I will now prove atheists are illogical Part 2.

I am sorry, the poster claimed he had proof of a god. Would you care to present it for him?

 

Well, this Paul is still being talked about by millions+ ppl "these days;" and how many ppl are talking about YOU today?!

 

Is there some reason that you completely ignore the answer to questions?

#1 - please apply YOUR standards to your position. You are using the creative writing of the multiverse to explain away creation. So tell me, how can the universe create itself if it always just existed? Isn't that what you are asking us to do with God? - Yet yours is the 'logical' position?

#2 - Science doesn't require an explanation of cause to document the effect of something. The origins of the Big Bang are unknown, speculative at best, and yet you are demanding that we reject anything in which the cause is unknown. Ergo, the Big Bang is gone. Life itself is gone, because the best we can get is RNA - maybe. Cancer is gone, we have no idea what causes many of the variations of cancer. Etc. etc. etc.

Ergo, we have another notch on the old belt of illogic in atheism.

 

So now the answer is that God..... poof..... created by quantum fluctuations?
So your position on logic is as simple as....... INSERT GOD HERE>>..... And then you claim everyone that doesn't accept such an insertion is therefore illogical?

 

I'm sorry, I believe as an atheist you too have a burden of proof. And I believe I just proved your contention to be little more than an arguement from ignorance.

THe best you can get is an arguement call preponderance. That has been done a thousand times on this forum, and the only thing it results in is a series of excuses from atheists to ignore what is presented.

Again, the evidence is not conclusive, but it is highly suggestive. Usually, at this point, I simply ask atheists to explain Jesus - and then you get all manner of excuses, none of which meet academic stanards for anything, and often require intergalatic time travelling conspiracy to be valid. Miracles, answered prayers, truth found in teachings, etc.

What it ends with always is atheists with hurt feelings and claims that we reject science. Yet, in demonstration of circular logic, science leads to agnosticism - not atheism. Yet atheists are atheists anyway - and they aren't using faith - and we are right back where we started. Always with atheists demanding proof, mever supporting their own positions.

Ergo, atheism is nothing but an arguement from ignorance.

 

Not sure intelligence can be a necessity for existence the god as a brilliant intellect itself would be very complex and un engineered so there is literally no need for an engineer to begin with or immediately follow up with

im down with god like aliens possibly existing though


http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAdvancedAlien

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClarkesThirdLaw

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAnalyzedMagic

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AbusingTheKardashevScaleForFunAndProfit

 

Yep, that is clearly what he said. You are asking him to speculate about the creation of God, which is unknowable and untestable - just like your infinite multiverse. Only we have to accept .... INSERT MULTIVERSE HERE>> .... and then claim that everyone that doesn't accept such an insertion is therefore illogical?

Hmmm ... atheism is logical is it?

 

The universe did not just..... poof..... appear out of nothingness!
We are dealing with the incomprehension of the mind, something that is a continuum has no beginning and no end...... It exists and has always existed in one form or another!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only thing attempting to alter it from existing in such a state is your mind that declares that it must have a beginning and therefore it requires a creator...... Just because you'd like to declare it to be so, doesn't mean that is how it is.... You're trying to create the universe, try all you want, that's not the way it works!

Declare God didn't just.... poof.... appear out of nothingness!
Declare God wasn't created by a superior God!
I'm actually OK with these answers.

These are immediately viable options and therefore appropriate answers within a discussion of logic..... From that point we can investigate further and see how these fit into the model!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not asking for a miraculous event, just a simple discussion that employs logic...... However, I am beginning to think being able to have such a discussion with a Christian would be miraculous!

 

There is no proof of anything you wrote above. THe Big Bang says that the universe is finite - it has a definitive beginning. What caused it or came before it is a matter of speculation. Yet your theory must be treated as 'fact', those whose faith claims that there is a God, a Supreme Creator, are of course being illogical because they cannot prove the origins of God.

Guess what slick? You cannot prove the origins of an infinite universe either. Yet yours is deductive reasoning at its finest?

"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.|Paul Davies|A Brief History of the Multiverse"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

The difference is, we got this guy named Jesus. You have a wall chart.

You are not using logic. Logic on this one leads to agnosticism. The multiverse is an interesting, but wholly untestable theory.

