Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[WingsOfEagles07]

Is this an argument? Or just an emotional response lashing out due to a lack of knowledge? It's readily apparent, you have no clue what you speak of.

No this is not an argument, just stating some absurdity. No not lack of knowledge, I am indeed rich in knowledge through the LORD. It is you that lack the knowledge of many different area's not just creation.

You know.

It is very weird, that (speaking from the evolutionary worldview) when the "big bang" occurred, I find it very odd that the "big bang" knew by a random chance process that it processed a light-producing sun that the planet called "earth" it created would need it because it had randomly made the atmosphere on the earth that was 93 million years away the exact distance to where the earth was not too cold or too hot. But then miraculously there was these chemicals had bumped into each other by chance and made the first single celled organism that evolved over time. I find it weird that the "big bang" knew that for the organism to live it would need 78.09 % of nitrogen and 20.95 oxygen as the exact mixture for the organism to breathe for his lungs to cooperate correctly along with its blood. Because without it, it would have breathed and then died. What a miracle of chance that was that oxygen existed in just the right percentage to sustain life. And not just his life, but the life of his mate also, that was evolved into a female. What a miracle of chance that was, that it knew how to randomly make a reproduction cycle a produce another with lungs also and after millions of years/billions of years of maturity to evolve into humans. It is also a miracle of chance that there was gravity just at the right time to keep their feet planted on the ground to keep them from flying off into space. Another coincidence is that there just happened to be water for humans to drink to stay alive and the sun also because that is was sustained humans because we couldn't eat or reproduce without light.

Now that is just "pure" 100% absurdity. Never in a million years will I accept the assumptions of the scientist that believed this was the origin of everything, because this is pure illogical and unreasonable. haha What!! Ever!

 

[Isambard]

This is the biggest fallacy that evolutionists do not see and will not see, according to your next statement as followed.

Name the fallacy I'm commiting. I'm betting you don't even know what a fallacy actually is.

You said you have debunked my point, well no you have not. You talked about that judge/criminal thing, that did not in any way, shape or form debunk my point nor did you get it. You said you get it but you do not get it because of 2 Peter 3:3-7 - which says you all are willingly ignorant. As I have stated in my previous post. But you again did not get my points in there because of such illogical reasoning.

You never gave a rebuttle to the point, hence, the debunking stands.

Wrong. The Bible does not have unicorns, magic, or dragons. This again is a fallacy of presumptions.

Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12.1) In Job 38–41, God reminded Job of the characteristics of a variety of impressive animals He had created, showing Job that God was far above man in power and strength.2
Unicorns in the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

Bible (King James)/Bel and the Dragon - Wikisource

Leviticus 14:2-52 (for magical blood cure for leprosy)

Again with statements I have made you have not answered my question. Again it seems as though you do not have a reasonable answer, which you can conclude that by this you are being Arbitrary. In which evolution is arbitrary within its own claims.

Again as your statements go on, you have not answered my questions because you are being arbitrary.

Arbitrary with what? I've answered all your questions (though most of them were really just veiled rants based on ignorance).

Here are some question you've failed to answer.
Define what constitutes as life
Define evolution (what it actually entails)
Address the questions in the video I posted, Evolution of Man made Easy
Address the questions in the other video I posted, God and DNA

 

[Isambard]

No this is not an argument, just stating some absurdity. No not lack of knowledge, I am indeed rich in knowledge through the LORD. It is you that lack the knowledge of many different area's not just creation.

Shame that "knowledge" doesn't extend to proper spelling, grammar, or punctuation.

 

[PT Calvinist]

I'm not familiar with taxonomy? Teach me then, when did the bear split between the currently known species. How about the walrus?

It never did. I realized that I worded my explaination incorrectly

So you do believe in evolution?

Who dosen't? Evolution to an extent maybe. I simply don't believe that we originated from micro-organisms that just happened to exist.

What? Name a scientist who believes that.

Arrogance is invading
ANIMAL BEHAVIOR.
Critter Control Animal Facts: Animal Information for Identifying Nuisance Animals, Animal Damage Prevention, Animal Control Solu
How Did Noah Gather the Animals?
Call of the Wild, The--Wildlife Biology Member's Manual Book I

Yeah, exactly. When you don't have access to knowledge, you have to make up an answer in order for the facts of reality to fit into your preconcieved notions.

