ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

[watsup]

I'm explaining where I'm coming from.
I am addressing your point.


That "everything" in "everything needs a creator," does not include GOD!


READ and understand:

The Christian isn't ignoring anything!

The Christian simply believes that God doesn't have a creator!
Why?
The Bible says God had always existed!
He is.................................................. ETERNAL!

Yes, the Bible is chock full of fables.

 

[rahl]

I'm explaining where I'm coming from.
I am addressing your point.


That "everything" in "everything needs a creator," does not include GOD!

this is called special pleading

 

[BabaVoss]

Your post #49, is just simply your opinion

You said:

It's not proof of a logical analysis - in fact, it's poorly made!

That’s not much of a rebuttal.

Just look at this one:

OK.

Easily negated by what we see!

No. You misunderstood. Read what I wrote again.

Lol - what say you of people raised in other religion, or born and raised by atheists - and eventually coming to faith as Christians?
Or sometimes, vice versa?

I’m sure that happens, in both directions. That‘s not a proof of anything.

And yet, here you are making your arguments/rebuttals.
I suppose you haven't spent enough time on this section.

That‘s what the site is for, unless I am misunderstanding its purpose.

 

[DrewPaul]

You haven't, because there is none. If you could, you would instantly become the most famous human to have ever lived.

This is circular logic, thus invalid.

The objection is known as circular reasoning. Now can you explain why such evidence is circular reasoning?

 

[DrewPaul]

No they aren't. We know natural forces exist. Gravity, physics etc. There is zero evidence of a creator of any kind.

We know such forces came into existence. They were caused to exist and the natural forces we observe were not the cause of their own existence.

Are you now saying the universe wasn't created by natural forces?

 

[Neomalthusian]

The objection is known as circular reasoning. Now can you explain why such evidence is circular reasoning?

You haven't positioned yourself in this debate to be challenging others to explain things. Things you're calling evidence of (x) are not evidence of (x). There isn't even agreement on what constitutes evidence.

The reason for the existence and origin of the universe itself cannot possibly be known by us. We don't have the means. We have no clue how or why the universe came into existence. It is not necessary to insert any particular adamant belief as to its origin merely because it exists. To suggest a conscious being intentionally caused the universe to exist because It wanted to create the universe is a belief. A baseless, arbitrary belief that is made up and inserted where knowledge can't exist. You can have that belief if you want. You can't prove it, and I can't disprove it. But you can believe whatever you want. But it's just a belief inserted where there cannot be knowledge.

Where you and so many others in this forum trip up is that you don't stop there and just admit you have insert your own personal beliefs about things that cannot possibly be known. You pretend and claim to know, that such knowledge is arrived at through logic and reasoning and based on evidence. That's the error. You don't know. You can't know. No one can know. There is no evidence that supports the particular belief. You just have a belief.

People who are, for lack of a better word, atheists, generally do not have to insert a belief about everything that they can't know. They can usually just admit that it isn't known and doesn't appear to be able to be known. Any atheists that are adamant that no supernatural entity could possibly exist are probably in most cases simply doing so as a means of being anti-religious, i.e. they have something against organized religion and use that rigid stance to challenge others' religious beliefs.

 

[watsup]

You haven't positioned yourself in this debate to be challenging others to explain things. Things you're calling evidence of (x) are not evidence of (x). There isn't even agreement on what constitutes evidence.

The reason for the existence and origin of the universe itself cannot possibly be known by us. We don't have the means. We have no clue how or why the universe came into existence. It is not necessary to insert any particular adamant belief as to its origin merely because it exists. To suggest a conscious being intentionally caused the universe to exist because It wanted to create the universe is a belief. A baseless, arbitrary belief that is made up and inserted where knowledge can't exist. You can have that belief if you want. You can't prove it, and I can't disprove it. But you can believe whatever you want. But it's just a belief inserted where there cannot be knowledge.

Where you and so many others in this forum trip up is that you don't stop there and just admit you have insert your own personal beliefs about things that cannot possibly be known. You pretend and claim to know, that such knowledge is arrived at through logic and reasoning and based on evidence. That's the error. You don't know. You can't know. No one can know. There is no evidence that supports the particular belief. You just have a belief.

People who are, for lack of a better word, atheists, generally do not have to insert a belief about everything that they can't know. They can usually just admit that it isn't known and doesn't appear to be able to be known. Any atheists that are adamant that no supernatural entity could possibly exist are probably in most cases simply doing so as a means of being anti-religious, i.e. they have something against organized religion and use that rigid stance to challenge others' religious beliefs.

