Total Posts:254|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism illogical

KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:54:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Isaac, what is that model you have over there?" He pointed to a model of the entire constellation showing stars, the moon, and the earth moving around it as one turned a wheel. "How ingenious," said his friend. "Who made it?" "No one," replied Newton, His friend smiled and nodded his head. "Someone must have made it, who?" Newton said, "You don't believe God made this great big world, yet this puny little model you insist must be made by someone."

Another one of his friends once said to Sir Isaac Newton, "If you could show me God, I would believe." Newton replied, "You do not see the wind but you know it is there as you feel its presence. You cannot see electricity but you cannot deny it is very much there. You cannot see God, but walk into a garden, look up into the sky, and if you are truthful, you must confess to be conscious of His presence. You see the wonders of His words all around you. Yet you want more and more proof."

Atheism is illogical, nuf said.

Spontaneous unguided order?

Universe creates its self?

living things out of nonliving things?
I win ;D
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:04:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:54:43 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
"Isaac, what is that model you have over there?" He pointed to a model of the entire constellation showing stars, the moon, and the earth moving around it as one turned a wheel. "How ingenious," said his friend. "Who made it?" "No one," replied Newton, His friend smiled and nodded his head. "Someone must have made it, who?" Newton said, "You don't believe God made this great big world, yet this puny little model you insist must be made by someone."

A known man made object is man made thus a non man made object is made by......Man..err no.....aliens........GOD !!!

Do explain this logic sport.


Another one of his friends once said to Sir Isaac Newton, "If you could show me God, I would believe." Newton replied, "You do not see the wind but you know it is there as you feel its presence. You cannot see electricity but you cannot deny it is very much there. You cannot see God, but walk into a garden, look up into the sky, and if you are truthful, you must confess to be conscious of His presence. You see the wonders of His words all around you. Yet you want more and more proof."

If you are truthful, you must admit mankind has used the supernatual agency to make sense of things when it doesn't know better. Ignorance + wanting an answer = God did it.


Atheism is illogical, nuf said.

Spontaneous unguided order?

Universe creates its self?


living things out of nonliving things?

Is God a living thing ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:50:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you are truthful, you must admit mankind has used the supernatural agency to make sense of things when it doesn't know better. Ignorance + wanting an answer = God did it."

Keep in mind your not calling me the ignorant one your calling Isaac Newton ignorant.

Is God a living thing?

God is the Alpha and the Omega, yes he is the living God, an Intelligent being that created all life and the universe.

You have not refuted any of the points, you say when people don't have an answer for something we assume it's God, I would prefer not to word it that way. I would prefer to say that when there is only ONE logical answer, it is easy to select the logical answer. You will never be able to logically argue creation of all things without God.
I win ;D
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 2:03:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:50:20 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
If you are truthful, you must admit mankind has used the supernatural agency to make sense of things when it doesn't know better. Ignorance + wanting an answer = God did it."

Keep in mind your not calling me the ignorant one your calling Isaac Newton ignorant.

Is God a living thing?

God is the Alpha and the Omega, yes he is the living God, an Intelligent being that created all life and the universe.

You raised the question about "living things out of nonliving things?:

Define "living" in that sentence.


You have not refuted any of the points,

Then read it again, man made object does not equal therefore non man made object is made by God.

you say when people don't have an answer for something we assume it's God, I would prefer not to word it that way. I would prefer to say that when there is only ONE logical answer, it is easy to select the logical answer. You will never be able to logically argue creation of all things without God.

Again, using God as an answer to anything cause you don't know any better doesn't make God the one logical answer, it just makes God the gap filler.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 2:28:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

Then read it again, man made object does not equal therefore non man made object is made by God.

The idea behind this story in case I have to clarify it some more, Is that if atheist's can't even accept the idea, of something so incredibly simple of being put together by mere luck, how is it then easy to accept something as complicated as our universe, or our earth, or even the extremely complicated single celled organism as "good luck" .


Again, using God as an answer to anything cause you don't know any better doesn't make God the one logical answer, it just makes God the gap filler.

It's not the only logical answer? provide one logical answer other than God, to explain the beginnings of all things. Obviously if you can't provide one that limits the possibilities drastically.
I win ;D
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 2:40:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 2:28:14 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:

Then read it again, man made object does not equal therefore non man made object is made by God.

The idea behind this story in case I have to clarify it some more, Is that if atheist's can't even accept the idea, of something so incredibly simple of being put together by mere luck, how is it then easy to accept something as complicated as our universe, or our earth, or even the extremely complicated single celled organism as "good luck" .

This is mis-leading, the something so you are talking about is a man made object, therefore we know its intelligent design, ya know cause we actually make them.

Your trying to use the characteristic of complexity/simplicity in a man made object to establish that therefore a non man made object with greater complexity must also be intelligent design.

consider the following argument......

1) A light bulb needs electricity to produce light
2) The sun produces alot more light than a light bulb
C) Therefore the sun needs electricity to produce light

1) An intellignelty designed watch is complex
2) A human is more complex than a watch
C) Therefore humans are intelligently designed



Again, using God as an answer to anything cause you don't know any better doesn't make God the one logical answer, it just makes God the gap filler.

It's not the only logical answer? provide one logical answer other than God, to explain the beginnings of all things. Obviously if you can't provide one that limits the possibilities drastically.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 3:33:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

This is mis-leading, the something so you are talking about is a man made object, therefore we know its intelligent design, ya know cause we actually make them.

Your trying to use the characteristic of complexity/simplicity in a man made object to establish that therefore a non man made object with greater complexity must also be intelligent design.

The only thing that I am saying is that if I am not going to accept the idea that a simple lead pencil can be put together naturally I will definitely not accept the idea, that this space craft that we reside in traveling at a rate of 67,000 mph, yet we cant feel it's movement and keeps us on the ground due to it's gravitational pull can be put together by an "accident".

A "accident" would more likely assemble a car before it would assemble such a complex craft hovering through space.

consider the following argument......

1) A light bulb needs electricity to produce light
2) The sun produces alot more light than a light bulb
C) Therefore the sun needs electricity to produce light

A light bulb needed to be designed accordingly to be able to produce light.

1) An intellignelty designed watch is complex
2) A human is more complex than a watch
C) Therefore humans are intelligently designed

You make this idea sound crazy. Why is it so hard to accept the possibility of intelligent design by a creator?
I win ;D
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 5:30:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
We humans conceptulise everything with boundaries, whether they be in terms of time or space. It is our instinct to do so.

However, time and space have no boundaries, they are both infinite and have always existed: the "Big Bang" is now thought to be just one of an infinite series of the expansion and contraction of space).

Furthermore, since we can only observe our own universe, we may suppose there is an infinite number of other universes in existence, the radiation (light, x-rays, etc.) from which have not had time to reach us.

These ideas and theories are more difficult to swallow than a story about some deity creating the universe but that doesn"t mean astrophysics is illogical, just the opposite in fact.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 7:00:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:54:43 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
"Isaac, what is that model you have over there?" He pointed to a model of the entire constellation showing stars, the moon, and the earth moving around it as one turned a wheel. "How ingenious," said his friend. "Who made it?" "No one," replied Newton, His friend smiled and nodded his head. "Someone must have made it, who?" Newton said, "You don't believe God made this great big world, yet this puny little model you insist must be made by someone."

Another one of his friends once said to Sir Isaac Newton, "If you could show me God, I would believe." Newton replied, "You do not see the wind but you know it is there as you feel its presence. You cannot see electricity but you cannot deny it is very much there. You cannot see God, but walk into a garden, look up into the sky, and if you are truthful, you must confess to be conscious of His presence. You see the wonders of His words all around you. Yet you want more and more proof."

Atheism is illogical, nuf said.

Spontaneous unguided order?

Universe creates its self?

living things out of nonliving things?

