@Roper122 If they can't they are completely retarded. It is Statistically more likely that the Universe (which is a physical system) was created by Elves than the likelihood that a physical system with 4 fundamental forces electromagnetic fields, weak interaction, strong interaction, and gravitation, that all have finite constants (like any physical engineering system) spontaneously created itself as Atheists believe.
@lion575 " It is Statistically more likely that the Universe (which is a physical system) was created by Elves than the likelihood that a physical system "
- Oh really?? Well unless the Elves aren't actually part of the universe, then you're pretty much talkin about a supernatural god... so what are the statistic likelihood of that?? Must be great to know all these numbers... or are you just making stuff up??
@lion575 Hi Lion, They are Christians because they have realised that there is a god and they have a relationship with him through christ. Which is hard to explain until you have experienced it personally. But once you have its like everything fits together, a good vid to watch is "youtube: Ravi Zacharias "Postures of the Mind, Affections of the..."
Theres a good example about what having a relationship with god is like, i hope you find what you are looking for :)
Oddly Richard Dawkins is my best argument for Christianity. I feel its obvious the universe is a physical system with intelligent design behind it, but beyond that ... . Anyway when watching Dawkins who is so full of spite and so just morally messed up and compare them to Ravi it makes it very difficult to believe that this guy spewing hate and nothing scientific that makes rational sense can be correct. Then again their is also the possibly he's just a jackass and Ravi isn't.
Any person subscribing to Christianity has already lost their credibility. Simple.
You do nothing but insult everyone's intelligence when making arguments for such a belief, a belief that has it's very foundation based on lies covered by pure and utter corruption that aims to dissolve the only possible path towards any inkling of truth, our skeptical mind.
Interesting (yet not surprising in the slightest) how you managed to make so many broad accusations but miserably failed to support even one of them. I find your axioms to be preposterous, and the burden of proof is standing at your doorstep.
Honestly, what you've said is literally akin to me stating "anyone who eats carrots loses all credibility. Simple."
I think religion as an axiom is quite self-evident of that which I spoke. I will elaborate specifics if you like, but let us not turn this into a bottomless ontological argument.
Also, your analogy of the carrots certainly lacks the context involved, comparing apples to oranges.
Religion attempts at great length to dissolve our critical faculties, through false sense of knowing the unknown; involving threats and promises.
Religion survives on our naturally evolved tendencies to want to "know", our emotional states of empathy, love, guilt, fear and other desires or lack of.
When investigated with integrity and no double standards; religion is found lacking any and all specifics which it had at first claimed ownership of; origin of existence, health / medicine, earthly ownership (promised land, slavery, family, forgiveness), accurate historicity, morals, credibility of proclaimed proofs.
The Universe barely allow for life, and remains absolutely 99.9% inhospitable to life. The life that could, has and does exist begs the question of unintelligent design.
No god found at origin of existence, and creation / genesis found to be mythical and quite inaccurate.
Prayer or holy medicine lacks any evidence of direct intervention.
Earthly ownership only empowers those claiming it, profoundly cheating many people.
Exodus, great flood, Abraham, Jesus (gospel story, not just a man) etc... to this day the evidence is non-existent.
Large amounts of historical battles, and providence of kings has been found lacking accuracy (which is expected, but not appropriate if divinely authored).
What are morals, if they are only divinely dictated? Also, begging the question whether morals are good because a god says so, or the god says so because the morals are themselves good.
Good questions. Now the problem that one must face is that this is a journey for knowledge, that some questions may not be answered with satisfaction, and sometimes we must be OK to love the questions themselves.
It should be understood feelings did not pop into existence as they are, it all is a gradual development.
A few professional videos for more info, possibly on YouTube or torrent file
One should be careful not to create non sequiturs. As it would not follow that religion knows or has the answer if I or any one else is unable answer a question.
Religion survives on the essence of unknown answers or deeply mysteries questions which are not easy to answer or have yet to be truly discovered.
It doesn't matter what the etymology of the word "atheism" is, it matters how we use the word now. He says that atheism is the assertion of absolute knowledge that no gods exist. This is gnostic strong atheism, which very few people would subscribe to.
@loan987654321 Provoked? of course not, his definition of Atheism is far from correct. I understand why he's not what he considers an atheist but this has little to do with actual atheism.
OMG Zacharias never changes does he. Strawman here, ad absurdem there, fleece large groups of people with no understanding of philosophy. The irony too of his last statement hurts my head.
@MichaelSizer Yet another atheist troll with nothing better to do with his life except be obsessed with his own unbelief. Ravi is not in a debate here, he is giving his own opinion and therefore he will be biased. Ravi is not fleecing anybody. You are a pathetic troglodyte who has no life which is why you troll and cause trouble. I feel sorry for you.
@offenseswillcome no, not because scientists say so, because scientists can prove it, YOU are the one who believes in your fairy tales because yor story book "says so"
@offenseswillcome HAH, typical christian, accuse satan of brainwashing me, the only blinded one here is you, a true christian must be a hateful one, your bible commands you to, don't try to cover it up
@offenseswillcome LOL if your gonna use the better to believe in something that shows that ur insecure about ur beliefs, i knew it, i just knew you'd pull through, one day you'll make a fine atheist
@Roper122 I read it correctly, you sad it's hard to live being a complete fool in front of people, being a atheist. And that's exactly what Dawkins and Harris do for a living...
- OK I'm with you now... helps if I know what post you're responding to.
Anyway... as for what Dawkins and Harris do for a living... well apart from being authors, to question Dawkins' career ..is just silly, and Harris has qualifications in Philosophy and Neuroscience.
Ravi has spent 36 years lecturing people about god because he's qualified in.... god?
Riiiight.
Like I said... you can make a living making a fool of yourself.
Is it at all possible you could present an argument that doesn't include pointless insults? There are many people that aren't atheists who are far smarter than you. So if you have any valid points it would be much more constructive if you voice (read: type) those.
@Roper122 There's no good argument that atheism is true. Atheism claims God and eternal life do not exist and this life is all there is. This is a very serious claim and the consequences of it being false are eternal and irreparable. Atheists can't present an argument or any evidence that can support the weight of this claim, which gives any rational unbiased person no reason to believe in atheism.
@MakingSandwich1 " Atheists can't present an argument or any evidence that can support the weight of this claim, which gives any rational unbiased person no reason to believe in atheism. "
- Nice try.
How about this
Theists can't present an argument or any evidence that can support the weight of this claim, which gives any rational unbiased person no reason to believe in theism.
Sorry.. but if you apply that level of scrutiny to atheism, then you have to stand up to it yourself.
@Roper122 Theists can present evidence for existence of God. Explain to me why we have something rather than nothing. Why does anything exist? Atheists have yet to come up with an explanation that coheres with the laws of logic and laws of science. Atheists will sooner try to say aliens created our DNA which, by the way, does nothing to solve the problem of origins. Also, it's impossible to disprove the existence of anything so it takes quite a bit of faith to BELIEVE that there is no God.
@MakingSandwich1 * YAWN.. none of what you list is evidence for a god... none.
You don't even realize that simply listing things that are not yet known, doesn't constitute evidence for anything, other than the fact that we do not know.
Why does anything exist? - Why not? Is " nothing " even possible? Who knows?
But none of that constitutes evidence, I'm sorry you don't understand that.
Oh, and the alien DNA story?... please.. you're getting desperate now.
@Roper122 You're not even refuting the arguments. "Nothing" is possible as scientists know the universe had a beginning. Everything that exists today; space, time matter, came into existence at the Big Bang. Before that, there was nothing. So what created the universe? Atheists have no logical explanation. Theists do. Until you refute this argument, there's no reason to be an atheist.
@Roper122 You're clearly delusional if you think that scientists don't know that literally everything in the universe was created at the Big Bang. Scientists are in agreement with this. Literally nothing existed. Space didn't exist. Time didn't exist. Matter didn't exist. Also, you say that atheists don't know something. Atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist. How do you know that? You don't know that which, at best, is agnosticism, not atheism.
@MakingSandwich1 " You're clearly delusional if you think that scientists don't know that literally everything in the universe was created at the Big Bang. "
- OK.. calmly and slowly..
1- Scientists don't know what was before the big bang or even if there was a " before" the big bang.. I'm happy to provide examples.
2 - Even if that were the case, it still doesn't help your god argument, because you've given no reason to accept your hypothesis, other than the fact that we don't know
@Roper122 Answer this simple question; Why does anything exist? Until you can give a purely naturalistic explanation for why anything exists, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to be an atheist.
P.S. You're clearly a gigantic ignoramus if you think scientists don't know that the universe had a beginning. I want to know how atheists can explain how the universe naturally formed out of nothing with no supernatural cause whatsoever.
@Roper122 You're not even offering an alternative explanation. You simply say "I don't know." If you don't know, how can you say my explanation wrong in any sense? The universe can't naturally form from nothing. The universe is also an effect. Whatever is an effect has a cause. There's no natural explanation for the cause of the universe so we can conclude the correct explanation is a supernatural one. That's the only explanation you're left with.
