Peanut Gallery - An Atheistic world view, reasonable and logical, or not?

[yonah_mishael]

Except that there's no such thing as 'the atheistic worldview'.

I don’t disagree. I didn’t come up with the terminology, but whatever the terminology might happen to be, the topic of a debate must be stated as a declarative sentence.

 

[KWCrazy]

You could say that, which might bring your own mental functioning into question following your admission that you are unable to demonstrate that this "presence" is anything other than a product of your imagination.

Demonstrate to whom; to the unbeliever who demands physical evidence of non physical things and natural processes for supernatural happenings? Such a request is contrary to the nature of the properties of each. If it were possible to offer you 100% proof that God existed, then you would be denied salvation since salvation requires faith. Things which are proven remove the need for faith. For that reason it's good that the Lord remains in secret from those who deny His existence until they are ready to seek Him. Repeatedly, I offer challenges to atheists to spend a year seeking God to see if He may be found, or to spend time with a couple of seasoned pastors just to ask them about the miracles they've seen. Nobody takes me up on these challenges. They prefer to remain in denial of the most important truth of the universe.

Atheism is not a position of truth, it is a lack of belief in gods.

We share the disbelief in any god but one; the Creator of the universe. Atheists seem to attribute the origination of the universe to some unknown natural cause that by some unknown process violated natural law and originated matter and energy from nothingness. Ultimately, if one believes only in natural law, one comes to a conclusion that natural law could not possibly have been the first cause. Atheism can't account for the origination of anything because origination is contrary to the conservation of matter and energy.

If you have something of significance that would contradict a conclusion that gods are only characters in books, you have yet to present it.

To the man with his eyes closed, nothing can convince him that it isn't dark. The things I've experienced and others have experienced mean nothing to you because you have no reason or desire to believe. Evil won't reveal itself to you because you've already convinced yourself it doesn't exist. Goodness isn't revealed to you because you refuse to see it. Even science; that great bastion of information and misinformation about our physical world, cannot answer the simplest question of where we came from and why we are here. Nothing can originate naturally; not life, not energy, not matter, not even subatomic particles.

True, but in the absence of objective evidence for any deities that people have come up with to date, it would seem to be the logical position to take.

You're asking for natural proof of a supernatural entity and tying that conclusion to logic? Sorry. That's like looking for a coin four blocks away from where it fell because the light is better there.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Demonstrate to whom; to the unbeliever who demands physical evidence of non physical things and natural processes for supernatural happenings? Such a request is contrary to the nature of the properties of each. If it were possible to offer you 100% proof that God existed, then you would be denied salvation since salvation requires faith. Things which are proven remove the need for faith.

So what you're saying is that Jesus's apostles (especially Thomas) and all the witnesses to his miracles were doomed to hell because they were given evidence that Jesus was real?

For that reason it's good that the Lord remains in secret from those who deny His existence until they are ready to seek Him. Repeatedly, I offer challenges to atheists to spend a year seeking God to see if He may be found, or to spend time with a couple of seasoned pastors just to ask them about the miracles they've seen. Nobody takes me up on these challenges. They prefer to remain in denial of the most important truth of the universe.

Perhaps because the vast majority of Atheists were once religious, and once believed in the God you are advocating for, until they examined their beliefs and discovered there's no evidence to back them up.

The few times I've spoken with a pastor about religious issues I've wound up leaving them stumped on certain issues. I've never heard one give a convincing argument.

We share the disbelief in any god but one; the Creator of the universe. Atheists seem to attribute the origination of the universe to some unknown natural cause that by some unknown process violated natural law and originated matter and energy from nothingness.

That's not correct. While we don't know exactly what caused the universe to come into existence, I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue it violated natural laws, nor came from nothingness.

The only people I've ever heard propose such a thing are Christians making strawman attacks.

Ultimately, if one believes only in natural law, one comes to a conclusion that natural law could not possibly have been the first cause. Atheism can't account for the origination of anything because origination is contrary to the conservation of matter and energy.

And again, that's only if you're assuming things poofed into existence out of nothing, which again is a strawman.

To the man with his eyes closed, nothing can convince him that it isn't dark. The things I've experienced and others have experienced mean nothing to you because you have no reason or desire to believe.

Your personal experiences are not evidence to justify our beliefs.

And remember, the assertion you're making about the man with closed eyes could also apply to people like yourself.

Evil won't reveal itself to you because you've already convinced yourself it doesn't exist.

