Part 7 Atheism VS Theism - Where does the evidence point?

[buffita74]

Ok, I'm confused, did the atheist just say, "The atheist doesn’t say that God does not exist categorically.” Um yes that’s what atheist means. Theism posits a “God” or superior being. Atheism posit the non-exist of such entity.

[littlebit19801]

@buffita74 There are different types, and agnostic atheist *which seems to be the most commun does NOT assert that God does not exist, they simply say they do NOT believe he exists, but they are open to new evidence. There are people who call themselves gnostic atheists and they claim to KNOW God does not exist, but trying to assert such a thing is ridiculious IMO.

[littlebit19801]

@buffita74 Sorta like I'm an atheist about there being life on Mars, I personally do NOT believe there is life on Mars BUT I'm not asserting that there is not, b/c it is possible and I don't know for 100% certain.

[wownov83]

If you replace the title of this debate with "Non-believers of the tooth fairy VS Believers of the tooth fairy", absolutely nothing is out of place. Literally every idiotic argument put forth by the moronic theist could be used to argue for the existence of the tooth fairy.

[xSnapper26x]

@wownov83 Or what about "Santa claus vs no Sants claus" :D

[Klash92]

Unfortunately the atheist debater is NOT very good. Not a good speaker at all.

The christian one is just sprouting his bullshit. Bet he's a preacher or something.

[elvis633]

What about the overwhelming evidence for the flying spaghetti monster? He has even left his signature in our DNA it is truly amazing that anyone would refute this.

[bestinfadel]

the atheist has no idea what absolute morals are ,he is a bit confused on this premise

[saintpine]

@bestinfadel absolute morality does not exist.

Is absolute morality such because god demands it, or does god demand it because they are absolute without god.

[Sirstingray]

@saintpine

Funny how Craig ignores the fact that Plato irrefutably exploded the Absolute Morality argument millenia ago!

[bestinfadel]

@bestinfadel they do exist and so does god get over it and get a life

[clipsryan]

@bestinfadel Then god ordering people to kill an unruly child is moral and you're opinions on it are irrelevant. Your god contradicts the very process of morality. "Get over it and get a life."? Wow, you're good.

[bestinfadel]

@clipsry who said god ordered anyone to do anything why blame" god "for something humans came up with . you can believe in a god or some higher power with out religon , you seem to be confused and have issues with organised religons ,understand that your an idiot and a complete and utter fool who has no life and lacking the capacity to think beyond your preconceptions of what god is supposed to be , your universe is in your head or rather bone head .... wow!! your shit , real shit

[clipsryan]

@bestinfadel I blame the people that claim their religion/god is moral. Yes, you can believe in a higher power (the universe that actually exists) but how is it relevant if you don't apply religion to it? I could've done without the rediculous name calling in the second half of that shit you call a comment but it's cool. When you can't defend your bat shit crazy beliefs, attack someone who exposes your bat shit crazy beliefs as being...bat shit crazy.

[bestinfadel]

@clipsryan i dont have to defend my beliefs i dnt enforce my beliefs on anyone or have to label myself such things as for example " atheist " or " muslim' or " christian or 'hindu", i dont follow religons and couldnt careless about what you think about me lol , blame who you want , go wild stimpy have great life spending it on discussing religon and atheism , great way to spend time, which atheists shouldnt be wasting ,in your mind this is all there is! so enjoy it dimwit

[clipsryan]

@bestinfadel Yes, this is all there is. That's what makes it special and apparently you do care which is why you insist on responding. If you believe in a god, you're a deist. If your god has rules and characteristics, it's now a religion. If you can't defend your religion, don't attack other beliefs or a non-belief, moron.

[MrAtheoi]

I'm liking this debate a lot.......

[behemuth]

theist "hah that cannot be true! it makes no sense!!! (to me)

go back a few hundred years and listen to someone propose that the earth might be round, and what would we hear?

theist: "hah! that cannot be true, it makes no sense!!! (to me) i mean, would not the people on the other side of the world fall down??"

later the cause of why people do not fall of was discovered... just because it does not make sense now, does not mean it will not later, when sience has improved.

