Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why atheists fail

Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 4:32:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

What?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 4:55:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy.
In all actuality, a "being" is a physical system which carries out a fairly specific continuation of chemical processes. There isn't a shred of evidence for anything aside from that, or contrary to that. And we do account for this chemical system, through the study of bio-chemistry.

The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

What do you intend by saying "naturalism is not equal to itself? That's an absurd statement. Nothing can be other than equal to what it is.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. Naturalism and "being" are the same thing. You have not a shred of evidence for anything aside from what is natural. If it exists, it's natural - PERIOD. Disagree? Fine, but support that disagreement... unless you find that you can't. And you can't. You're simply unwilling to accept yourself as the sum of your parts, yet you can show yourself to be nothing else.

One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.
You're speaking gibberish. What is "accupreasure"? What do you mean "climb on itself"? There is nothing but the physical. Everything we know is physical. Even your thoughts are just an inner perception of the chemical interactions in your brain.

I think you need to do a LOT more work before you can consider yourself to be in a position to speak on atheism. In fact, until you have evidence of something aside from the physical, it's fair to state that you have nothing of value to say on the matter.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 4:59:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:32:24 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

What?

Exactly! Not only is it meaningless gibberish (the product of theism), but even spell check seems beyond their grasp.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 5:14:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

Do you know what any of the terms you're using mean?
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 3:28:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

For clarification purposes, and regardless if this post was earnestly constructed, atheism does not inherently explain the origin of species, evolution does. There are secular explanations of the universe which may account for what ever notion it is you are indeed advancing.
DanPeter
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 5:54:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:55:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy.
In all actuality, a "being" is a physical system which carries out a fairly specific continuation of chemical processes. There isn't a shred of evidence for anything aside from that, or contrary to that. And we do account for this chemical system, through the study of bio-chemistry.

The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

What do you intend by saying "naturalism is not equal to itself? That's an absurd statement. Nothing can be other than equal to what it is.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. Naturalism and "being" are the same thing. You have not a shred of evidence for anything aside from what is natural. If it exists, it's natural - PERIOD. Disagree? Fine, but support that disagreement... unless you find that you can't. And you can't. You're simply unwilling to accept yourself as the sum of your parts, yet you can show yourself to be nothing else.

One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.
You're speaking gibberish. What is "accupreasure"? What do you mean "climb on itself"? There is nothing but the physical. Everything we know is physical. Even your thoughts are just an inner perception of the chemical interactions in your brain.

I think you need to do a LOT more work before you can consider yourself to be in a position to speak on atheism. In fact, until you have evidence of something aside from the physical, it's fair to state that you have nothing of value to say on the matter.

Well done for breaking down this ambiguous post and answering it! I would like to ask you though, what would you consider as "evidence of something aside from the physical"? Suppose that something exist outside the physical, how could that be proved by physical means? If it was outside the physical then surely it could not be detected by physical means? You know what I mean?

In fact there is evidence for the supernatural or the spiritual, but it's not physical evidence precisely because it's not physical. What would you accept as evidence for something that isn't physical?

There's loads of evidence for the free consciousness and autonomous self but it's not derived from the five senses as an empiricist would demand. There's many philosophical arguments and "proofs" of the existents of the autonomous self. To say that there is not a shred of evidence is very narrow. I would say that there isn't a shred of evidence that the empiricist perspective is correct. In fact you couldn't prove empiricism through empiricist means, so in itself it's defeating. Empiricism claims that all knowledge is derived from the five senses, yet you couldn't prove that claim by using the five senses. It's self-defeating. The same goes for naturalism. Naturalism claims that all truth is derived from a study of natural causes, yet that claim cannot be proven by natural causes and again is self-defeating.
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 4:28:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 3:28:57 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

For clarification purposes, and regardless if this post was earnestly constructed, atheism does not inherently explain the origin of species, evolution does. There are secular explanations of the universe which may account for what ever notion it is you are indeed advancing.

Failure.