Although he won’t admit it. DrewPaul is basically using the age-old “watchmaker” claim that “design means there was a designer”. That simplistic claim was shown to be in error long ago.

 

[watsup]

The objection is known as circular reasoning. Now can you explain why such evidence is circular reasoning.

It is circular because you create your own particular definition of “evidence” and then carefully fit your claim of a “Creator” into that definition. And/or you claim a “Creator” and then design a definition of evidence to fit your claim. Clearly circular.

 

[watsup]

We know such forces came into existence. They were caused to exist and the natural forces we observe were not the cause of their own existence.

The same could be said by inserting the word “Creator” instead of “natural forces” into your sentence. Why do you refuse to discuss the “causation” of such? What are you so afraid of?

 

[DrewPaul]

Some of what you have cited are facts. None of what you offer is evidence that points to a supernatural creator.

The value of evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Atheists don't want to just disagree with the evidence or say it isn't sufficient, they always want to deny there is any evidence.

1. The fact the universe exists

The existence of the universe fits neatly into your belief system, so you want to claim it as evidence that supports your opinion. I get that, But the universe also fits neatly into my belief that the universe is chaos and we are a happy accident. My belief system simply requires observation of what is. Your requires the invention of a supernatural being.

The existence of the universe by itself is evidence it was intentionally caused or was unintentionally caused by 'natural forces'. Its a fact that makes either belief more probable than if it didn't exist, true? You wouldn't claim the universe was caused by natural forces if it didn't exist right? I wouldn't claim it was intentionally caused if it didn't exist.

The existence of the universe is evidence that the universe exists. That’s all it means.

Hardly. Does the existence of a corpse mean only a corpse exists? No it means it was either caused intentionally or by natural causes. Do scientists say life exists and that's all it means? No it means the conditions that allowed for life to exist obtained. There would be no need for science if everyone concluded the existence of things simply meant they exist and nothing more. Just curious when you wrote this or heard of it...did you think it through and really consider its ramifications?

2. The fact life exists

Life exists, and that is a fact. It is your opinion that this fact somehow supports the idea that the universe has a creator.

If scientists studied the universe and concluded a wide range of possibilities would lead to the existence of life they would so inform us. That would be what one would expect if life were unintentionally caused by mindless natural forces that didn't intend life to exist. Instead they have found a myriad of precise properties and values are needed not just to cause life, but to cause stars, galaxies, planets, solar systems and all the ingredients necessary for life to exist. Is it proof a Creator was necessary? No, is it a fact that makes the existence of a Creator (someone that could intentionally cause the conditions) more probable? Of course, its why a lot of people who aren't religious believe our existence was intentionally caused.

Theism to be true requires certain conditions. A universe, life, intelligent life and the conditions for that to occur have to obtain.

This doesn’t make any sense. Can you reword this?

If the universe didn't exist theism (the belief the universe and life were intentionally caused) would be false. If life didn't exist theism would be false. If intelligent life didn't exist, theism would be false. If the universe didn't have the properties to allow intelligent life to exist theism would be false. In short a host of conditions had to obtain for theism to be true.

For atheism to be true (the belief no creator exists) no universe, laws of physics, time, stars, planets or life need exist. See the comparison? For theism to have any chance to be true a whole host of things have to occur. Those things that have to be true are evidence it is true. They don't prove its true but its the evidence that leads people to believe its true.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The value of evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Atheists don't want to just disagree with the evidence or say it isn't sufficient, they always want to deny there is any evidence.

1. The fact the universe exists


The existence of the universe by itself is evidence it was intentionally caused or was unintentionally caused by 'natural forces'.

We don't have the means to observe, know, or even theorize with an iota of confidence as to how, let alone why, the universe came into existence. Therefore the existence of the universe is not evidence of anything. What it is possible to know about the how/why regarding the universe's origin is so little that there is really no point forming any particular belief about it one way or another. All we think we know is that the universe did come into existence. Every aspect of our awareness tells us the universe does in fact exist. But that's as far as we can go.

Once one starts speculating why or by what means the universe came into existence, we are so far down the philosophical rabbit hole that truly anything goes. We don't know if there are 4th and/or higher dimensions and/or beings that occupy that space, either among us or beyond the limits of the observable universe, that we aren't remotely able to perceive. Can neither be proven nor disproven.