[BeNNzuFG]

I would suggest Dr. Craig asked himself why only positive evidence counts to demonstrate that person A killed person B; not that person A did not kill person D, or E or any other 8 billion people. There is a reason why only positive evidence counts as evidence in science, or ONLY then negative evidence if you can rule out ALL positive, necessarily limited, options. This way of proofing for the existence of god cannot apply, because there are trillions of possibilites of how the world developed.

[wanagj]

hh..and Now athiest accept the existence of God they just need more proofs..before that the arrugment was dose God exists and they were so confident NO..:) that's funny..

[LegendaryLvl1]

I dont understand what your theist mouth is saying. Probably because it lacks grammar, a LOGICAL statement, and general sense. fuck you, fucktard.

[13shadowwolf]

I really hate the stupidity of theistic arguments. Everything needs a cause only applies within the universe that we're in at the moment. Time started with the "big bang" why not causality? It could well be that until this universe started up there was no causality at all, or that causality was backwards from we are familiar with.

I really hate how all these arguments intellectually lead to nothing, but theists just assert that they lead to their beliefs.

[Airlightf]

Hmm.

[3L3M3NTO]

theist will always make something out to make open minded people or "atheist" to look bad so theist will have a imaginary point.. we dont believe in god but we are open minded people that if anyone have reliable proof of gods existence and can prove it to anyone then we might believe them, but the theist people dont want other theist to understand that so they try to confuse them with lies and selfish reasons.

[TheGenesisTheExodus]

It's actually funny, because there is a chance, albeit an infintesimally small one, that a horse will appear in your living room or that a rabbit will pull itself out of a magician's hat.

[hudget]

When dealing with probabilities anything is possible but one has to look at the probable. The atheist is denying a relationship with God based upon probabilities that are so large as to be approaching infinite.

[TheGenesisTheExodus]

Your message is a bit convoluted, but from what I can tell, you're an atheist. If so, then I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Descarteo]

...and suppose it does happen that a horse does appear, which is more probable or more reasonable: Some how someone put it there OR out of nothing, nowhere, it just popped out?

[TheGenesisTheExodus]

It's more likely that someone put it there, but you can't compare a horse to the universe. They are two vastly different subjects.

[HoratioMing]

heres a question, if god does exist, WHY does he exist?

[amitpetra]

since the universe can't exist without a creator God & God can't exist without a creator we don't exist. We are just a proud & arrogant non-existing jerks watching videos online & commenting whatever we like to on which it doesn't even exist. Sounds crazy, stupid & sarcastic huh?? I know it should b'coz you exist & i exist too!!

[waterplo12]

@amitpetra "since the universe can't exist without a creator God & God can't exist without a creator we don't exist." This is false. This statement presupposes that God is a contingent being like us.

[peronkop]

Thats a big problem for that Christians have to answer. Creationist say that if you are atheist you must beleive that everything happend by random chance. Creationist truely doesnt like randomness because its completely contradicting their beleive of a planning God. How ever, if God got no reason to exist that would imidiatly render God random! ;D

[waterplo12]

@peronkop "How ever, if God got no reason to exist that would imidiatly render God random! ;D" Maybe...if God is a contingent being like Human beings. However God is a necessary being not a contingent being.

[peronkop]

I certainly don't know what you mean, please define a nevessary being.

[waterplo12]

@peronkop Contingent being "Something that does not exist in and of itself but depends for its existence upon some other being." Necessary being "Something that exists in and of itself and does not depend upon its existence of another being." Some have said it is "something that must exist in order for anything else to exist."

[peronkop]

Alright, but this is just a lable that we have made up, its a concept. If it isnt, can you please present me such a being so I know what it looks like?

[waterplo12]

@peronkop No it is not just a label we have made up it has been the ontology of God that has been known for probably 4,000 years. What is going on here is you are trying to redefining the ontology of God that believers of God at least Judeo-Christianity has always held. Even if you do not believe what the Bible as an inspired work of God, which you don't, you should be able to see this.

[peronkop]

Ok I suppose but what makes you think that we are contingent?

[waterplo12]

@peronkop Well we came into existence for one (we do not exists in and of ourself) and we are dependent upon another being for our existence. Example is we are dependent upon our parents for our existence just like they are dependent upon their parents.

[peronkop]

Im pretty independent, I do not need my parents anymore does that make me a nessecary being? Well, if we should take your eample, then there is no "being" that is necessary, they all got parents which we can trace back to abiogenesis.

How ever, what I am is just atoms and those are not a "being" does those atoms count as necessecary?

[waterplo12]

@peronkop "we can trace back to abiogenesis." Prove this. We can trace it back to abiogenesis?

[peronkop]

..riiiight. No we cant, we only got so far in tracing back. But assuming that life must have begun somewhere I could very well say that it was abiogenesis. Doesnt matter how it happend, its still abiogenesis. But answer my question: What makes humans contingent beings and does atoms counts as necessary?

[waterplo12]

@peronkop So your statement is false we can not trace back to abiogenesis but we can say that life began somewhere and somehow and we do not know how. We are contingent because of what I stated above. Let me say something that might help. Humans beings are dependent upon another being for our existence. Meaning would would not be in existence withotu our parents. We would not have been born.

[waterplo12]

@peronkop Why are we talking about atoms? They are not beings and some decay into other atoms so I guess you can say that that atom was depended upon the other atom for its existence. Also with science pointing to a big bang they have not been around forever. Then one has to ask did they just come into existence out of nothing?

[peronkop]

Ye I thought that you accepted the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Obviously I was wrong, sorry. So what about other things that arent born? Like rocks? Atoms?

Are those nessecary?

[waterplo12]

@peronkop I agree at one point that there was no life. Can evolution trace it all the way back to that it cannot. Everything that is not born are made up of atoms and we already discussed atoms.

[peronkop]

Ah missed that one, you posted both at once. Well, if we got enough information we could very well trace back to the point were life was formed, but that isnt the current state Im afraid. But its not impossible.

[waterplo12]

@peronkop You can hope for that.

[peronkop]

Of course I can, but given enough information about anything its not impossible. As evolution is a predicatable process and that have only existed for what? 3 billion years? I assume that tracing wouldnt be to hard. But as I said, that isnt the case at the moment. We have to wait and see.

[mastermetal777]

@HoratioMing as the Bible says, to quote God "I Am". He just is. I know that this is a poor argument for my position, but you still have to consider it. God is a supernatural being with powers beyond comprehension. If people didn't believe in the supernatural, then there would be no purpose for curiosity or even individuality because everyone would think the same; a concept which I find to be boring and without purpose in a world that asks for people to be who they want to be.

[waterplo12]

@HoratioMing This question is similar to the question what caused God? This question is a category error.

[HoratioMing]

@waterplo12 what do you mean category error? its a valid question surely, god created everything to have a purpose what is his purpose why does he exist?

[waterplo12]

@HoratioMing To me the question sounded like it was another way to ask what caused God. Maybe I misunderstood. However God just is. He is a necessary being and we are contingent beings. He created us to have a purpose nothing created him for a certain purpose.

[HoratioMing]

@waterplo12 but if he doesnt have a purpose how does he justify his own existance to himself, or is his purpose to be the one who decides the purposes of everything else. Whats the purpose of us humans having a purpose is it just to make god have a purpose?

[waterplo12]

@HoratioMing Why would God have to justify his existence to himself?

[HoratioMing]

@waterplo12 well we were made in his image and we constantly ask the question "why are we here?" and in the infinity of time that god has had to exist he must have at one point atleast questioned why he himself was there also for God to know everything he must know why he himself exists surely

[edthescienceguy]

Our god in heaven is the Annunaki.

look it up it is fact.

[REZJT]

i think what you mean: Atheist: "Where did God(s) come from?. We disbelieve in all interpretations of all religions and their God(s) equally."

[warrenfalk]

theists argument is "something can't come from nothing, something can't come from nothing, something can't come from nothing, therefore God exists, therefore he's personal, therefore Jesus is God".

Atheist: "Where did God come from?"

[DuckHunts]

God is infinite, he was not 'born', eternal. I know its hard for a finite being to think of infinity, just like a 2D cartoon has trouble thinking of a 3D world. We live in a 3D world, God is higher up than that.

[warrenfalk]

Rational people see that this is no valid argument, to say that God exists because something can't come from nothing, then define God as "something that can come from nothing".

Even if this were so, it would hardly help someone show that God is a person and not a giant fountain of universes that's always existed.