@Roper122 Let's change the argument then. How did life come into existence naturally? Saying "I don't know." doesn't cut it. You say my viewpoint is wrong and when I ask for the right viewpoint you say "I don't know." Plus, comparing belief in God to belief in Thor just shows how desperate you are. You don't refute my arguments, you run from them. Also, there's a natural explanation for thunder, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING has a supernatural explanation, you're misunderstanding the argument.
@MakingSandwich1 " You say my viewpoint is wrong and when I ask for the right viewpoint you say "I don't know." " - But that is precisely the point.. You must learn to understand, that simply because we do not know the details of how something works, does not mean that you can simply insert the supernatural.
It has never worked in the history of human beings.
You can ask whatever you want, in the end, you don't know either, so you use a god.
@Roper122 How can you say something is wrong without an idea of what's right? You can't. You obviously have to have some idea of what's right, so explain to me the "right" explanation for the existence of the universe. My prediction is that you'll run from this challenge by saying "I don't know, but your explanation is wrong!"
@Roper122 History shows us that a naturalistic solution is more likely?! Are you out of your mind? What has nature ever created? Nature destroys, it doesn't create. Look at Mt. Rushmore. Would you believe me if I told you that it was created because of millions of years of erosion and had no intelligent Designer whatsoever? Or what if I handed you a piece of paper that said "Hi" and told you a printer exploded and created that word, would you believe me?
Now you've moved on to trying the argument from design, which is different altogether ( but equally bad )
You yourself said, that lightning had a naturalistic, not a supernatural explanation. This pattern has repeated itself over and over. Ignorance leads to a lazy supernatural explanation, which inevitably proves false.
Would you like me to dismantle the design argument now?
@Roper122 You're so ignorant. Let's observe what we've covered. You can't provide an explanation for the existence of the universe or the existence of life and you continue to insist that my explanation is wrong. Nature does nothing to explain the topic of origins. Again, why does anything exist? A worldview has to explain the four big questions of life; origins, ethics, meaning and destiny. You can't answer any other question until you've answered origins and atheism STILL hasn't done that.
Now...not only have you completely ignored my point that your questions aren't an argument for god, but you're trying to impose your personal definition of a " worldview ?? ".
You're stamping your feet like a child and demanding answers, after I've shown that it doesn't help your position.
Why not stop pretending, and actually deal with my point?
You'll never learn if you don't at least be honest.
@Roper122 Origins are the foundation of a worldview. Would you buy a house that doesn't have a quality foundation? No. So why commit yourself to a worldview that doesn't have a quality foundation? If God is the answer to the question of origins, we can then answer questions about ethics, meaning and destiny. If natural causes are the answer then we can still answer questions about ethics, meaning and destiny. There's no two-ways about it. So answer the questions of origins.
@MakingSandwich1 ...No... You're just avoiding the question and talking nonsense.
I don't have a " worldview "... I have the ability to think rationally and see through supernatural claims.
You have presented absolutely nothing to suggest that your god has anything to do with the origin of anything...you simply make up a magic answer to something you don't know.
When this is pointed out to you, you just have a tantrum and say " well, you don't know -so there, I must be right "
@Roper122 You have a naturalistic WORLDVIEW. Every viewpoint or WORLDVIEW of life has to answer the four questions I've already listed. Plus, there is evidence God exists due to the fact that you have FAILED in providing a natural cause for the existence of life and the universe. You said only unintelligent people are theists. Then when I ask you intelligent questions I get the stupid answer "I don't know." A worldview that can't answer the questions of a child is completely irrational.
@MakingSandwich1 " there is evidence God exists due to the fact that you have FAILED in providing a natural cause for the existence of life and the universe. "
- That is absolutely 100% incorrect. I have explained it to you over and over.
" You said only unintelligent people are theists. "
- Well you're demonstrating that..sorry.
" A worldview that can't answer the questions of a child is completely irrational"
- No.. a statement like that is completely self serving and baseless. : )
@Roper122 Here're 6 points that are so simple to grasp even you would look foolish denying them. 1. Something exists. 2. You do not get something from nothing. 3. Therefore a necessary and eternal "something" exists. 4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. 5. Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. 6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
@Roper122 I don't even know how to respond to a person who believes that nothing can create something. Describe to me how nothing creates something. Also the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the Big Bang discovered in the 1990s, the fact that the universe is constantly expanding and can be traced back to a single STARTING point and Einstein's theory of relativity all prove the universe isn't eternal and had a beginning. Describe to me how nothing creates something.
@MakingSandwich1 " Describe to me how nothing creates something "
- Describe to me how you don't understand that this is an argument from ignorance, and doesn't help you at all.
Anyway.. the big bang points to the universe beginning from a singularity, a singularity isn't " nothing ", and relativity breaks down at the quantum level... which ( surprise surprise ) is the level that a singularity is on.
There is more to learn... throwing your hands up and claiming " god did it ', is juvenile.
@Roper122 Here's what I want you to do. Describe to me how nothing creates something. Also, the Big Bang is the explosion of the universe into existence hence the term "Big Bang". I want to know how the Big Bang how nothing caused the Big Bang. Plus, believing in a singularity goes against science and philosophy which have proven that the universe isn't eternal meaning it had a beginning. I want to know how nothing caused that beginning.
@Roper122 I don't see how it's ignorant at all. You claim my explanation is wrong so I want to know the right one. You can't say anything is wrong without having an explanation to falsify it. You have no explanation to falsify my explanation which gives me no reason to believe in your non-existent explanation. I already told you that origins are the foundation of a worldview. You're showing me that atheism has no foundation which gives me no reason to believe anything you say about life.
@Roper122 I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying if scientists can't provide a natural explanation for the existence of the universe then the only explanation you can turn to is a supernatural explanation. It's called the process of elimination. Also, you can't say any explanation is false without refuting it. If someone said that 2+2=5 you could immediately refute that because you can show them that 2+2=4. You're the one who has to provide the "2+2=4" explanation.
" I'm saying if scientists can't provide a natural explanation for the existence of the universe then the only explanation you can turn to is a supernatural explanation. "
- That's EXACTLY what you are saying!! IF I can't answer it THEN god must be the answer. I'm sorry, but you just did precisely what you said you weren't doing.
You can only use a process of elimination if you have every possible option.. which you don't.
@Roper122 There are only two possible options for the existence of the universe. An eternal universe or an eternal Creator. Science and philosophy have both disproven the concept of an eternal universe. So, using the process of elimination, we've eliminated the concept of an eternal universe. The only option left is an eternal Creator. This is seriously a very easy concept to grasp. The problem is you don't WANT to grasp this concept. That's why this is so difficult.
@Roper122 What other possibilities are there? I have no reason to believe what you say because you're literally giving me nothing to believe. I also listed a whole bunch of proofs in the field of science that have proven the universe isn't eternal. The 2nd law of thermodynamics alone proves this. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says the universe is running out of usable energy. If the universe is "running down" then at one point it started up. Again, YOU don't WANT to grasp this.
@MakingSandwich1 " What other possibilities are there? I have no reason to believe what you say because you're literally giving me nothing to believe "
- So.. you just believe people who give you something to believe? ( obviously yes )
Listen carefully... it.. doesn't ..matter...none.. of ...this..makes..your...answer..more..likely.
" I also listed a whole bunch of proofs in the field of science "
- I could discuss them all if you like.. but it doesn't matter... you've proved nothing.
@Roper122 Actually no. I go where the evidence takes me. The evidence takes me away from atheism. Explain to me how the universe came into existence then. Yeah, we're back to this again because you STILL haven't refuted this argument. I refuse to believe in something that can't even explain reality. I don't have enough faith to do that.
@Roper122 Here's what I want to know. How do you explain the existence of the universe? I want to know how nothing can naturally create everything without any kind of intelligent intervention. Lightning doesn't explain the issue of origins and neither does atheism. Seriously, actually refute my arguments.
@MakingSandwich1 " Here's what I want to know. How do you explain the existence of the universe? "
- Really? Do you want me to just make something up?
Here's what I want to know... why do you keep ignoring my point?
Why is it, that I explain to you over and over and over again... how your question is irrelevant to the whole argument for god... and yet you just ignore it every time, and ask again?
I've shown how asking that question doesn't help you....
@Roper122 You're dodging the question. You haven't explained how the universe came into existence. I want you to show me why you're right. Why can't the universe be created by God? How have you eliminated the need for a God?
@Roper122 You're STILL not answering my question? I'm insisting that you provide an explanation for the existence of the universe and life and that's "irrelevant"? Seriously, explain how the universe came into existence. I have no reason to listen to you until you show me why you're right. You still haven't done that. You need to eliminate the need for God before concluding that there is no God. You're doing this the other way around. Questions NEED answers and you've provided none.
@Roper122 I'm not frightened at all. I'm asking for answers to important questions that shape the way we think and act. Also, you believe in even more magic than me. You believe a frog can turn into a prince. You believe non-life can create life. You believe nothing creates everything. And your Thor analogy is meaningless. We know how lightning occurs so there's no need for a god that creates lightning. We also know it's impossible for nothing to create anything so there's a NEED for God.
@Roper122 You've been hiding behind the "I don't know." excuse this whole time. How in the world can you say an explanation is wrong and offer absolutely no explanation to replace it? You can't logically do that. You say "We don't know." You apparently KNOW there's no god if you're an atheist. Also, you're failing to understand me when I say need. Every quality car NEEDS an engine. And every quality car HAS an engine. The universe needs and has a designer.
@MakingSandwich1 .. OK, so you're admitting the THOR analogy works perfectly then?
Read back... I said before, I can't say something is 100% wrong, but I can say that it is incredibly unlikely and has no evidence whatsoever... if you choose to believe in something like that... good luck to you... it seems borderline insane to me.
Anyway... you've moved back to the design argument now, you tend to change when you're struggling.
@Roper122 So how did the universe come into existence without a Designer? There's evidence for design right there. The universe couldn't have created itself. So what created it? Nothing couldn't have created the universe. So what created it? The universe is an effect so what is the cause of the universe? Saying "I don't know." gives me even more reason to believe in design since you are incapable of proving me wrong.
@MakingSandwich1 .. Right.. so I've dealt with your origin of the universe attempt... so now you're trying to prove design.. with the same argument???
Come on.. at least try.
Even if you had the answer to something creating the universe ( which you don't ) you still don't have any evidence of design.. that's a different argument.
You're just mindlessly throwing everything out hoping something will stick.
Perhaps when you've finished here you'll actually go and learn where you're wrong.
@Roper122 At least try? This is coming from the guy who hasn't refuted any argument I've put forward. You can't explain the existence of the universe but you insist that the universe isn't a product of design. If design isn't the answer, what is? I already know your answer "I don't know." You say it isn't design, so what's the correct answer?
@MakingSandwich1 " This is coming from the guy who hasn't refuted any argument I've put forward "
- Nope.. this is coming from a guy who has pointed out the problem with your argument.. over and over and over... patiently.. despite the fact that you ignore it.
Repeatedly asking for an exact explanation of the origin of the universe does not help... but it's your only approach.
Your only argument for design is.. " god must've done it.. therefore it's designed ".
@Roper122 You've yet to prove me wrong. You haven't shown me WHY my argument is wrong. You just SAY it is and expect me to believe you. Have you ever argued with someone before? You have to actually refute their arguments and present your own arguments for them to be wrong. You STILL haven't even got past step one. Asking for an explanation for the existence of the universe DOES help the case for design. Especially when its opponents can provide no alternative explanation (Hint, hint: you).
@Roper122 Explain to me why my argument is invalid. How is the topic of origins invalid? Also, you haven't refuted my argument so why move on to a different one? Just like if you're winning a game of chess. If your current strategy is working, why change it?
@MakingSandwich1 ..You're the one who moved on to design...not me.
Read slowly... You are presenting an argument from ignorance. Your whole argument is based on the fact that if I don't know something, then your answer must be right. This is a logical fallacy... It simply does not follow.
No matter how many times you repeat it.
I could make your argument better for you...but not if you won't accept this fact.
@Roper122 My argument is based around you failing to prove me wrong. If you don't know the right answer to my question, I have no reason to agree with you. Atheists are still subject to defending and justifying their position. Your lack of knowledge shows me you can't do that. If you can't prove your belief is correct but continue to believe it, you have faith your belief is true. I don't put my faith in a belief that can't present facts to confirm it.
@MakingSandwich1 ... But whether I have an answer or not, does not make your answer correct.
You can believe that if you want, but it's simply not true.
By the way, you DO put your faith in a belief with no facts...you believe in god.
You have no facts whatsoever...so far your biggest argument is the fact that atheists can't give you details about the origin of the universe...that's not a fact.
@Roper122 Finally! Progress. You're right in saying that your lack of an answer doesn't make my belief correct. It makes my belief much more plausible than yours. Also, belief or disbelief is God both take faith. The difference is that God's exist CAN be proven while God's nonexistence CANNOT be proven. And the FACT that atheists can't provide a plausible explanation for the existence of anything gives me even more reason to believe in God.
@Roper122 Which is more plausible? The universe was created out of nothing or an eternal Creator created the universe.
It's not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. It's completely possible to prove that something does exist.
I understand that you can't defend your beliefs. Why commit myself to a belief system that can't even withstand scrutiny? I wouldn't buy a house that can't withstand bad weather, and I wouldn't believe in a belief system that can't withstand criticism.
That we have more to learn...or that a magic man in the sky did it?
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
I understand you want to defend your god...but if you venture onto YouTube...you will meet real arguments, and your little cliches don't help Im afraid.
@Roper122 This is amusing. You still haven't refuted my argument. I've argued it's impossible for the universe to form naturally out of nothing and so far you've done nothing to prove me wrong. So if nature can't create the universe. Then what did create the universe? It's an extremely simple question.
@Roper122 Advertising my ignorance? Here's your whole argument "We need to find more evidence." You're basically telling me that only a purely natural cause can explain the existence of the universe. Here's what we know. The universe had a beginning. Atheists believe the universe is all there is. So before the universe there was nothing. Nothing can't create anything. The universe had a beginning. FACT. Nothing can't create something. FACT. So how could the universe exist without God?
You know very well that's the hoards of religious believers who simply block their ears and refuse to hear anything that shows them.
Do you want to be one of them? Because if you do....good luck to you.
Or you could make the decision to step up and actually engage in the discussion and actually defend your beliefs? But you can't do that if you refuse to listen.
@Roper122 You're not even attacking my beliefs. You haven't shown me how it's impossible for God to exist. I have shown you how it's impossible for the universe to naturally form out of nothing without God. I'm open for explanations, you just haven't given me any.
@Roper122 So you've done nothing to prove it's impossible for God to exist, so how can you claim to "know" He doesn't exist when you haven't shown that it's impossible for Him to exist. And nothing is the only thing that forms out of nothing. That's not a theory, that's just basic common sense. If I asked a child to draw me a picture out of nothing, they'd back away from me like I was crazy because they know they can't make anything out of nothing and it's insane to suggest that you can.
@Roper122 Are you typing these responses from some sort of special education center? The universe is the first thing you have to prove formed naturally before you can claim there was no intelligent intervention of any kind. Every drop of scientific and philosophical evidence shows us that 1. the universe had a beginning 2. nothing creates nothing. So when atheism is shown to be false, and I just did that, the only option left is theism.
@MakingSandwich1 ..OK, you really don't understand, that's fine.
I'll just write this for everybody else.
Religious believers often use arguments from ignorance, they try to say that if science doesn't have an answer therefore their answer must be correct. This is a logical fallacy.
The origin of the universe is a mystery, relativity breaks down at the singularity, " common sense " doesn't help...physicist know this.
Unfortunately many people just see the superficial argument and don't think
@Roper122 The origins of the universe isn't a mystery at all. Nature couldn't have possibly done it as the law of cause and effect prohibits nothing being the cause of anything, let alone a life permitting universe. The only two options you have are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. There's no 3rd option. Modern science and philosophy have eliminated the possibility of an eternal universe so you're logically forced to believe in an eternal Creator.
@Roper122 It's clear to me that you're not interested in rational debate. "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." - Blaise Pascal. It's clear to me that the idea of escaping moral accountability and judgement can provide temporary comfort. It's also clear that Blaise Pascal was right and you're a shining example of the type of person he was talking about.
@Roper122 Argument of ignorance doesn't exist. There are only two explanations for the existence of anything; an eternal universe or God. If you say the universe isn't eternal then you must believe in God because the universe can't naturally form on its own. It can't. It won't. And it didn't. Science and philosophy have destroyed any concept of an eternal universe and nothing doesn't create something. So God exists or else nothing would exist.
@Roper122 What other possibilities are there for the existence of the universe? Your "false dichotomy" position is a false dichotomy. What other possible and plausible explanation can you present that doesn't involve an eternal universe or God? That's a challenge. Present a 3rd explanation. "I don't know" is NOT an explanation. Give me a logical explanation or keep your mouth shut until you can actually prove me wrong. Again, "I don't know" is NOT, keyword, NOT an explanation.
@Roper122 So first you claim my position is a "false dichotomy" then you can't provide a third explanation. So your 1st premise is false. Next, you say the fact that a natural explanation can't be used to explain the existence of the universe doesn't help my case. It actually helps me by proving the atheistic viewpoint to be false. Your 2nd premise is also false. And finally you say a made up explanation is based off of proof. So that's three consecutive fallacies in one comment.
@Roper122 You accuse me of "false dichotomy" then you can't even provide a 3rd explanation. Try to actually back up your accusations next time. This isn't an argument from ignorance. There is simply no way nothing creates anything. That's not ignorance. A guess based off of facts? You've presented no facts and haven't guessed once.
@Roper122 You're really just hurting the case for atheism. If a neutral person were to read this argument, they could instantly see whose faith is based off of evidence (theism) and which faith is based off of faith (atheism). It's clear the only person who can get you to accept the evidence and that's right in front of your face is you. So it's pointless for me or anyone else to try to convince you that atheism is false until you actually admit that you could be wrong (and you are).
@Roper122 A neutral person would wonder how nothing can create something and you have given them no reason to that believe nothing can create something. A neutral person would wonder why a natural explanation hasn't been given to disprove the supernatural explanation. A neutral person would wonder why atheists can only attack theism but can't defend atheism.