We could go on for hours down these philosophical and purely theoretical rabbit holes, but at no point do any of those rabbit holes lead us back to the Christian Bible, or any other popular sacred text from 1-4 millennia ago, as a source of knowledge or truth. Anyone who arrives back at a sacred religious text as a source of truth has closed-minded confirmation bias, i.e. they were absolutely intent on arriving at that as truth before they disingenuously set out to explore those questions in the first place.

Or, perhaps they have loved ones whom, if they were to disbelieve, the disbelief would threaten their relationships with those loved ones, and so they cling to the religion/sacred text to preserve those important connections for themselves. That's what I think is actually very largely responsible for the persistence of religious belief -- that important family and love relationships are held hostage over those beliefs. The religious beliefs endure under coercive threat of losing relationships with devoutly religious loved ones.

 

[mrjurrs]

What's that supposed to mean?
Can you explain it?

You have blinders on and only see what you are looking at, from the direction you are looking.

 

[gboisjo]

We know such forces came into existence. They were caused to exist and the natural forces we observe were not the cause of their own existence.

You have no idea what the origin of the universe is or isn't, no one does.

To pretend to is arrogant, first cause or not is unknown.

 

[DrewPaul]

You haven't positioned yourself in this debate to be challenging others to explain things. Things you're calling evidence of (x) are not evidence of (x). There isn't even agreement on what constitutes evidence.

Evidence is any fact that makes a contention (belief, claim) more probable than minus such evidence. Evidence potentially provides proof but isn't proof alone. There are degrees of proof. One is scientific proof of a claim. This not only involves evidence, but experimentation from other scientists who can verify the claim. That is the highest standard of proof. Another standard of proof requires evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. Lastly there is a standard of proof whereas there is more (in the minds of the triers of fact) evidence for a claim than against. There are also types of evidence. Circumstantial and direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence requires the tier of fact to infer what the evidence implies.

The reason for the existence and origin of the universe itself cannot possibly be known by us. We don't have the means. We have no clue how or why the universe came into existence.

Not at the moment.

It is not necessary to insert any particular adamant belief as to its origin merely because it exists. To suggest a conscious being intentionally caused the universe to exist because It wanted to create the universe is a belief.

The belief it was unintentionally caused by mindless natural forces is a counter belief, true?

A baseless, arbitrary belief that is made up and inserted where knowledge can't exist.

If I were making a God in the gaps argument in favor of what I believe that would be true. I don't base my belief on what's unknown, I base it on what is known. I make a God of the evidence argument.

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.

Where you and so many others in this forum trip up is that you don't stop there and just admit you have insert your own personal beliefs about things that cannot possibly be known. You pretend and claim to know, that such knowledge is arrived at through logic and reasoning and based on evidence. That's the error. You don't know. You can't know. No one can know. There is no evidence that supports the particular belief. You just have a belief.

I don't pretend to know how the universe or our existence came about. I don't deny the possibility we owe our existence to 'natural' causes. I offer facts that support my belief.

Any atheists that are adamant that no supernatural entity could possibly exist are probably in most cases simply doing so as a means of being anti-religious, i.e. they have something against organized religion and use that rigid stance to challenge others' religious beliefs.

Agreed.

 

[gboisjo]

We don't have the means to observe, know, or even theorize with an iota of confidence as to how, let alone why, the universe came into existence

That's exactly right, yet the brain washed cultist on our tiny blue dot of a planet pretend to know it all.

Its so ****ing annoying listening to they're indoctrinated, programmed mindset blab away.

 

[BabaVoss]

The value of evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Atheists don't want to just disagree with the evidence or say it isn't sufficient, they always want to deny there is any evidence.

You see ‘evidence’ that isn’t really evidence. I suspect you don’t know any atheists. They don’t see what you think you see, and they’ve already given it a lot of thought. Once you decide you don’t believe in magical stuff, you really don’t care that much. As far as I can tell, most feel as I do - I am a rationalist, but I also recognize there are always things we do not yet understand. Show me some evidence. I am open to it, but it has to be rooted in scientific observation.

1. The fact the universe exists

The existence of the universe by itself is evidence it was intentionally caused or was unintentionally caused by 'natural forces'.

Or it has been here all along, and we just don’t understand what we see (yet). None of this helps your cause. There is nothing to indicate it was intentionally caused.

Its a fact that makes either belief more probable than if it didn't exist, true? You wouldn't claim the universe was caused by natural forces if it didn't exist right? I wouldn't claim it was intentionally caused if it didn't exist.

If we didn’t exist, it wouldn’t matter. But the probability of its origins remain unchanged. Since we see no evidence of supernatural beings, it is very probably that they do not exist. Therefore, it is more probable that the universe has natural origins.

