It's been a while since I last wrote an article for the Christian group but in light of recent comments I've decided to create one again this time addressing why I'm Christian and not a atheist. In this article I will write about why atheism is illogical as well as evidenceless.
Atheists say that atheism is not a belief or a religion but simply a denial of gods and the supernatural. Why I could write a whole article on why I dispute that I'll just play along here and go with this statement. Okay, atheism isn't any of those things but by the very denial of gods and the supernatural atheism proposes theories which are illogical and contrary to evidence. So let's have a look at the summary of what atheism proposes by denying gods:
Theories of atheism:
- The universe is eternal.
- Prior energy existed and created the universe.
- Something from nothing (where they try to use quantum mechanics to support this).
Let's address these debunked notions:
The universe is eternal:
I could argue why this is impossible due to energy and the Laws of Thermodynamics but the simple fact is that all observational evidence and scientific data states that the universe never always existed and had a beginning. The Big Bang itself argues that the universe had an origin from one single point and never always existed (although the theory itself is in regards to what occurred moments after the "birth" of the universe). That's all that needs to be said. The universe is not eternal and had a beginning. In fact space-time came into existence with The Big Bang.
Sources:
Science.nasa.gov
Science.howstuffworks.com
Science.nationalgeographic.co.uk
And for reference: The Big Bang wasn't some explosion. The Big Bang simply refers to the expansion of the universe after it sprung into existence. The name is really an injustice to what the theory really teaches. There's more to it than "the universe is expanding from the single point of that primordial dense force of mass after it bloomed" one must take in account of the values and properties as all this happened. With The Big Bang, space-time and gravity all sprung into existence. If gravity was a little stronger, then it would have suppressed the expansion. At the same time, the weak nuclear force was set in value to give an appropriate balance of hydrogen and helium atoms. However I'm speaking ahead here. We'll come back to this section later.
Either way we have now established that the universe is finite.
Prior energy existed and created the universe:
There are several problems with this theory.
We know something chaotic can't produce order. There is no observational evidence for this. Natural disasters do not produce order. Throwing thousands of bricks in one spot will not produce a building (geometry and mathematics play a part of this as it's simple logic that one needs to plan a layout for a building, even with the impossible infinite monkey theorem playing part, throwing thousands of bricks in one spot will not produce a house because there's no thought or plan behind it) and an explosion will only destroy.
At this point we see that common sense and mathematics is against the idea of a chaotic mindless energy being behind our universe. The universe has design and mathematical values. This is something that cannot come from mindlessness. Period.
Using a string-theory explanation for the origin of the universe (universe from another) doesn't answer the origin question. At one point there would have to be a beginning and the string-theory doesn't answer this. We know universes are not eternal too so at one point there was a origin and it couldn't have come from nothing. Causality demands there to be start.
Sources:
Einstein-online.info
Plato.stanford.edu
Something from nothing:
This is just impossible. Atheists say there is observational evidence and data of something coming from nothing but what they cite is not nothing. They use the vacuum of space as evidence even though the vacuum is not truly empty. The vacuum contains energy. The particles that arise from here are coming from something and something that already exists so to date there is still no observational evidence for something from nothing.
Saying this is possible is as illogical as wishing for something and hoping for it to become true. It just won't.
You cannot get something from nothing and that is not what quantum mechanics teaches. In regards to quantum mechanics I'd wager that neither I or the atheist or even qualified to speak here.
Sources:
Chem.ox.ac.uk
Physlink.com
Physicsplanet.com
Conclusion:
So there we have it. Those three theories are not only wrong but they're evidenceless too. I have debunked them with scientific sources.
Here's what this all means:
- The universe had a beginning alongside space-time. Cause and effect demands there to be something responsible since the universe is the effect.
- The universe did not come from nothing because that's impossible.
- The universe did not come from chaos because chaos does not produce the order we see as I have explained above.
- The logical educated conclusion from this is that something intelligent was behind the universe's creation and this is further supported by the level of complexity we can observe. The chance for all of this to occur by itself is impossible. The Goldilocks principles of our universe (affirmed by theist and atheist scientists alike) simply argue against a huge-scale coincidence occurring. There had to be a purpose. The being responsible for the universe's creation would be eternal and it existing before space-time would mean it wouldn't be subject to time. This being had no beginning and has no end.
The Goldilocks principle of our universe:
The universe is finely tuned. Most scientists agree on this. The values are perfectly aligned with one another. The examples are below:
- When the universe was expanding after The Big Bang, too much gravity would have pulled atoms closer together resulting in the end of the universe there and then. Meanwhile too little gravity would mean that the atoms would spread too far not creating galaxies or stars. There had to be an exact value. In fact simply increasing or decreasing gravity's constant by one billionth of a gram would have would have changed the constant for the worst.
- How delicate is the balance for the strong nuclear force? If it were just 2% weaker or 0.3% stronger than it actually is, life would be impossible at any time and any place within the universe.
- The neutron is 0.138% more massive than a proton. Because of this extra mass, neutrons require slightly more energy to make than protons. So as the universe cooled from the hot big bang creation event, it produced more protons than neutrons‹in fact, about seven times as many.If the neutron were just another 0.1% more massive, so few neutrons would remain from the cooling off of the big bang that there would not be enough of them to make the nuclei of all the heavy elements essential for life. The extra mass of the neutron relative to the proton also determines the rate at which neutrons decay into protons and protons build into neutrons (one neutron = one proton + one electron + one neutrino). If the neutron were 0.1% less massive, so many protons would be built up to make neutrons that all the stars in the universe would have rapidly collapsed into either neutron stars or black holes.7 Thus for life to be possible in the universe, the neutron mass must be fine tuned to better than 0.1%.
etc. Read more in the sources below. Of course the scientists and researchers below each have their own views on the matter. For example the scientist in the third source says "Today, atheist reductionists try to reduce the cosmic story to a series of random accidents and religious fundamentalists try to show it as evidence of some sort of intelligent creator external to the universe. I, like many scientists and thinkers, have never been happy with either of these extremes and this is my personal journey through the maze of cosmotheology, guided by some of the best minds in the field." While another source is from Dr.William.Craig who is Christian. Either way the evidence for a fine-tuned universe is there and most scientists accept it. For me it's logical to conclude it's this way because of "intelligent creator external to the universe".
Sources:
Colorado.edu
Leaderu.com
Abc.net.au
Leaderu.com
The Law of Biogenesis:
The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from pre-existing life. The contrary hypothesis of abiogenesis declares otherwise. However there is no evidence for life forming on its own. The Miller-Urey experiment is now outdated and the experiment conducted by scientists relied upon constants and values set by humans (and therefore intelligence) for building blocks for life to form. The experiment only argued that intelligence is needed for anything remotely relating to life to form.
Sources:
Allaboutscience.org
Biotech.law.lsu.edu
So you ask how is this the Christian God?
Well The Bible is evidence of this. Within is knowledge demonstrating divine inspiration or the authors who had advanced knowledge for their time. There is a lot of archaeological evidence for events that occurred in The Bible and many historians agree that Jesus Christ not only existed but ministered to people as The Bible proclaims. There are also the Biblical fulfilled prophecies once again affirming God as the creator.
Sources:
Moddb.com
Reasons.org
Equip.org
Ucg.org
I can go on and on giving evidences implying divine creation but I've given enough to debunk the theories of atheism. At the end of the day, atheism has nothing to stand upon. Everything I've wrote about is backed by evidence and sources which I have given above.
Hmm, good read, another read I would suggest is this article by Ken Ham Blogs.answersingenesis.org
This article is bull. Religion and morality are two very different things.