More arrogance? I didn't make a thing up.
You can't deny the open possibility that the flood is true.

 

[Rasta]

No this is not an argument, just stating some absurdity. No not lack of knowledge, I am indeed rich in knowledge through the LORD.

I disagree.

It is very weird, that (speaking from the evolutionary worldview) when the "big bang" occurred, I find it very odd that the "big bang" knew by a random chance process that it processed a light-producing sun that the planet called "earth" it created would need it because it had randomly made the atmosphere on the earth that was 93 million years away the exact distance to where the earth was not too cold or too hot.

This IS absurd. The BB didn't know anything. You know that our sun is just one of billions of stars in our galaxy right? You know that our galaxy is just one of countless billions of galaxies right?

You don't like science? Get off your computer and go live in a cave.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Name the fallacy I'm commiting. I'm betting you don't even know what a fallacy actually is.


You never gave a rebuttle to the point, hence, the debunking stands.


Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12.1) In Job 38–41, God reminded Job of the characteristics of a variety of impressive animals He had created, showing Job that God was far above man in power and strength.2
Unicorns in the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

Bible (King James)/Bel and the Dragon - Wikisource

Leviticus 14:2-52 (for magical blood cure for leprosy)


Arbitrary with what? I've answered all your questions (though most of them were really just veiled rants based on ignorance).

Here are some question you've failed to answer.
Define what constitutes as life
Define evolution (what it actually entails)
Address the questions in the video I posted, Evolution of Man made Easy
Address the questions in the other video I posted, God and DNA

Yeah I just use the word "fallacy" because I don't know what it means. Ok?? Fallacy is a misconception, or a misleading concept. The fallacy you committed is the fallacy of begging the question, Your reasoning does nothing but go into a circle because you do not see any inconsistencies but from the Creationists worldview you can see many inconsistencies that evolutionists cannot see.


Okay, If the Bible says it then it must be true. What is the point? Just because you do not believe they exist doesn't make them not exist. I could say there are no sea creatures in the abyss but that does not make them not exist for how would I know?

Arbitrary with not having an answer to my questions I have stated. you said you have answered them but you ignorantly answered them therefore this is not counted as an answer because it is not a logical reasonable answer not just to me but to anyone.





Evolutionary Theory

We see evolution as based on the trial-and-error process of variation and natural selection of systems at all levels of complexity. The name of 'natural selection' comes from the Darwinian theory of biological evolution, which distinguishes "natural" selection from "artificial" selection, where specific features are retained or eliminated depending on a goal or intention (e.g. the objective of a cattle breeder who would like to have cows that produce more milk). The "implicit goal" of natural selection is maintenance or reproduction of a configuration at some level of abstraction. The selection is natural in the sense that there is no actor or purposive system making the selection. The selection we are discussing is purely automatic or spontaneous, without plan or design involved.
I do not need to answer you according to your folly, because you still have refused to see my point and I will refuse to answer you because I have already proved my point but your illogical reasoning could not see the way I proved it.

Life = Something GOD created, Anything having blood within itself.

I will watch the videos later and I will reply and give you the answers you want, but I will not accept the claims that you make or that the video makes.

 

[Rasta]

Who dosen't?

WingsOfEagles07.

Evolution to an extent maybe. I simply don't believe that we originated from micro-organisms that just happened to exist.

Why?

Arrogance is invading

About John D. Morris: John D. Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia he distorts to reinforce his beliefs. He has not contributed anything of value to the scientific community. His degree is in civil engineering.

None of your other sources say anything related to Dr. Morris.

More arrogance? I didn't make a thing up.
You can't deny the open possibility that the flood is true.

Sure I can. It's false. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of knowing or not knowing the facts. Unless you are speaking about a local flood, that didn't cover the earth. I can buy that.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I disagree.



This IS absurd. The BB didn't know anything. You know that our sun is just one of billions of stars in our galaxy right? You know that our galaxy is just one of countless billions of galaxies right?

You don't like science? Get off your computer and go live in a cave.