Hardly. Does the existence of a corpse mean only a corpse exists? No it means it was either caused intentionally or by natural causes.

???

Do scientists say life exists and that's all it means? No it means the conditions that allowed for life to exist obtained. There would be no need for science if everyone concluded the existence of things simply meant they exist and nothing more. Just curious when you wrote this or heard of it...did you think it through and really consider its ramifications?

You’ve lost me here. I stand by my statement. That the universe exists means It exists. That life exists on planet earth means life exists. You can extrapolate the obvious - of course the conditions were right of life to exist as it is. To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the great thing about science is that it doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not.

2. The fact life exists

…is it a fact that makes the existence of a Creator (someone that could intentionally cause the conditions) more probable?

The answer is no. There is no reason to leap to “therefore it must be magic” when you don’t fully understand something.

Theism to be true requires certain conditions. A universe, life, intelligent life and the conditions for that to occur have to obtain.

If the universe didn't exist theism (the belief the universe and life were intentionally caused) would be false. If life didn't exist theism would be false. If intelligent life didn't exist, theism would be false. If the universe didn't have the properties to allow intelligent life to exist theism would be false. In short a host of conditions had to obtain for theism to be true.

The universe does exist. The only condition needed for theism to be true is the existence of the supernatural god or gods that particular theism believes in. Faith is required to believe in them precisely because science, by definition, has nothing to say about the supernatural.

For atheism to be true (the belief no creator exists) no universe, laws of physics, time, stars, planets or life need exist. See the comparison? For theism to have any chance to be true a whole host of things have to occur. Those things that have to be true are evidence it is true. They don't prove its true but its the evidence that leads people to believe its true.

You are twisting a lot here. For atheism to be true, the supernatural beings of theism do not exist. Since there is no evidence they do, atheism requires little but simple observation of the world around us as we see it.

 

[BabaVoss]

I make a God of the evidence argument.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists

This reminds me of the old and debunked “Irreducible Complexity” theory that supposedly ‘proved’ a creator at work. If you are not familiar, it basically framed the eye as something that could not have evolved due to its complexity. Silly as it was, many tried to use it to promote religion. It has since been shown that, not only has evolution developed vision, it has done so independently - multiple times. Turns out it is just too useful a tool to be without - in most environments.

 

[DrewPaul]

We don't have the means to observe, know, or even theorize with an iota of confidence as to how, let alone why, the universe came into existence. Therefore the existence of the universe is not evidence of anything.

Yes it is. Its a fact that makes the claim it was intentionally caused or unintentionally caused more probable than it if didn't exist.

Name something that exists that was wasn't intentionally caused to exist or unintentionally caused to exist?

 

[gboisjo]

The belief it was unintentionally caused by mindless natural forces is a counter belief, true?

You have no idea what caused the universe to come into existence.

Its possible its always been here, no one knows, including you.

 

[Gordy327]

This reminds me of the old and debunked “Irreducible Complexity” theory that supposedly ‘proved’ a creator at work. If you are not familiar, it basically framed the eye as something that could not have evolved due to its complexity. Silly as it was, many tried to use it to promote religion. It has since been shown that, not only has evolution developed vision, it has done so independently - multiple times. Turns out it is just too useful a tool to be without - in most environments.

The evolutionary development of the eye was explained quite well by Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson when he hosted Cosmos about 10 years ago. Creationists do not understand evolution because they likely think everything developed "as is," with little or no intermediary steps over long periods of time.

 

[gboisjo]

I don't pretend to know how the universe or our existence came about. I don't deny the possibility we owe our existence to 'natural' causes. I offer facts that support my belief.

Beliefs that are religious in nature discussing the origins of the universe are laughable.

What we do know is scientific, what material preceded the Big Bang was lost due to expansion.

However, a few scientific theories have been advanced. That's it.

 

[HonestJoe]

If the universe didn't exist theism (the belief the universe and life were intentionally caused)...

That isn't what theism means though. Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods. It is not a requirement of theism for those gods to be defined as intentional creators of the universe, and many gods aren't.

For atheism to be true (the belief no creator exists)...

Again, that is a misguided definition. Atheism is not believing any god or gods exist (regardless of whether they're defined as creator gods or not). It would be possible to believe in some form of sentient creative force or beings that don't meet the definition of a god.

You're talking about a general concept of creationism rather than theism specifically and you're not directly challenging atheism specifically. Just like any other hypothesis, if you want to present a positive case for creationism (in general or by a specific creator) you should just do that. Treating it as some kind of binary argument between "theists" and "atheists" doesn't achieve anything good.