@Roper122 You need to explain to me why I'm wrong. That's what I've been asking you to do this whole time. Don't TELL me I'm wrong. SHOW me I'm wrong. You've failed to do that. You haven't shown how it's impossible for God to exist. In fact, your lack of a natural explanation has shown how much more plausible it is that God exists. I'm willing to learn, you've just taught me nothing. "I don't know." isn't a factual statement.
@Roper122 Here's the thing. Each worldview claims its right. You hold the atheistic worldview. I asked you what makes theism wrong and atheism right. "I don't know." is the closest thing to answer I've gotten from you. Now why would I commit myself to a worldview that can't answer my questions? Every other worldview I turn to is able to answer my questions, so why can't atheism? If atheism is true, why can't atheism tell me why it's true?
@Roper122 Why would I believe in atheism? Atheism is by far the weakest worldview. All of the major worldviews except atheism can answer my question. I can then compare each worldview's answers to reality and then I can eliminate each worldview based on the facts. I don't even have to consider atheism because nothing can't make something. Either God created the universe or He didn't. It's impossible for the universe to exist without God, so I have no reason to believe in atheism.
@Roper122 So what's the 3rd explanation then?! You're just spewing fallacy after fallacy with no basis.
I do have an understanding of the universe, I know it's not eternal and I know it couldn't have been created by nothing. I also know that space, time, matter and energy didn't exist until the universe existed. I know that atheism can give me no explanation for why we have something rather than nothing, while every other worldview can.
@Roper122 It does matter. You can't accuse me of a false dichotomy without a 3rd explanation. So that's just another fallacy you've tried to pass off as a fact.
Atheists are simply pretending not to know. They're pretending they don't know it's impossible for nothing to create anything. You've presented literally no reason for anyone to believe in atheism. You've given no answers which gives people no reason to even begin to try to believe in atheism.
@MakingSandwich1 " You can't accuse me of a false dichotomy without a 3rd explanation " - OK. let me put it to you this ... If I asked you to explain to me EXACTLY HOW god create the universe... what would you say? I'm guessing you'd say " I don't know " Well if you did that.. I could turn around and say " Well that's not an explanation etc etc etc .. " and you could say " Just because I don't know doesn't make it impossible ' and I would say " BINGO!!! " You'll get it one day..
@Roper122 Nope. The question is "Why does anything exist rather than nothing?" not "How was anything created?" I want to know why anything exists without God. After all, what other explanation can you give me that explains the existence of anything? There are none. So when the only plausible explanation for the existence of the universe is God, then you can easily determine that the universe was created by God.
This man is a genius. Real nice person too.
ooJUKEBOXHEROoo 3 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity is a scam and terrorism.Wake up.
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them,and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.Jn15:6.
Every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down,and cast into the fire.Lk3:12.
Through the wrath of the LORD...the people shall be as the fuel of the fire...Is9:19
... mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,bring hither,and slay them before me.Lk19.27.
worksequalsalvation 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roper122 If they can't they are completely retarded. It is Statistically more likely that the Universe (which is a physical system) was created by Elves than the likelihood that a physical system with 4 fundamental forces electromagnetic fields, weak interaction, strong interaction, and gravitation, that all have finite constants (like any physical engineering system) spontaneously created itself as Atheists believe.
lion575 1 month ago
@lion575 " It is Statistically more likely that the Universe (which is a physical system) was created by Elves than the likelihood that a physical system "
- Oh really?? Well unless the Elves aren't actually part of the universe, then you're pretty much talkin about a supernatural god... so what are the statistic likelihood of that?? Must be great to know all these numbers... or are you just making stuff up??
( hint: you're making stuff up.. )
Roper122 1 month ago
Comment removed
lion575 1 month ago
@lion575 Hi Lion, They are Christians because they have realised that there is a god and they have a relationship with him through christ. Which is hard to explain until you have experienced it personally. But once you have its like everything fits together, a good vid to watch is "youtube: Ravi Zacharias "Postures of the Mind, Affections of the..."
Theres a good example about what having a relationship with god is like, i hope you find what you are looking for :)
Stain3610 1 month ago
@lion575 search for "give me an answer" on youtube
Valanor1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oddly Richard Dawkins is my best argument for Christianity. I feel its obvious the universe is a physical system with intelligent design behind it, but beyond that ... . Anyway when watching Dawkins who is so full of spite and so just morally messed up and compare them to Ravi it makes it very difficult to believe that this guy spewing hate and nothing scientific that makes rational sense can be correct. Then again their is also the possibly he's just a jackass and Ravi isn't.
lion575 2 months ago
Any person subscribing to Christianity has already lost their credibility. Simple.
You do nothing but insult everyone's intelligence when making arguments for such a belief, a belief that has it's very foundation based on lies covered by pure and utter corruption that aims to dissolve the only possible path towards any inkling of truth, our skeptical mind.
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
@DeconversionCentral
Interesting (yet not surprising in the slightest) how you managed to make so many broad accusations but miserably failed to support even one of them. I find your axioms to be preposterous, and the burden of proof is standing at your doorstep.
Honestly, what you've said is literally akin to me stating "anyone who eats carrots loses all credibility. Simple."
thegreatestjest 2 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thegreatestjest I do see what you mean.
I think religion as an axiom is quite self-evident of that which I spoke. I will elaborate specifics if you like, but let us not turn this into a bottomless ontological argument.
Also, your analogy of the carrots certainly lacks the context involved, comparing apples to oranges.
Religion attempts at great length to dissolve our critical faculties, through false sense of knowing the unknown; involving threats and promises.
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
Religion survives on our naturally evolved tendencies to want to "know", our emotional states of empathy, love, guilt, fear and other desires or lack of.
When investigated with integrity and no double standards; religion is found lacking any and all specifics which it had at first claimed ownership of; origin of existence, health / medicine, earthly ownership (promised land, slavery, family, forgiveness), accurate historicity, morals, credibility of proclaimed proofs.
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Universe barely allow for life, and remains absolutely 99.9% inhospitable to life. The life that could, has and does exist begs the question of unintelligent design.
No god found at origin of existence, and creation / genesis found to be mythical and quite inaccurate.
Prayer or holy medicine lacks any evidence of direct intervention.
Earthly ownership only empowers those claiming it, profoundly cheating many people.
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exodus, great flood, Abraham, Jesus (gospel story, not just a man) etc... to this day the evidence is non-existent.
Large amounts of historical battles, and providence of kings has been found lacking accuracy (which is expected, but not appropriate if divinely authored).
What are morals, if they are only divinely dictated? Also, begging the question whether morals are good because a god says so, or the god says so because the morals are themselves good.
Nothing proved.
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
@DeconversionCentral so were did love guilt and fear come from?
pinball281 2 months ago
@pinball281
Good questions. Now the problem that one must face is that this is a journey for knowledge, that some questions may not be answered with satisfaction, and sometimes we must be OK to love the questions themselves.
It should be understood feelings did not pop into existence as they are, it all is a gradual development.
A few professional videos for more info, possibly on YouTube or torrent file
-The Magic of Consciousness
-BBC The Secret You
-BBC The Secret of Chaos
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
@DeconversionCentral
One should be careful not to create non sequiturs. As it would not follow that religion knows or has the answer if I or any one else is unable answer a question.
Religion survives on the essence of unknown answers or deeply mysteries questions which are not easy to answer or have yet to be truly discovered.
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
@pinball281 They are innate qualities in us. Even other species show signs of love and certainly know fear.
vivalaleta 1 month ago
It doesn't matter what the etymology of the word "atheism" is, it matters how we use the word now. He says that atheism is the assertion of absolute knowledge that no gods exist. This is gnostic strong atheism, which very few people would subscribe to.
ballonenciel 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why I'm not an Atheist is a double negative, it could be better expressed as why I am a theist. The very title is a provocation aimed at atheists.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
Why I'm not an Atheist is a double negative, it could be better expressed as why I am a theist. The very title is a provocation aimed at atheists.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@MrArokOleary And? feel provoked? then you should check out part 2 :)
loan987654321 5 months ago
@loan987654321 Provoked? of course not, his definition of Atheism is far from correct. I understand why he's not what he considers an atheist but this has little to do with actual atheism.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@MichaelSizer God loves you man. He loves you.
zetox12 5 months ago
the prefix can mean without, as well. Good times, good times.
pongadootch 6 months ago
OMG Zacharias never changes does he. Strawman here, ad absurdem there, fleece large groups of people with no understanding of philosophy. The irony too of his last statement hurts my head.
MichaelSizer 6 months ago
Comment removed
ChaoThing 6 months ago
@MichaelSizer Yet another atheist troll with nothing better to do with his life except be obsessed with his own unbelief. Ravi is not in a debate here, he is giving his own opinion and therefore he will be biased. Ravi is not fleecing anybody. You are a pathetic troglodyte who has no life which is why you troll and cause trouble. I feel sorry for you.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
What is the name of the music played at the beginning of the video?
casablanka1987 7 months ago
@casablanka1987
J.S. Bach - Concerto for 4 harpsichords and strings in A minor, BWV 1065.
