We know there's a God because...

The observation of design and organized complexity seen in all aspects of nature and organisms logically corresponds to the work of an invisible Designer or Creator.Logically, the same does not correspond to an antonym: the work of unintelligent or mindless materialistic processes.In fact we have read the biographies of African slaves, who after being sold and enslaved in America, and after Emancipation, learned how to read and write, and these accounts report that before being captured in Africa they recognized that the appearance of the natural world, and its living inhabitants, reflect the work of an invisible Creator, who they attribute to be the Biblical Creator after learning about Him in America. The point is that without any preexisting knowledge of written religious literature, these ex-African slaves admit that reality reflects the work of an invisible Divine Being.I might add that they go on to thank God for revealing Himself to them by nature, AND THEN by confirming this revelation by the written revelation of the Bible.Ray

They said they had no exposure to anything but physical reality.The presence of Islam or Christianity in Africa is not disputed. The point is these biographies say they had no religious exposure. So your wild assumptions contrary to the evidence is just that.Ray

From the original comment (above yours): "The observation of design and organized complexity seen in all aspects of nature and organisms"Of course you knew this but have no way of refuting so you ask a rhetorical question that presupposes said observation to not be evidence. Again, the answer is the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature. Do you know what an observation is? Evolutionists use observation to say that gradations infer evolution. In reverse: what evidence do you have for the observation of gradations to infer evolution? How do you like a taste of your own stupid medicine?Of course you WILL now evade and misrepresent or ignore these simple points altogether.Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

The point was, whether I actually said it or not, that they SAID that they had no exposure to monotheism. Nope, like I said: uneducated Africans who after Emancipation and becoming literate wrote their stories and said that they deduced in Africa that reality reflected a Creator and in America they then learned WHO the Creator was.Your penchant to misrepresent simple claims is deliberate based on the fact that you undoubtedly understand complicated scientific arguments written in journals.Ray

The degree of slander seen, that is, equating a Stanford Ph.D. to be a moronic Fundamentalist is equal to the degree that you perceive Dr. Scott to have invulnerably refuted your evolution theory; hence the reason and motive of the slander.Without any religious texts a person can easily deduce that reality reflects the work of an invisible Designer based on the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature and organisms. Dennett, of course, is writing in the context that said designs were produced by the non-intelligence of natural selection. But the point and fact of the matter is that he, unlike most evolutionists, admits design to exist in nature. Creationists have a better explanation: this same "breathtaking design" corresponds to the work of intelligence or invisible Designer.But the point in this thread, based on Dennett, reality can be SEEN to be the work of a Creator or Designer; hence the need of a religious text to conclude for a Designer is false and refuted.Let the stupid misrepresentations begin, which are a compliment indicating the inability to refute what was said.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : add the phrase: "of intelligence or" in third paragraph from the top

Rahvin is just lashing out because a Stanford Ph.D. refuted evolution. If Dr. Scott did not refute evolution, and if he was a "televangelist" then Rahvin would not be lashing out and slandering a Stanford Ph.D. because as we know televangelists are stupid and they do not refute evolution.I urge everyone to listen to Dr. Scott at Pastor Melissa Scott presents Dr. Gene Scott - The Official Site - he is the first person to explain WHY a theory with no evidence is accepted as true: Materialism and its products known as Darwinism or evolution, that is, to accept them as true, the reason why persons accept these fallacies as true is because God is punishing them for denying Him credit as Creator and Designer. This is the only explanation as to why Darwinism is "successful". This punishment exposes "Christian" evolutionists, like EvC member Phat, to be deceived and not real a Christian, much like Judas who was deceived when he betrayed Christ to His face with a kiss. This explains how and why "Christians" could side with Atheists CONCERNING ORIGINS.Of course persons like Phat THINK they are the exception, that their feelings based salvation overrides what the Bible actually says. Again, to be deceived is of the mind and it makes you believe something to be true when it is not.Rahvin understands the refutation and has no answer, that is why he is lashing out in anger at the Stanford Ph.D. who figured out the refutation.The objective claims of Darwinism and evolution deny that design corresponds to Designer. The "success" of this illogic has been explained by Dr. Scott.Ray

In other words you do not understand or cannot refute.I said what I meant and meant what I said.Ray