To be fair, I don't think there's any need to take an offensive stance against what you regard to be illogical. While I understand the truth behind your post, I think you could have worded it differently so as not to infuriate any random atheist who stumbles on to this. It's perfectly possible to defend the authenticity of Christianity without making every atheist on the planet want to gut you alive.
Even when we take a passive stance the response is the same. Even when we're silent the response is the same. I mainly wrote this article because of all the atheists who come here asking why we believe and why we're Christian. Well this is why.
It's not meant to offend.
The difference being that you can choose to reply with or without stooping to their level. Just by looking at the title you chose, you'll see my point.
Sure, the lack of belief in a deity does not make sense to us. But describing their beliefs as "illogical" or "irrational" will not change their minds. Our goal should not be to convince people that atheism is "silly" or "irrational"; rather, we must show them that Christianity does not line up with the stereotypes they've been fed for years.
The stereotypes of Christianity are:
"YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL!"
"I HAVE BLIND FAITH!"
Saying atheism isn't a logical viewpoint is simply a positive statement and one that I believe that I have affirmed within the article. Let's not beat around the bush. I won't be accused of dishonesty here and I'm writing an article based on logic and science so being direct is the point.
Appealing to emotion doesn't work. While some atheists base their position on emotion, others don't so you need to use their type of language (also mine own) to communicate with them.
Personally, I feel that as long as I follow Jesus, every Atheist on the planet wants to gut me alive.
But that is fine with me, I will try my best to turn the other cheek and love them.
You should read "The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" by Newton. It's a beautiful work on how the world and universe functions. Also whilst being scientific, Newton manages to include God citing the necessity of one.
I believe next to explaining the mechanisms of gravity (and the forces of it, i.e mass, acceleration, deceleration, inertial movement etc) it's also (at heart) a logical argument for the necessity of a creator even if Newton mentions the creator in the work only a few times.
Read all of the book and you will have enough grasp on the universe to understand how it works. Impressive for a book centuries old eh? Einstein's theory only revises Newton's theory as well which only goes to show how close he was to correction, imagine what discoveries Newton would be making now with the aid of modern technology.
Just get Einstein and Newton together, give them all the equipment they need and several life-times and they would build a paradise for us. It's no wonder God keeps brilliant minds like these apart. He can't allow humans to create the heaven of earth he's promised in The Revelation!
Then Galileo came along and blew much of Newton's hypothesis out of the water with the sacrilege we know today as science.
What did Galileo blow out of the water? Newton's theories were improved upon by Einstein not Galileo. Newton was a scientist and contributed greatly to physics. It sounds like you have a bias against Christian scientists. You are aware Galileo was still one even after the Catholic Church persecuted him right?
Is quisnam reperio suus fides est validus tunc is quisnam est prognatus prurigo. (He who finds his faith is stronger then he who is born to it.)
My faith was weak but, well, I experienced nothing short of a miracle, (You would think I'm insane if I told you what it was.) now I am safe in the knowledge that the God of the Jews exist.
The theories you are trying to refute, don't come from atheism really.
They stem from one of it's branches, the positivism or the positive sciences. Even then i estimate that those guys, like one of my friends, do rather believe in different theories which is absolutely normal since atheism never was about putting certain scientific theories forward while denying the others. You picked out the ones that some atheists may believe in but they do not represent it, so refuting them doesn't make atheism untrue or less credible.
For example the big chill, big crunch and big rip theories are backed up by scientific evidence too and deal with the end of our universe, so some if not most positivists believe the universe will end, so it is not eternal either according to them. (i think the big rip is most plausible myself, a friend of mine did his yearwork on dark energy).
Chaos does not produce order, your examples are a bit basic but work to prove your statement i guess, the greek nature philosophers chose the word 'kosmos' for a reason, it showed their belief that the universe had a certain mathematical, logical structure and that that was beautifull & above all marveling to them. The latin pendant mundus was akin to the greek word. So that means the universe is logical, and it probably has always been but does that mean an intelligent being was there? and if so would it be a 'christian' entity per say? a god? why would it be?
Well how would you explain laws or order and logic coming from mindlessness? You already agreed with me on the fact that chaos does not produce order. Neither does mindlessness. The conclusion we must draw from this is that an intelligent mind was behind the universe.
I say it's the Christian God because of the fulfilled Biblical prophecies I mentioned, the archaeological evidence affirming events in The Bible and the knowledge in The Bible that could only come from someone supernatural.
I already gave one fulfilled prophecy which you are free to try and debunk.
i could ask you the same, if something can't come from nothing, then were did god come from?
the goldilocks principle again is only refuting the positivist's belief that things are caused by accidents... this article isn't complete >.>
i don't get your conclusion, you refuted scientific arguments that is used/believed by some atheists (positivists mainly and even then..) & then you completely dropped that and just declared the bible true = god exists?
to me the bible is a book, written by authors in function of the mores, needs, time etc. they lived in. Most of it is symbolic anyway & one does not need to read it to be a good christian.
So when are you going to tackle the humanists & nihilists? you seem to have forgotten about them...
From the article:
I mention that the being (God) would have to be eternal because it existed before space-time was created. I also explained how cause and effect demands a origin so there can't be an ad infinitum chain as some atheists propose. There had to be a starting point and I propose God was this. There can't be "there was something that created god and so on" because then we have an ad infinitum chain with no beginning making this impossible. There needs to be start.
So I believe I have addressed this.
As for the "bible true = god exists", those final passages are for proving that the god is the Christian one.
-You agree the universe is mathematical and logical in structure.
-You agree chaos (and therefore mindlessness) cannot produce order.
-You agree something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore the logical conclusion we arrive at from this is that the energy responsible for the creation of the universe is an intelligent being which is eternal. It can't be any other way least we walk into an impossible ad infinitum chain which leads to no beginning and if true would mean there would be no existence. We agree the energy can't be chaotic or mindless either.
So quite frankly I don't understand your aversion to admitting a god is behind the universe (or maybe you're agnostic?).
We've established that the universe is governed by logical laws and has a logical and mathematical structure. What else could explain that other than intelligence? If these things can arise on their own then give me an example otherwise I must maintain that atheism is the illogical choice.
Unless you can demonstrate that all those extraordinary claims are true - which also include how he did it, what god is, where he came from, how he operates - the godless or "atheistic" explanation is the more plausible one.
Where is the so called "order" to begin with? Even our solar system is full of chaos, even in our world there is chaos even if we try to bring order into it. But that chaos follows the natural 4 forces and 4 dimensions which is the base for causality as we know it. So your straw-mens dont really make sense at all.
First of all, define "nothing". The literal nothingness is something we both cannot comprehend, because it is a state out of any human experience or imagination and cannot be descripted properly. But you are right about the vacuum, is is by far not "nothing". Not only is it full of energy, but also does it contain time, space, a higgs field and is full of higgs bosons (afaik how gravity operates), it contains virtuel particles that popp up out of nowhere and disappear (which might be an indicator for the multiverse theory, further research will show) and so on. And if we talking about the birth of our universe, we are talking about an event where causality as we know it breaks down.
How is the godless explanation more plausible when it's been debunked. Even _excision_ agreed on that (that I have refuted the atheistic arguments) so why can't you? If I am wrong in my conclusion then point out where, how and why I am and provide evidence to support your claim.
I have addressed all of the fallacies of the atheist theory. I have provided sources for each and every one. There is no eternal universe. There is no infinite chain of causes. There is no chaos producing order. How then, is atheism the plausible explanation when its theories fall flat on their faces?
Only you're the one creating straw men arguments here. You haven't addressed my statement or even debunked it, so therefore I assume you that must agree that natural disasters (cosmic or on earth) don't produce anything remotely resembling design or order, correct?
And that's what the atheist falls down to in the end isn't it? Faith in a nonsensical event occurring that no scientific evidence or data supports or suggests. As for the definition of nothing, you're asking me to explain what nothing is in which case I will tell you, it's nothing, emptiness, non-existence.
Since the vacuum is not empty, you cannot say that "particles pop out of nowhere" because they are coming from the vacuum which is filled with energy. Since something does not come from nothing in this universe, and the universe is subject to the laws along with the vacuum (existing within the universe) your statement is incorrect.
I'm predicting you might say something like this so I might as well address this ahead.
My argument for God comes from what has been observable, because the atheistic theories are refuted and because of the laws of logic as well as science affirming the beginning of the universe and a need for a point of origin.
It seems to me that the atheist (for the existence of the universe) has faith in something that doesn't adhere to scientific method and is non-falsifiable which I find hilarious considering you would say the same for a god.
At this point I must ask why you expect the believer to convert to atheism when it relies on faith for the beginning.
The cosmological argument is the one that got refuted over and over again, by atheists and scientists alike.
False assumption. The atheist rather say "I dont know" then assuming or having faith in a non-falsifiable concept of how existence began. However, pointing out possibilities for scientific explanations is not faith based nor is it non-falsifiable. Thats the point you are missing, whether on purpose or because of cognitive bias.
I neither dont expect you to convert to atheism nor does atheism base itself on faith. A non-faith / lack of faith is by definition the opposite of faith. Faith in the context of the god-question means to believe that god exists even if there is no evidence for him/her/it and the non-faith is simply dismissing this believe because there is no compelling evidence to support the claim of believers. It is like black and white, two opposite positions. Besides, you said it yourself in one debate a couple of months ago, I think it was in the debating group (or the atheist group?), that there is christian atheism - just a hint that atheism doesnt mean you are convertig to something.
And a flat joke for the end: Do you know how awkward it is for me to say "stupid christians!" while my first name is Christian like many others in Germany? Seriously, I always have the feeling that I just shot my own leg.
Now, now. Don't lie. The cosmological argument has not been refuted by any atheist or scientist. Fine-tuning is widely accepted among scientists and only the extremist atheist scientist denies it for obvious reasons.
And atheism is non-falsifiable? It's not. The idea that there are millions of universes outside our own being created from nothing is a non-falsifiable belief. That general concept (something from nothing) is non-falsifiable. Extreme atheism - by asserting no god exists - is non-falsifiable and a belief not backed by deductive reasoning.
So you may argue that the rejection of gods requires no faith. Alright, I won't debate that but the propositions of atheism are often as faith-based as some of the religious stances of some believers. For example to say "the universe" came from nothing is faith based as there's no empirical evidence for this.
I dont have to debunk you over and over again, it gets tiring.
Besides, natural disasters can produce design and order. A dying star in our cosmic neighborhood gave our solar system the elements for creating life, a meteor about 60 million years ago cleared the path of evolution for mammals and finally us, volcanos bring up minerals with their lava and ash that results in healthier vegetation, when the milkyway and the andromeda galaxies collide and fuse a new galaxy will be born, or just put some colors into clear water, oder is always the inevitable outcome of chaos. You might as well go with the philosophy "chaos produces order, order produces chaos".
Maybe in your dreams but I have yet to see any argument from you or yours debunking mine. You disagree and throw out opinions but nothing factual or founded in evidence.
That's not order. A dying star instilled with the elements simply recycled them after dying. The order was made by gravity, law of nature. Recycling is an order not chaos.
Which isn't an example of order *or* chaos. Try again.
Which is no example of order or chaos. This is an example of nature recycling, not an example of a volcano producing a symmetrical object even in all proportions and fitting mathematical values.
Destroying countless civilizations and destroying billions. Again, no order there, just death and destruction.
No it's not as I have shown. I think you should look up the philosophical definition of order. Your examples support my statement that nothing orderly ever comes from chaos, only death and destruction (i.e the two galaxies colliding). The fact is, BY GRAVITY, those two galaxies will eventually join and heal. Gravity produces and keeps the order but the process of the two galaxies colliding will destroy.
No, not quite a down fall for the atheist. And you shouldnt go one sided in this matter, because there is no scientific evidence that a god did it either. There are hypothesis in science how existence could have began, but nothing solid so far, only that the Big Bang came from an singularity.
"If you think you understand quantum theory, you dont understand quantum theory". A famous mottoo among physicists who work on that subject. What I meant is exactly that, there seems to be no cause for particles to pop out of nowhere, not even the so called vacuum energy. It is called dark energy btw. An energy filled vacuum means basically filled with photons (from stars ect.), neutrinos (also from stars ect.) and gravity, maybe 1 atom in 1 cubic meter or so, but thats it. Both dont create particles.
The fact that observational evidence for something from nothing is zero while the opposite has tons of observational and testable evidence, I think says, that belief in God is more logical. Believing the universe had to come from something eternal is only an application of Cause and Effect.
How often shall I repeat it? And why a godless explanation is more plausible is simple: the god hypothesis contains several logical problems such as: if existence needs a cause, then whats the cause for the cause or in other words, who created God? The "godless" explanation on the other hand suggest that something complex comes from something more simple. For example stars are made of gas, the earth and all life from simple molekules from another star that exploded several billions of years ago and so on.
I never claimed that I or we atheists have the final answer, but since there is no sign of a creator and intelligent design in general that cannot be explained by the laws of physics, the godless seems more plausible. And as I said, God is up to the challenge to convince me. If he is the creator of the universe, he can so f****** easily convince me. Just 1 varifiable evidence, even if he makes the arguments of apologetics true.
You didn't answer me. You simply created a fault about God which is answered. Either you apply that the cause is uncaused or apply that it was caused by another but that leads to a problem. We then get an ad infinitum problem. So if God was created by another god, then who created that god? It would continue forever and there would be no beginning where there needs to be one. Ad infinitum would mean we'd never be here.
Stars are made up of several different types of gas (hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, magnesium and iron) all infused with one another to produce and fuel the star. The building blocks for life are many and need to be fulfilled via certain met conditions and requirements. It's more complex than you imagine. Regardless, an explanation for the creation behind a star does not make atheism plausible. Knowing how stars are formed does nothing in atheism's favor. Stars come from prior stars and so on until we get back to The Big Bang creation event. So this is a "biogenic" process in a non-life form. Something only comes from something in other words.
Atheism on the other hand suffers from logical problems:
-There cannot be an ad infinitum for the reason above. Because there's no beginning, there's no start event meaning the result would never be reached. There must e an unmoved mover unless you adhere to the debunked eternal universe myth in which case you deny a beginning and The Big Bang.
-Nothing does nothing. This simple observable fact means that nothing cannot produce something.
-Therefore atheism denies important and accepted logical and philosophical laws such Cause and Effect while theism adheres to them.
See, via deductive reasoning we have arrived at the conclusion that theism is the more plausible theory. Its fits all the classical mechanics and laws of nature while atheism does not.
Atheists try to base atheism on science but it always fails because it's non-falsifiable and doesn't adhere to the rules or logic or science.
You're arguing that the laws themselves are not evidence of fine-tuning or intelligent design. Yet you still couldn't provide any real examples of chaos producing order. Your examples included chaotic events which destroy and kill (such as the cataclysm event nearly killing all life on earth and making the dinosaurs extinct) which over time would be healed by the forces of nature (universal everywhere) such as gravity.
The fact that you're now saying you'll only convert if God himself came down and started beating everyone up or something shows that nothing will ever convince you, even while atheism remains OPPOSED to the accepted classical mechanics and laws of nature and logic.
Refuted because highly unlikely with no evidence to support the claim.
Fine-tuned for what then?
The multiverse hypothesis is related to the string theory and pretty damn good falsifiable.
You really forgot what atheism is or are you just outright ignorant?
Atheism is a non-faith and as such it is the exact opposite of faith. There is nothing you can argue about it, just accept it.