 

[gboisjo]

Name something that exists that was wasn't intentionally caused to exist or unintentionally caused to exist?

If a first cause does exist or did exist you have no idea what it was or is.

To connect a possible first cause to your religious beliefs is laughable.

 

[gboisjo]

Again, that is a misguided definition. Atheism is not believing any god or gods exist (regardless of whether they're defined as creator gods or not). It would be possible to believe in some form of sentient creative force or beings that don't meet the definition of a god

That.s exactly right, its the reason why I label myself as Agnostic.

If a first cause does exist, it cares no more for me as it does a rock on the moon IMO.

 

[Maidenrules29]

I'm tried of seeing the same old arguments or rebuttals being given by some atheists in the forum.
Many keep regurgitating the same thing, even when it has already been responded to.
Kinda like they think, repetition will eventually - miraculously - reveal a different answer!

Mind you - there are also some novel ones, or new ones, we see every now and then.


Inspired by John Rennie's "Scientific Amerucan's 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense," here are some of the nonsense that we usually find in discussions and forums from atheists.


Note: this thread is devoted only to atheists nonsense claims, arguments and rebuttals.


Here they are:




Who created God?

Answer: The question outright reveals the ignorance of the atheist regarding the Christian doctrine.
The Bible states that God has always existed. He is not a creation.



Atheists believe in just one less god than Christians.

Answer:
So, what are you saying then? You're not an atheist!



Your text that has undergone multiple edits and revisions during the past couple thousand years. Why is YOUR book any more reliable than the sacred texts of other beliefs?

Answer:
What other religious book has been thoroughly analyzed and discussed?

Can you cite an ancient book other than the Bible that has so many descriptions in it that has been reaffirmed by science?
Like these?

These are some of the factual truths found in the Bible - as reaffirmed by modern science.


Superiority over beasts - #21, #31
Dominion over and stewardship of all creation - #89
Hydrological Cycle - #70
Description of destruction of Sodom consistent with archeological findings - #71
Stretching Universe - #111
The biblical curse on the snake - #133
The human body - #134
Genesis creation narrative in the right order. - #180 (thanks to Patriotic Voter); #182and #183
Springs in the ocean - #288
The universe has a beginning – the Big bang - #342
One land. One ocean. - #349

Pathfinder of The Seas (Matthew Maury) - #527
SPECIES - #621
Where Did The Great Flood Water Go? - #622
WIND and the WATER CYCLE - #622
Ark Specification - #649
Physical Laws are Constant - #671
Singing Stars - #750
Orion and Arcturus - #751

Natural Laws - #944

Infant Earth (Psalm 104) - #947
"It Should never be moved" - FOUNDATIONS (Psalm 104) - #953, #955, #957, #958 (Elora), #962, #967, #991, #999, #1000, #1004, #1008, #1012, #1014
FOUNDATIONS (plural form) Psalm 104 - #982
Invisible Axis - #994


Infant Earth – #1,071
Noah's Flood and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (videos) - #1,072, 1,073
Dinosaurs In The Bible (video) - #1,075


Theory: Criminal Law, part of Human Nature (made into the image of God) – #1,091

NUTRITION (Fruits and Veggies) - #1,094
Science was created by GOD (had stopped backing atheism and pointing back to God, article) - #1,097
On MANY FLOOD and CREATION stories - #1,100, 1,119, 1,127,

The recesses of the deep (Job 38 and Psalm 107) - #1,238, 1,239


Apollo 8 Genesis Book-reading - #1,247, 1,249, #1,251


When The Morning Stars Sang Together - `#1,252


Traced: Lost Tribe of Israel In Africa - #1,253
Traced: The Ashkenazi Jews - #1,254
Traced: American Indians Linked To Askenazi Jews – 1,255

The Bible

They were saying stuff they learned in life to express their feelings but it in no way shape or form supports the claims that the bible is true any more than if they said the earth is a beautiful as Helen would have supported the existence of Greek Gods. You asked about the relevancy. They...

debatepolitics.com

You would first need to prove the existence of a creator, in order to begin to posit that this creator created everything.

Answer:
We have the evidence for an intelligent creator/designer!
COMPLEXITY AND ORDER - both observable and analyzed - are EVIDENCE being given to the intelligent creator!

You're the one who's supposed to prove the existence of this so-called............................. "common ancestor!"
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Good luck with your proselytizing. When I actually see Jesus I will believe. I have the same attitude regarding U.F.O's. No anal probes for me as of yet........