard Dawkins is scientifically, fundamentally flawed to the core. There is no such thing as “science” that is not based on evidence.

Nobody knows exactly who or exactly how, the pyramids in Egypt came to be as we can observe them today. Richard Dawkins and every other scientist, archaeologist and human being with half a brain, just assumes that someone designed and built them. This is because, all known evidence and human experience indicates that someone did.

And much more so, all known evidence and human experience by default, indicates there is a Creator or Creators. Thus, the correct scientific position is, there is a Creator or Creators until someone can prove otherwise, just as A squared plus B squared is true regarding isosceles triangles, until someone can prove otherwise and, just as the pyramids of Egypt are a product of design until someone can prove otherwise.

Anyone who pretends there is no Creator is complete liar, an obvious charlatan and a fraud, no matter how many Oxford degrees they may or may not honestly possess.

And you think George Bush is a moron; he’s only a beginner ! ! !

Super J.