It's not a matter of us convincing ourselves anything doesn't exist. It has to do more with a lack of evidence to justify belief that it does exist.

That being said, I think evil does exist, even in the abstract. People have certainly committed evil acts in history, but I don't believe that's due to a supernatural agent.

Goodness isn't revealed to you because you refuse to see it. Even science; that great bastion of information and misinformation about our physical world, cannot answer the simplest question of where we came from and why we are here. Nothing can originate naturally; not life, not energy, not matter, not even subatomic particles.

Well, that you're clearly wrong about... I also see plenty of good in the world.

As for Science, just because we don't know exactly how life originated on our planet doesn't mean belief in a supernatural creator is in any way justified. The honest position to take is to say we don't yet know, it is not honest however to make up a supernatural creator and assert that as the cause by default.

As for your assertions, new life is created every day, likewise, subatomic particles do originate naturally in the form of virtual particles. Usually a particle/antiparticle pair which pop into existence quickly annihilate each other, but not always. Hawking Radiation is an example of how those particles may continue to go on existing.

You're asking for natural proof of a supernatural entity and tying that conclusion to logic? Sorry. That's like looking for a coin four blocks away from where it fell because the light is better there.

So if you have no evidence to back up your beliefs, how can you justify believing them?

 

[Davian]

Demonstrate to whom; to the unbeliever who demands physical evidence of non physical things and natural processes for supernatural happenings? Such a request is contrary to the nature of the properties of each.

Demonstrate it to your neighbour. To the person sitting next to you at church. You cannot, can you? You could be lying for all they know.

If it were possible to offer you 100% proof that God existed, then you would be denied salvation since salvation requires faith.

I am not asking for 100% proof. I simply asked if you have something of significance that would contradict a conclusion that gods are only characters in books. Do you have nothing?

Things which are proven remove the need for faith. For that reason it's good that the Lord remains in secret from those who deny His existence until they are ready to seek Him. Repeatedly, I offer challenges to atheists to spend a year seeking God to see if He may be found, or to spend time with a couple of seasoned pastors just to ask them about the miracles they've seen. Nobody takes me up on these challenges. They prefer to remain in denial of the most important truth of the universe.

Spend a year seeking Santa Claus. Seriously. Get back to me once you believe. Or remain in denial. Your choice.

]We share the disbelief in any god but one; the Creator of the universe. Atheists seem to attribute the origination of the universe to some unknown natural cause that by some unknown process violated natural law and originated matter and energy from nothingness. Ultimately, if one believes only in natural law, one comes to a conclusion that natural law could not possibly have been the first cause. Atheism can't account for the origination of anything because origination is contrary to the conservation of matter and energy.

Atheism does not have to account for the origination of anything. It is not a position on astrophysics. Or abiogenesis. Are you new here?

Tell me, does this deity of yours do anything contrary to the laws of thermodynamics?

To the man with his eyes closed, nothing can convince him that it isn't dark. The things I've experienced and others have experienced mean nothing to you because you have no reason or desire to believe.

You are right - The reason to believe something is where there is evidence to support its existence. You have provided no such evidence, have you?

Evil won't reveal itself to you because you've already convinced yourself it doesn't exist.

Define "evil".

Goodness isn't revealed to you because you refuse to see it.

Define "goodness".

Even science; that great bastion of information and misinformation about our physical world, cannot answer the simplest question of where we came from and why we are here.

Neither can religion. I do see a seemingly endless stream of unsupportable claims from theists, such as yourself.

Nothing can originate naturally; not life, not energy, not matter, not even subatomic particles.

There is one of your unsupportable claims. You still have nothing to back this up?

You're asking for natural proof of a supernatural entity and tying that conclusion to logic? Sorry. That's like looking for a coin four blocks away from where it fell because the light is better there.

This is your admission that you are unable to demonstrate that this supernatural "presence" is anything other than a product of your imagination.

 

[KWCrazy]

So what you're saying is that Jesus's apostles (especially Thomas) and all the witnesses to his miracles were doomed to hell because they were given evidence that Jesus was real?

Wow! You really DON'T understand anything about the Scriptures, do you? I'll give you a hint. The Holy Spirit didn't come until after Jesus ascended into Heaven. There's a thing called the New Covenant. Look it up.

Perhaps because the vast majority of Atheists were once religious, and once believed in the God you are advocating for, until they examined their beliefs and discovered there's no evidence to back them up.