We explain your slander of Dr. Scott to be caused by anger due to the inability to refute what he says: the "success" of Darwinism is a punishment from God for denying Him credit as Creator. That is why you are lashing out in red-face rage and hatred.This rage corroborates that Rahvin perceives that an invulnerable refutation has taken place.How else does one explain the insult of a very successful Stanford Ph.D. to be a moronic televangelist? The former and latter are antonyms. This is why we recognize Rahvin to be in a state of hysteria explained by the fact that he perceives Dr. Scott to have refuted evolution; and he has no answer except a nonsensical poison-the-well attempt.Scholars, like Dr. Scott, have always known that evolution is false. But not until the 1990s, beginning with Michael Behe, and in 2001 with Dr. Scott, did they decide to forsake the Christian approach and not be gentle anymore, but break the bad news bluntly. Rahvin's reaction, like I said, corroborates.In addition to the refutation of evolution, the reason Rahvin resorts to invective and slander is because Atheists and evolutionists have always slandered Theist scholars, especially Dr. Scott. So we do not feel slighted. We are glad that these kind reject Dr. Scott. The approval of Atheists and evolutionists would surely prove him wrong.[I might add that both Atheists and Fundamentalists accept microevolution and Fundamentalists have a long history of rejecting Dr. Scott.]Rahvin has evaded every single point and fact in my last message, so I will not repeat them and comfort my self that the reason he did this is because he cannot refute.For other persons who may read these exchanges, here is the link to the message of mine that Rahvin, an Atheist-evolutionist, could not address:http://EvC Forum: We know there's a God because... -->EvC Forum: We know there's a God because...Here is Rahvin's "reply". I urge you to compare each message and see that he evaded and misrepresented because he cannot refute (even though this message is a reply to the link below I did not address most of what he said because, like I said, he misrepresented everything I wrote because he cannot refute):http://EvC Forum: We know there's a God because... -->EvC Forum: We know there's a God because...Here is the link to the message that refutes the claim of this topic that I wrote in which Rahvin and other evolutionists could not refute, but like I predicted, in the post, that they would misrepresent because they cannot refute:http://EvC Forum: We know there's a God because... -->EvC Forum: We know there's a God because...Here is Rahvin's "reply". Compare and see the misrepresentations caused by the inability to refute.http://EvC Forum: We know there's a God because... -->EvC Forum: We know there's a God because...Ray Martinez - Creationist-Designist, student of Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford University.

That was already admitted, as was the fact that before, in Africa, having no exposure to religious texts or monotheism, they concluded reality looked like it was produced by a Creator.After coming to America and becoming literate they learned who the Creator was. But the fact reamins: based only on observation of nature, before any exposure to texts or monotheism, they deduced the same was produced by a Creator. That is what they said.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

You are conveniently omitting or forgetting the already established fact that they arrived at the existence of a Creator through observing nature in Africa - the whole issue of this thread, that is, can a Creator be deduced to exist if no religious texts existed.But I cannot find this source or book. I believe it was called "Slave Stories" - I do not remember and I have lost the book.Ray

You mean that when you were under 13 years of age you were already up and proficient on arguments for the existence of God?And I have no idea as to what constitutes a small tribe or if these persons were from a small tribe.Ray

Yes I have and you have ignored or didn't notice. Message 68 refuted the OP. That is what the OP says and you have ignored or didn't notice the reply that refuted.Ray

Blatant misrepresentations caused by the inability to refute. It is really a bad idea to misrepresent because, like I said, it indicates and corroborates the inability to address and refute. Maybe this is why you did not address each line and point in message 68. Could we expect Atheists to say or believe anything else?The observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature and organisims logically corresponds to the work of an invisible Designer or Creator; and the same refutes the claim of the OP.This is why you misrepresent and ignore.But, of course, evolutionists insist that the observation of gradations infers evolution and the same is evidence unlike the observation of design.Again, Message 68 stands as refuting the OP. EvC member Buzsaw has also buttressed the refutation with his contributions which have gone unanswered and ignored.Final thought....There is no evidence supporting evolution - none. This is why over half of all adults in the U.S. are Creationists. There is plenty of evidence for evolution if one first presupposes that the presuppositions of Materialism are true. Since all Atheists support evolution the interpretation of evidence in favor of evolution or material causation is predetermined.Ray

Darwin himself established this fact. Do I need to post the reference?Ray

Like the miraculous story of apes mophing into men over millions of years? Are we to believe that you cannot tell that this claim is bullshit which Atheists MUST believe?RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.