• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists Favorite Argument

Lursa said:
Yeah...he completely avoided telling me if he thought that photosynthesis was a "mindless force". Or if its origin was. 🤷
Click to expand...

He likes to skip a LOT of details. Like what form this so-called Intelligent Designer might take. It’s clearly because he is AFRAID that the details would bring down his whole house of cards.
 
watsup said:
He likes to skip a LOT of details. Like what form this so-called Intelligent Designer might take. It’s clearly because he is AFRAID that the details would bring down his whole house of cards.
Click to expand...

If his faith was strong enough, he wouldnt be so driven to prove to others that God exists. He needs that validation because his faith is weak...he needs solid proof to truly believe...while God has demanded we believe in Him on faith alone.
 
Lursa said:
Correct



Yup and even your experts conceded the odds.



Nope...because I have a pretty solid understanding of evolution. I've take college level physics and astronomy but still have a less solid understanding of that, but even so, I have no problem understanding how such processes could work to create galaxies and celestial bodies.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing evolution. I will say a myriad of conditions I briefly outlined have to exist before evolution has a chance.

The experts I cited don't concede the odds. They say for us to exist there are a infinitude of universes of varying characteristics.
 
DrewPaul said:
I'm not arguing evolution. I will say a myriad of conditions I briefly outlined have to exist before evolution has a chance.

The experts I cited don't concede the odds. They say for us to exist there are a infinitude of universes of varying characteristics.
Click to expand...

They said very unlikely. And initiating events only have to happen once.

So you do believe in evolution then?
 
DrewPaul said:
I'm not making any theological claims. You'll have to inquire a theologian.
Click to expand...

Of course you are. You are making the cosmological argument for the existence of God. That’s right up theologians’ lanes- and has been a powerful argument since the time of medieval philosophers like St Thomas Aquinas in the Christian world or Avicenna in the Islamic world. Specifically, it’s considered a branch of theology known as “natural theology”.

Cosmological argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
ataraxia said:
Of course you are. You are making the cosmological argument for the existence of God. That’s right up theologians’ lanes- and has been a powerful argument since the time of medieval philosophers like St Thomas Aquinas in the Christian world or Avicenna in the Islamic world. Specifically, it’s considered a branch of theology known as “natural theology”.

Cosmological argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
I've also stated our existence could be the result of a scientist in another universe or our existence could be a simulation run on a computer. Would that be called technological theology? Either event the topic of theology should be another thread.
 
Lursa said:
They said very unlikely. And initiating events only have to happen once.

So you do believe in evolution then?
Click to expand...

I believe everything evolves which simply means changes over time. Do I believe Darwinian evolution explains all? No. I don't say there is no evidence of it.
 
DrewPaul said:
I've also stated our existence could be the result of a scientist in another universe or our existence could be a simulation run on a computer. Would that be called technological theology? Either event the topic of theology should be another thread.
Click to expand...

It wouldn’t be called theology at all. More like science fiction.
 
DrewPaul said:
I believe everything evolves which simply means changes over time. Do I believe Darwinian evolution explains all? No. I don't say there is no evidence of it.
Click to expand...

Evolutionary biology is way beyond the foundation Darwin set...did you not even know that?

Evolution of life on earth is a scientific process not initiated nor driven by any entity or with intent. Do you believe that?
 
DrewPaul said:
I believe everything evolves which simply means changes over time. Do I believe Darwinian evolution explains all? No. I don't say there is no evidence of it.
Click to expand...
Evolution simply explains the biodiversity seen on the planet and why organisms are adapted to their environments as they are. It is also the best explanation for that. I'm not sure what else you think it explains.
 
Lursa said:
Evolutionary biology is way beyond the foundation Darwin set...did you not even know that?

Evolution of life on earth is a scientific process not initiated nor driven by any entity or with intent. Do you believe that?
Click to expand...
I detect an attitude here why is that? You mean scientifically established process. Was that a Freudian slip? I'm more interested in physics and astronomy. Since I believe the universe and the myriad of conditions necessary for evolution to occur was intentionally caused I'd have to say no. Does that upset you?
 
Dragonfly said:
Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god or gods.
That’s all.

I have no clue what your word salad post refers to, or what you think atheists favorite arguments are.

I’m sure many atheists argue far more about sports/music/politics than whatever you’re going on about.
Click to expand...
No, atheism is an affirmative rejection in the very idea of God.
 