However, they were never saved. Satan believes in God, so believing doesn't make you a Christian. You must be born again. If you are, then you receive the Holy Spirit. If you receive the Holy Spirit you can't later deny the existence of the Holy Spirit unless you're lying to yourself either about being saved or about being an atheist. The atheists I converse say they have never seen any evidence of God. If that is the case, they were never Christians. It's like saying you were a once a ski instructor but you've never seen a pair of skis in your life.

The few times I've spoken with a pastor about religious issues I've wound up leaving them stumped on certain issues. I've never heard one give a convincing argument.

You've managed to find some very poor pastors then. I've never seen one lose a debate to an unknowing, unbelieving atheist.

That's not correct. While we don't know exactly what caused the universe to come into existence, I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue it violated natural laws, nor came from nothingness.

Come back when you have a better understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. To simplify:
1; Sumpin don't come from nuthin'
2; Don't nothing last forever. Ever'thing's tearing up.
3; When it's colder'n anything, nuthin' happens.

The universe couldn't come into existence from nothingness, so it had to be eternal.
The universe can't be eternal so it had to have a beginning.
Before the universe existed there was no energy and no heat, which means absolute zero. At absolute zero activity ceases.

Most atheist lie about these laws and pretend that they are not, in fact, laws at all. This is because they don't want to admit the fact that origination is a natural impossibility. All "scientific" theories of origination share the same commonality; they are disproved by the very laws naturalists claim are absolute.

And again, that's only if you're assuming things poofed into existence out of nothing, which again is a strawman.

Bunk!
If you think that matter/energy is eternal the second LoT proves you're wrong.
If the universe is not eternal, either it had a beginning or it doesn't exist. Since we're here, it had a beginning. The problem is that all that matter had to come from somewhere, and there wasn't any somewhere. It didn't just pop into existence (quantum theory), it wasn't excreted from the black hole of some parallel universe (black hole theory) and it didn't appear because of cosmic fluctuations in nothingness (dark matter theory). There are NO viable theories of origination and none of you guys seem to have the integrity to admit it.

That being said, I think evil does exist, even in the abstract.

[COLOR="DarkRed]"]How could it? If there is no God then there is no good or evil, only what is beneficial or maladaptive. If you have food and I'm hungry, natural selection would indicate that I should take it from you. There can be no right or wrong in the action. You can't have it both ways. If there is no ultimate accountability for our actions, then there is no good or evil; only what is.[/COLOR]

Well, that you're clearly wrong about... I also see plenty of good in the world.

If there is no God, there is no good and no evil. You're seeing things that do not exist. The most benevolent man and the most vile mass murderer share the same earth in the end, so what difference is there between them? How can you call someone evil when he is just demonstrating greater fitness to survive? You seem to want it both ways. Is this a world ruled by natural law and animal instincts or not?

As for Science, just because we don't know exactly how life originated on our planet doesn't mean belief in a supernatural creator is in any way justified.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but science doesn't have the answers. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the supernatural. Science is the study of the natural world. It cannot possible ascertain the correct answer if that answer points to the divine intervention of a supernatural entity.

The honest position to take is to say we don't yet know,

YOU don't know. We know because the Creator of the universe told us exactly how He created the universe in six days.

it is not honest however to make up a supernatural creator

God created man in His image. We did not get the opportunity to return the favor.

As for your assertions, new life is created every day,

Not on this planet.
Life comes only from life. It has never been created from non living material; not once; not ever. Selective breeding does not create life, it continues life. Subatomic particles don't pop in and out of existence, they bond and unbond with other subatomic particles because they're too small for gravity to have any real impact on them. Sometimes we see them, sometimes we don't.

So if you have no evidence to back up your beliefs, how can you justify believing them?

It's not my fault if you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. I have plenty of evidence of the existence of God. For me to show you conclusive proof I'd have to introduce you to God. I'm not into homicide. You'll either find God before you die or wish you'd found Him afterward. Only you can decide which you will choose.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

However, they were never saved. Satan believes in God, so believing doesn't make you a Christian. You must be born again. If you are, then you receive the Holy Spirit. If you receive the Holy Spirit you can't later deny the existence of the Holy Spirit unless you're lying to yourself either about being saved or about being an atheist. The atheists I converse say they have never seen any evidence of God. If that is the case, they were never Christians. It's like saying you were a once a ski instructor but you've never seen a pair of skis in your life.

This point has been addressed so many times already. It's a PRATT.