My argument was from the self contradiction of a reffering system that is naturalism not evolution. Evolution is true but God guided it via a dual comsticic process.
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 4:29:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:55:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy.
In all actuality, a "being" is a physical system which carries out a fairly specific continuation of chemical processes. There isn't a shred of evidence for anything aside from that, or contrary to that. And we do account for this chemical system, through the study of bio-chemistry.

The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

What do you intend by saying "naturalism is not equal to itself? That's an absurd statement. Nothing can be other than equal to what it is.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. Naturalism and "being" are the same thing. You have not a shred of evidence for anything aside from what is natural. If it exists, it's natural - PERIOD. Disagree? Fine, but support that disagreement... unless you find that you can't. And you can't. You're simply unwilling to accept yourself as the sum of your parts, yet you can show yourself to be nothing else.

One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.
You're speaking gibberish. What is "accupreasure"? What do you mean "climb on itself"? There is nothing but the physical. Everything we know is physical. Even your thoughts are just an inner perception of the chemical interactions in your brain.

I think you need to do a LOT more work before you can consider yourself to be in a position to speak on atheism. In fact, until you have evidence of something aside from the physical, it's fair to state that you have nothing of value to say on the matter.

Your arguments assume naturalism is true to refute the argument. A being must have mental occupancy, you cannot deny. Claiming they arer physical is nothing but a circular self loop which closes off your logic.

Hey, you fail
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 4:30:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 5:14:50 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

Do you know what any of the terms you're using mean?

I know them better than anyone here. You dont know them i am right.

I am offering a $10000 prize to anyone who can prove this argument wrong.
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 4:32:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:55:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy.
In all actuality, a "being" is a physical system which carries out a fairly specific continuation of chemical processes. There isn't a shred of evidence for anything aside from that, or contrary to that. And we do account for this chemical system, through the study of bio-chemistry.

The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

What do you intend by saying "naturalism is not equal to itself? That's an absurd statement. Nothing can be other than equal to what it is.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. Naturalism and "being" are the same thing. You have not a shred of evidence for anything aside from what is natural. If it exists, it's natural - PERIOD. Disagree? Fine, but support that disagreement... unless you find that you can't. And you can't. You're simply unwilling to accept yourself as the sum of your parts, yet you can show yourself to be nothing else.

One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.
You're speaking gibberish. What is "accupreasure"? What do you mean "climb on itself"? There is nothing but the physical. Everything we know is physical. Even your thoughts are just an inner perception of the chemical interactions in your brain.

Accupreasure is the analogious to accupunture. Relasing a nerve via a sharp needle. It is an analogy as the naturalism is the nerve and the world must need a needle to reasle it (god)

Climb on itself is a self bulidng system like math.
I think you need to do a LOT more work before you can consider yourself to be in a position to speak on atheism. In fact, until you have evidence of something aside from the physical, it's fair to state that you have nothing of value to say on the matter.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 6:25:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

I have no idea what the hec you are talking about. But the fact that atheism doesn't account for whatever you think you have accounted for, is completely irrelevant. You can sit around all day thinking of ways to account for things, just ask a conspiracy theorist. Until you can demonstrate that anything you are talking about is actually true you do not have an argument, all you have is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 6:27:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 4:30:40 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
I am offering a $10000 prize to anyone who can prove this argument wrong.

And I'll offer you twice as much if you can prove it right.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 6:32:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 5:54:22 AM, DanPeter wrote:
Well done for breaking down this ambiguous post and answering it! I would like to ask you though, what would you consider as "evidence of something aside from the physical"? Suppose that something exist outside the physical, how could that be proved by physical means? If it was outside the physical then surely it could not be detected by physical means? You know what I mean?

Physical evidence will most likely never be able to demonstrate anything besides the physical, and as physical beings we will probably never be able to come up with any other kind of evidence. So in short, there is probably no such thing. But that is not my problem, that is the problem of those who are claiming that something outside of the physical exists.
DanPeter
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 8:10:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 6:32:39 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/10/2014 5:54:22 AM, DanPeter wrote:
Well done for breaking down this ambiguous post and answering it! I would like to ask you though, what would you consider as "evidence of something aside from the physical"? Suppose that something exist outside the physical, how could that be proved by physical means? If it was outside the physical then surely it could not be detected by physical means? You know what I mean?