 

You can believe whatever you like. The other poster said he had proof. I invited him to share it with me.

 

The arguement from ignorance is a fact, not a belief.

I invite you to take your own challenge.

 

I was not aware I issued a challenge. The other poster said they had proof of something. I asked them to share it.

 

That is funny, because as an atheist, you claim no faith whatsoever, and now you ar enot claiming evidence either.

Do you see the point yet? See the thread title?

 

I am sorry, did you have the proof the other poster claimed to have?

 

I have proof that atheism is illogical - as the thread title claims.

You are concerned with proof, but offer up none. You are asking to play atheist baseball, nothing more.

You have a burden of proof, indeed are claiming an interest in proof, deny faith, and present nothing more than demanding proof for what we both already knows leads to agnosticism.

But if you keep demanding proof, though you are lead by proof, its not proof of an arguement from ignorance.

And that is a fallacy. Its what makes your atheism illogical.

If you don't think so, prove me wrong. Its not up to everyone else to lead them to God, when you are have already specifically rejected God ... based on evidence you are not showing.

We can play theist baseball as well - and that is why we should both be abvle to acknolwedge that science leads to agnosticism on God. We can demonstrate preponderance and probability, you ... are not interested in that. You are interested in the arguement from ignorance.

If you cannot defiitely prove God is real, then he must be fake.

Are you denying that this is your intent?

By the way, there is the literary claim of what's in a name. Indeed, what is in your name. Do you think for yourself?

 

No you don't. You have an opinion that atheism is illogical, not proof.

 

I have you using the arguement from igorance, a known fallacy.

I have you refusing to go on record as saying whether or not atheism is a faith choice or the result of evidence.

That is pretty damb illogical.

As illogical as avoiding those point repeatedly to demand evidence so you can make an arguement from ignorance.

You think atheism is logical? Then make a logical case for atheism.

Pretty simple.

I suppose ineffectual one liners will have to suffice. Hence, our thesis is clearly being proven. Yours? That atheism is in fact logical? Seems to be failing.

 

I am sorry, does this mean you will not be presenting the alleged proof that there is a god that the other poster claimed to have?

 

The Big Bang theory is just a theory. There are other possible scientific explanations. No one knows how the universe came about and science does not claim to have figured it out.

 

One of us has. You? Nope.

You are swayed by evidence, lets see it!

Otherwise, no one wants to sign up to play atheist baseball, so you can just advocate the arguement from ignorance.

Its a pretty simple point, are YOU going to acknowlegde it?

That evidence leads to agnosticism? That what you are doing is simply signing up to deny everything placed in front of you, (because you are the scientific standard bearer?) and then declare that the inability to positively beyond all doubt or any random variable or contradictory standards that there is notherefore no God?

Well, here is what you are doing:



Yep, there is indeed no evidence for God if one refuses to acknowledge it. But then, you are all about evidence, it drives your position? Which has no faith? Only, all you can dois demand evidence, and never present any .... while of course, thinking for yourself. Gotcha.

All you are doing is setting someone up for the arguement from ignorance. And you are doing it by disingenuously avoiding the repeatedly statement that the evidence for God cannot be proven to absolute certainty ... and yet you ask for it anyway?

And then refuse to provide evidence of your absiolute certainty.

 

There is evidence for many Gods however, none of this evidence even remotely proves the existence of any God.

 

The other poster stated they had proof of a god. I asked him to share it with us. I am not sure why that was provocative to you.

 

Agh, no, there are not. There are other hypthesi, but the current scientific paradigm is the Big Bang. They 'alternatives' are less supportable and the error you make, once again simply to be combative, is the judgement from ignorance that all hypothesi are equally supported by the evidence.

The Big Bang is the current accepted standard for creation.

Ergo, if people are driven by science ... particularly ehen advocating something like the multiverse .... they have one hell of a burden of proof.

 

Because all you are doing is setting up the lad for the arguement from ignorance. Why are YOU being so combative about avoiding that point?

 

Sure, the entire field of Apologetics does not exist.

And yet ytou claim to be Christian, eh? An educated Master of the Bible, eh?

Nice to see both faith and science are driven solely by a bullyish desire to force others to acknowledge your superiority - even when it is not there.