Bunk!
If you think that matter/energy is eternal the second LoT proves you're wrong.
If the universe is not eternal, either it had a beginning or it doesn't exist. Since we're here, it had a beginning. The problem is that all that matter had to come from somewhere, and there wasn't any somewhere. It didn't just pop into existence (quantum theory), it wasn't excreted from the black hole of some parallel universe (black hole theory) and it didn't appear because of cosmic fluctuations in nothingness (dark matter theory). There are NO viable theories of origination and none of you guys seem to have the integrity to admit it.

I really think you should consider taking the log out of your own eye before accusing us of not having the integrity to admit that we don't know, especially since you claim to know, but are either unable or unwilling to demonstrate this remarkable knowledge you supposedly possess.

You've managed to find some very poor pastors then. I've never seen one lose a debate to an unknowing, unbelieving atheist.

You've clearly never been on YouTube then.

If there is no God, there is no good and no evil.

Why?

The most benevolent man and the most vile mass murderer share the same earth in the end, so what difference is there between them? How can you call someone evil when he is just demonstrating greater fitness to survive? You seem to want it both ways. Is this a world ruled by natural law and animal instincts or not?

You are confusing descriptive for perspective.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but science doesn't have the answers. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the supernatural. Science is the study of the natural world. It cannot possible ascertain the correct answer if that answer points to the divine intervention of a supernatural entity.

Do you have a workable epistemology for supernatural happenings?

YOU don't know. We know because the Creator of the universe told us exactly how He created the universe in six days.

If you know it you should be able to show it. Thus far, you (and I speak generally of all religious apologists here) have not been able to do so. Rather than admit that you don't know you seek to mask your ignorance with whatever flavour of "God did it" takes your fancy.

It's not my fault if you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. I have plenty of evidence of the existence of God. For me to show you conclusive proof I'd have to introduce you to God. I'm not into homicide. You'll either find God before you die or wish you'd found Him afterward. Only you can decide which you will choose.

Threats is all you have in the end. You can't persuade people to worship and honour your deity by demonstrating the knowledge you claim to possess so you resort to petty threats. The same kind of threats that other religious believers direct toward you: "You'll either find Allah before you die or wish you'd found him afterward." Do you see how insecure in your knowledge you sound when you resort to these tactics? Do you see how feeble it makes your religion appear that you have to threaten people to believe "or else"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Whether anyone's world view is reasonable or logical usually depends on whether you share that world view. From the stand point of Christianity; knowing that God not only exists but that his presence is evidenced everywhere in the world around us, I could say the atheism is such a denial of the obvious that it could constitute a failure of clear mental functioning. From the standpoint of a naturalists who believes only what can be seen or proven in the physical world, atheism not only makes sense but is the logical conclusion. The bigger question is whether atheism is right, or if it requires a constant denial of anything that contra-indicates its conclusions. In my personal experience, having seen and experienced things that naturalists and atheists refuse to believe exists, I see it as an intentional blinder that shields one from the horrible reality that all actions have a consequence and that one day we will face the consequence of our actions.

Stop right there. Face the consequences of our actions? Really? In Christianity? One need only believe and the eternal consequences of sin are removed. A rapist and murderer who repents on his deathbed will not face the consequences of his crimes in heaven. He will be forgiven, "made pure", or whatever metaphor you wish to invoke. What consequences will he face in the hereafter for rape and murder? None. He has been "forgiven", not by the people he should have sought forgiveness from - his victims - but by God. I wonder where you get this idea that the Christian religion is about facing consequences. It seems more like it's about avoiding the consequences.

 

[quatona]

Stop right there. Face the consequences of our actions? Really? In Christianity? One need only believe and the eternal consequences of sin are removed. A rapist and murderer who repents on his deathbed will not face the consequences of his crimes in heaven. He will be forgiven, "made pure", or whatever metaphor you wish to invoke. What consequences will he face in the hereafter for rape and murder? None. He has been "forgiven", not by the people he should have sought forgiveness from - his victims - but by God. I wonder where you get this idea that the Christian religion is about facing consequences. It seems more like it's about avoiding the consequences.

IOW: Without God we wouldn´t have a problem that only God can help us to escape.

 

[Hetta]

If it were possible to offer you 100% proof that God existed, then you would be denied salvation since salvation requires faith. Things which are proven remove the need for faith.

What? Where is that scripture?

 

[Gadarene]

I love this notion that you can't be saved unless you have faith.

If a fireman required that you inappropriately fondle his ego before he saved you, he'd be fired.