Physical evidence will most likely never be able to demonstrate anything besides the physical, and as physical beings we will probably never be able to come up with any other kind of evidence. So in short, there is probably no such thing. But that is not my problem, that is the problem of those who are claiming that something outside of the physical exists.

That's exactly the point. The simple fact that the consciousness exists is evidence that we're more than physical beings. Natural Science cannot yet account for the consciousness. If you believe that consciousness is an "illusion" and is created by electrical and chemical processes, that is a belief. A naturalist denies the very belief in a consciousness or autonomous self. This belief is not based on empirical evidence. That's the argument of this post. Naturalism in its true form is self defeating, because it cannot support it's claims by its own methods. That all that exists is the physical. As I said above, you cannot prove a naturalist belief with a naturalist method, it's logically self-defeating. Naturalism has only explained the self-consciousness by denying it. I recently watched a debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham at which Bill Nye exclaims with anticipation that science is yet to discover the consciousness and the free self. Scientific method has not yet detected the self consciousness and whether a (or I could even say where the) "free self" exists, but our self-consciousness does exist whether you belief it's an illusion (not supported by empirical evidence by the way) or not. "I think, therefore I am" said Descartes. By this he meant that the only true thing he can be certain of is that he exists and from there and only from there is it possible to discover truth. Self-conscousness is something that is there, we all have it and we have many explanations for it. True Naturalism says it's an illusion. If that's what you belief, fine, but if you belief that's the only rational argument for self-consciousness then you're the one who's disillusioned, simply because the very foundation of that belief, that truth can ONLY be found through the natural method cannot be supported by the natural method.

I do belief in the "free self" simply because I have a consciousness and I very much appear to have a choice in what I do. You could argue that my free choice is an illusion because I'm governed only by natural law, but that's not what I experience in everyday life. We seem to exist, if I may, above natural law. We can make choices to follow our instincts or to deny them. Now, I understand that a naturalistic perspective attempts to argue away the free self and I believe these arguments come from a deep belief that everything is explained by natural law and natural processes therefore consciousness and free will cannot exist outside of natural law. That belief cannot be supported by empirical evidence. I think it takes more denial of what we observe in everyday and human nature to say that the self-consciousness/the autonomous self/free will doesn't really exist. I do have an abstract thought, let's say that there is a ghost in the machine and let's say that it is indeed to some degree "physical". What if there's energy, matter, dark matter and some other substance that we are yet to detect through empirical means that is the autonomous self?
I guess my argument is very simple, I believe in the autonomous self simply because I have one. We've discovered a lot through science but we haven't discovered everything and this is still a big unanswered question.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 10:01:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 8:10:27 PM, DanPeter wrote:
At 8/10/2014 6:32:39 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/10/2014 5:54:22 AM, DanPeter wrote:
Well done for breaking down this ambiguous post and answering it! I would like to ask you though, what would you consider as "evidence of something aside from the physical"? Suppose that something exist outside the physical, how could that be proved by physical means? If it was outside the physical then surely it could not be detected by physical means? You know what I mean?

Physical evidence will most likely never be able to demonstrate anything besides the physical, and as physical beings we will probably never be able to come up with any other kind of evidence. So in short, there is probably no such thing. But that is not my problem, that is the problem of those who are claiming that something outside of the physical exists.