And really, this something from nothing claim over and over again while I thought we already dismissed it?
You can check my claims. I sure did and I express myself due to my findings. Besides, most of your claims are just repetitions of claims from previous debates. If your memory is that short, than Im afraid Im not much of a help to you.
Choas is within the natural laws of course. What is the point you are trying to make here?
Which is all a chaotic event to some extent by our definition. But the last one is just hilarious! What do you define as chaos instead? There doesnt seem to be any hope to get with you anywhere...
Now you are defining the exact same example I used for chaos as chaos? You are right about gravity, but wtf man, thats my point! After choas (death and destruction) follows order (i.e. regeneration of life, a stabilized system) as shown countless times in earths history. You technically say the same, but it seems to me you are too afraid to admit it.
And your point is?
Which is correct, the laws are no evidence for fine-tuning. They are constants we discovered, they are not actual laws like we have in society.
No, I never honestly said that I will ever convert to a specific religion. But if any God would show himself to me or better to everyone on earth, I have no reason to belief that he does not exist and I have to accept the claim that God exists. Pure and simple. If I then would follow his/her/its rules our prefer to burn in hell - yet again, those realms still have to be shown to be real - is another thing which depends on what exactly he does. If the christian god exists in the way as fundamentalists belief, I would say "I be rather a free man in hell, than a mindless slave in heaven. Someone who opposes Gods acts of terror and destruction, cant be such a bad person after all."
My position changes due to new evidence and information. Thats what a skeptic person (atheists are mostly of that kind) does.
Don't tell me that you don't know what a law of nature and science is? There are more laws than the ones in society you know? We have mathematical laws, philosophical laws and scientific laws. Must I really school you on this?
Then there's no point continuing this debate. This is what every atheist does in the end when they can't answer the questions. They demand me to make God come down and show himself to them as the last desperate attempt to defend their atheism.
Never mind the fact that I'm on bad terms with God (therefore I don't think he'll come down to you if I ask him!) but what makes you think that he's going to *physically* come down for one stubborn person (and I'm sorry but that's what you're being here).
And what do fundamentalists believe God is? All-forgiving? All-loving and all-caring? So you'd oppose a being like that? You are mad then.
I can't believe it either but that's what Jesus taught. I can't understand how God could love such a species but it's what Christianity teaches. It's even what Judaism taught.
And yours aren't? The difference is that your arguments have been debunked. Mine haven't. But keep going. Maybe you'll invent new material in a year or two.
Don't move the goal-post. You originally said that chaos can produce design. I proved it can't.
Galaxies colliding is chaos (as the movement of galaxies is blind). Don't you even understand what chaos is? New galaxies will only form from a collision due to gravity (one of the four fundamental forces of this universe) re-organizing everything.
Seems you still haven't studied cosmology and physics here. Biology is a fine topic to study but there's more scientific fields out there.
In your opinion but you continue to avoid providing evidence. You're just saying "it's wrong because I say so" which is an anti-intellectual argument. Stop being offensive to me, yourself and everyone reading this debate.
I'm sorry but the multiverse is ********. The cosmological argument is a philosophical/logical argument. The multiverse hypothesis is something in the realm of science and therefore it's something that requires science to debunk. Science has done this. Since there is no detectable evidence, it's also unfalsifiable so I'm not even going to go into depth here. Try again.
Atheism is non-faith to those who don't preach it. You preach it, you adhere to atheist naturalism and therefore it's a belief to you. You're not an apatheist. You actively believe that no gods exist. It's a belief. Stop trying to get out of it. Every other group knows it. Only atheists pretend otherwise and its dishonesty and it's becoming hilarious.
Is this the best defense of atheism that you can muster up?
To atheists, the beginning was the Big Bang. Anything else is hypothesis and rather thought as possibility than a certainty.
And yet again, did the literal nothingness ever existed in which case it would be a paradoxon?
Causality is a physical and therefor scientific principle, not a philosophical. And as a physical principle, as all of the natural constants we discovered, accords only to this particular universe we are living since the alternative is out of human experience and as such an unsolved question - meaning it isnt either true or false so far.
Yeah, and thats why you deny evolution - a mechanism that is well proven and perfectly fits into the laws of nature - as a whole, right?
Atheism isnt based on anything other than the lack of experience for God, gods or the supernatural in general. We may point to scientific discoveries, but thats rather a support than a base for our non-belief.
If you want to seek for our base: why are prayers not working? Why is there no confirmed mirical? Why does not any God answer to begin with? Why are the very most claims of religious persons about nature false (at least in a literal sense)? ect.
If you look to the early days of the Jewish people, you would find your answer. God did almost any miracle imaginable, but that did the reverse of what he wished to accomplish. People adopted the, "Complain and God well fix it" approach. As for your statement regarding miracles, in this age of trickery people dismiss witnesses as liars, pictures as photo shopped, and recorded miracles as myths. In my perspective God has let go of the leash and is leaving humanity to sort out their own problems, yet giving us gentle nudges to the right paths as always.
Show me any miracle that cannot be explained by anything other than that. And witnesses doesnt have to be liars, they could be the victims of their own credulity who felt for the lie of a liar. A miracle is something that cannot be explained by science in any way. Something like an inpenetratible and incorruptible book of scripture. That alone would be pretty damn convincing for me. Or you can show me real magic - you know, that stuff they use in fantasy movies, not like David Copperfield.
Which god? Just kidding, I know which one you meant, but how do you know its the right one who gave us the path? What if I would have the same faith in the Norse or Greek gods as you have in the christian God? I would be just as right as you are, just walking a different path.
I will answer your second question first.
Consistency, no god(s) would allow almost all their followers to forget the path they made for them, yet with Christianity God has given us gentle nudges in the right directions. As for your first question, Eucharistic miracles, miraculous healing, there are many things that could only be described as lies by atheism. I myself have been a witness to one of these kinds of miracles, when my faith was lacking, and my purpose was lost, he gave me a sign. A sign that not only affirmed my faith, but also gave me my purpose. So for me, even doubting his existence would be pure insanity.
The thing is, for all those miracles you descriped, there is a very natural and more plausible explanation than just "God did it". So its not necessarily declared as lies by atheists, but also not as a miracle either. On the other hand, the so called faith healing of televangelists for example is exposed as scam.
Televangelists are one of the reasons Christians are in this mess. Well, I would be very interested to know another explanation for a Eucharist turning into living heart tissue before everyone's eyes.
Show me the case. It would be nice to see. When I had my Eucharist nothing of that kind ever happened, so expect me to be sceptical.
It's a major miracle that I read about in a book so I don't have a link to it, but it should be easy to find.
The other god(s) technically did that as well, but lost to monotheism. However, same can be told about Islam, Jewdism, Hinduism and Buddhism ect. - not only Christianity.
The other gods came down and killed mortals just for fun. Zeus even had sex with human men and women alike and once raped a woman in the disguise of a swan. The Greek gods punished the man who gave fire to humanity by making him immortal and chaining him to a rock where a eagle would come and eat his regenerating liver everyday. They demanded tithes and even human sacrifices (this goes for most ancient pagan religions) so they were hardly giving their followers "gentle" nudges.
You might say "but god threatens those who don't follow him too!" but there's no example of this in The Bible. In The Old Testament, God was okay with some heathen nations so long as they did not oppose him and only acted against the ones that did.
Islam and Judaism worship the same god and I'd even argue that Brahman of Hinduism is the same god. I believe any god described as being "eternal, everlasting, beyond time, unchanging reality" is the same god. The supreme god who exists in even indigenous religions. (i.e Tagalog people and Bathala)
Suffice to say, if Zeus showed his face and climbed out of the cave he was reported to hid in in the last "sighting" of him, I'd kill him for all the crimes he committed against humanity and then I'd show you atheists the body of a real mass-murdering tyrant.
