I dont mean to say an atheist is not capable of seeing beauty around them. If I offended or If thats what It seemed I was implying then it was wrong. What I am trying to say is that I dont understand how someone can look into the sky on the darkest night to see a multitude of beautiful stars and think that it all happened through chance of mathematical possibilities. I dont understand how an atheist can look into the eyes of their new born baby and think that it has no significance in this universe whatsoever. I cant understand how an atheist can believe that everything began from a singular point with no intelligent designer behind it. What I am saying is, how can beauty just happen? How is it that we even have math and science to be able to study complex theories? When a total eclipse happens it gives us a rare view of the outer linings of the sun. And I know that an eclipse is not always a full eclipse. How is it that we have color, and our eyes can see in color. I know technically it is the cones in our eyes, but how did colors just happen?  Im saying I see all of these amazing elements and views in our universe and say that I can appreciate its beauty because for an intelligent being to create something so wonderful, that intelligent creator must be incredible.

I understand there is no way to measure "God" with science, because it is something in the supernatural realm. supernatural does not fit into science. What Im saying is that just by looking around you, you will see evidence of design if you allow yourself to.You can believe that everything began from a singular point with no intelligent being involved. But any human mind must see that to have matter effect matter there must be energy to effect that matter. A human mind must realize that energy does not come about from nothing. I know you probably won't, but just stop and think of the theory of in the beginning there was a "singular point", and thats where the universe began. A singular point is used in mathematics, so how would it be that a singular point had the knowledge to just appear and begin the universe?

My last point. Are you familiar with the flagellum in the human body? It is in all senses a organelle of locomotion(motor) that is attached to certain cells in many living organisms. In face some of the most basic living organisms possess these including: algae, fungi, and mosses. The base of it contains a hook like structure that acts just like a propeller and can turn clockwise or counterclockwise. This motor helps to move cells along and keep them in motion to allow for respiration and circulation. The flagellum of these cells is a important component for life.When you see a graph of a flagellum you see everything a motor would possess. Is this not a possibility of design? how can matter,which possesses no intelligence, cause a flagellum motor to form on these cells?

How is it that there are so many complexities that exist and then someone can claim that everything began without any intelligence in existence to begin the universe? As I said earlier an atheist cannot understand my belief, and I cannot understand an atheists.

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."  --C.S. Lewis

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."  -- C.S. Lewis

"I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world."  -- C.S. Lewis

"Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe."  -- Peter Kreeft

"Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)" -- Peter Kreeft

First point:

Just because I can explain existence through "chance", doesn't mean that I can't appreciate anything or see the significance in it (after all, these feelings are chemical). To say that you need a God to feel the significance of life just doesn't register, because you don't.

First point, part 2:

As for your colour argument (but addressing in a more general sense). Colours are just different electromagnetic frequencies of energy perceived by photosensitive cells. We perceive the colours which are most beneficial to us, as a product of evolution (there are a whole host of colours we can't see). Other creatures do not see colour in the same way we do. Reduced colour perception (from us) allows a predator to hunt better, increased colour perception (from us) allows sexually dimorphic animals to choose partners, and so on.

Colours, and how and why we can see them, can be best explained by physics and biology, without the need for a creator. It's the same for pretty much anything.

Second point:

So what you're saying is that there is no way to measure God, but ultimately he is responsible for everything in the Universe. If that's the case, then evidence for God should be found in every atom, surely.

And I don't believe all (well, not all) the energy and matter just "appeared" from nothing, I want to know why it appeared (I know hypotheses, but I don't know for certain). There are several hypotheses, each more plausible than a God to me (and some hypotheses more plausible than others)

Third point:

The whole "Flagellum is irreducibly complex" argument has been put to rest so many times now that I'm not even sure why it still exists. Well, I know exactly why it exists. It's because of the people who follow the likes of Kent Hovind or Michael Behe  take the argument and never question it.

Nothing in life is irreducibly complex. If you want to learn about the flagellum or any other "complex" organ of phenomenon, and I mean genuinely learn, pick up a text book; don't listen to what Michael Behe has to say, it's pretty much always a bad argument.

...

This is the point I start feeling bad about myself! I don't enjoy doing this.

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."  --C.S. Lewis

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."  -- C.S. Lewis

"I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world."  -- C.S. Lewis

"Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe."  -- Peter Kreeft

"Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)" -- Peter Kreeft

Scoobes, read my post to highwaystar and I basically say the same to you. I just didnt want to have to type out everything trying to explain it in a different way. :)

Freedom, I take it from the fact that you have completely dodged answering any of highway's points, in favor of vague "meaning of life"-type rhetoric, that you in fact have no answer to his points, but cannot bear to admit it. 

I won't presume that the same is true of my post; perhaps you just ignored it since I wasn't the one you originally responded to.