Legomyegoorj 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@offenseswillcome whats wrong with you why do you keep replying to my comments with spam
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
@offenseswillcome and number 32, a blue, Q, khezu
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@offenseswillcome no, not because scientists say so, because scientists can prove it, YOU are the one who believes in your fairy tales because yor story book "says so"
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
@offenseswillcome HAH, typical christian, accuse satan of brainwashing me, the only blinded one here is you, a true christian must be a hateful one, your bible commands you to, don't try to cover it up
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
@offenseswillcome yes, of course
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
@offenseswillcome LOL if your gonna use the better to believe in something that shows that ur insecure about ur beliefs, i knew it, i just knew you'd pull through, one day you'll make a fine atheist
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
@offenseswillcome your weird, your just spamming nonsense to things that dont even make sense
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
Nope, Russel moved to stupidism....jejejejejeje
realhomosapiens 7 months ago
@offenseswillcome mucho fairy tales and mucho self worship
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
@offenseswillcome i can recommend a mental institute if you want, i think this fairy tale worship is starting to get out of hand
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
@offenseswillcome we also have those about greek gods, i guess we better bow to zeus or be punished
SnakeSalmon8izback 7 months ago
@offenseswillcome Your comment is spot on. Skeptics always dodge evidence when in fact it's been there all along.
gatsbyfaulkner 7 months ago
Me and 9+ other people are entitled to our opinion.
TEDDYZMAIN 7 months ago
@Roper122 I read it correctly, you sad it's hard to live being a complete fool in front of people, being a atheist. And that's exactly what Dawkins and Harris do for a living...
orog3 7 months ago
@orog3 .. " I read it correctly "
- OK I'm with you now... helps if I know what post you're responding to.
Anyway... as for what Dawkins and Harris do for a living... well apart from being authors, to question Dawkins' career ..is just silly, and Harris has qualifications in Philosophy and Neuroscience.
Ravi has spent 36 years lecturing people about god because he's qualified in.... god?
Riiiight.
Like I said... you can make a living making a fool of yourself.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Hard? You obviously never heard of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, did you? Lol
orog3 7 months ago
@orog3 " Hard? You obviously never heard of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, did you? Lol "
- Read it again Einstein.. he said there are people who AREN'T atheists...
I'm pretty sure those three are atheists.. last time I checked.
I think you just misread it.
Roper122 7 months ago
As I've said before.. the easy answer to
" Why I'm not an atheist "
is
Because I'm not very smart, and I can make a living demonstrating that to other people.
Hard to do that as an atheist.
Roper122 8 months ago
@Roper122
Is it at all possible you could present an argument that doesn't include pointless insults? There are many people that aren't atheists who are far smarter than you. So if you have any valid points it would be much more constructive if you voice (read: type) those.
Scarface1034 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scarface1034 .. Sure - What would you like me to refute?
" There are many people that aren't atheists who are far smarter than you. "
- Hmmm... speaking of pointless, you don't know me... so good luck with that.
Anyway... which one of Ravi's mistakes would you like me to correct?
I pretty much assumed that everyone can see them, I mean it's not like he's Kirk cameron.. but come on.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 There's no good argument that atheism is true. Atheism claims God and eternal life do not exist and this life is all there is. This is a very serious claim and the consequences of it being false are eternal and irreparable. Atheists can't present an argument or any evidence that can support the weight of this claim, which gives any rational unbiased person no reason to believe in atheism.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " Atheists can't present an argument or any evidence that can support the weight of this claim, which gives any rational unbiased person no reason to believe in atheism. "
- Nice try.
How about this
Theists can't present an argument or any evidence that can support the weight of this claim, which gives any rational unbiased person no reason to believe in theism.
Sorry.. but if you apply that level of scrutiny to atheism, then you have to stand up to it yourself.
Oops. : )
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Theists can present evidence for existence of God. Explain to me why we have something rather than nothing. Why does anything exist? Atheists have yet to come up with an explanation that coheres with the laws of logic and laws of science. Atheists will sooner try to say aliens created our DNA which, by the way, does nothing to solve the problem of origins. Also, it's impossible to disprove the existence of anything so it takes quite a bit of faith to BELIEVE that there is no God.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 * YAWN.. none of what you list is evidence for a god... none.
You don't even realize that simply listing things that are not yet known, doesn't constitute evidence for anything, other than the fact that we do not know.
Why does anything exist? - Why not? Is " nothing " even possible? Who knows?
But none of that constitutes evidence, I'm sorry you don't understand that.
Oh, and the alien DNA story?... please.. you're getting desperate now.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You're not even refuting the arguments. "Nothing" is possible as scientists know the universe had a beginning. Everything that exists today; space, time matter, came into existence at the Big Bang. Before that, there was nothing. So what created the universe? Atheists have no logical explanation. Theists do. Until you refute this argument, there's no reason to be an atheist.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " Everything that exists today; space, time matter, came into existence at the Big Bang. Before that, there was nothing. "
- No, we don't even know if there was a " before that ".. what's before time? How can nothing sustain itself?
" Atheists have no logical explanation. Theists do "
- Just because we do not know something, is no reason to accept your particular version.
I'm sorry that you don't understand that, but that's what makes you gullible to religion.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You're clearly delusional if you think that scientists don't know that literally everything in the universe was created at the Big Bang. Scientists are in agreement with this. Literally nothing existed. Space didn't exist. Time didn't exist. Matter didn't exist. Also, you say that atheists don't know something. Atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist. How do you know that? You don't know that which, at best, is agnosticism, not atheism.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " You're clearly delusional if you think that scientists don't know that literally everything in the universe was created at the Big Bang. "
- OK.. calmly and slowly..
1- Scientists don't know what was before the big bang or even if there was a " before" the big bang.. I'm happy to provide examples.
2 - Even if that were the case, it still doesn't help your god argument, because you've given no reason to accept your hypothesis, other than the fact that we don't know
Sorry
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Answer this simple question; Why does anything exist? Until you can give a purely naturalistic explanation for why anything exists, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to be an atheist.
P.S. You're clearly a gigantic ignoramus if you think scientists don't know that the universe had a beginning. I want to know how atheists can explain how the universe naturally formed out of nothing with no supernatural cause whatsoever.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " Why does anything exist? "
- I don't know... but then again.. I also don't know if " nothing " is even possible, and neither do you.
Now you answer this...
Do you understand that whether anyone knows the answer to that or not... it isn't an argument for god..
it's just an argument from ignorance?
Because you keep trying it, and you don't understand how it doesn't work.
In the past people didnt know how lightning worked.. so they called it Thor. They were wrong too.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You're not even offering an alternative explanation. You simply say "I don't know." If you don't know, how can you say my explanation wrong in any sense? The universe can't naturally form from nothing. The universe is also an effect. Whatever is an effect has a cause. There's no natural explanation for the cause of the universe so we can conclude the correct explanation is a supernatural one. That's the only explanation you're left with.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " You're not even offering an alternative explanation. "
- That is the point. Are you even reading the whole of my posts?
You are completely ignoring the fact that your argument is meaningless.. I've explained it over and over.
But you ignore it.. I doubt you even understand it.
" here's no natural explanation for the cause of the universe so we can conclude the correct explanation is a supernatural one "
- Just like THOR god of thunder hey? That worked out well
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Let's change the argument then. How did life come into existence naturally? Saying "I don't know." doesn't cut it. You say my viewpoint is wrong and when I ask for the right viewpoint you say "I don't know." Plus, comparing belief in God to belief in Thor just shows how desperate you are. You don't refute my arguments, you run from them. Also, there's a natural explanation for thunder, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING has a supernatural explanation, you're misunderstanding the argument.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " You say my viewpoint is wrong and when I ask for the right viewpoint you say "I don't know." " - But that is precisely the point.. You must learn to understand, that simply because we do not know the details of how something works, does not mean that you can simply insert the supernatural.
It has never worked in the history of human beings.
You can ask whatever you want, in the end, you don't know either, so you use a god.
The Thor argument is a prime example of this.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 How can you say something is wrong without an idea of what's right? You can't. You obviously have to have some idea of what's right, so explain to me the "right" explanation for the existence of the universe. My prediction is that you'll run from this challenge by saying "I don't know, but your explanation is wrong!"
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ... Look, you're just not getting it.
I understand that it's easy to want to look for answers when you don't know... but that's all you're doing.
Neither of us know.. the only difference is that you pretend to know.
I understand the appeal of that... but it doesn't work.
At the very least history shows us that a naturalistic solution is infinitely more likely, and has always been proven correct in the past.
To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 History shows us that a naturalistic solution is more likely?! Are you out of your mind? What has nature ever created? Nature destroys, it doesn't create. Look at Mt. Rushmore. Would you believe me if I told you that it was created because of millions of years of erosion and had no intelligent Designer whatsoever? Or what if I handed you a piece of paper that said "Hi" and told you a printer exploded and created that word, would you believe me?
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ...Come on, stop mixing your arguments.
Now you've moved on to trying the argument from design, which is different altogether ( but equally bad )
You yourself said, that lightning had a naturalistic, not a supernatural explanation. This pattern has repeated itself over and over. Ignorance leads to a lazy supernatural explanation, which inevitably proves false.