A deity does the same thing, and we're supposed to play along? If someone comes along saying they'll save me and can do so - then why not just do it? Instead, we have this exploitative rigmarole rich with the stink of emotional blackmail.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I love this notion that you can't be saved unless you have faith.

If a fireman required that you inappropriately fondle his ego before he saved you, he'd be fired.

A deity does the same thing, and we're supposed to play along? If someone comes along saying they'll save me and can do so - then why not just do it? Instead, we have this exploitative rigmarole rich with the stink of emotional blackmail.

It's quite obscene, isn't it? And it's all sold to the faithful as "love."

 

[Dave Ellis]

Wow! You really DON'T understand anything about the Scriptures, do you? I'll give you a hint. The Holy Spirit didn't come until after Jesus ascended into Heaven. There's a thing called the New Covenant. Look it up.

And how is that applicable to faith being a requirement for salvation? Jesus apostles and eyewitnesses are under the same new covenant that we are.

If faith is a requirement for salvation, those people did not have faith, they had evidence. Therefore based off of your previous posts, they could not have salvation.

That being said, your assertion that faith is a requirement for salvation isn't true based on the scriptures. The closest you can get to that is in the Thomas story where Jesus says (paraphrased) those who have believed without seeing are more blessed than those who require evidence.

However, they were never saved. Satan believes in God, so believing doesn't make you a Christian. You must be born again. If you are, then you receive the Holy Spirit. If you receive the Holy Spirit you can't later deny the existence of the Holy Spirit unless you're lying to yourself either about being saved or about being an atheist. The atheists I converse say they have never seen any evidence of God. If that is the case, they were never Christians. It's like saying you were a once a ski instructor but you've never seen a pair of skis in your life.

No True Scotsman Fallacy. There are plenty of former Christians who truly believed, and even spent time in the ministry who later rejected their beliefs after looking into them.

Just because you're asserting they were never christian doesn't make it so because you are ignoring the fact that you might be wrong. If you are wrong, and the holy spirit doesn't exist then nobody is really a Christian as you define it, including yourself. However if you go with the more standard definition of Christian, then at one point many Atheists were just as Christian as you were.

Lastly, the problem with your ski instructor analogy is that you can prove skis exist, and you can demonstrably test one's ability to instruct skiing. You can not however prove that the holy spirit exists, or if anyone has received it. There's no evidence to show it's anything more than make believe.

You've managed to find some very poor pastors then. I've never seen one lose a debate to an unknowing, unbelieving atheist.

A good place to start is ask how you can attribute something like Samuel 15:3 to a perfectly good and supremely moral god.

And hey, just because we don't believe doesn't mean we don't know. There's been a number of studies done recently that show the most biblically literate demographic are the Atheists.

Lastly, if you want to see a pastor lose a debate to an Atheist, check out the internet. There are examples all over it.

Come back when you have a better understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. To simplify:
1; Sumpin don't come from nuthin'
2; Don't nothing last forever. Ever'thing's tearing up.
3; When it's colder'n anything, nuthin' happens.

Those are not the laws of Thermodynamics. I recommend you go back to Science Class.

The universe couldn't come into existence from nothingness, so it had to be eternal.

Who says the universe came into existence from nothingness apart from Christians? Science sure doesn't.

The universe can't be eternal so it had to have a beginning.

We do know the universe had a beginning due to the evidence around us.

Before the universe existed there was no energy and no heat, which means absolute zero. At absolute zero activity ceases.

Do you have any evidence to back your assertion? That's not scientifically supported at all.

Most atheist lie about these laws and pretend that they are not, in fact, laws at all. This is because they don't want to admit the fact that origination is a natural impossibility. All "scientific" theories of origination share the same commonality; they are disproved by the very laws naturalists claim are absolute.

That would follow if your previous examples were correct. However, since your previous examples are laughably wrong, then your conclusion is equally vacuous.

Bunk!
If you think that matter/energy is eternal the second LoT proves you're wrong.

How does the Second Law of Thermodynamics even apply to that?

The Second Law states the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. That's not even remotely relevant to your assertion.

I suggest if you want to debate science, you actually learn what you're talking about first.

If the universe is not eternal, either it had a beginning or it doesn't exist. Since we're here, it had a beginning. The problem is that all that matter had to come from somewhere, and there wasn't any somewhere.

You are correct that the universe had a beginning. However you have to provide evidence for your second claim that there wasn't any somewhere.