That's exactly the point. The simple fact that the consciousness exists is evidence that we're more than physical beings. Natural Science cannot yet account for the consciousness. If you believe that consciousness is an "illusion" and is created by electrical and chemical processes, that is a belief. A naturalist denies the very belief in a consciousness or autonomous self. This belief is not based on empirical evidence. That's the argument of this post. Naturalism in its true form is self defeating, because it cannot support it's claims by its own methods. That all that exists is the physical. As I said above, you cannot prove a naturalist belief with a naturalist method, it's logically self-defeating. Naturalism has only explained the self-consciousness by denying it. I recently watched a debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham at which Bill Nye exclaims with anticipation that science is yet to discover the consciousness and the free self. Scientific method has not yet detected the self consciousness and whether a (or I could even say where the) "free self" exists, but our self-consciousness does exist whether you belief it's an illusion (not supported by empirical evidence by the way) or not. "I think, therefore I am" said Descartes. By this he meant that the only true thing he can be certain of is that he exists and from there and only from there is it possible to discover truth. Self-conscousness is something that is there, we all have it and we have many explanations for it. True Naturalism says it's an illusion. If that's what you belief, fine, but if you belief that's the only rational argument for self-consciousness then you're the one who's disillusioned, simply because the very foundation of that belief, that truth can ONLY be found through the natural method cannot be supported by the natural method.

I do belief in the "free self" simply because I have a consciousness and I very much appear to have a choice in what I do. You could argue that my free choice is an illusion because I'm governed only by natural law, but that's not what I experience in everyday life. We seem to exist, if I may, above natural law. We can make choices to follow our instincts or to deny them. Now, I understand that a naturalistic perspective attempts to argue away the free self and I believe these arguments come from a deep belief that everything is explained by natural law and natural processes therefore consciousness and free will cannot exist outside of natural law. That belief cannot be supported by empirical evidence. I think it takes more denial of what we observe in everyday and human nature to say that the self-consciousness/the autonomous self/free will doesn't really exist. I do have an abstract thought, let's say that there is a ghost in the machine and let's say that it is indeed to some degree "physical". What if there's energy, matter, dark matter and some other substance that we are yet to detect through empirical means that is the autonomous self?
I guess my argument is very simple, I believe in the autonomous self simply because I have one. We've discovered a lot through science but we haven't discovered everything and this is still a big unanswered question.

The only thing consciousness is evidence of, is consciousness. It does not mean that something exists beyond the physical and the only thing you attempted to use to justify that notion is a classic example of the argument from ignorance fallacy. I don't care if science has yet to account for it, that doesn't give you or anyone else rational justification to make stuff up in order to explain it.

As far as naturalism goes, that is simply the belief that the natural (what you call physical reality) is all that exists. You are trying to bootstrap all of these other concepts to it. What you have given are reasons that might push someone to accept a naturalistic world view, that doesn't mean that every or even most naturalists share that same belief.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 1:42:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 4:32:15 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:55:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy.
In all actuality, a "being" is a physical system which carries out a fairly specific continuation of chemical processes. There isn't a shred of evidence for anything aside from that, or contrary to that. And we do account for this chemical system, through the study of bio-chemistry.

The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

What do you intend by saying "naturalism is not equal to itself? That's an absurd statement. Nothing can be other than equal to what it is.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. Naturalism and "being" are the same thing. You have not a shred of evidence for anything aside from what is natural. If it exists, it's natural - PERIOD. Disagree? Fine, but support that disagreement... unless you find that you can't. And you can't. You're simply unwilling to accept yourself as the sum of your parts, yet you can show yourself to be nothing else.

One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.
You're speaking gibberish. What is "accupreasure"? What do you mean "climb on itself"? There is nothing but the physical. Everything we know is physical. Even your thoughts are just an inner perception of the chemical interactions in your brain.

Accupreasure is the analogious to accupunture.
Then you mean, "acupressure", and "acupuncture".

Relasing a nerve via a sharp needle.
You mean, "releasing".

It is an analogy as the naturalism is the nerve and the world must need a needle to reasle it (god)
I know what it means when it's spelled correctly so that I can know what you're talking about.

Climb on itself is a self bulidng system like math.
You mean "building". But you're still not making any sense. Math does not "climb on itself".