I'd also show how he wasn't a proper god at all to die by the hand of a lowly human such as I.
Like all of the patheon gods, Zeus was born and Zeus died (just like all the "mighty" Norse gods in their end-of-days event).
So yeah. Let's please stop with the comparisons. They were "gods" in the sense that the angels of Christianity are "gods".
Please do it. I have no problem with you killing Zeus. That is, if you can find an non-existing person let alone slay him.
And your point is?
Your god needed a virgin to be born and he could just make himself a body like he did for Adam and Eve... Yeah, he was so not born. And why did he needed to be killed just to forgive us? wtf? And skip the miracle explanation because its outright nonsense in every way of existence.
You dont get it, right? What they all have in common is that they are made up.
Greek religion gods have been debunked. They were physical beings. We went to their homes and none were there. God is a different concept.
Instead of posting BS "Guest" why don't you provide actually try to refute my points? Because you can't.
Christianity came from Judaism. It did not copy.
Yeah, and so has been the biblical god as well: the earth was never flooded, the real Jesus tomb never has been found and the world was never created in the way your scripture told us. So?
THe positive claim have to be proven first, only then you can dismiss the negative claim.
And where did Judaism seem to come from?
There was a great flood. It was even in the Middle East.
Science.howstuffworks.com
Sciencedaily.com
Why would Jesus be in a tomb if he ascended to heaven? Even if he did die down here, what makes you think his tomb was named "Jesus Christ" when that's simply the Greek translation of his Hebrew name and title (Christ meaning Messiah, so Jesus Christ means Jesus, The Messiah) and what makes you think that his early followers (if he did die down here) would publicly exhibit his tomb?
Hypothetical, if there was a tomb, the early Church would have exhumed it and moved it to a secure place known only to a faithful few.
You're not really thinking rationally here.
And if the biblical god has been debunked then I'm still waiting for your evidence. You claimed the earth was not flooded, I just debunked you.
Meanwhile the actions of Zeus have no evidence.
It's just a parody of you talking about standing up to God and rebelling.
And your point on that was what? I already know you think he's evil so there's no need for an entire story about you leading what would be a doomed-from-the-start rebellion against him.
I thought we've been through this? I don't think Jesus is God. I don't pray to or worship Jesus. He's not my god.
Jesus was the Messiah. He was sent by God to be born as a human, to be born into sin, to live as a human and to die as one.
So you are ignorant of Christianity? He was the lamb (metaphorically). As in, the lamb Jews used to sacrifice to cleanse their sins.
And how is the miracle "explanation" outright nonsense? It was foretold since the OT from the book of Genesis (Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son, the one thing he loved most, from David singing about Christ on the cross, having seen him, from the prophet Daniel). The death, the crucifixion and resurrection are all a covenant, a covenant about a spiritual rebirth by acceptance of Christ who was risen from the death.
Do you seriously not know what Christianity is about? Why must I school you on the fundamental basics here?
Rebelling? How can I rebel against someone who doesnt even exist to begin with? The biblical character of god is evil and sardistic. Thats my point and you can read that in your book. I rebel against this fictional person religious people believe in so strongly that they would kill for him or her.
Not in your version of christianity anyway. But he claimed to be the lord in some parts of the Bible, otherwise I wouldnt make this argument.
Ignorant? Maybe you are ignorant, 'cause why does the almighty god needed to sacrifice his messiah, son or himself - depending on the version of Christianity we are talking about.
It was foretold in after Jesus have died. A self fullfilling prophecy is nonsense.
You are highly arrogant, dont you? Maybe you should broaden your perspective about Christianity and not only focus on your own tiny view point.
BTW: Sorry if my English sounds crappy today, Im just tired from work. Thats all.
So you can refute my article? Go ahead then because all these unsubstantiated claims are getting on my nerves.
"The biblical character of god is evil and sardistic."
So you say but I'm still waiting for you to refute the verses in my "God is Good" article.
No, you make this argument in ignorance. I already debunked your view before. He never called himself God (or even lord). The disciples called him lord (in lower case) as he was their leader. The fact he referenced God as an individual from him, spoke to God (and God spoke directly to him twice) and prayed to him refute your argument.
Moddb.com
xxT65xx dropped it after that. I suggest you do too. I'm more qualified here to speak (especially when you confuse the term lord for God, who is referred to as LORD).
No, it was foretold long before or are you really that ignorant of Christianity?
Christianity.about.com
The Dead Sea scrolls (which reference him) have been dated to long before the beginning of Christianity. Maybe you should take your own advice and actually research these things...
You finally feel the same way as I do, but just about my claims which are not unsubstantiated btw. The flood is one example why God is not good, the fall of sin is another one and the story with the 40 people that got slaughtered by 2 bears is the third example. Oh, and Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruits. So we have 4. Damn, there was a story about a guy who should let his son die because of gods command, that would make 5. Well, it was about 15 years ago where I read the Bible for the first and last time.
No, I dont drop my argument. It got even reinforced by this sources:
Bugman123.com
Apologeticsguy.com
Maybe you are more than I am.
Yeah, and thats worse than flooding the entire planet and killing almost all life on it? Dont make me laugh.
Who doesnt follow your god ends up in hell. I would say thats a pretty obvious threat.
Yeah, and all have no substancial evidence to support the claim, that such a being even exists.
Yes that is.
You didn't understand the context of the flood story then. For hundreds of years, God sent prophets to tell the people to turn from their sins. Even with Noah, God did the same. No one listened. All were evil save for Noah and his family. God gave the people chance to repent.
Zeus killed for fun and had no mercy.
Other than the evidence in the article which you down-right refuse to acknowledge?
It shows your narrow mindedness.
I perfectly understand the context of the flood, but killing all those people and all life on earth is morally not justified in any way of existence. The all powerful creator of the world would never have to do something such cruel like this.
Yeah, and your God sent bears to children to do his dirty work, without showing any mercy. At least Zeus had the guts to make his own hands dirty.
You are missusing the word "evidence". Where is the evidence for god?
No, it shows your narrow mindness that I'm having to (once again) school you on the same verses. You don't understand the context of the flood. They were given chances to repent. They didn't. They were murderers. All of them (Genesis 6:13).
None were good. Can't you understand that? God is good and therefore he wouldn't be "evil" for destroying evil unless you have a warped sense of justice (which you do).
As for the bear story:
Who said they were children? Who said they were even killed?
Forty-two men vs two Syrian brown bears (who are relatively smaller than their European counterparts)...
Yeah, you totally don't understand the context of this story.
You just prove my point. My sense of justice says that killing is bad, regardless of evil or not. If killing the evil dudes would be ok, than it would be okay to kill sick bastards like you.
The Bible said they were children.
No, you dont understand whats in you god damn scripture.
How am I sick bastard? Because I advocate true justice while you sit behind a computer, condemning and generalizing all Christians as sub-humans? You're really the sick bastard here then, for hating a person you've never met.
You've yet to refute anything. The Bible says they were young adults. For God's sake, please read a Hebrew translation instead of relying on several-times English translated versions which renamed many words.
Where do I generalize all Christians as sub-humans? Where do I describe any person as sub-human? Where do I show hatred beyond the things you said? You make assumptions and accusations here.
People who studied the Hebrew language had translated it quite accurate. You have to consider not only the original word, but also the time and culture it was used in. And in that context it means boy. And what does it matter anyway? Does it make it less cruel just because those people were older?
Oh please, you're part of a group which exists solely as a personal attack against Christians, led by two pro-communists who advocate censorship. You can claim you don't partake in anything they do but then you're turning a blind eye which is just as bad.
Not to mention your clear hatred against me above.