See your stating that it is a random chance process then because it does not know anything. Well, I find it very unrealistic that the 'BB' produced a light-producing star called the sun of billions of stars but only one galaxy out of billions of galaxies actually really needs the sun to sustain life. It is very unreasonable and illogical that a random chance process developed a miracle of making life on earth. Im talking about every single creature on earth the ones that used to live and the ones that are living and that it miraculously made water for the organisms to drink, and also made reproduction systems of all different kinds. It also made the nitrogen 78.09 and the oxygen 20.95 that is just enough for each organism with lungs able to breathe. This is very illogical. This does not add up, and again this goes back to where no one can prove this because no one was there to account for this, there is no written documentation that this happened, There was no one there to affirm that this happened. Not one soul. This idea came about by the assumptions of a scientist who "thought" that this is how the origins of the universe came about by his own interpretations of the supposed evidence he has to make such beliefs and we cannot trust mankind. Because we do not know everything, therefore if we keep on learning about things through new evidences evolutionary theories change, therefore they are only based on assumptions as from the creationist worldview it is not, We have justification of our beliefs, you all have no justification whatsoever as to why you guys believe such claims from a foundation that has not basis for the things that are needed to do science that only makes sense in a creation worldview therefore it makes you all inconsistent with your illogical reasoning and the ability to do "supposed" science.

 

[Rasta]

Well, I find it very unrealistic that the 'BB' produced a light-producing star called the sun of billions of stars but only one galaxy out of billions of galaxies actually really needs the sun to sustain life.

You know this is true? Did you travel to all of the other solar systems in our galaxy? Did you travel to all of the other solar systems in other galaxies? Of course you didn't.

You speak of assumptions, when your entier argument rests on assumption. Science has facts to back up their theories.

 

[Penumbra]

I have not ignored it, I have actually answered you just do not see it in the creation worldview because your wanting to see an answer in the evolutionary worldview and I do not have one for that view because I am a Creationist and Evolution is not true. I have already proved it biblically through my last post. The answer is obvious, food, what else could it be? You also cannot say that the venom injecting tail can be used for plants or anything else because you have no evidence for this. You cannot base something from the future to explain the past, because you were not there. Since the bible also states that "all" creatures were vegetarian at one point before the fall then it would have to be used for "vegetarian" foods.

So your answer is plants? Can you provide a documented case of a scorpion using its tail and venom to eat plants? Has it ever been shown that scorpion venom is useful in eating plants?

This is also a Biblical creation point of view, Now from the evolutionary worldview this will be illogical and unreasonable because this does not follow the Evolutionary belief system of the assumptions by people who were not there.

You know the people who wrote the Bible weren't there either, right?

Here are some sites:

Age of the earth (Scroll down to see them)

Creation Science Book Review, Old Earth Creationism On Trial, Chapter 7
(Scroll to # 9 on the Page)

Doesn?t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis
(Excellent site on this Topic.)

I looked through it. None of that is science, though.

Creationists aren't going out there and testing things. They aren't compiling data. They're fringe scientists and they wonder why they don't receive attention- because they have no findings and no data. They point out discrepancies, which are usually clarified by someone who knows better, instead of actually performing science. For example, in the first article, he just makes points like how DNA can't last that long without proving that DNA can't last that long.

-Lyn

(I'm limiting my posts to once per day in this thread.)

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

You know this is true? Did you travel to all of the other solar systems in our galaxy? Did you travel to all of the other solar systems in other galaxies? Of course you didn't.

You speak of assumptions, when your entier argument rests on assumption. Science has facts to back up their theories.

Yes I know this for "fact" by the Bible but since "evolutionists" are so called "smart" the Bible is not true. I do not speak of assumptions this is inconclusive because you are wrong, the Bible states "facts" not assumptions.

No, science does not have "facts" to back up their theories. You have this reversed around like I have said. Evolution does cannot give logical explanations reasonable enough to explain why they believe in such claims whenever their worldview has a foundation with no basis except the assumptions of scientists who were not there in the past. I can also totally see while talking to you, you do not know anything about creation and the inconsistencies of your worldview. In which, I have already proved this. So I need not to prove it again. If I can find the video again of an evolutionist that states this error, I will post it and show you how he reasonably uses his assumptions(beliefs) to state that the evidence shown is however old it is.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

So your answer is plants? Can you provide a documented case of a scorpion using its tail and venom to eat plants? Has it ever been shown that scorpion venom is useful in eating plants?