It didn't just pop into existence (quantum theory), it wasn't excreted from the black hole of some parallel universe (black hole theory) and it didn't appear because of cosmic fluctuations in nothingness (dark matter theory). There are NO viable theories of origination and none of you guys seem to have the integrity to admit it.

If you can demonstrate that rather than just assert it, then we'll be happy to accept your demonstration. However you have no evidence to back your claims at all.

We won't accept an argument as true simply because you say so. You must demonstrate it.

How could it? If there is no God then there is no good or evil, only what is beneficial or maladaptive. If you have food and I'm hungry, natural selection would indicate that I should take it from you. There can be no right or wrong in the action. You can't have it both ways. If there is no ultimate accountability for our actions, then there is no good or evil; only what is.

How is the existence of God required for the existence of good or evil? We all generally have the same definition of what good means, and what evil means, and those would not change if a god existed, or if he did not. Ultimate accountability is irrelevant to if your act being good or not. In fact, I'd say the lack of ultimate accountability makes a good act even better.

Lastly about Natural Selection, you're oversimplifying it. We are a social species, if there is one person who is being overly greedy and taking everyone elses food, it's only a matter of time until the group expels him and forces him to fend for himself.

What natural selection actually favours is treating your fellow beings with respect, that way you'll make friends who will be there to back you up, help hunt for food or mate with you.

If there is no God, there is no good and no evil. You're seeing things that do not exist. The most benevolent man and the most vile mass murderer share the same earth in the end, so what difference is there between them? How can you call someone evil when he is just demonstrating greater fitness to survive? You seem to want it both ways. Is this a world ruled by natural law and animal instincts or not?

Again, the existence of god is irrelevant to the existence of good or evil. It would exist with, or without him.

And evil people do not necessarily demonstrate greater fitness to survive, or more importantly, reproduce.

The funny thing is, what you're criticizing here is exactly in line with Christian Theology. The most benevolent man and the most vile mass murderer are both sinners in god's eyes and worthy of hell. All that matters is if they believe in Jesus and accept him as their saviour, how good or evil they are is completely irrelevant.

In a naturalistic world, good and evil matter. In a Christian world, ultimately they do not.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but science doesn't have the answers. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the supernatural. Science is the study of the natural world. It cannot possible ascertain the correct answer if that answer points to the divine intervention of a supernatural entity.

I don't see how that would burst my bubble.... If science had all the answers, then there'd be no need for scientific research. It's the unknowns about the universe which give scientists something to investigate.

And you are right that science can not study the supernatural, I think any scientist could agree upon that. However, that is not evidence that the supernatural is a real thing or that we should even consider it as a plausible explanation.

YOU don't know. We know because the Creator of the universe told us exactly how He created the universe in six days.

No he didn't. Ancient people came up with a myth and wrote it down. God didn't write your holy book, men did.

God created man in His image. We did not get the opportunity to return the favor.

Actually, I'd argue that man made god in our image. That's why God happens to agree with every single person who wants to tell me about God. Even when there are contradictory or conflicting accounts from theists about who or what god is.

Not on this planet.
Life comes only from life. It has never been created from non living material; not once; not ever.

Can you prove that?

And remember, just because we've never directly observed it happening doesn't mean it's not possible. Asserting that would be an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Selective breeding does not create life, it continues life.

Depending how you want to define life.

Subatomic particles don't pop in and out of existence, they bond and unbond with other subatomic particles because they're too small for gravity to have any real impact on them. Sometimes we see them, sometimes we don't.

In that case you are demonstrably wrong. We do know virtual particles exist, and we can measure their effects.

It's not my fault if you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. I have plenty of evidence of the existence of God.

By that you mean I won't accept your definition of evidence, since it doesn't line up with what is commonly accepted as the definition of evidence.

I'm asking you to provide real evidence, something demonstrable that would prove that your god exists.

The funny thing is, throughout this post, even if I granted you the vast majority of your points, you still couldn't use those as evidence for a god.

For example, if our scientific understanding of the universe is horrendously flawed as you claim it is, you still have no justification to plug god in as the answer. That is also an argument from ignorance.

The best you could do is assert the scientific data is wrong. For you to claim divine intervention, you'd then have to demonstrate how you know that is true. You haven't even attempted to do that apart from the one vacuous claim about what the bible says about creation.

For me to show you conclusive proof I'd have to introduce you to God. I'm not into homicide. You'll either find God before you die or wish you'd found Him afterward. Only you can decide which you will choose.