As for the translation:
1 Kings 20:14
Biblehub.com
The same term is used there. Na'ar, so you mean to imply that Israel had four year old children fighting in the army and not young men (teens)? Do you not see the ridiculousness in your claim now? The same word is used in the bear verses.
Biblehub.com
Note how some translations also say "servants" next to young lads (exactly what young man has been translated to in some translations of 1 Kings 20:14).
Half of those translations list those "boys" as young lads, men or youth (which in English can refer to anything from a 10 year old to someone who is 19 or 20).
Na'ar refers to a young man.
Biblestudytools.com
Still don't believe me?
Genesis 34:19 refers to a young man (Shechem) who yearns for a woman. The Hebrew verse calls him a young boy though. הַנַּעַר לַעֲשׂוֹת
Mechon-mamre.org
The same term used for the young men who assailed Elisha which refers to them as young boys too. נְעָרִים קְטַנִּים
Mechon-mamre.org
Yet as we see in Genesis 34:19, the actual Hebrew word is referring to a young man who can fight in the army, get married and have children so your claims are debunked. If you look, the same term is used when referring to other adults in The Bible who are described as young boys are are actually young men when we examine their story and the deeds they've done (i.e married, had sexual intercourse, yadda yadda, the good thing about The Bible here is it actually lists these things so we can see these people are not young four year old boys).
42 young men stalked Elisha outside of the city with harmful intent. Elisha called upon two mother bears to attack them. Please explain how two bears could tear through (and kill) 42 people if they didn't stay and fight them (since we're past the myth that they were children, these were young men, some of whom likely carried short swords or daggers with them).
(The links above are to a site with the Hebrew translations so I think it's time you dropped this argument, it's debunked.)
I.e Those atheists on blogs who have studied The Bible in English and think they are experts as a result. Many Christians are the same but as someone who has studied the Hebrew words, terminology of the words of The Bible and several different translations of The Bible including one in old English, I think I'm qualified more than them to know what I'm talking about.
But I have no credentials there. However I did present a credible source used by universities in proving my defense.
Oh and I never said those people were trained in the army. I said they were young men and likely carried short swords or daggers (as was the norm for anyone travelling the wilderness).
Why should an all-powerful god come down and ask those men to apologize to satiate your definition of good? Besides it was Elisha who sent the bears by cursing them. As a prophet he had the power to perform these miracles including the resurrection of a dead boy (2 Kings 4:32-35), the feeding of 100 men from only 20 loaves of bread (2 Kings 4:42-44) and the curing of leprosy (2 Kings 5). His bones also resurrected a dead man. (2 Kings 13:21)
Elisha was justified in showing power to the Israelites considering they had murdered prophets in cold blood before (1 Kings 19:10). Indeed, Elisha's predecessor was the last prophet left as the rest had been murdered. Elisha was justified in his defense of himself as a result.
1 Kings 19:10
He replied, "I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too."
1 Kings 18:22
Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets.
Elijah later passed on half his spirit to Elisha. Therefore Elisha was the only last prophet for some time too.
So let's look at the conclusion:
I've used not only two sources of Bible studying tools (from the experts) which reveals the translations behind words but I've used a Hebrew translation too (from Mechon Mamre, a resource used by universities Magnes.org - 18th result in that list).
Just admit you were wrong.
Maybe I am wrong, I didnt studied Hebrew so I can only tell from people who supposedly did - former Christians for example. It is your Bible which says that those 42 people (regardless of age, gender and your assertion that those people had weapons or were trained people within an Army) were slain by 2 bears who mocked Elisha. There is nothing that suggests those people were armed or did anything else than calling him a baldy and blocking his way. So tell me, where is the morality in this story? Why should I belief that your god is good, when he is not? A good guy would not send 2 bears to slay 42 people, but rather come down himself and convince those 42 boys/men to appologize. For an all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good god it should be no problem whats so ever.
I cannot confirm your accusations nor deny it since Im quite inactive in the atheist group. But yes, the group exists solely to attack religious beliefs, not only Christians though, but all imaginary scripture based stuff from all religions. And if you feel offended by it, then you have all right to be so, because you belief stupid things - and I dont mean the belief in your God.
And whats wrong with pro-communism? I am a marxist myself and I find its social, economical, environmental and political values interesting and pathbreaking.
My hatred is not against you as a human being, but the stupid beliefs you are holding like killing for justice sake is right. It is stupid because morally its wrong.
So what stupid things do I believe, if that's not referring to God? Is it The Big Bang? Evolution? Causality? You need to be more specific because I've already shown that many of the events in The Bible occurred and have archaeological evidence for them. Secular scholars and historians even agree.
Only the most delusional atheist rejects the truths behind The Bible, thinking that the admittance of even one verse invalidates what they believe. There's nothing "imaginary" about texts of the Bible, Torah, Koran or any other religious text BTW. They very much exist and have existed for thousands of years (in the case of the Torah).
Your group mocks the concept of God, nothing more, whilst being unable to provide any intellectual reason to be an atheist. Your group would make any intellectual atheist ashamed to be an atheist. Your group is the r/atheism of moddb.
What's wrong with communism? It's caused more deaths in a shorter time span than religion has ever done. I find it amusing that you reject religion for what its done but overlook what communism has done because of literally two good principles (the rest are shite) within it.
Morally wrong would be letting murderers get away with what they do (your system).
There was a debate on communism a while back in the debate group.
Moddb.com
The major flaw is that it is founded upon dictatorship.
No, I simply make these accusations on account of that hateful group you post in, defend and advocate. You're part of what they do so you're just as guilty in my eyes. It takes either a coward to turn a blind eye to crime or someone who agrees with it to do so. I'd say you agree with it considering some of your posts there are belittling Christians.
Also, I explained to you what the translation is from those very Hebrew experts. In the context, it meant young man and I already explained how it wasn't cruel and tbh, if 44 of you stay to fight against two beers, then you're clearly doing it with the intention to kill a man afterwards.
Or are you really telling me that those men couldn't run away or that the two beers chased down all 44 of them? Clearly they stood and fought and they lost, deservedly so.
So atheism does have a doctrine? What were you just saying about atheism not being a belief system?
Smart-*** statements only further atheism as an irrational world-view.
Doesn't matter if causality is a religion. Whatever it is, atheism is against it.
Who said I deny evolution? (By the way, we know that's the real reason you doubt God, not due to any argument concerning the universe as the argument isn't on your side) I recognize the holes in the theory like many scientists and don't accept your version. You still cannot answer the arguments I proposed against evolution in that thread on the debate forum.
Are you dumb or are you conciously misleading my argument?
Atheism = non-belief in god(s). Peeeeriod. Why should that be irrational? Especially since you beliefe in a magic man in the sky who created the universe and yadayadayada...
No, definitively not.
You did. Ohw, what a pathetic try to undermine my position by say *ridiculous child voice on* "we know you doubt God! BECAUSE OF EVOLUTION not because blablabla" *ridiculous child voice off*. Not that evolution wouldnt be a reason why I dont believe in any god, its just one of many reasons. For example, where is the proof that god made the universe? The cosmological argument tries to base itself on (religious) logic and falls apart if you use actual logic. So much for "the universe as the argument isn't on your side". And what version do I have that scientist do not agree? Just so you know, I adapted "my version" from scientists.
Yes, I answere all your arguments you proposed against evolution. You just denied any validity except your onw. The funny part is, what we posted as response was highly valid unlike your propositions.
Try harder next time.
So I touched a nerve did I?
You were generalizing all atheists by saying "to atheists, the beginning was the Big Bang. Anything else is hypothesis and rather thought as possibility than a certainty" when atheists can have different beliefs. Some even deny The Big Bang (like bucketbot#6 who doubts it).
Atheism = belief that no god exists.
