[ml1954]

I did enjoy the, ughhh, discussion? As best I can glean, the argument (if you want to call it that) is that 'organized matter' (as opposed to 'unorganized matter, whatever that is, or nothing, I guess) was discovered by science and that 'organized matter' is proof of God (and is supernatural to boot).

I once ran into a street corner preacher in the night club district in Chicago saying about the same thing to whoever walking by might listen, at about 11 PM on a Friday night.

I suppose if scientists had discovered only 'unorganized matter' (whatever that would be) and no 'organized matter' whatsoever, they would have disproved God. LOL.

Basically, it seems the argument is that the existence of anything scientifically proves God, or something like that.

[Elsie]

...only 'unorganized matter' (whatever that would be)...

The stuff in the back of the 'fridge, or the things under the bed.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . .'organized matter' is proof of God.

You misrepresent my arguments. They may be summarized as follows: One may reasonably infer intelligent design from the presence of organized matter. Science may take place and be taught both logically and legally while using as a given the assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and still sustains them. Science need not prove the existence of God to work under this assumption any more than it needs to prove God is beyond its purview.