And that's an admission that you have no proof, or justification for your claims. If you need to die to know for sure if God exists, then since you aren't dead, you don't have access to that information either. You are asserting your claims without evidence.

Nice allusion to Pascal's Wager there at the end though. Won't you hate to find out you should have been worshipping Allah all this time, and you're doomed to an eternal hell for rejecting the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad? You'd better convert now!

 

[Dave Ellis]

It's quite obscene, isn't it? And it's all sold to the faithful as "love."

Well, when you look at it objectively, it's really a brilliant piece of scripture.

Basically it gives the church the right to not back up claims that it knows it can't back up. It also stops the flock from questioning the crazy stuff that they know can't possibly be true.

That's why faith is a big part of any religion. In fact it's a requirement to believe most of the stuff religion preaches, because objectivity and rational thought would expose it as a sham easily.

 

[Deidre32]

So, this thread isn't the debate thread, it's somewhere else? Sorry, me confused.

 

[Gadarene]

So, this thread isn't the debate thread, it's somewhere else? Sorry, me confused.

The debate thread is in the main formal debate forum, though arguably any peanut gallery thread of one of TCMD's debates is going to be better than the debate itself.

 

[Hetta]

So, this thread isn't the debate thread, it's somewhere else? Sorry, me confused.

It is linked in the OP, Deidre.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So, this thread isn't the debate thread, it's somewhere else? Sorry, me confused.

Well, yes and no... this thread is to discuss the formal debate (go to post # 1 for the link), but it is also a place to discuss and debate issues and topics related to but spun off of the formal debate.

Enjoy the discussion, and happy posting.

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[KWCrazy]

And how is that applicable to faith being a requirement for salvation?

The apostles co-existed with Jesus. They were the original members of the church. You weren't there at the time. You must have faith. No faith, no salvation.

That being said, your assertion that faith is a requirement for salvation isn't true based on the scriptures.

Please provide Scriptural evidence for your assertion. Try Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

There are plenty of former Christians who truly believed, and even spent time in the ministry who later rejected their beliefs after looking into them.

Losing one's faith isn't the same as saying that God doesn't exist after experiencing the Holy Spirit. Many call themselves Christians, but if they haven't received the Holy Spirit they were never saved. If they say they knew God but now deny Him they are lying; either in the knowing or in the denying.

If you are wrong, and the holy spirit doesn't exist then nobody is really a Christian as you define it, including yourself.

How could the Holy Spirit not exist if one has already received the Holy Spirit?

However if you go with the more standard definition of Christian,

What matters is how CHRIST defines Christian, not man. Unless you are born again you will never see the kingdom of Heaven.

Lastly, the problem with your ski instructor analogy is that you can prove skis exist,

You didn't get the analogy. I said "It's like saying you were a once a ski instructor but you've never seen a pair of skis in your life." It doesn't matter how many people have been skiing before, if you haven't you're lying.

A good place to start is ask how you can attribute something like Samuel 15:3 to a perfectly good and supremely moral god.

When you speak of God, you capitalize it; not only as a reference to the deity, but also because it's used as a proper noun.

1 Samuel 15
1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.

Now that you see things in context, you know why things happened the way that they did. If you read further, you will find that Saul disobeyed God, and that there were consequences to the sin as well.

And hey, just because we don't believe doesn't mean we don't know.

You demonstrate that you neither know nor understand.

There's been a number of studies done recently that show the most biblically literate demographic are the Atheists.

I bet none of them were carried out by the Southern Baptist Convention. The results you get depend on the questions you ask. Many atheists are quite familiar with specific verses taken entirely out of context with the sole intent of putting the Scriptures in a bad light.

Those are not the laws of Thermodynamics.

Yes, they are. I changed the wording because every self-indignant atheist has at least a few different wordings in his quiver at all times. I've even lifted definitions from an "internet scientist's" own posts and true to form he said I was wrong. Then he posted different phraseology that said exactly the same thing.

Who says the universe came into existence from nothingness apart from Christians? Science sure doesn't.

Sorry, but it does. If the universe is constantly degrading it can't be eternal. If it isn't eternal it had a beginning and will have an end. If it had a beginning, then before that beginning it didn't exist. Internet scientists all have their own definitions for the LoT and most of them refuse to admit that there is any such thing as laws, but they don't believe in anything else so why would they believe in science?

We do know the universe had a beginning due to the evidence around us.

Right, and before that beginning nothing existed. I know you've been listening to lies about origination, but try to follow here.
If something comes into being, then before that time it didn't exist.
If the universe didn't exist, then there were no stars. Stars produce heat. In the absence of all heat we have absolute zero.
Therefore, the condition of the universe before the existence of anything was absolute darkness in absolute zero temperature.

From that state, nothing could come about; nothing could happen; nothing could originate. Energy didn't exist before it existed, so in the absence of energy we have neither energy nor matter.

This is consistent with natural law, which precludes a natural origination. Origination is not possible. There is no provision for it in natural law. You may theorize that in a sea of nothing some nothingness somehow became matter and dark matter; gaining mass and gravity from nothingness as positive energy separates from negative energy. You may further theorize that the positive energy increased in mass and density until it became the mass from which the universe would eventually be created. You may even pretend that there are other universes out there, but such wild suppositions are not supported by the laws of physics no matter how much second hand pipe smoke a professor blows.

How does the Second Law of Thermodynamics even apply to that?

Previously explained. Increasing entropy means the universe is winding down, which means that the matter within cannot be eternal.

The Second Law states the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.

WRONG!!!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."
source

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.
source

It doesn't hold only that entropy never decreases, it asserts that it can never reverse itself; never go from disorder to order.

"One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems."
source

We only have one universe. It's the sum total of everything, which means there cannot be any outside influence lobbing energy balls our way.

You are correct that the universe had a beginning.

Geat! Now show how ANY theory of origination can demonstrate and origination of matter and energy without violating the first LoT.

If you can demonstrate that rather than just assert it, then we'll be happy to accept your demonstration.

I provided the laws of physics as well as the only viable explanation for origination; a supernatural Creator outside of the laws of physics. There is not a single "scientific" theory of origination that doesn't violate one or more of these immutable laws.

How is the existence of God required for the existence of good or evil?

God DEFINES good and evil. If we are no more than evolved animals, then it is no more wrong for the strong to take from the weak then for the fittest of the animal kingdom to survive.

We all generally have the same definition of what good means, and what evil means,

Yes, we all have the knowledge of good and evil. I wonder what fruit that came from?

 

[KWCrazy]

Again, the existence of god is irrelevant to the existence of good or evil. It would exist with, or without him.

How would it? How would one know good from evil without a conscience? Why would one impose rules onto himself that deprive him of luxuries or pleasures he has not earned if there is not greater order influencing his behavior? Is a snake evil because it kills a mouse? Was Dahmer evil because he killed and ate his victims? What is the difference, other than the assigned value of human life?

The funny thing is, what you're criticizing here is exactly in line with Christian Theology. The most benevolent man and the most vile mass murderer are both sinners in god's eyes and worthy of hell. All that matters is if they believe in Jesus and accept him as their saviour, how good or evil they are is completely irrelevant.

You missed the boat and fell into the swirling prop wash.
How evil they were makes no difference if they are born again. The evil nature is cast away. If they retain their evil nature they were never born again. Saul of Tarsas persecuted Christians. Paul of Tarsas wrote much of the New Testament.

And you are right that science can not study the supernatural, I think any scientist could agree upon that. However, that is not evidence that the supernatural is a real thing or that we should even consider it as a plausible explanation.

Nor is that evidence that the supernatural is Not real; nor can it validate or invalidate the supernatural. Science cannot account for man's spirit; only an electromagnetic field generated by the central nervous system. Science cannot validate or invalidate angels or demons. It cannot address communication of the Holy Spirit. It can't explain why the disciples of Jesus would rather be tortured and killed than to recant a story that was not considered possible either then or now.

No he didn't. Ancient people came up with a myth and wrote it down. God didn't write your holy book, men did.

Your statement is not true. The notion that 40 authors over 1500 years conspired to write a book filled with fulfilled prophesy and knowledge unknown for many years is preposterous. The Bible states that each star is unique; something man didn't know until the invention of the telescope. It also says:
The earth floats in space on nothingness (Job 26:7)
Air has weight (Job 28:25).
The blood carries life; written 3,500 years before William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life (Lev 17:11).
The earth has a hydrology cycle (Psalms 135:7).

There is much more, of course, which you can learn here.

Can you prove that?

Louis Pasteur already did.

And remember, just because we've never directly observed it happening doesn't mean it's not possible.

Abiogenesis is not possible. Man has never even come close. Even if we could produce a single protein in an oxygen devoid environment, chilarity shows that the random assembly of the 200 left handed proteins needed to make up the simplest living thing is science fiction, not science.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Freodin has just posted: #4