You atheists have simply changed the definition to suit your purpose so you can get out of having to provide evidence for your irrational claims that things can come from nothing.
If you view God as a "magical man in the sky" then you have an extremely childish view of what "God" is and are simply not looking at this in a philosophical way. You would be laughed at by any philosophy teacher (in fact most atheists are when they come up with inane **** like this).
You just proved my point.
So the real reason you deny God is because of evolution.
Your argument against the cosmological argument is "IT'S WRONG BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH MY WORLDVIEW! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!" which is pathetic.
You have answered nothing. I'm still waiting for you to refute the points in my article but you're moving the goal-posts and attempting to turn this into a flaming contest in your desperation to defend your faith (which you keep proving is your faith by your very passionate extremist defense of it).
I proved your point partially. As I said I have many reason, not just one. You just ignored an example of mine.
You dont know my worldview, so how can you say something like that with such certainty? I change my worldview to fit reality, not the other way around.
I dont have to refute the same points over and over again. If your arguments are refuted and disproven once, they never work again. Just that easy.
Oh but I do know your world-view. I know it very well. It's practically naturalism.
You only refuted them in your dream world. I'm still waiting for you to post them.
lol, because its practically naturalism you know my world view? Thats hilarious!
You dont have to wait, just to read. Go back to our first debates about this issue. If you expect me to post that stuff here again, then I have to disapoint you because you are not worth that much affort.
The Big Bang has evidence, such as the cosmic background radiation and the structure of the universe itself. So dismissing the Big Bang is irrational and I dont belief that BucketBot would claim something like this. He may said that he is skeptical, but thats a huge difference.
You just repeated what I said regarding the meaning of atheism.
No, we never changed the definition. The claim that no god exists is simply a negative claim. You cannot prove the negative and any attempt to do so is doomed to fail. To underline my argument: show me the evidence that says that there is no magical tea pot in space floating around and making gravity work.
Actually, this childish view is what my philosophy teacher beliefed in. The class laughed at her. She beliefed in the biblical character of god which is the god the very most Christians belief in as far as I know. And I have never witnessed the situation you are describing, that an atheist got laughed at by standing up and saying that there is no god. It was the other way around. Maybe Britain isnt a develope country after all, if you made a different experience? I dont know.
Feel free to ask him.
Really?
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
— Marcello Truzzi on Pseudoskepticism (which is what many atheists actually really are part of and not true skepticism).
Well for one, magic has been debunked.
Two, we can measure the gravitational force from the planets and stars and determine that that's where they're coming from.
So maybe humans did send an ordinary tea pot up in space but it's certainly not causing gravity (especially since gravity has always existed, long before humanity came to bloody make a bloody tea cup).
Stop making irrational statements.
I doubt that. No Christian believes in a "bearded man in the sky" but you're probably confabulated if you really believe that. Any philosophy teacher would not think of God as a "bearded man" and you're probably referring to ordinary school (with edgy poor-performing edgy teens not interested in RE and philosophy who make stupid comments throughout the lessons).
Try philosophy class at university (where everyone in the room is interested in philosophy) it's a different story there. All my teachers (with the exception of one) believed in God. Two were even devout Christians. Only one was atheist (and everyone agreed he was an idiot), the other was agnostic (and he was a truer free-thinker than most atheists).
Perhaps Germany isn't the developed country if every one there holds a childish view of God as a "bearded man in the sky" as you and your edgy class mates do...
Don't tell me you also drink Mountain Dew...
What? You just didnt looked hard enough.
How do you know that no christian would believe in a "bearded man in the sky"? I know for a fact that many christians believe that the earth is less than 10.000 years old, that the earth is flat and that prayers work ect. So you can safely assume that some lunatics believe in this childish nonsense.
Sources please otherwise I can say the opposite and it holds just as much weight. Please stop making unsourced claims. They do not constitute as evidence and only reveal your dishonesty.
Flat Earth Society: En.wikipedia.org
As for YECs I think about 40% of Americans is quite a high number and again, Americans alone! As for prayers, well I think most Christians believe they work, dont they? Isnt that the point and one of the major claims of Christianity?
As far as I know, Daniel Shenton is an atheist. Funnily enough, there are many atheists on the Flat Earth Society forums who believe in a flat earth.
Theflatearthsociety.org
Theflatearthsociety.org
In fact, correct me if I'm wrong but many of them seem to be atheist.
I don't see what this had got to do with what I asked you though. Flat Earth Society is not a source. I'm aware there are people who still believe in it. As I've shown though it's not a Christian concept.
I don't see how we've gone from Young Earth Creationism to a flat earth but it seems like you're moving the goal-post in a desperate attempt to save face which really back-fired.
Said ataraxia, advocate of the flat earth conspiracy, on the unobservability of God. Anyone else can say the same thing he said and I'd agree but as a flat earther, he has no right to talk about empirical observable evidence.
XD
(And I checked his profile and his first post, he seemingly advocates a round but flat earth).
This is comedy gold. Anymore "sources" you want to provide me?
And what if they are? I dont care, I never said all atheists are rational smart people. Atheism is just the disbelief in gods, thats all there is to. If they belief in stupid **** like a flat earth, go ahead and laugh about them. I laugh with you.
And yes, the flat earth was and is a Christain concept, ask the catholic church.
I never knew Christians were running around in Ancient Greece...
Archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk
Get your history right. The flat earth was a concept that existed before Christianity even came to be, before even Judaism existed even.
Why should I? You made the claim, show me where he said it.
Atheism, sekpticism and agnosticism are all different words which dont exclude each other. An atheist does not belief in God, thats the only mean, whether he claims that god doesnt exist or not. If he does, he is not a skeptic, but still an atheist and can also be an agnostic if he says that is not sure. The burden of proof si still on your foot, not on ours. Atheists just refute an unproven claim that religion is making over the millenia.
He's your friend, it shouldn't be a problem to ask him.
Saying that "there is no god" is a claim, one you won't support with any argument or evidence. You've refuted nothing meanwhile. We're going in circles here. I suggest you drop it because debates with you are becoming incredibly boring.
Yes, but it is your question, not mine. You have just as less problems asking him yourself as me.
Disprovethe existence of Thor or Medusa than. You see, you cant prove the negative, so I cannot disprove anything that have no evidence for its existence to begin with.
I asked him. He said he didn't believe. Go ask him yourself. If I'm lying and he denies it then I don't see what you have to lose since you'd be right. It seems you're just being stubborn though and I already gave examples of atheists who don't believe in The Big Bang such as Fred Hoyle and the other explicit atheist scientists who opposed The Big Bang theory on the grounds that they viewed a beginning of the universe as a religious concept.
As for Thor and Medusa: We've been to their homes. There's no evidence they existed and nothing suggesting divinity (because unlike with The Bible, there are no fulfilled prophecies with these two). Thor and Medusa were both physical entities unlike God. God is the prime-mover mentioned in ancient Greek philosophy and logic. It's a different topic. You have something to prove with your negative claim that there is no prime-mover, that things can move on their own, that nothing can do something. Since my view is supported by observational evidence and logical principles, it's your job to debunk it.
People were in Asgard to disprove the existence of Thor? I can imagine that the Asgardians laughed so hard, that they all died! Oh, and were is Medusas lair? I wondered for a long time if that place even existed like the empty tomb of Jesus. Actually, if you found her lair the story of Medusa holds more credibility than Jesus. That they supposedly were physical entities gives their story additional credibility, you know. Unlike the abrahamic god which hasnt been proven to exist in any way - if its not physical you can neither prove nor interact in any way with it. Its just the law of nature.
Also which prophecies are you refering to in the Bible? The self-fulfilling ones that were written DECADES AFTER the supposed event happened? You expect me to belief that claim?