You know the people who wrote the Bible weren't there either, right?


I looked through it. None of that is science, though.

Creationists aren't going out there and testing things. They aren't compiling data. They're fringe scientists and they wonder why they don't receive attention- because they have no findings and no data. They point out discrepancies, which are usually clarified by someone who knows better, instead of actually performing science. For example, in the first article, he just makes points like how DNA can't last that long without proving that DNA can't last that long.

-Lyn

(I'm limiting my posts to once per day in this thread.)

Yes I can, If you read the account of GENESIS, you can see that all of GOD' creation was vegetarians, because there was no death. Also the questions you asked are inconsistent and arbitrary at the same time. You cannot base the future to explain the past from an evolutionary point of view by using the uniformity of nature, because you cannot give a logical reason for why you believe in the uniformity of nature because this only makes since in a Biblical Creation worldview not evolution. Therefore for this precondition of intelligibility to make sense in the evolutionary worldview you have to be inconsistent and irrational.

The second statement you made is also arbitrary because you say this is not science and that are not going out testing things. There are a couple of reasons as to why your faulty reasoning is illogical.

1. You do not know that they do not test things. (No evidence)
2. You cannot make a claim without having a good logical reason for this assumption.

I can say the same thing about evolutionists as you can creationists. So I guess all the scientists who accept the biblical creation worldview "must" not be doing any testing whatsoever, they just got their Ph.D many different sciences just to sit around and look for problems in evolution. Yeah, that is really logical and reasonable. It is really senseless to make a claim like that.

Oh, You also said that "people" wrote the Bible who were not there. Well, If you read the Word of GOD, and understood the information inside of it, You should see that GOD told them what to write down. GOD would not allow them to write what they wanted to because that would conclude not the Word of GOD, it would be the words of men.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Quick note of clarification, we are apes in the taxonomic sense. Your question is similar to asking "If there are still British people, how can there be Americans? Shouldn't all British people become Americans?



You might like this then
YouTube - 8 -- Human Evolution Made Easy

That video was so true. It just so amazing, I cannot believe it. We have similarities in skull shapes and we must have evolved.

Im sorry to say but similarities in skull structure does not prove we evolved. One claim that was stated in the video was that these "ape(s)" built weapons, etc... Well, How do they know this? They do not know that they made these weapons, they were not their to explain the past. Also, they talked about genetics of them. DNA does not last billions of years long so we could not have obviously come from the apes. Like I said, there is no basis for the assumptions made that can be explained in a logical reason as why this is so.

Also, I have already stated "biblically" that evolution is wrong, but you all completely ignored the post and you guys know the Bible is true but you all have deceived yourselves into thinking that there is no GOD because "man" has suppressed the truth in unrighteousness Romans 1:18.

 

[TerranceL]

Yes I know this for "fact" by the Bible but since "evolutionists" are so called "smart" the Bible is not true. I do not speak of assumptions this is inconclusive because you are wrong, the Bible states "facts" not assumptions.

Your "facts" have been shown to be false by observable reality.

Which means that your "facts" are not facts at all.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Your "facts" have been shown to be false by observable reality.

Which means that your "facts" are not facts at all.

Really? You think that is possible. Haha. You are very wrong Terrance.Your "facts" prove nothing to creationists because our "facts" already said you will deny three major of our "facts" and you know what? Our "facts" were correct because you all do deny three major things of the Biblical creation worldview. You cannot base your "facts" and say our "facts" is wrong because your so-called "facts" has a foundation on which it has no basis for because all it is, is assumptions by scientists who were not there. But our "facts" are true facts because they come true. The Bible says many things that you do not understand so you cannot say our facts are wrong because you know nothing of creation. Oh since the Bible facts "have been shown false". Why is the predicted in the Bible and its coming true?