I think you need to do a LOT more work before you can consider yourself to be in a position to speak on atheism. In fact, until you have evidence of something aside from the physical, it's fair to state that you have nothing of value to say on the matter.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 2:02:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 8:10:27 PM, DanPeter wrote:
At 8/10/2014 6:32:39 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/10/2014 5:54:22 AM, DanPeter wrote:
Well done for breaking down this ambiguous post and answering it! I would like to ask you though, what would you consider as "evidence of something aside from the physical"? Suppose that something exist outside the physical, how could that be proved by physical means? If it was outside the physical then surely it could not be detected by physical means? You know what I mean?

Physical evidence will most likely never be able to demonstrate anything besides the physical, and as physical beings we will probably never be able to come up with any other kind of evidence. So in short, there is probably no such thing. But that is not my problem, that is the problem of those who are claiming that something outside of the physical exists.

That's exactly the point. The simple fact that the consciousness exists is evidence that we're more than physical beings.
Not at all. Consciousness is purely physical. We can stop it, assist it, monitor it, and understand it via physical interaction. In fact, consciousness appears to be the manifestation of multiple cognitive processing centers (i.e. prefrontal cortex and amygdala), being able to cross-monitor. Each can actually monitor the process of cognition as it occurs, making us aware of our own thoughts.

Natural Science cannot yet account for the consciousness.
That's not true... not true at all. (See above)

If you believe that consciousness is an "illusion" and is created by electrical and chemical processes, that is a belief.
It's an evidenced conclusion. We can affect consciousness by physical interaction, blunt trauma, chemical, electrical.

I do belief in the "free self" simply because I have a consciousness and I very much appear to have a choice in what I do.
Then again, since if you do make choices, you've never been in a situation where you don't, and if you don't make choices, you've never been in a situation where you do; how would you know?

I do have an abstract thought, let's say that there is a ghost in the machine and let's say that it is indeed to some degree "physical". What if there's energy, matter, dark matter and some other substance that we are yet to detect through empirical means that is the autonomous self?
Provide evidence for this undetected substance. If it exists, then it interacts with other physical matter. That means that some evidence of it exists (just as evidence of dark matter exists). So where is the evidence? Theists are champions of the idea of the fully existent, but unevidenced. That suggests that things in the physical world exist purely independently of one another, and that idea is contrasted by absolutely every physical law, every physical observation, and every physical test ever performed.

I guess my argument is very simple, I believe in the autonomous self simply because I have one. We've discovered a lot through science but we haven't discovered everything and this is still a big unanswered question.
Your "autonomous self" is simply your physical brain, and the physical... chemical processes which manifest as your thoughts and feelings. There is no non-physical component.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 8:34:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

Gibberish

GTFO
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 11:39:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 1:42:14 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/10/2014 4:32:15 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:55:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy.
In all actuality, a "being" is a physical system which carries out a fairly specific continuation of chemical processes. There isn't a shred of evidence for anything aside from that, or contrary to that. And we do account for this chemical system, through the study of bio-chemistry.

The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

What do you intend by saying "naturalism is not equal to itself? That's an absurd statement. Nothing can be other than equal to what it is.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. Naturalism and "being" are the same thing. You have not a shred of evidence for anything aside from what is natural. If it exists, it's natural - PERIOD. Disagree? Fine, but support that disagreement... unless you find that you can't. And you can't. You're simply unwilling to accept yourself as the sum of your parts, yet you can show yourself to be nothing else.

One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.
You're speaking gibberish. What is "accupreasure"? What do you mean "climb on itself"? There is nothing but the physical. Everything we know is physical. Even your thoughts are just an inner perception of the chemical interactions in your brain.

Accupreasure is the analogious to accupunture.
Then you mean, "acupressure", and "acupuncture".

Relasing a nerve via a sharp needle.
You mean, "releasing".

It is an analogy as the naturalism is the nerve and the world must need a needle to reasle it (god)
I know what it means when it's spelled correctly so that I can know what you're talking about.

Climb on itself is a self bulidng system like math.
You mean "building". But you're still not making any sense. Math does not "climb on itself".

I think you need to do a LOT more work before you can consider yourself to be in a position to speak on atheism. In fact, until you have evidence of something aside from the physical, it's fair to state that you have nothing of value to say on the matter.