Would you like me to dismantle the design argument now?
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You're so ignorant. Let's observe what we've covered. You can't provide an explanation for the existence of the universe or the existence of life and you continue to insist that my explanation is wrong. Nature does nothing to explain the topic of origins. Again, why does anything exist? A worldview has to explain the four big questions of life; origins, ethics, meaning and destiny. You can't answer any other question until you've answered origins and atheism STILL hasn't done that.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ..Back to this again?
Now...not only have you completely ignored my point that your questions aren't an argument for god, but you're trying to impose your personal definition of a " worldview ?? ".
You're stamping your feet like a child and demanding answers, after I've shown that it doesn't help your position.
Why not stop pretending, and actually deal with my point?
You'll never learn if you don't at least be honest.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Origins are the foundation of a worldview. Would you buy a house that doesn't have a quality foundation? No. So why commit yourself to a worldview that doesn't have a quality foundation? If God is the answer to the question of origins, we can then answer questions about ethics, meaning and destiny. If natural causes are the answer then we can still answer questions about ethics, meaning and destiny. There's no two-ways about it. So answer the questions of origins.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ...No... You're just avoiding the question and talking nonsense.
I don't have a " worldview "... I have the ability to think rationally and see through supernatural claims.
You have presented absolutely nothing to suggest that your god has anything to do with the origin of anything...you simply make up a magic answer to something you don't know.
When this is pointed out to you, you just have a tantrum and say " well, you don't know -so there, I must be right "
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You have a naturalistic WORLDVIEW. Every viewpoint or WORLDVIEW of life has to answer the four questions I've already listed. Plus, there is evidence God exists due to the fact that you have FAILED in providing a natural cause for the existence of life and the universe. You said only unintelligent people are theists. Then when I ask you intelligent questions I get the stupid answer "I don't know." A worldview that can't answer the questions of a child is completely irrational.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " there is evidence God exists due to the fact that you have FAILED in providing a natural cause for the existence of life and the universe. "
- That is absolutely 100% incorrect. I have explained it to you over and over.
" You said only unintelligent people are theists. "
- Well you're demonstrating that..sorry.
" A worldview that can't answer the questions of a child is completely irrational"
- No.. a statement like that is completely self serving and baseless. : )
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Here're 6 points that are so simple to grasp even you would look foolish denying them. 1. Something exists. 2. You do not get something from nothing. 3. Therefore a necessary and eternal "something" exists. 4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. 5. Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. 6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 .. Oh? You've changed arguments again?
" You do not get something from nothing "
- So many problems with that, let's go one at a time.
Here's one... What rule prevents there being something form nothing?
The rule of " nothing " ?
If you want to pretend call " science and philosophy " into play, then you need to abide by the rules.
What you have there isn't proof of anything... it's an argument.
An argument with huge holes, that you refuse to look at.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 I don't even know how to respond to a person who believes that nothing can create something. Describe to me how nothing creates something. Also the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the Big Bang discovered in the 1990s, the fact that the universe is constantly expanding and can be traced back to a single STARTING point and Einstein's theory of relativity all prove the universe isn't eternal and had a beginning. Describe to me how nothing creates something.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " Describe to me how nothing creates something "
- Describe to me how you don't understand that this is an argument from ignorance, and doesn't help you at all.
Anyway.. the big bang points to the universe beginning from a singularity, a singularity isn't " nothing ", and relativity breaks down at the quantum level... which ( surprise surprise ) is the level that a singularity is on.
There is more to learn... throwing your hands up and claiming " god did it ', is juvenile.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Here's what I want you to do. Describe to me how nothing creates something. Also, the Big Bang is the explosion of the universe into existence hence the term "Big Bang". I want to know how the Big Bang how nothing caused the Big Bang. Plus, believing in a singularity goes against science and philosophy which have proven that the universe isn't eternal meaning it had a beginning. I want to know how nothing caused that beginning.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MakingSandwich1 .. OK.. I'll do whatever you want.
As soon as you admit to me, that what you are proposing is what is known as an ' argument from ignorance ' .
If you will admit, that whatever I do or do not know, has absolutely ZERO to do with whether your proposition is correct.
Then I'm happy to keep explaining to you...
If you still don't understand this.. then you have bigger problems.
So go on... admit it ... and we'll move on.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 I don't see how it's ignorant at all. You claim my explanation is wrong so I want to know the right one. You can't say anything is wrong without having an explanation to falsify it. You have no explanation to falsify my explanation which gives me no reason to believe in your non-existent explanation. I already told you that origins are the foundation of a worldview. You're showing me that atheism has no foundation which gives me no reason to believe anything you say about life.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " I don't see how it's ignorant at all. "
- I'll explain then. Basically what you are saying is...
" If you don't know what the answer is .. then the answer must be god "
This doesn't follow.
There could be all sorts of other options that we do not know about.
It's the same mistake the ancients made with THOR
" You can't say anything is wrong without having an explanation to falsify it. "
- No, but I can say it's incredibly unlikely and that it has zero evidence : )
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying if scientists can't provide a natural explanation for the existence of the universe then the only explanation you can turn to is a supernatural explanation. It's called the process of elimination. Also, you can't say any explanation is false without refuting it. If someone said that 2+2=5 you could immediately refute that because you can show them that 2+2=4. You're the one who has to provide the "2+2=4" explanation.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " I'm not saying that at all. "
- Really?
" I'm saying if scientists can't provide a natural explanation for the existence of the universe then the only explanation you can turn to is a supernatural explanation. "
- That's EXACTLY what you are saying!! IF I can't answer it THEN god must be the answer. I'm sorry, but you just did precisely what you said you weren't doing.
You can only use a process of elimination if you have every possible option.. which you don't.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 There are only two possible options for the existence of the universe. An eternal universe or an eternal Creator. Science and philosophy have both disproven the concept of an eternal universe. So, using the process of elimination, we've eliminated the concept of an eternal universe. The only option left is an eternal Creator. This is seriously a very easy concept to grasp. The problem is you don't WANT to grasp this concept. That's why this is so difficult.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " There are only two possible options for the existence of the universe. "
- Whoa there big fella... what did we just talk about?
You don't know that there are only two possibilities.
You are creating a false dichotomy.
Argument from ignorance again : )
" Science and philosophy have both disproven the concept of an eternal universe "
- They haven't actually .. but that's beside the point.
" This is seriously a very easy concept to grasp "
- Easy - Yes, Correct - No.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 What other possibilities are there? I have no reason to believe what you say because you're literally giving me nothing to believe. I also listed a whole bunch of proofs in the field of science that have proven the universe isn't eternal. The 2nd law of thermodynamics alone proves this. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says the universe is running out of usable energy. If the universe is "running down" then at one point it started up. Again, YOU don't WANT to grasp this.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " What other possibilities are there? I have no reason to believe what you say because you're literally giving me nothing to believe "
- So.. you just believe people who give you something to believe? ( obviously yes )
Listen carefully... it.. doesn't ..matter...none.. of ...this..makes..your...answer..more..likely.
" I also listed a whole bunch of proofs in the field of science "
- I could discuss them all if you like.. but it doesn't matter... you've proved nothing.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Actually no. I go where the evidence takes me. The evidence takes me away from atheism. Explain to me how the universe came into existence then. Yeah, we're back to this again because you STILL haven't refuted this argument. I refuse to believe in something that can't even explain reality. I don't have enough faith to do that.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ... Ok let's try it this way.
Q: What makes lightning?
A: Well it's only one of two things... either it happens in the sky, or Thor does it.
Can you explain how it happens? No?
Well it must be Thor.
If you can't even tell me how lightning works then why should I believe you?
There's no natural explanation, it's completely unique.
I refuse to believe in anything that can't explain lightning.
This argument was wrong in Norse times, and your argument is wrong now.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Here's what I want to know. How do you explain the existence of the universe? I want to know how nothing can naturally create everything without any kind of intelligent intervention. Lightning doesn't explain the issue of origins and neither does atheism. Seriously, actually refute my arguments.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MakingSandwich1 " Here's what I want to know. How do you explain the existence of the universe? "
- Really? Do you want me to just make something up?
Here's what I want to know... why do you keep ignoring my point?
Why is it, that I explain to you over and over and over again... how your question is irrelevant to the whole argument for god... and yet you just ignore it every time, and ask again?
I've shown how asking that question doesn't help you....
You prove my point with every post.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You're dodging the question. You haven't explained how the universe came into existence. I want you to show me why you're right. Why can't the universe be created by God? How have you eliminated the need for a God?
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 .. I'm not dodging anything.
I've already said... long ago.. that there's plenty we don't know.
I've also explained how that fact doesn't help you at all.
You see, you can't cope with the fact that there's things we don't know.... so you invent a magical answer.
And when faced with that fact... you just mindlessly keep asking me the same questions.
You'll have to grow up and deal with my point at some stage.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You're STILL not answering my question? I'm insisting that you provide an explanation for the existence of the universe and life and that's "irrelevant"? Seriously, explain how the universe came into existence. I have no reason to listen to you until you show me why you're right. You still haven't done that. You need to eliminate the need for God before concluding that there is no God. You're doing this the other way around. Questions NEED answers and you've provided none.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " I'm insisting that you provide an explanation for the existence of the universe and life and that's "irrelevant"? "
- Yes, it is. I'm sorry that you're acting so cowardly.
Questions need answers? And what if we don't have those answers yet?
Should we just believe in magic? According to you...yes.
I'm sorry I've clearly frightened you.
If you're honest, you know I'm right about your " argument from ignorance '
You still haven't dealt with my THOR analogy.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 I'm not frightened at all. I'm asking for answers to important questions that shape the way we think and act. Also, you believe in even more magic than me. You believe a frog can turn into a prince. You believe non-life can create life. You believe nothing creates everything. And your Thor analogy is meaningless. We know how lightning occurs so there's no need for a god that creates lightning. We also know it's impossible for nothing to create anything so there's a NEED for God.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " I'm not frightened at all. "
- You clearly are.. you repeatedly refuse to face the reality of my position, you just ignore it.
Now you're telling me what I believe... Nope, I don't have to believe any of that.
I believe we don't know.. and you know why I believe that? .. Because it's the truth.
" We know how lightning occurs so there's no need for a god that creates lightning. "
- We know NOW.. we didn't then.. so there was NEED for THOR... Are you getting it yet?
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You've been hiding behind the "I don't know." excuse this whole time. How in the world can you say an explanation is wrong and offer absolutely no explanation to replace it? You can't logically do that. You say "We don't know." You apparently KNOW there's no god if you're an atheist. Also, you're failing to understand me when I say need. Every quality car NEEDS an engine. And every quality car HAS an engine. The universe needs and has a designer.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 .. OK, so you're admitting the THOR analogy works perfectly then?
Read back... I said before, I can't say something is 100% wrong, but I can say that it is incredibly unlikely and has no evidence whatsoever... if you choose to believe in something like that... good luck to you... it seems borderline insane to me.
Anyway... you've moved back to the design argument now, you tend to change when you're struggling.
There's no evidence of design anywhere.. sorry.
Next?
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 So how did the universe come into existence without a Designer? There's evidence for design right there. The universe couldn't have created itself. So what created it? Nothing couldn't have created the universe. So what created it? The universe is an effect so what is the cause of the universe? Saying "I don't know." gives me even more reason to believe in design since you are incapable of proving me wrong.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 .. Right.. so I've dealt with your origin of the universe attempt... so now you're trying to prove design.. with the same argument???
Come on.. at least try.
Even if you had the answer to something creating the universe ( which you don't ) you still don't have any evidence of design.. that's a different argument.
You're just mindlessly throwing everything out hoping something will stick.
Perhaps when you've finished here you'll actually go and learn where you're wrong.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 At least try? This is coming from the guy who hasn't refuted any argument I've put forward. You can't explain the existence of the universe but you insist that the universe isn't a product of design. If design isn't the answer, what is? I already know your answer "I don't know." You say it isn't design, so what's the correct answer?
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " This is coming from the guy who hasn't refuted any argument I've put forward "
- Nope.. this is coming from a guy who has pointed out the problem with your argument.. over and over and over... patiently.. despite the fact that you ignore it.
Repeatedly asking for an exact explanation of the origin of the universe does not help... but it's your only approach.
Your only argument for design is.. " god must've done it.. therefore it's designed ".
Admit it.. and move on.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You've yet to prove me wrong. You haven't shown me WHY my argument is wrong. You just SAY it is and expect me to believe you. Have you ever argued with someone before? You have to actually refute their arguments and present your own arguments for them to be wrong. You STILL haven't even got past step one. Asking for an explanation for the existence of the universe DOES help the case for design. Especially when its opponents can provide no alternative explanation (Hint, hint: you).
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ...I've argued with much better opponents than you.
I've been waiting patiently for you to catch up and start dealing with the issues.
I have shown how your argument is invalid...sorry, but that's refuted.
You just keep saying the same thing over and over... That's not arguing, that's just being childish.
Every time you ask for an alternative explanation, you demonstrate that you don't understand.
This whole discussion is over your head.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Explain to me why my argument is invalid. How is the topic of origins invalid? Also, you haven't refuted my argument so why move on to a different one? Just like if you're winning a game of chess. If your current strategy is working, why change it?
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ..You're the one who moved on to design...not me.
Read slowly... You are presenting an argument from ignorance. Your whole argument is based on the fact that if I don't know something, then your answer must be right. This is a logical fallacy... It simply does not follow.
No matter how many times you repeat it.
I could make your argument better for you...but not if you won't accept this fact.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 My argument is based around you failing to prove me wrong. If you don't know the right answer to my question, I have no reason to agree with you. Atheists are still subject to defending and justifying their position. Your lack of knowledge shows me you can't do that. If you can't prove your belief is correct but continue to believe it, you have faith your belief is true. I don't put my faith in a belief that can't present facts to confirm it.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MakingSandwich1 ... But whether I have an answer or not, does not make your answer correct.
You can believe that if you want, but it's simply not true.
By the way, you DO put your faith in a belief with no facts...you believe in god.
You have no facts whatsoever...so far your biggest argument is the fact that atheists can't give you details about the origin of the universe...that's not a fact.
Do you honestly not understand?
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Finally! Progress. You're right in saying that your lack of an answer doesn't make my belief correct. It makes my belief much more plausible than yours. Also, belief or disbelief is God both take faith. The difference is that God's exist CAN be proven while God's nonexistence CANNOT be proven. And the FACT that atheists can't provide a plausible explanation for the existence of anything gives me even more reason to believe in God.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " It makes my belief much more plausible than yours. "
- No.. it doesn't, but you're getting there.
If a doctor doesn't know how to cure cancer... does that make Voodoo more plausible?
" The difference is that God's exist CAN be proven "
- Never seen anyone do it... least of all you.
" atheists can't provide a plausible explanation...gives me even more reason to believe in God. "
- To you, yes, because you don't understand the problem with that.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Which is more plausible? The universe was created out of nothing or an eternal Creator created the universe.
It's not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. It's completely possible to prove that something does exist.
I understand that you can't defend your beliefs. Why commit myself to a belief system that can't even withstand scrutiny? I wouldn't buy a house that can't withstand bad weather, and I wouldn't believe in a belief system that can't withstand criticism.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ...No, which is more plausible?
That we have more to learn...or that a magic man in the sky did it?
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
I understand you want to defend your god...but if you venture onto YouTube...you will meet real arguments, and your little cliches don't help Im afraid.
The Internet...where god comes to die.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 This is amusing. You still haven't refuted my argument. I've argued it's impossible for the universe to form naturally out of nothing and so far you've done nothing to prove me wrong. So if nature can't create the universe. Then what did create the universe? It's an extremely simple question.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 Do you enjoy advertising your ignorance?
Because it's getting really one sided here.
Everytime you backtrack to the same questions that we've already shown to be irrelevant, you just make yourself look silly.
Over and over and over again, somehow you think if you say something dumb enough times, you'll be right.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Advertising my ignorance? Here's your whole argument "We need to find more evidence." You're basically telling me that only a purely natural cause can explain the existence of the universe. Here's what we know. The universe had a beginning. Atheists believe the universe is all there is. So before the universe there was nothing. Nothing can't create anything. The universe had a beginning. FACT. Nothing can't create something. FACT. So how could the universe exist without God?
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ...Look, you're just not listening at all.
Do you actually want to learn or not?
You know very well that's the hoards of religious believers who simply block their ears and refuse to hear anything that shows them.
Do you want to be one of them? Because if you do....good luck to you.
Or you could make the decision to step up and actually engage in the discussion and actually defend your beliefs? But you can't do that if you refuse to listen.
Who do you want to be?
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You're not even attacking my beliefs. You haven't shown me how it's impossible for God to exist. I have shown you how it's impossible for the universe to naturally form out of nothing without God. I'm open for explanations, you just haven't given me any.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " You're not even attacking my beliefs."
- I am
" You haven't shown me how it's impossible for God to exist "
- No.. I haven't tried to ... and that would be irrelevant anyway.
" I have shown you how it's impossible for the universe to naturally form out of nothing without God "
- No.. you have shown that you don't know how the universe came about, so you have a theory.
I have shown that this is a weak argument that proves nothing whatsoever.
That's the situation
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 So you've done nothing to prove it's impossible for God to exist, so how can you claim to "know" He doesn't exist when you haven't shown that it's impossible for Him to exist. And nothing is the only thing that forms out of nothing. That's not a theory, that's just basic common sense. If I asked a child to draw me a picture out of nothing, they'd back away from me like I was crazy because they know they can't make anything out of nothing and it's insane to suggest that you can.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 .. I'm beginning to think you just don't understand.. which is OK, but unfortunate.
I'll keep trying... but you have to try and understand instead of shutting off your brain.
1 - I never said I was proving anything impossible, it's irrelevant.
2 - I don't have to prove something from nothing, it doesn't make your answer any more correct.
You need to accept this.
3 - 'Common sense' is not an argument..especially not in quantum physics.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Are you typing these responses from some sort of special education center? The universe is the first thing you have to prove formed naturally before you can claim there was no intelligent intervention of any kind. Every drop of scientific and philosophical evidence shows us that 1. the universe had a beginning 2. nothing creates nothing. So when atheism is shown to be false, and I just did that, the only option left is theism.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ..OK, you really don't understand, that's fine.
I'll just write this for everybody else.
Religious believers often use arguments from ignorance, they try to say that if science doesn't have an answer therefore their answer must be correct. This is a logical fallacy.
The origin of the universe is a mystery, relativity breaks down at the singularity, " common sense " doesn't help...physicist know this.
Unfortunately many people just see the superficial argument and don't think
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 The origins of the universe isn't a mystery at all. Nature couldn't have possibly done it as the law of cause and effect prohibits nothing being the cause of anything, let alone a life permitting universe. The only two options you have are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. There's no 3rd option. Modern science and philosophy have eliminated the possibility of an eternal universe so you're logically forced to believe in an eternal Creator.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@Roper122 It's clear to me that you're not interested in rational debate. "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." - Blaise Pascal. It's clear to me that the idea of escaping moral accountability and judgement can provide temporary comfort. It's also clear that Blaise Pascal was right and you're a shining example of the type of person he was talking about.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 .. Blaise Pascal?
Originator of Pascal's Wager, one of the greatest Theistic failures of all time?
Not sure that I'd be quoting him.
Anyway.. I most certainly am interested in rational debate... but I'm the only one.
Just read back..
You haven't dealt with my 'argument from ignorance' point.
You haven't dealt with my THOR analogy.
You just keep running back to the origin of the universe... even after it's been established that it doesn't help your point.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Argument of ignorance doesn't exist. There are only two explanations for the existence of anything; an eternal universe or God. If you say the universe isn't eternal then you must believe in God because the universe can't naturally form on its own. It can't. It won't. And it didn't. Science and philosophy have destroyed any concept of an eternal universe and nothing doesn't create something. So God exists or else nothing would exist.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " Argument of ignorance doesn't exist "
- Argument from ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam, or appeal to ignorance. Look it up.
" There are only two explanations for the existence of anything; an eternal universe or God "
- False Dichotomy or a False Dilemma. Look it up.
" If you say the universe isn't eternal then you must believe in God "
- and again.
Look if you want to stop repeating yourself, I can explain your position to you.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 What other possibilities are there for the existence of the universe? Your "false dichotomy" position is a false dichotomy. What other possible and plausible explanation can you present that doesn't involve an eternal universe or God? That's a challenge. Present a 3rd explanation. "I don't know" is NOT an explanation. Give me a logical explanation or keep your mouth shut until you can actually prove me wrong. Again, "I don't know" is NOT, keyword, NOT an explanation.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 . "I don't know" is NOT an explanation. "
- Read Slowly... it doesn't matter... that's an argument from ignorance.
You can stamp your feet and demand an explanation until you're blue in the face..
it doesn't help your position.
I'm sorry.
Doesn't matter how many times you say it.
" Give me a logical explanation "
- Physicists could give you heaps.. but they would all be made up... just like your god.
( although to be fair they would at least be based on evidence )
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 So first you claim my position is a "false dichotomy" then you can't provide a third explanation. So your 1st premise is false. Next, you say the fact that a natural explanation can't be used to explain the existence of the universe doesn't help my case. It actually helps me by proving the atheistic viewpoint to be false. Your 2nd premise is also false. And finally you say a made up explanation is based off of proof. So that's three consecutive fallacies in one comment.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " you can't provide a third explanation "
- NO, you don't know if there are any other options. No one does.
It's an argument from ignorance..AGAIN
" you say the fact that a natural explanation can't be used to explain the existence of the universe doesn't help my case "
- No.. I said that the fact that I can't give you one, doesn't help.
" you say a made up explanation is based off of proof. "
- Yes, it's a guess based on facts.
Let it go. You're wrong
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You accuse me of "false dichotomy" then you can't even provide a 3rd explanation. Try to actually back up your accusations next time. This isn't an argument from ignorance. There is simply no way nothing creates anything. That's not ignorance. A guess based off of facts? You've presented no facts and haven't guessed once.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@Roper122 You're really just hurting the case for atheism. If a neutral person were to read this argument, they could instantly see whose faith is based off of evidence (theism) and which faith is based off of faith (atheism). It's clear the only person who can get you to accept the evidence and that's right in front of your face is you. So it's pointless for me or anyone else to try to convince you that atheism is false until you actually admit that you could be wrong (and you are).
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 .. If a neutral person were to read this ( and trust me .. they will ) , they will simply ask...
Why hasn't he answered about the Argument from Ignorance?
Why does he keep gong on about the origin of the universe... it's already been dealt with?
You need to learn about logical argument.
When I said you were wrong.. I meant you are wrong about the logical fallacies you are using...
and that is 100% correct.
There's no doubt.
Regardless of what I think about god.
Sorry.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 A neutral person would wonder how nothing can create something and you have given them no reason to that believe nothing can create something. A neutral person would wonder why a natural explanation hasn't been given to disprove the supernatural explanation. A neutral person would wonder why atheists can only attack theism but can't defend atheism.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ...Only if that neutral person was a moron.
Look, you're clearly not listening, you refuse to deal with reality.
I get it, you don't understand my points about logic...but there's no need to hijack this thread to demonstrate that fact.
If it's ok with you..I'd rather send you a PM...because this is just pointless.
At least you might learn something for next time you try this argument.
I don't understand why you're so unwilling to learn.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 You need to explain to me why I'm wrong. That's what I've been asking you to do this whole time. Don't TELL me I'm wrong. SHOW me I'm wrong. You've failed to do that. You haven't shown how it's impossible for God to exist. In fact, your lack of a natural explanation has shown how much more plausible it is that God exists. I'm willing to learn, you've just taught me nothing. "I don't know." isn't a factual statement.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 " "I don't know." isn't a factual statement. "
- Well it is a factual statement, because I don't know.
And
" An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy "
is also a factual statement.
You can choose to use an argument from ignorance as evidence if you want, but logically, it doesn't work.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Here's the thing. Each worldview claims its right. You hold the atheistic worldview. I asked you what makes theism wrong and atheism right. "I don't know." is the closest thing to answer I've gotten from you. Now why would I commit myself to a worldview that can't answer my questions? Every other worldview I turn to is able to answer my questions, so why can't atheism? If atheism is true, why can't atheism tell me why it's true?
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ...Here's the thing?
1- why would you assume your questions can be answered?
2 - lots of different ' world views ' can answer your questions...
But unfortunately they are all made up.
You just choose the fairy story that you like the best
Atheism doesn't pretend to know things that it doesn't, which makes it infinitely more credible.
The question is ..
Why would you commit to a worldview that is dishonestly claiming knowledge it doesn't have?
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Why would I believe in atheism? Atheism is by far the weakest worldview. All of the major worldviews except atheism can answer my question. I can then compare each worldview's answers to reality and then I can eliminate each worldview based on the facts. I don't even have to consider atheism because nothing can't make something. Either God created the universe or He didn't. It's impossible for the universe to exist without God, so I have no reason to believe in atheism.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 ...No, " either god created or he didn't " ... Is a false dichotomy.
You are pretending to have knowledge you don't have.
You cannot say it's impossible without god
You can't even assume god in the first place.
You have zero understanding of the origin of the universe... You just won't admit it.
Sorry, but atheism is strong enough not to be dishonest.
But if you want to pick your favourite superstition... Be my guest.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 So what's the 3rd explanation then?! You're just spewing fallacy after fallacy with no basis.
I do have an understanding of the universe, I know it's not eternal and I know it couldn't have been created by nothing. I also know that space, time, matter and energy didn't exist until the universe existed. I know that atheism can give me no explanation for why we have something rather than nothing, while every other worldview can.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 "So what's the 3rd explanation then?! "
- Read this over and over ... IT DOESNT MATTER.
Just because people pretend to know something that they do not, does not help.
I'm sorry you refuse to see this.. but it's a fact.
It doesn't matter in the slightest.. I've said this 100 times.
Ancient people had a third option for lightning - THOR!
It was wrong then, it's wrong now.. no matter how much you try to deny it.
Please grow up and have an intelligent discussion.
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 It does matter. You can't accuse me of a false dichotomy without a 3rd explanation. So that's just another fallacy you've tried to pass off as a fact.
Atheists are simply pretending not to know. They're pretending they don't know it's impossible for nothing to create anything. You've presented literally no reason for anyone to believe in atheism. You've given no answers which gives people no reason to even begin to try to believe in atheism.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
Roper122 7 months ago
@Roper122 Nope. The question is "Why does anything exist rather than nothing?" not "How was anything created?" I want to know why anything exists without God. After all, what other explanation can you give me that explains the existence of anything? There are none. So when the only plausible explanation for the existence of the universe is God, then you can easily determine that the universe was created by God.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 .. I'll answer whatever you want.
But FIRST... you have to stop ignoring me.
You have to stop ignoring my point and simply asking the same thing.
You are not having a discussion, you are simply ignoring everything I say, and saying the same thing over and over.
It's not fair, and it's rude.
Now.. for the last time...
Will you admit that whether anyone pretends to have an answer or not, it is simply an argument from ignorance?
Roper122 7 months ago