Atheism:

1.) Stuff
2.) Cause of Stuff.
3.) Stuff
4.) Cause of stuff
5.) Root cause with no cause

Theism

1.) Stuff
2.) Cause of Stuff.
3.) Stuff
4.) Cause of Stuff
5.) God
6.) Root cause with no more causes.

Both Atheists, and Theists have to contend with "a cause without a cause". However, Atheists do so by understanding that they have no clue what it is, rather than making the argument:

All causes have a cause. This cannot go on infinitely. Ergo God.

Which can logically be re-written

All causes have a cause. This cannot go on infinitely. Ergo Chuck Norris.

Or

All causes have a cause. This cannot go on infinitely. Great Green Arkleseizure.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 7:03:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:54:43 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
"Isaac, what is that model you have over there?" He pointed to a model of the entire constellation showing stars, the moon, and the earth moving around it as one turned a wheel. "How ingenious," said his friend. "Who made it?" "No one," replied Newton, His friend smiled and nodded his head. "Someone must have made it, who?" Newton said, "You don't believe God made this great big world, yet this puny little model you insist must be made by someone."

Argh, my problem with this is that even if I accept that the Universe was created, nothing suggests that the creator has any of the unique properties described by Theists. Hell, the creator doesn't even need to be all powerful. A man and a woman can create a baby, but they don't necessarily have any control over it.

Another one of his friends once said to Sir Isaac Newton, "If you could show me God, I would believe." Newton replied, "You do not see the wind but you know it is there as you feel its presence. You cannot see electricity but you cannot deny it is very much there. You cannot see God, but walk into a garden, look up into the sky, and if you are truthful, you must confess to be conscious of His presence. You see the wonders of His words all around you. Yet you want more and more proof."

We can scientifically examine both wind and electricity and make predictions about them. I have all the proof of the existence of wind when I look at a kite or a wind mill. I have proof of the existence of electricity when I use this very computer. What proof is there for God? Oh right, the same old 'the world is beautiful, therefore God.'

Atheism is illogical, nuf said.

No. Not 'nuf' said.

Spontaneous unguided order?

Why not?

Universe creates its self?

Could be.

living things out of nonliving things?

Entirely possible.

As an Atheist, I don't claim to have certainty in even the most established of scientific theories. Gravity, evolution, conservation of energy? They may very well be wrong. I may very well be wrong about God. However, since Science demonstrably works and despite my sincerest efforts, God doesn't I will live my life under the assumption that religion is wrong.

kthxbai.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 7:07:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 7:03:07 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:54:43 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
"Isaac, what is that model you have over there?" He pointed to a model of the entire constellation showing stars, the moon, and the earth moving around it as one turned a wheel. "How ingenious," said his friend. "Who made it?" "No one," replied Newton, His friend smiled and nodded his head. "Someone must have made it, who?" Newton said, "You don't believe God made this great big world, yet this puny little model you insist must be made by someone."

Argh, my problem with this is that even if I accept that the Universe was created, nothing suggests that the creator has any of the unique properties described by Theists. Hell, the creator doesn't even need to be all powerful. A man and a woman can create a baby, but they don't necessarily have any control over it.

So, your telling me, that if I gave you complete verifiable evidence that someone created the entire goddang universe, and all that we know, and a lot that we don't........you wouldn't think that perhaps he may have some of those unique properties we theists pertain to our deities?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:16:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 7:00:04 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Atheism:

1.) Stuff
2.) Cause of Stuff.
3.) Stuff
4.) Cause of stuff
5.) Root cause with no cause

Theism

1.) Stuff
2.) Cause of Stuff.
3.) Stuff
4.) Cause of Stuff
5.) God
6.) Root cause with no more causes.

Both Atheists, and Theists have to contend with "a cause without a cause". However, Atheists do so by understanding that they have no clue what it is, rather than making the argument:

All causes have a cause. This cannot go on infinitely. Ergo God.

Which can logically be re-written

All causes have a cause. This cannot go on infinitely. Ergo Chuck Norris.