You try to point out mistakes then act like a big head. I am not english asswhole. You fail to beat the argument.
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 11:42:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 6:25:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

I have no idea what the hec you are talking about. But the fact that atheism doesn't account for whatever you think you have accounted for, is completely irrelevant. You can sit around all day thinking of ways to account for things, just ask a conspiracy theorist. Until you can demonstrate that anything you are talking about is actually true you do not have an argument, all you have is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

LOLOLOLOOLOLOL OH..... I like how you don't address anything but still created a response, true failure. atheism fails and you have proved it.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 4:31:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 11:39:28 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/11/2014 1:42:14 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/10/2014 4:32:15 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:55:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy.
In all actuality, a "being" is a physical system which carries out a fairly specific continuation of chemical processes. There isn't a shred of evidence for anything aside from that, or contrary to that. And we do account for this chemical system, through the study of bio-chemistry.

The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

What do you intend by saying "naturalism is not equal to itself? That's an absurd statement. Nothing can be other than equal to what it is.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. Naturalism and "being" are the same thing. You have not a shred of evidence for anything aside from what is natural. If it exists, it's natural - PERIOD. Disagree? Fine, but support that disagreement... unless you find that you can't. And you can't. You're simply unwilling to accept yourself as the sum of your parts, yet you can show yourself to be nothing else.

One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.
You're speaking gibberish. What is "accupreasure"? What do you mean "climb on itself"? There is nothing but the physical. Everything we know is physical. Even your thoughts are just an inner perception of the chemical interactions in your brain.

Accupreasure is the analogious to accupunture.
Then you mean, "acupressure", and "acupuncture".

Relasing a nerve via a sharp needle.
You mean, "releasing".

It is an analogy as the naturalism is the nerve and the world must need a needle to reasle it (god)
I know what it means when it's spelled correctly so that I can know what you're talking about.

Climb on itself is a self bulidng system like math.
You mean "building". But you're still not making any sense. Math does not "climb on itself".

I think you need to do a LOT more work before you can consider yourself to be in a position to speak on atheism. In fact, until you have evidence of something aside from the physical, it's fair to state that you have nothing of value to say on the matter.

You try to point out mistakes then act like a big head. I am not english asswhole. You fail to beat the argument.

That's because your argument doesn't make enough sense for anyone to know what you're trying to say. And that was my point. Ever think of using spell-check? Most browsers have free language packs you can install.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 6:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 4:31:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/11/2014 11:39:28 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/11/2014 1:42:14 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/10/2014 4:32:15 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:55:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy.
In all actuality, a "being" is a physical system which carries out a fairly specific continuation of chemical processes. There isn't a shred of evidence for anything aside from that, or contrary to that. And we do account for this chemical system, through the study of bio-chemistry.

The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

What do you intend by saying "naturalism is not equal to itself? That's an absurd statement. Nothing can be other than equal to what it is.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. Naturalism and "being" are the same thing. You have not a shred of evidence for anything aside from what is natural. If it exists, it's natural - PERIOD. Disagree? Fine, but support that disagreement... unless you find that you can't. And you can't. You're simply unwilling to accept yourself as the sum of your parts, yet you can show yourself to be nothing else.

One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.
You're speaking gibberish. What is "accupreasure"? What do you mean "climb on itself"? There is nothing but the physical. Everything we know is physical. Even your thoughts are just an inner perception of the chemical interactions in your brain.

Accupreasure is the analogious to accupunture.
Then you mean, "acupressure", and "acupuncture".

Relasing a nerve via a sharp needle.
You mean, "releasing".

It is an analogy as the naturalism is the nerve and the world must need a needle to reasle it (god)
I know what it means when it's spelled correctly so that I can know what you're talking about.

Climb on itself is a self bulidng system like math.
You mean "building". But you're still not making any sense. Math does not "climb on itself".

I think you need to do a LOT more work before you can consider yourself to be in a position to speak on atheism. In fact, until you have evidence of something aside from the physical, it's fair to state that you have nothing of value to say on the matter.

You try to point out mistakes then act like a big head. I am not english asswhole. You fail to beat the argument.

That's because your argument doesn't make enough sense for anyone to know what you're trying to say. And that was my point. Ever think of using spell-check? Most browsers have free language packs you can install.

Red herring fallacie. You fail
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 7:02:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 6:16:09 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/11/2014 4:31:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/11/2014 11:39:28 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/11/2014 1:42:14 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/10/2014 4:32:15 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:55:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy.
In all actuality, a "being" is a physical system which carries out a fairly specific continuation of chemical processes. There isn't a shred of evidence for anything aside from that, or contrary to that. And we do account for this chemical system, through the study of bio-chemistry.

The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

What do you intend by saying "naturalism is not equal to itself? That's an absurd statement. Nothing can be other than equal to what it is.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong here. Naturalism and "being" are the same thing. You have not a shred of evidence for anything aside from what is natural. If it exists, it's natural - PERIOD. Disagree? Fine, but support that disagreement... unless you find that you can't. And you can't. You're simply unwilling to accept yourself as the sum of your parts, yet you can show yourself to be nothing else.

One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.
You're speaking gibberish. What is "accupreasure"? What do you mean "climb on itself"? There is nothing but the physical. Everything we know is physical. Even your thoughts are just an inner perception of the chemical interactions in your brain.

Accupreasure is the analogious to accupunture.
Then you mean, "acupressure", and "acupuncture".

Relasing a nerve via a sharp needle.
You mean, "releasing".

It is an analogy as the naturalism is the nerve and the world must need a needle to reasle it (god)
I know what it means when it's spelled correctly so that I can know what you're talking about.

Climb on itself is a self bulidng system like math.
You mean "building". But you're still not making any sense. Math does not "climb on itself".

I think you need to do a LOT more work before you can consider yourself to be in a position to speak on atheism. In fact, until you have evidence of something aside from the physical, it's fair to state that you have nothing of value to say on the matter.

You try to point out mistakes then act like a big head. I am not english asswhole. You fail to beat the argument.

That's because your argument doesn't make enough sense for anyone to know what you're trying to say. And that was my point. Ever think of using spell-check? Most browsers have free language packs you can install.

Red herring fallacie. You fail

Stuff it back under the bull's tail. I'm not the only one looking at your post and wondering what they hell you're trying to say. It's not a red herring or any other kind of fallacy. You obviously have great difficulty with English and have produced gibberish.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 7:11:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 11:42:13 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/10/2014 6:25:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

I have no idea what the hec you are talking about. But the fact that atheism doesn't account for whatever you think you have accounted for, is completely irrelevant. You can sit around all day thinking of ways to account for things, just ask a conspiracy theorist. Until you can demonstrate that anything you are talking about is actually true you do not have an argument, all you have is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

LOLOLOLOOLOLOL OH..... I like how you don't address anything but still created a response, true failure. atheism fails and you have proved it.

Ok Fatihah.

There was nothing to address. Your post was gibberish, so I stuck with the flaw in your very first sentence.

But if this is the way you handle responses to your posts then I am not interested in discussing anything with you. Just send me a debate challenge. At least then I'll get an easy victory out of it, which is far more then it seems I would get out of attempting an intelligent discussion here.
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 12:53:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 7:11:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/11/2014 11:42:13 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/10/2014 6:25:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

I have no idea what the hec you are talking about. But the fact that atheism doesn't account for whatever you think you have accounted for, is completely irrelevant. You can sit around all day thinking of ways to account for things, just ask a conspiracy theorist. Until you can demonstrate that anything you are talking about is actually true you do not have an argument, all you have is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

LOLOLOLOOLOLOL OH..... I like how you don't address anything but still created a response, true failure. atheism fails and you have proved it.

Ok Fatihah.

There was nothing to address. Your post was gibberish, so I stuck with the flaw in your very first sentence.

But if this is the way you handle responses to your posts then I am not interested in discussing anything with you. Just send me a debate challenge. At least then I'll get an easy victory out of it, which is far more then it seems I would get out of attempting an intelligent discussion here.

Then lets do it. Yeah !
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 7:23:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

Actually it is even simpler than that.

They fail because they do not rally study the evidence as deeply as they would like us to think, or they would like to think themselves. They write too much off as not being evidence without examining it to it's real depth.

If you examine the evidence closely enough you can no longer deny the existence of God.

I know because I found myself in that very position once, most reluctantly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 7:55:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 7:23:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

Actually it is even simpler than that.

They fail because they do not rally study the evidence as deeply as they would like us to think, or they would like to think themselves. They write too much off as not being evidence without examining it to it's real depth.

If you examine the evidence closely enough you can no longer deny the existence of God.

You keep talking about the evidence, but when I asked you to present your evidence, you stopped responding to me. Is that because all you can do, with respect to evidence, is to allude to it?

I know because I found myself in that very position once, most reluctantly.

OOOooooof course you were...
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 9:20:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 7:55:20 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 8/13/2014 7:23:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/9/2014 4:00:18 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
Atheists are beings, but cannot account for the being. The being is an amirous entity with mental occupancy. The mental occupancy in the world of engennering is one such as that doesn't equal itself, but is managed in itself. Which borrows from philosophy. A being which as a, occupancy b, amirousness and c, mental qualia is equal to itself. Under atheism there is but one system. One of naturalism, but this means naturalism is not equal to itself. Absurd on face value.

Meaning there is a system of being, but not of naturalism. One must be a supreme being because there must be a accupreasure of angles which climb on itself.

QED

Actually it is even simpler than that.

They fail because they do not rally study the evidence as deeply as they would like us to think, or they would like to think themselves. They write too much off as not being evidence without examining it to it's real depth.

If you examine the evidence closely enough you can no longer deny the existence of God.

You keep talking about the evidence, but when I asked you to present your evidence, you stopped responding to me. Is that because all you can do, with respect to evidence, is to allude to it?

I know because I found myself in that very position once, most reluctantly.

OOOooooof course you were...

I stopped responding becasue you ignorred the fact that I have repeatedly told you what the evidence is, and that evidence is all around you in creation itself.

It is the best evidence and mopst conclusive there is, but if youy are not prepared to accept it as evidence and then study it to see which way it truly points that is your problem not mine..

If you study how interconnected everything is, and how impossible it is that things, many demonstrable thing provided you have powerful enough microscopes available, you can come to only one conclusion. and it has even been used as a scientific label "intelligent Design..

Why do you think that Biochemists and Microbiologists are becoming Jehovah's Witnesses if the evidence they see is pointing the other way?

So yes I have told you what the evidece is, but it is not what you want. You want Peer reviewed studies whihc can only tell you what the status quo want you to think.

So you can stay stubborn, refuse to look closely enough at it all, and suffer the consequences, or you can open your eyes.

Just for a start, study all the processes involved in the birth of a human baby, and then try and explain to yourself and to me how that can be the result of chance development when so many things have to come together to even give the imperfect results we have now, let alone the perfect results that gave us Jesus Christ, with a little tweaking from God's co-workers.

Try explaining how the proteins that are needed to form life came together in exactly the right combination by chance when the odds against it are simply astronomical?

When you have done that take a look at how much more astronomical the odds become when you multiply them by each stage before you get even the simplest, single celled life.

Then try and explain to me why singles celled life developed as it did when it had absolutely no reason to change at all, life being perfect then and now for single celled organism.

No, atheists constantly accuse such as me of being unable to reason, when we have probably done far more and deeper reasoning than any of them have even bothered to attempt.

Sorry, but despite his limited knowledge, the Apostle Paul had it dead right when he said that those who can look at creation and still deny God are absolutely inexcusable.

Sorry but that is reality

That is truth.

That is, quite simply how it is, like it or not.

So look a little more closely, but at the whole picture, not just bits. Do yourself the biggest favour you will ever do yourself, and learn to accept the inevitable.