1. Increase of Homosexuality.
2. Psalms 83 - Nations will try to make Israel not a nation anymore. Look at what is happening over there now. Why do you think everyone hates Israel?
3. People will become lovers of pleasures more than lovers of GOD - 2 Timothy 3:4
4. 2 Peter 3:3-7 - People (Evolutionists) will deny those three things stated and think the earth will just go one for millions of more years.

And many more that are being fulfilled right before our eyes just like the Bible states but since "evolutionists" are so smart by their assumptions and people believe them the Bible can't be true even when we have a foundation which is founded on no basis whatsoever.

<staff edit>

 

[Rasta]

Yes I know this for "fact" by the Bible but since "evolutionists" are so called "smart" the Bible is not true. I do not speak of assumptions this is inconclusive because you are wrong, the Bible states "facts" not assumptions.

Being confident you are right, doesn't actually make you right.

No, science does not have "facts" to back up their theories.

Oh really?
Facts About Evolution ...............
SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like you are actually going to read any of these . . .

Evolution does cannot give logical explanations reasonable enough to explain why they believe in such claims whenever their worldview has a foundation with no basis except the assumptions of scientists who were not there in the past.

This is completely unfounded.

I can also totally see while talking to you, you do not know anything about creation and the inconsistencies of your worldview.

I know plenty about "creationism". I used to be Christian, I used to believe what you believe. Now I have a broader perspective based on what I have learned. Knowledge is more accurate than belief.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Atheists have the inability to account for our own existence.
Now...we exist, that's obvious and though Atheists appeal to evolution, evolution isn't the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask. "Where did the universe come from?" You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else.

As you well know, there are only two possibilites to account for the universe. An impersonal cause, and a personal cause. This pair exhausts all possibilities, it is either one or the other, there is no third option.

Your option (as an atheist) is the impersonal cause, one of them being that the universe brought itself into existence then of course that would be illogical. Since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes....Actions can't be performed, such as bringing itself into existence.

The other impersonal cause would be for you (the atheist) to say that the Universe always existed. That dosen't work either...because that would mean that the universe is/was infinitly old. Here's the problem...if it is infinitley old....why hasn't it run out of usable energy by now? As the second law of Thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinetly old universe...and infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. This would also mean, that there cannot be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So this explanation can't work.

 

[Isambard]

Yeah I just use the word "fallacy" because I don't know what it means. Ok?? Fallacy is a misconception, or a misleading concept.

fal&#183;la&#183;cy (f

l

-s

)
n. pl. fal&#183;la&#183;cies 1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.

fallacy - definition of fallacy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

First fail

The fallacy you committed is the fallacy of begging the question, Your reasoning does nothing but go into a circle because you do not see any inconsistencies

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises
Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myself and others have given ample evidence to the efficacy of ToE. Ironically, you are the one claiming Creationism is true because the Bible says so. Then claiming the bible is true because it says so.

Second fail

but from the Creationists worldview you can see many inconsistencies that evolutionists cannot see.

Creationism is inconsistent with reality what with it saying insects of four legs, bats are birds, and pi is a round number. This alone is reason to take anything said by creationists as fanciful nonesense.

Okay, If the Bible says it then it must be true. What is the point? Just because you do not believe they exist doesn't make them not exist. I could say there are no sea creatures in the abyss but that does not make them not exist for how would I know?

You said there is no such thing as dragons, unicorns, and magic, then claimed the bible doesn't mention any of these things. This just goes to show that like ToE, you have absolutely no idea whats in your own scripture.

Third Fail

Arbitrary with not having an answer to my questions I have stated. you said you have answered them but you ignorantly answered them therefore this is not counted as an answer because it is not a logical reasonable answer not just to me but to anyone.

As mentioned, your "questions" are little more than ignorant rants than when answered, you either shift the goal-post, or ignore it and continue on to ask the same stupid question.

Fourth fail

Evolutionary Theory

We see evolution as based on the trial-and-error process of variation and natural selection of systems at all levels of complexity. The name of 'natural selection' comes from the Darwinian theory of biological evolution, which distinguishes "natural" selection from "artificial" selection, where specific features are retained or eliminated depending on a goal or intention (e.g. the objective of a cattle breeder who would like to have cows that produce more milk). The "implicit goal" of natural selection is maintenance or reproduction of a configuration at some level of abstraction. The selection is natural in the sense that there is no actor or purposive system making the selection. The selection we are discussing is purely automatic or spontaneous, without plan or design involved.
I do not need to answer you according to your folly, because you still have refused to see my point and I will refuse to answer you because I have already proved my point but your illogical reasoning could not see the way I proved it.