Or

All causes have a cause. This cannot go on infinitely. Great Green Arkleseizure.

Or you can try:

1.) Stuff
2.) Cause of Stuff.
3.) Stuff
4.) Cause of Root Uncaused Stuff
5.) Root Uncaused Stuff
5 is so because there is no other alternative possible.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:03:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:50:20 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:

Keep in mind your not calling me the ignorant one your calling Isaac Newton ignorant.

Newton was ignorant.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:17:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:03:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:50:20 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:

Keep in mind your not calling me the ignorant one your calling Isaac Newton ignorant.

Newton was ignorant.

Not to say he was generally ignorant, but definitely in this regard.

Newton invoked God to explain issues with the orbits of planets that he found it impossible to resolve. God was he only explanation.... Until laplace and Einstein explained it.

Invoking god is an argument from ignorance, and used simply because the answer is jnot known. Loads of really smart people have done it.

Such an argument is the most horrible form of hubris 'I declare that the answer is unknowable'.
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:46:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 5:30:00 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
We humans conceptulise everything with boundaries, whether they be in terms of time or space. It is our instinct to do so.

However, time and space have no boundaries, they are both infinite and have always existed: the "Big Bang" is now thought to be just one of an infinite series of the expansion and contraction of space).

There is no evidence that scientists use that they can ever proove this belief, it's based off of blind faith not science, in attempts to try to take God out of science.

Furthermore, since we can only observe our own universe, we may suppose there is an infinite number of other universes in existence, the radiation (light, x-rays, etc.) from which have not had time to reach us.

Simple fact is that we do not know if our universe is infinite in number yet, we have not reached the point to which we know for sure, we aren't even sure if there is more than just this one universe, so why do we jump to the idea of possibly having many universes? blind faith? starting to sound like a religion to me except nature is the omnipresent, all powerful, never ending thing that crated all life.

These ideas and theories are more difficult to swallow than a story about some deity creating the universe but that doesn"t mean astrophysics is illogical, just the opposite in fact.

Why is it that your blind faith of the universe being in a infinite cycle of time, is somehow more logical than the idea of an all powerful God infinite outside of time and space creating the universe and everything inside of it. Unlike the atheist blind faith, most Christians will tell you from their own personal experience why they believe God is real and is apart of our every day lives.
I win ;D
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 6:34:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:54:43 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
"Isaac, what is that model you have over there?" He pointed to a model of the entire constellation showing stars, the moon, and the earth moving around it as one turned a wheel. "How ingenious," said his friend. "Who made it?" "No one," replied Newton, His friend smiled and nodded his head. "Someone must have made it, who?" Newton said, "You don't believe God made this great big world, yet this puny little model you insist must be made by someone."

Another one of his friends once said to Sir Isaac Newton, "If you could show me God, I would believe." Newton replied, "You do not see the wind but you know it is there as you feel its presence. You cannot see electricity but you cannot deny it is very much there. You cannot see God, but walk into a garden, look up into the sky, and if you are truthful, you must confess to be conscious of His presence. You see the wonders of His words all around you. Yet you want more and more proof."

Atheism is illogical, nuf said.

Spontaneous unguided order?

Universe creates its self?

living things out of nonliving things?

No one said the universe created itself.

No one said that the order is unguided and spontaneous. Its called Nature, the laws of physics.

What is illogical about living things out of non-living things. Living things, last time i checked, were made up of the same material as non-living things. Youre saying "Helium out of hydrogen? Thats absurd!"

Also, what that other friend meant by that, is "If you can DEMONSTRATE that God exists, i would believe." Wind, oxygen, these things we cannot see, but we can demonstrate their existance. With your God, you cannot.

Your claims fail. Nuf said.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 7:01:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:46:57 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 1/2/2013 5:30:00 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
We humans conceptulise everything with boundaries, whether they be in terms of time or space. It is our instinct to do so.

However, time and space have no boundaries, they are both infinite and have always existed: the "Big Bang" is now thought to be just one of an infinite series of the expansion and contraction of space).

There is no evidence that scientists use that they can ever proove this belief, it's based off of blind faith not science, in attempts to try to take God out of science.

Furthermore, since we can only observe our own universe, we may suppose there is an infinite number of other universes in existence, the radiation (light, x-rays, etc.) from which have not had time to reach us.

Simple fact is that we do not know if our universe is infinite in number yet, we have not reached the point to which we know for sure, we aren't even sure if there is more than just this one universe, so why do we jump to the idea of possibly having many universes? blind faith? starting to sound like a religion to me except nature is the omnipresent, all powerful, never ending thing that crated all life.

These ideas and theories are more difficult to swallow than a story about some deity creating the universe but that doesn"t mean astrophysics is illogical, just the opposite in fact.

Why is it that your blind faith of the universe being in a infinite cycle of time, is somehow more logical than the idea of an all powerful God infinite outside of time and space creating the universe and everything inside of it. Unlike the atheist blind faith, most Christians will tell you from their own personal experience why they believe God is real and is apart of our every day lives.

Science leads where the evidence takes us, the above 'hypothesis' is just a hypothesis and is not 'beleived' in the sense you use it. There is some maths to support the idea, and science investigates. It could be possible that its all wrong, but hey, that's what science does.

At its bottom line, though, science reveals a universe that is more beautiful than you will ever understand, with the real evidence of how things work a simplistic elegance that is unrivalled in the every day world we see around us.

Fundamentally, if you put two scenarios to someone:

'Our bodies are formed from stardust formed in the cores of ancient stars, the likes of which we see in such majesty in the near infinite universe around us. A universe whose laws are so elegant in their simplicity that they almost mandate the formation of life intelligent enough to look up to the stars and begin to discover how they came to be.'

Or

'it just happened, a few thousand years ago'

Which sounds more like the work of a divine being?

If you fall into the latter category, I truly pity you, because I will always be far closer to and appreciate far more, the true beauty of what God has given us than you will ever, ever be.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 7:34:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:50:20 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
You will never be able to logically argue creation of all things without God.

You remain Incorrect!

My theory/concept is that the Creator of ALL things is Susan the Alien & her 12 Sisters!

Of course I ' could be wrong ' however; so far the legitimate evidence otherwise remains precisely the same as that for a literal Supernatural god = zero!

Your vindicated mentor, 50 year successful Cult busting personal successful literal Saviour, moi!
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:26:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

Science leads where the evidence takes us, the above 'hypothesis' is just a hypothesis and is not 'beleived' in the sense you use it. There is some maths to support the idea, and science investigates. It could be possible that its all wrong, but hey, that's what science does.

So your atheistic belief balances on the back of a hypothesis? In other words a non tested guess? If you cannot test a "hypothesis" then how is that science? It is blind faith in it's prettiest form whether you choose to admit it, or not. Believe it or not there is more then plenty of evidence backing the idea of a creator, namely the Christian God.

At its bottom line, though, science reveals a universe that is more beautiful than you will ever understand, with the real evidence of how things work a simplistic elegance that is unrivalled in the every day world we see around us.

Fundamentally, if you put two scenarios to someone:

'Our bodies are formed from stardust formed in the cores of ancient stars, the likes of which we see in such majesty in the near infinite universe around us. A universe whose laws are so elegant in their simplicity that they almost mandate the formation of life intelligent enough to look up to the stars and begin to discover how they came to be.'

Or

'it just happened, a few thousand years ago'

What makes you think i accept the idea of the universe being created a few thousand years ago, please point that part out in the bible, I must have missed that part.

Which sounds more like the work of a divine being?

The Bible was not written to be a science book, therefore it will not go into specific details of how he created time, space, universe, stars, planets, people. It was written to be a story rather, so then why is it impossible for you to accept that maybe God uses his creation for the creation of other things? How is that outside his ability?
I win ;D
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:27:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 3:33:40 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:

This is mis-leading, the something so you are talking about is a man made object, therefore we know its intelligent design, ya know cause we actually make them.