DrewPaul said:
Is the claim there is no evidence, facts, data or any reason at all to believe the existence of the universe and intelligent life was intentionally caused to occur. This claim is essential to atheism because by ruling theism out as a possibility, there is no need to defend the counter claim the universe and intelligent life occurred by happenstance.

Evidence comes in two flavors, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. A video of a suspect with a knife about to stab someone is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence an inference from the facts must be drawn. Normally a spaghetti stain on a shirt of a suspect wouldn't be evidence of anything unless they found spaghetti in the victims stomach. In that case the stain makes it more probable the suspect is guilty.

Evidence are facts that support or make a contention more or less probable than minus said fact. Evidence alone is not proof. There are three general levels of proof. Scientific proof. Very rigorous usually meaning a conclusive experiment can be performed by other scientists with the same results. Criminal proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with direct or circumstantial evidence. Finally there is in civil cases a mere preponderance of evidence in favor of a claim is all that's needed.

No one really knows why (or how) the universe came into existence or why it resulted in intelligent humans existing. It is a low a information question. There is no direct evidence of how or why it came to exist. We could look at it like detectives do at a crime scene and figuratively put yellow tape up around the entire universe. Anything in the universe is potential evidence.

F1. The universe exists. This is a foundational fact. If the universe didn't exist neither claim would be true. This fact is evidence of either claim.
F2. Intelligent life exists. This is a foundational claim of theism. Theists believe the universe was intentionally caused and designed for intelligent life. Mindless naturalistic forces don't have to cause any life or intelligent life.
F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life. For the belief the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist it must be in a configuration that allows life to exist. No one can claim intelligent life had to exist. No one would predict or expect mindless forces minus any plan or intent cause life to exist. This evidence is so powerful it's the basis of multiverse theory.
F4. 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.

Theism is a belief, an opinion. This doesn't prove we owe our existence to a Creator. It is evidence. that favors that belief.
Click to expand...
Not sure how a lack of any evidence of a creator favors the belief that a creator actually exists.
 
The Mark said:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that the universe was created intentionally.
Nor any evidence that the solar system or planet was created intentionally.

All the evidence instead points to it being happenstance, or rather the application of natural laws.
Granted, it seems apparent that our understanding of those natural laws is incomplete as of yet, and may never be complete.
Click to expand...
You can’t create everything spontaneously from nothing
 
DrewPaul said:
The way you speak you're suggesting I made up the fine-tuning for life argument. Lee Smolin (physicist and atheist) calculated the odds of a universe at 10^229. Martin Rees (Just Six Numbers) came to roughly the same conclusion. The universe is on a razors edge between turning into black holes or matter thinly dispersed throughout the universe. Your analogy is ridiculous thats why it sounds rediculous. Both of these scientists subscribe to multiverse theory. They contend that the overwhelming majority of universes are void of planets, stars, galaxies and of course intelligent life.

IMO this debate is coming down to two possibilities. The universe we exist in is one of an infinitude of universes of varying characteristics and we find our selves in such a universe. Or the laws of physics and the properties of the universe were designed this way.
Click to expand...

Odds of 1/10^229 do not indicate design. Even if the odds of a jagged piece of rock suitable for chopping appearing in a mountain range were 1 out of 10^229 it would not indicate that the mountain range was intelligently designed for the purpose of chopping.
 
devildavid said:
No, it is not. Theism is a belief in gods, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. That is all.
Click to expand...
To lack that belief you are taking an affirmative position
 
devildavid said:
No, you are not. Not believing is not affirming anything.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. You are talking a (very fringe) position that there cannot be a god.

Your position would be akin to claiming “I’m a flat earther, that means I merely do not believe the earth is round”
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Yes it is. You are talking a (very fringe) position that there cannot be a god.
Click to expand...

No, you are not believing in gods, which is a negative position toward something which can only be believed in or not.
 
devildavid said:
No, you are not. Not believing is not affirming anything.
Click to expand...
You believe we owe our existence to natural mindless forces that unintentionally without forethought or planning or even wanting the result caused intelligent humans to exist. Or do you have some other explanation? Or perhaps claim you don't know what caused it, you just know that it wasn't intentional.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Yes it is. You are talking a (very fringe) position that there cannot be a god.

Your position would be akin to claiming “I’m a flat earther, that means I merely do not believe the earth is round”
Click to expand...
Its worse than that. If you merely lack belief the earth is flat then you don't deny it might well be flat.
 
devildavid said:
No, you are not believing in gods, which is a negative position toward something which can only be believed in or not.
Click to expand...
By not believing in God, you are taking a position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom