ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

[reinaert]

So tedious. It seems we have a good working idea, now, of what a ChristGPT would sound like.

 

[tosca1]

So tedious. It seems we have a good working idea, now, of what a ChristGPT would sound like.

What's a "ChristGPT?"

 

[rahl]

Let me ask this again:


If science has not taken the possibility of God off the table - on what authority do atheists base their claim that a God-created world is not possible?

zero evidence a god exists

 

[JacksinPA]

Lot's wife

 

[watsup]

There is no mis-representation.
Creation by God, is not off the table!

I gave the quote so readers can read it and judge it for themselves.

You don't like it..................................fine.
But for the record - no matter how often you try to manipulate it - you're the one who's trying to misrepresent what it says.

Simply not true. Nowhere does it mention “creation”. Try being honest for a change.

 

[watsup]

Let me ask this again:


If science has not taken the possibility of God off the table - on what authority do atheists base their claim that a God-created world is not possible?

As you continue to misrepresent the article, as many have told you.

 

[DrewPaul]

zero evidence a god exists

Better find a better reason. The fact of the universe, of intelligent life and the myriad of properties necessary for it to obtain are facts which make the existence of a Creator more likely. The zero evidence of God is just a false slogan.

 

[rahl]

Better find a better reason. The fact of the universe, of intelligent life and the myriad of properties necessary for it to obtain are facts which make the existence of a Creator more likely.

Why does it make a creator more likely?

The zero evidence of God is just a false slogan.

Nope. It's an objectively accurate and correct statement. There is zero evidence of any god. It's why you, nor any other human that has ever existed has ever been able to provide any.

 

[HonestJoe]

Anyway -

What makes you think I'm trying to win them over?
Can't I just participate in a debate?

The purpose of debate is literally to win people over. What would be the point of debate if you're not trying to convince other people that your conclusions are right (or if you're not willing to even consider the possibility that any other conclusions are)?

Also, are you ignoring my posts again because you don't have any reasonable answers to my questions?

 

[DrewPaul]

Why does it make a creator more likely?

Nope. It's an objectively accurate and correct statement. There is zero evidence of any god. It's why you, nor any other human that has ever existed has ever been able to provide any.

There is only one reason (besides perpetual brain washing) is that you don't know what evidence is. Evidence isn't proof its simply facts that make a claim more probable than minus said facts. It works this way in any other example. A corpse is evidence of two possibilities, the death was caused intentionally or by natural causes. It is evidence of either cause because the existence of a corpse makes either claim more probable than if there is no corpse.

The universe exists. It was either caused intentionally or by natural forces. Its evidence of a Creator or evidence it was natural causes. You don't deny there is evidence our existence was the result of mindless natural forces right?

 

[DrewPaul]

The purpose of debate is literally to win people over. What would be the point of debate if you're not trying to convince other people that your conclusions are right (or if you're not willing to even consider the possibility that any other conclusions are)?

Also, are you ignoring my posts again because you don't have any reasonable answers to my questions?

That's the purpose of a formal debate. This is an informal virtual coffee house discussion.

 

[HonestJoe]

Better find a better reason. The fact of the universe, of intelligent life and the myriad of properties necessary for it to obtain are facts which make the existence of a Creator more likely. The zero evidence of God is just a false slogan.

Even if that were true, evidence for their having been some kind of sentient creator is not evidence for the existence of God (or any other god).

I could provide evidence that I once owned a car but that wouldn't be evidence that now own a Ferrari, and certainly not evidence that I now own a red Ferrari F40 with half a tank of fuel, an after-market exhaust system and Queens Greatest Hits on tape in the glovebox.

 

[DrewPaul]

Even if that were true, evidence for their having been some kind of sentient creator is not evidence for the existence of God (or any other god).

Really?

I could provide evidence that I once owned a car but that wouldn't be evidence that now own a Ferrari, and certainly not evidence that I now own a red Ferrari F40 with half a tank of fuel, an after-market exhaust system and Queens Greatest Hits on tape in the glovebox.

As I said evidence are facts that make a claim more probable than minus said fact. The fact you owned a car in the past makes it slightly more probable you own a car now. But it has no or little bearing on the type of car you now own.

The universe, intelligent life and the innumerable exacting conditions that allowed intelligent life to exist are evidence our existence was intentionally caused as opposed to being the result of natural causes that didn't intend to cause a universe or intelligent life to exist.

 

[rahl]

There is only one reason (besides perpetual brain washing) is that you don't know what evidence is.

I do know what it is. It's why I'm pointing out there is none for any god.

Evidence isn't proof its simply facts that make a claim more probable than minus said facts.

and none exist for any god.

It works this way in any other example. A corpse is evidence of two possibilities, the death was caused intentionally or by natural causes. It is evidence of either cause because the existence of a corpse makes either claim more probable than if there is no corpse.

yes, there is physical evidence of a corpse. There is zero evidence of a god.

The universe exists. It was either caused intentionally or by natural forces. Its evidence of a Creator or evidence it was natural causes. You don't deny there is evidence our existence was the result of mindless natural forces right?

there is no evidence of a creator or god. it's why you nor anyone in the entirety of human history has been able to provide any.

 

[DrewPaul]

I do know what it is. It's why I'm pointing out there is none for any god.

and none exist for any god.

yes, there is physical evidence of a corpse. There is zero evidence of a god.

there is no evidence of a creator or god. it's why you nor anyone in the entirety of human history has been able to provide any.

There is. You just can't accept it because you were taught there is none.

 

[rahl]

There is. You just can't accept it because you were taught there is none.

there isn't. it's why you can't provide any. If you could, you would be the most famous person to have ever existed.

 

[Logician Man]

There is. You just can't accept it because you were taught there is none.

There is "evidence" of 'God claims/God concepts.' ( Holy texts/cave paintings/word of mouth ) - Not so much for existence of actual 'God(s)/supernatural deities/Creator(s).'

 

[HonestJoe]

As I said evidence are facts that make a claim more probable than minus said fact. The fact you owned a car in the past makes it slightly more probable you own a car now. But it has no or little bearing on the type of car you now own.

I agree. And the fact (if it were a fact) that a creator existed in the past (or "before" there even was a "past" ) makes it slightly more probably that creator still exists today. But it has no or little bearing on the nature of that creator.

You can't just say "Creator therefore God". You'd still need to demonstrate that creator is your specific God, rather than any of the literally countless alternatives (including all the ones nobody has ever imagined).

 

[DrewPaul]

I agree. And the fact (if it were a fact) that a creator existed in the past (or "before" there even was a "past" ) makes it slightly more probably that creator still exists today. But it has no or little bearing on the nature of that creator.

I'm not arguing whether the Creator exists today just whether the universe and intelligent life was intentionally caused to exist.

You can't just say "Creator therefore God". You'd still need to demonstrate that creator is your specific God, rather than any of the literally countless alternatives (including all the ones nobody has ever imagined).

I can say the universe with very specific properties that allowed life and intelligent life to exist is the result of a Creator that intentionally caused such to exist. You can counter claim the creator was natural forces that didn't intend the universe or life to exist. Either claim is using the same evidence to substantiate their claim.

 

[DrewPaul]

there isn't. it's why you can't provide any. If you could, you would be the most famous person to have ever existed.

I have provided evidence. I claim the existence of the universe and intelligent life is evidence they were intentionally caused to exist. What's your better explanation?

 

[BabaVoss]

Here's another reason why atheism is the most irrational position to be in.

Actually it is the most rational conclusion possible, given any logical analysis. See my post#49.

Many atheists are trying to debunk something that they don't intellectually grasp, or have no understanding at all.

I don’t know any atheists who spend any time at all trying to debunk anything - outside of people trying to sell books. Most if us don’t care about religious arguments at all.

 

[BabaVoss]

I claim the existence of the universe and intelligent life is evidence they were intentionally caused to exist.

But it isn’t. You are assuming an intent, but there’s no evidence to support that. It’s a leap to go from “we exist” to “there must be a creator”.

 

[BabaVoss]

The fact of the universe, of intelligent life and the myriad of properties necessary for it to obtain are facts which make the existence of a Creator more likely.

Again, no, it does not. You may have that opinion, but your opinion does not improve the likelihood you stated.

The zero evidence of God is just a false slogan.

Except that it is true. Believers see all sorts of “proof” that a god is active in their lives, but that is not real, fact-based evidence. We created gods - lots of them - to explain our mysterious world. The sun, the stars, weather, etc. We now understand a great deal of the universe, but there is much still to learn. We used to believe the world needed a god in order to explain events. We now know that the universe does not require a god to exist.

It’s been pointed out here before, but there is little difference between atheists and believers. Atheists believe in one less god, that’s all.

 

[roughdraft274]

Christians claim, there is a Creator of everything. They're basing it on their doctrine (The Bible).
Their claim is faith-based - therefore, you can't say they are wrong AS CHRISTIANS.
What would be wrong for Christians is to say, their GOD is not the Creator.

An atheist has a valid point to ask, "who created GOD," IF ..........................the atheist is uninformed about the Christian doctrine.

But in this forum, where we debate with practically the same regular posters (who has been told again and again about what Christianity says about GOD)............that question wouldn't be valid anymore.
That question would be nonsense............................ and, we can say that the atheist is unable to grasp the concept of GOD (Abrahamic God).

It's like when folks asks, how can GOD be in more than one place simultaneously?
They don't grasp the full meaning of, "WITH GOD - NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE."

I'm not sure if you are purposefully ignoring what I'm saying or if you don't understand me.

A Christian that makes the claim "everything needs a creator" is ignoring the fact that he believes that god doesn't have a creator. It's a very simple point.

 

[DrewPaul]

Again, no, it does not. You may have that opinion, but your opinion does not improve the likelihood you stated.

The facts I cited in support of my opinion are evidence the claim is true. They are facts that not only make the claim more probable, but are necessary for the claim a Creator caused the universe and intelligent life to exist possible. If the universe didn't exist or if intelligent life didn't exist, or the conditions for intelligent life to arise didn't obtain the claim it was caused by a Creator would be false.

Except that it is true. Believers see all sorts of “proof” that a god is active in their lives, but that is not real, fact-based evidence. We created gods - lots of them - to explain our mysterious world.

I said nothing about proof. Someone said there is zero evidence. That's not true there is evidence. I offered fact based evidence.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact intelligent life exists.
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6. The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

The sun, the stars, weather, etc. We now understand a great deal of the universe, but there is much still to learn. We used to believe the world needed a god in order to explain events. We now know that the universe does not require a god to exist.

Scientists have no idea how the universe came into exist or what was required. They do know the natural laws of physics and space time are what came into exist. What we know about the universe is the astonishingly fine-tuned set of circumstances that allow galaxies, stars, planets, solar systems to exist.

It’s been pointed out here before, but there is little difference between atheists and believers. Atheists believe in one less god, that’s all.

No because all theists believe our universe was intentionally caused by a Creator. What atheists are left believing is our existence was the result of happenstance.