Your trying to use the characteristic of complexity/simplicity in a man made object to establish that therefore a non man made object with greater complexity must also be intelligent design.

The only thing that I am saying is that if I am not going to accept the idea that a simple lead pencil can be put together naturally I will definitely not accept the idea, that this space craft that we reside in traveling at a rate of 67,000 mph, yet we cant feel it's movement and keeps us on the ground due to it's gravitational pull can be put together by an "accident".

Your not accepting it, cause people have convinced you WRONGLY that a planet or a human that is absent intelligent design is just as false as a pencil (which is a man made object) not being the result of intelligent design.

Its a mis analogy and you need to recognize it or for ever be subject to the thinking of cars have designers, computers have designers therefore the universe must have a designer.


A "accident" would more likely assemble a car before it would assemble such a complex craft hovering through space.

consider the following argument......

1) A light bulb needs electricity to produce light
2) The sun produces alot more light than a light bulb
C) Therefore the sun needs electricity to produce light

A light bulb needed to be designed accordingly to be able to produce light.

1) An intellignelty designed watch is complex
2) A human is more complex than a watch
C) Therefore humans are intelligently designed

You make this idea sound crazy. Why is it so hard to accept the possibility of intelligent design by a creator?

I agree that the intelligent designer proposition is in the realm of possibility, what I am showing you is how you can't get from made made objects, something something, therefore non man made objects is intelligently designed.

But now do you see why you can't get human made object (even if you invoke complexity) therefore non made object (even if its more complex) ?

And don't forget the final big argument here in the background.....I JUST CAN"T BELIEVE that this (xyz) exists without intelligent design being involved, we call that incredulity.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:33:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

No one said the universe created itself.

How was the universe created?

No one said that the order is unguided and spontaneous. Its called Nature, the laws of physics.
What is your definition of nature? did it always exist? how about the laws of physics? did they always exist too? Does "nature" exist outside of time and space? Is "nature" everywhere at once? If nature guides order into the universe is it conscious as well? all knowing?

What is illogical about living things out of non-living things. Living things, last time i checked, were made up of the same material as non-living things. Youre saying "Helium out of hydrogen? Thats absurd!"
Explain to me the process of which an inanimate object becomes a living thing, since it's apparently extremely easy to comprehend.

Also, what that other friend meant by that, is "If you can DEMONSTRATE that God exists, i would believe." Wind, oxygen, these things we cannot see, but we can demonstrate their existance. With your God, you cannot.

You can easily demonstrate that God exists, problem is that Atheists refuse to see what's right in front of them.

Your claims fail. Nuf said.
I win ;D
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:50:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

I agree that the intelligent designer proposition is in the realm of possibility, what I am showing you is how you can't get from made made objects, something something, therefore non man made objects is intelligently designed.

But now do you see why you can't get human made object (even if you invoke complexity) therefore non made object (even if its more complex) ?

And don't forget the final big argument here in the background.....I JUST CAN"T BELIEVE that this (xyz) exists without intelligent design being involved, we call that incredulity.

Me and you keep going round and round on the same points so I think I will end this one here but I am glad that you at least admit that the possibility of an Intelligent designer is there. I ask you if you truly want to challenge want seems to be your rock hard belief to look into some of the evidence for God (Christian God) there is plenty of evidence you just have to do your research. There is far to many unprecedented things that just happen to go right to put Christianity at the top of the religious chain in our modern world. I suggest you and every other interested atheist who wishes to put their belief under fire just as I have analyzed my own, and start researching the spread of Christianity and how Jesus prophesied the spread of the faith around the globe. Good place to start is why was Jesus born in Bethlehem during the time of Rome. Why did Rome fall? Why did the Christian territories of Rome rise up in unison to eventually conquer the entire world? Why was it the only two nations in Africa that were not conquered during the time of European Imperialism happen to be Christian Nations? I can keep going and going, but please before criticizing the things I wrote please look into it, it's quite interesting.
I win ;D
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 3:04:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am not going to go into all the other stuff you throw up here cause your going off the the original topic, I will only say that a faith has spread doesn't mean much..........Islam.

Now back to topic at hand.....

1) A watch is complex and is intelligently designed
2) A human is more complex than a watch
C) Therefore humans are the result of intelligent deisn

1) A light build needs electricity to produce light
2) The sun produces more light than a light bulb
C) Therefore the sun needs electricity

You agree both are fallacious arguments ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Imagination
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 3:50:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hello KeithKroeger91. I'd love to debate you as Con on whether ~

1) atheism is immoral and/or
2) homosexuality is immoral

Would you be interested in debating me on any of those points?
"And if reality doesn't fit the discrete labels we invent to describe it?" --drafterman
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 4:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Atheism illogical"

Atheism is illogical whenever it is defined illogically. Atheism/theism are declarations of belief; atheism being the belief that there is no God(s) and theism the belief that there is/are. We can also have declarations of knowledge like gnostic/agnostic which are knowledge of God(s) existence and no knowledge of God(s) existence. Consequently, one can be any of 4 combinations: agnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist, gnostic-atheist, and gnostic-theist.

Where an atheist get into trouble is when he attempts to define atheism as a contradiction in terms namely "lack of belief" or "lack of belief in God(s)", etc. Atheism is a declaration of belief and "a lack of belief" is not a belief, and thus NOT a declaration of such.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 4:49:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 2:26:04 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:

Science leads where the evidence takes us, the above 'hypothesis' is just a hypothesis and is not 'beleived' in the sense you use it. There is some maths to support the idea, and science investigates. It could be possible that its all wrong, but hey, that's what science does.

So your atheistic belief balances on the back of a hypothesis? In other words a non tested guess? If you cannot test a "hypothesis" then how is that science? It is blind faith in it's prettiest form whether you choose to admit it, or not. Believe it or not there is more then plenty of evidence backing the idea of a creator, namely the Christian God.

No, I don't 'beleive' hypothesis. I don't put any weight to anything isn't testable. At best, it's 'curious' and 'interesting'.

This is why it is not blind faith, if science or atheism continually argued that this is what is happening, without the evidence to back it up, then I would agree with you.


At its bottom line, though, science reveals a universe that is more beautiful than you will ever understand, with the real evidence of how things work a simplistic elegance that is unrivalled in the every day world we see around us.

Fundamentally, if you put two scenarios to someone:

'Our bodies are formed from stardust formed in the cores of ancient stars, the likes of which we see in such majesty in the near infinite universe around us. A universe whose laws are so elegant in their simplicity that they almost mandate the formation of life intelligent enough to look up to the stars and begin to discover how they came to be.'

Or

'it just happened, a few thousand years ago'

What makes you think i accept the idea of the universe being created a few thousand years ago, please point that part out in the bible, I must have missed that part.

Then remove the 'a few thousand years ago', and the statement remains true.

The big thing, is that a lot of people, and it seems you are included in this, beleive that science is trying to remove God. On the contrary, the more you understand the universe, the more outstanding and fantastic the universe becomes. The reductionist arguments that just say 'stuff happened' utterly detracts and dismisses how fantastic the world we live actually is,


Which sounds more like the work of a divine being?

The Bible was not written to be a science book, therefore it will not go into specific details of how he created time, space, universe, stars, planets, people. It was written to be a story rather, so then why is it impossible for you to accept that maybe God uses his creation for the creation of other things? How is that outside his ability?


This statement is completely unrelated anything I have taked about.

My issue is with people that insinuate, or claim that science takes God out of the universe. My point is, that if you believed in God, the sheer scale, magnitude and simplicity of the universe that science reveals does so much of a better job than religion does.

For me, science doesn't turn people into unbelievers by itself. Religion itself does that well enough on its own.