Not entirely right, but better than your previous definitions of ToE as

"In order for Evolution to make any Argument against the origins of the Universe it has to be wrong, because they have to assume the preconditions of intelligibility in order to make an argument that makes sense, and only in the biblical worldview does this these preconditions of intelligibility make sense and at the same time stay rational and internally consistent. "
"Man, Look at how beautiful these pictures [of mountains] are by the amazing facts of evolution by random chance processes. Just amazing, truly is."
Notice how you manage to completely contradict yourself.

Fith Fail

Life = Something GOD created, Anything having blood within itself.

http://crowdsourcinglog.com/wp-content/uploads/new-plants-057.jpg

http://danny.oz.au/travel/iceland/p/3571-fungi.jpg

Google Image Result for http://www.ou.edu/class/pheidole/General%20Bacteria.jpg

None of these have blood, therefore they aren't alive by your definition.

Sixth fail

I will watch the videos later and I will reply and give you the answers you want, but I will not accept the claims that you make or that the video makes.

Clearly not as I'm already aware of your phobic aversion to evidence and facts.

 

[Isambard]

Atheists have the inability to account for our own existence.
Now...we exist, that's obvious and though Atheists appeal to evolution, evolution isn't the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask. "Where did the universe come from?" You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else.

Prove the universe has come into existence. Better yet, show me anything which "began" to exist that hadn't previously.

As you well know, there are only two possibilites to account for the universe. An impersonal cause, and a personal cause. This pair exhausts all possibilities, it is either one or the other, there is no third option.

Third option, the universe has always existence eliminating the need for a cause.

Your option (as an atheist) is the impersonal cause, one of them being that the universe brought itself into existence then of course that would be illogical. Since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes....Actions can't be performed, such as bringing itself into existence.

You mean like God?

The other impersonal cause would be for you (the atheist) to say that the Universe always existed. That dosen't work either...because that would mean that the universe is/was infinitly old. Here's the problem...if it is infinitley old....why hasn't it run out of usable energy by now? As the second law of Thermodynamics would state.

Talk about being selective.

The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created nor destroyed
First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, in order to get to the present in an infinetly old universe...and infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. This would also mean, that there cannot be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So this explanation can't work.

It can if you a second to remember that time only begins to "move forward" with the big bang (or expansion of the current incarnation of the universe.

"Goddidit" is no more an answer than simply saying "magic" to any given question.

 

[Rasta]

Atheists have the inability to account for our own existence.

Honesty is a good trait in my book.

Now...we exist, that's obvious and though Atheists appeal to evolution, evolution isn't the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask. "Where did the universe come from?" You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else.

We face the same problem with god. Who created god? Where did god come from? He must have been caused by something else. At some point you are going to have to say X just existed. We think X is the universe. You add a layer of complexity to your claim.

As you well know, there are only two possibilites to account for the universe. An impersonal cause, and a personal cause. This pair exhausts all possibilities, it is either one or the other, there is no third option.

Agree.

Your option (as an atheist) is the impersonal cause, one of them being that the universe brought itself into existence then of course that would be illogical. Since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes....Actions can't be performed, such as bringing itself into existence.

This is an assumption on your part. I don't believe the universe brought itself into existence. You are anthropomorphizing the universe.

The other impersonal cause would be for you (the atheist) to say that the Universe always existed. That dosen't work either...because that would mean that the universe is/was infinitly old. Here's the problem...if it is infinitley old....why hasn't it run out of usable energy by now? As the second law of Thermodynamics would state.

The second law of thermodynamics states that energy/matter can not be created or destroyed. Do you believe this is true? I do. This does not violate my world view because I don't claim to know everything. Energy doesn't "run out" it only changes form. We need to learn more. Scientists are doing that, every day.

Also, in order to get to the present in an infinetly old universe...and infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. This would also mean, that there cannot be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So this explanation can't work.

This would also apply to god.