I will now prove atheists are illogical Part 2.

There has never been one ounce of empirical, verifiable scientific evidence for ANY god.

 

There is evidence for some of the Big Bang theory. The rest is still hypothesis.

We have no clue what was before the Big Bang for example. That there was a Big Bang seems to fit the evidence but this does not mean there was not something prior to the Big Bang.

 

Yeah, that is why its the paradigm taught in science classes - as opposed to the multiverse. Go figure.

Thatnk you for parroting my arguement back at me.

 

This is a strange response to my comment.

I support your claim that there is evidence for Gods. Why are you getting so upset ?

 

Evidence for the Big Bang.

 

rstones199 is on your ignore list.

Well, its rehtorical because I will not read the answer, but is there some reason you are followng me around again like I care what a malicious troll has to say about my posts?

 

Because it is a silly point. The man claimed he had proof. I asked for it. This did not involve you in the least bit.

 

Indeed. Seems reasonable to me. A scientific theory replete with evidence.

 

Because you just claimed the opposite.

You very neatly threaded the fence sitting on that one. You can now NEVER be wrong. THere is both evidence for but not of any God!!!

And yet you claim to be Christian?

The entire field fo Apologetics does not exist?

Well, that all pales in comparison to the possibility that gifted might be wrong.

 

And the origins of the Big Bang are .... ? Right.

Seems quite reasonable to definitively remove God from Creation with absolutely no evidence.

So the Big Bang leads to no God .... show us how mr reasonable.

 

What's silly is your denial of the salient point.

Even sillier is the claim that you are driven by evidence, and then contunually refuse to do what you are ever so calmly asking others to do.

Where is your evidence? I am now challenging you.

you are demanding it, and gosh darn it, you have clearly though this oput for yourself.

But we both know all you have is a fallacy. And that point is indeed rather silly when you entire faith, one you will not even acknowledge is a faith, on a fallacious premise.

 

Hi guys, I'm Troy McClure! You may remember me from such threads as "atheists are illogical part 1". I'm the guy who accepts that a purely scientific method would lead to agnosticism, but defended the idea that logic can include heuristics that can end up with a subjective result. I stand by that, even if it means that I can't claim that people who believe in god are illogical purely on that basis.

Anyway, since I happily admit that I have no proof of god's non-existence, and do not claim to base my religious viewpoint solely on scientific methods, I hope I'm exempt from having to provide scientific evidence of her non-existence.

However, someone else DID claim to actually have proof of god. Would I be right in assuming that Mr. Miller's claim was purely of what we might call 'personal' proof, that conveniently is impossible to convey clearly to others? That kind of 'proof' I've seen many, many times before, and it amounts to nothing more than saying "I am convinced of this". Of course, if you have any proof that can be reliably presented to others I am obviously all ears.

 

Does all of this mean you are not going to provide the proof that the other poster claimed to have?

 

Yep, its called a preponderance of teh evidence case, and the endstate is --- preponderance, just like we claimed last time:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

http://carm.org/

Now, here is an atheist view on the subject - one that is removed the continuous strawmen of magic spaghetti and santa:

So even if the theist fails to establish his case, at best that simply leaves the reasonable man with agnosticism, and to infer atheism from this would be to commit the ad ignorantiam fallacy. And this is significant, for that means reasonably speaking agnosticism is the theoretical starting point. The more plausible the arguments for God’s existence are, the more the reasonable man moves from agnosticism to theism.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-co...n-of-Proof-and-the-Presumption-of-Atheism.pdf

In short, theism is far more logical than atheism.

 

Does that mean you are going to acknowledge that you are about to commit to a known fallacy?

 

You were talking about evidence for God and I said there was evidence.

Do you not know the difference between evidence and proof ?

Most intelligent Christians, Ministers and Priests do not claim that there is Scientific evidence that conclusively proves God exists.

One does not need to make themselves into an idiot to be a Christian.

 

No, you did not. You said there was evidence for Gods ... as in plural. which open everything from mythology (which has already been falsified) to nothing.

Yet you claim to be Christian, and now there is indeed evidence for A God.

Once again, its all about gifted not having to acknoweldge that he is wrong.

A dearth of evidence, and a lack of conclusive evidence are two very different things child. And I am glad that you have now adopted my position that science leads to agnosticism alone, with a condescending an flippant tone to boot.

I do love it when you simply adopt my positions and then lecture me about my own position as if my position were never known or stated. Its the veru definition of duplicity.

 

I am not sure what your issue with me is. I have done nothing to you, and instead you have made numerous unsupported claims about me.

Now the other poster claimed they had proof. I simply asked to see it.

 

Agreed! But I suspect we disagree quite fundamentally about whether the arguments are plausible in the slightest.

Forgive me, but I'm not about to read through two entire web sites full of links to get this preponderance of evidence you claim exists, because I've debated this issue for decades now and I am under the impression that none of them will provide any new insight.

You do have a point, that agnosticism should be the starting place. However, in the absence of any evidence that I consider to be worth the paper it's written on, I fall back, as I say, on heuristics, and all of my life experience points to there being no god. Not strong evidence, I admit, but enough for me to make the 'leap' to atheism.

 

Well, forgive me for walking you to the moutain of evidence in support of the contention, and not just accepting laziness as the excuse for it not holding any water.

How many atheists deamdn evidence? Agh, but there is always an excuse to dismiss said evidence.

 

And what is your issue with me/ I had no idea pointing out that you were about to commit a KNOWN fallacy would be quite so offensive.

Normally, intelligent people appreciate it when they are prevented from making a mistake.

Atheists though? Well, apparently, its quite personal and problematic to issue a correction to an atheist. SHocking I know!

BTW - you have repeatedly been directed to Christian Apologetics, and those sites have been posted for you and others. Enjoy!!!

Now what is your issue exactly?

 

Whats wrong, you can't read? I clearly said that I've read such 'evidence' for YEARS now. That's not laziness. Think there's something in there I've not seen before? YOU find it then.

 

I have none. I was not even speaking to you.

 

My English comprehension appears to be just fine. How is yours.

You asked for evidence, you were given a butt load. Enjoy.

Oh wait, I am the one that can nether read nor comprehend. My values and opinions are the result of .... imaginary antics. Having actually gone out and looked at the evidence, which resulted in the almost immediately dropping of atheism like a big pile of smelly crap ... is clearly not relevant in the slightest.

As soon as I accepted Christ ... well, I got a labotomy.

That about right Prof?

 

Oh, when you ask me what my problem is with you, you were of course addressing ... not me.

So, you were about to prove that atheism was logical?