What is an observational evidence and logical principle? Well, anyway you are not supported by evidence and logic, so you are screwed. ;)
Thor's living place was in the clouds. He was the god of thunder. Asgard was said to be a physical place too.
Britannica.com
Asgard could reached by the bridge of Bifröst.
These are physical things then, requiring physical evidence of which there is none. We have physical evidence for the ancient city of Jerusalem and many of the forts and sectors built during Biblical times such as the three gates by Solomon or the healing bath of Bethesda mentioned only in the gospel. We have no physical evidence for Asgard or a bridge leading to it.
Medusa's lair (like Hades) may have been inspired by a real cave.
Livescience.com
No evil gods in there or in Lake Avernus which the Romans thought contained the entrance to Hades. Therefore no reason to believe these physical entities existed either.
LOL, because Medusa is also referenced by historians like Jesus was? Must I go through the Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Talmud, Thallus and Lucian accounts?
You mean the Dead Sea scrolls don't count? They showed that these prophecies were written before they occurred. Do your research and read the article again.
Says the guy who just had his entire past two arguments debunked. You're not even using sources, especially for your claim that the flat earth was a Christian concept (which I just refuted).
---
You were generalizing all atheists by saying "to atheists, the beginning was the Big Bang. Anything else is hypothesis and rather thought as possibility than a certainty
--
No he did not generalize about what Atheists believe, because he wasn't talking about beliefs. He was simply talking about science. Atheist stance is what the scientific evidence points towards, and right now the best explanation is the big bang. The amount of belief is directly proportional to the strength of the evidence. That is the default position & the logical way to go about it.
Atheism = We don't know whether god exists, all the scientific evidence we have supports naturalistic processes. Therefore the question of "does god exist?" is the wrong question and one that science does not answer. Rather the real question is "where does nature come from?"... and we go from there.
--
you atheists have simply changed the definition to suit your purpose so you can get out of having to provide evidence for your irrational claims that things can come from nothing.
--
We do not believe in the philosophical nothing. We do however believe that there is some form of 'nothingness' but we have no idea what processes exist in it.. possibly completely different processes than what our current universe has. Perhaps light exists in nothingness? Perhaps theres some form of gravity in nothingness? Who knows. We do know however that the universe originated from one single point and the universe is almost 15 billion years old which is already enough to debunk genesis... and we have lots of the evidence to debunk the flood.
Evidence of prophecies isn't evidence of god because theres natural causes/explanations. Not to mention many prophecies that weren't fulfilled in the way they where described.
Not to mention the whole of god being loving and caring and yet the bible advocates slavery/genocide/stoning unruly children/ stoning a man who works on the day of the sabbath/a man has to marry the women he raped ect its just immoral to believe in the Christian god as its presented but rather to pick and choose what you want to believe or use a preacher as the guide to show you which interpretation is "correct" and which bible verses are to be ignored.
I see that nothingness is the logical sticking point with you. A interesting discussion about something coming from nothing: Youtube.com
Uh huh. You're really using dishonest Krauss whose model of a universe from nothing is a hypothesis? Youtube.com
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Moddb.com
Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."
Exodus 21: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished."
Exodus 21:26 "If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake."
Exodus 21:27 "If he strikes out his male servant's tooth, or his female servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
Deuteronomy 23:15 "If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters."
Deuteronomy 23:16 "Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him."
Deuteronomy 15:12 "If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free."
Another generalization, care to explain why Fred Hoyle and other atheist scientists advocated the steady state theory then and why others today still do so?
And please read through the article again. I use The Big Bang in the argument. I believe it gives more credible support to theism than anything else.
Naturalistic processes do not debunk God, these explain the how, not the why.
Then it's not nothingness.
Either you're playing willful ignorance to the article above or being dishonest on purpose. I advocate The Big Bang, many Christians do, it was proposed by a Catholic priest, the age of the universe is irrelevant (please find one Bible verse mentioning it, I think you'll find more Christians aren't YEC's) and we have lots of evidence to show a flood occurred (no one said it was a global flood) from which the Noah story came from. Telegraph.co.uk
Such as? I gave my examples. Give yours.
Its not a doctrine, its scientific knowledge.
The way you avoid my question suggests, that you have no answer and instead try to mark me as bad guy. How shameless of you.
What? Assumptions again?
What is my version of evolution? That no god was involved? I answered your points long ago, I dont have to do it over and over again.
What's scientific knowledge? Please start using quotes. You've asserted many "evidences" which have been unsourced so I don't know what I should be answering here.
No, you didn't. You didn't answer how new organs could have emerged in the early species if it wasn't in their DNA to begin with. Evolution doesn't escape causality. All things come from something, even in evolution. If a fin evolved into arms and arms evolved into wings, then these organs all came from a prior one. That's what evolution teaches.
Ngm.nationalgeographic.com
Above all, evolution is still a theory in development, so yes, there are still holes. Holes that will either be addressed soon or will reveal a new evolutionary synthesis.
~ Towards a new evolution synthesis.
Just like Darwin's model was replaced, so will the current modern model be replaced unless the flaws are addressed. That's how science works.
Are you really that dumb? Ok, I might not ask questions which answers I already know... Do you expect me to save my links or waste time finding new ones to topics we already discussed besides the point that you can always look for what I said yourself?
Yes, everything comes from something from the point where we know existence began. Everything came from the big bang, including all that there is now - even the matter/energy that is involved in the process of evolution here on earth and other planets (which have to be proven, but it is highly likely to be the case). The magic of DNA creating informations is called mutation. One mutation of a multi cellular arganism layed down the cornerstone for lungs, limbs, fins ect. It proved to be benificial in their specific environment so it evolved further. Thats how information adds and modify itself to DNA. Through the laws of nature that - according to your belief - your god created.
As for the Cambrian explosion: it is a new point you are bringing up, so I cladly provide some source for it. First, a Video of Steve Shives...
Youtu.be
... which points to this article...
Scienceinpublic.com.au
No, I expect you to be specific instead of sprouting more of this dumbassery out and expecting me to do all the work in trudging through all the unsourced garbage you've been spewing out since November 2013. So not only am I your teacher in history, archaeology, Biblical scholarly and science, I'm also your personal researcher now?
Where did I deny the Cambrian explosion? What I quoted was from a book titled "Towards a new evolution synthesis" by Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Carroll) and my point is that a new evolutionary synthesis can arrive from the current modern one just as Darwin's model was replaced.
But concerning your statement on living cells, they just formed magically against all the possible chance but apparently I believe in magic for believing in both what observational science and causality states, that life only proceeds from life.
Want to start on abiogenesis? Then these are the same sources I gave to The Unbeholden below. Your hypothesis of abiogenesis is evidenceless, its speculation and scientists even say the origin of life may remain a mystery as far as empirical science is concerned.
(1) What is the origin of life on Earth? Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia.
science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/origin-of-life-on-earth5.htm
(2)Life on Earth Began Three Billion Years Ago. Discovery News. news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/life-began-3-billion-years-ago-dna-101220.htm
(3) The RNA World And Other Origin-of-Life Theories
panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm (This contains an index of sources at the bottom of the page) Karl R. Popper, "Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science," p 259-284, Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, Francisco Jose Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky, eds. University of California Press, 1974. p 271.
Nobody understands the origin of life. If they say they do, they are probably trying to fool you. — Ken Nealson PhD, 2002 Robert Roy Britt, "The Search for the Scum of the Universe," Space.com, 21 May 2002.
(4) How Did Life Begin? NOVA and Andrew H. Knoll PhD, Havard University.
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html
That's where observational science and logic (i.e what we can observe around us and in history) come into play. These two things support the idea of theism more rather than atheism because (as you still haven't done ever since I asked you two years ago*) chaos never produces anything and you don't get something from nothing.
*