[RogaJam]

The something from nothing is a view that exists due to science. There was a time when it was believed that something could come from nothing but that was later disproved by science. This science can only be tested within space and time so the scientific law is only reliable within the constraints of space and time. This is a dead argument to present because you can't be abstractly taught how to perceive something outside of time if you are bound by time and see all things as being part of time

[warrenfalk]

Science never disproved any such thing. We don't know if something could come from nothing, and it doesn't matter. Something is here now.

The problem still remains, even if a thing can exist "outside of time" like God supposedly does, there is nothing to say that this thing is a "personal" God. (i.e. it does not therefore follow that this thing can think, have a will, be angry, or care whether you slept with your wife before you said "I do" - there's no reason to ask "who", and not "what")

[RogaJam]

I would like to commend you, never have I had someone be so ungrateful when I clarified an argument for them. Not only that, but you continued to deny the laws of conservation of mass. I even regarded the something from nothing argument as a dead argument. Thank you, I thought that ignorance was dead. However, you have shown me that there still remain people in the world who make conscience decisions about ideas without knowing what the hell they are talking about.

[warrenfalk]

The conservation of mass is irrelevant at that scope. The universe is made up of more than just mass, and mass winks in and out of existence all the time. I think perhaps you mean the conservation of energy. "Something" and "Nothing" do not simply deal with mass alone.

You need not get so upset, or attack my character. If you have an actual argument, you can just try to support it on its merits instead of simply stating that I don't know what I'm talking about.

[RogaJam]

mass=energy, Albert Einstein

[warrenfalk]

Einstein was not saying that the terms, "mass" and "energy" could be used interchangeably, or that there is no difference between the terms.

To say "mass = energy" and then use conservation of mass that way is like saying "diamond = carbon" and then buying your girlfriend a coal necklace (which I do not recommend).

I'm glad that you want to help point out religious lunacy, but pretending you know something you don't know is exactly what makes the religious the lunatics they are.

[RogaJam]

The argument was something from nothing. In this case energy and mass are both something, so mass from energy is still something from nothing.  It wasn't a literal = but they can be used interchangeably in the argument.

[warrenfalk]

I agree that in the context of this argument, "something" includes both mass and energy. This is why I said that conservation of mass alone is irrelevant, but conservation of mass/energy applies only to closed systems, and no one can know if the known universe is a closed system.

The argument was that even if you knew that something could never come from nothing, you would still have no basis for claiming that a deity exists, let alone a father, son, and spirit, let alone that the son is Jesus.

[Inuyashapaladin717]

As a human being who has studied both of these points of view for years, that God has always exist in this for the argument. However, in explanation and truth of matter, our minds are far to limited for us to comprehend that time affect of "Infinity". The explanation for this is: We are born, we die. We have a beginning. We have an End. We create things, we destroy things. Nothing upon this world will always exist, and nothing ever has. Infinity is not rational for us, as we are not immortal.

[awesomewelles90]

If you're implying that that is an argument against the existence of God then it's a terrible one. Otherwise it's a valid observation on the limitations of the human mind and on the human condition.

[brownbigb]

as time didn't exist before the big bang, god din't actually exist in infinity as infinity implies time. so if there is a cause it came into existence at the point at wich time and space begin to exist.

[awesomewelles90]

@brownbuttb You woefully misunderstand the KCA.

[waterplo12]

@brownbigb The Christian world view is that God is outside of time and space.

[brownbigb]

@waterplo12 do you play water polo? or did you?

when there is no evidence for something, it doesn't matter what the worldview is, they can not possibly know anything about something that they have no evidence for.

are you not an atheist yourself?

[HoratioMing]

@Inuyashapaladin717 on the contrary, everything will always exist, itl just look different. we will never create anything and we will never destroy anything.

[poduck2]

This debate is about where the evidence points. Dr. Craig was even smart enough not to use special pleading. You can't assume something into existence when you are speaking about evidence. You can't say that the universe can't just always have existed then say that God has.

[mrc0olguy]

the atheist got owned

[konkord3]

atheist = agnostic?

[LewisPearson]

I am an atheist, I feel there is insignificant evidence for God, therefore I believe God does not exist, yet I understand that there is a chance (be it very small) that God might exist. You cannot choose what you believe, ie I cannot choose to believe that I am not on youtube right now, its impossible for me to do believe that I am not on youtube. But I know that there is a chance that I am actually asleep and dreaming (be it a very small chance)

[johnsnails]

no problemos :D

[chipNdaleRR]

thanks for the upload