Atheism is unreasonable

[Mister Agenda]

No, it isn't,

Ok, so our universe popped in to existed from non-space, yet, it is expanding in preexisting space? Makes no sense.

The standard for something being true isn't whether it makes sense to you, but as usual you are not representing the hypothesis accurately anyway. No matter, because the actual one is just as hard to wrap your head around, and if something being hard to believe is the criteria for rejecting a proposition, consider the God hypothesis rejected on the same grounds if you like.

What?

Since your assertion is unsupported, I can reject it on those grounds alone.

It is a comparison of how things would be if the past is eternal and infinite regression is possible. I summed up the analogy by asking you a very simple question that I would expect you to be able to answer should it be true..you were unable to do so...so just accept defeat in that regard and lets move on.

Do you know what over-extending an analogy is? That two things are similar in one way does not prove that they are similar in other ways. What you are trying to prove can't be proven by analogy.

Right, it is so poor that you can't answer the question which topped it off. I knew you wouldn't be able to answer it, you just didn't know. Well, now you know, and "knowing is half the battle".

If that stupid reply isn't good enough for you, why the hell do you think I should think it adequate when it comes from you? I gave you the same answer you gave me on another point. If you think it's stupid, I agree.

Denial of defeat.

Brute fact. It seems to matter a lot to you to get someone to concede defeat. It's rather unseemly and immature for a civil discussion. I've conceded defeat many times, and adjusted my views accordingly. If you've 'defeated' me, I honestly don't see how, and the most charitable course for you to take is that I'm sincere on the matter. For my end, I wouldn't consider you being right a defeat. It would be an opportunity to discard a notion I'm wrong about, and I would be grateful for the service. There's really not much more you can do for someone over the internet than to educate them.

Then they are wrong, too. Christians are not immune to erraneous thinking.

No one is.

Apparently you don't know what atemporal/timeless means.

It means a state in which nothing can happen, because events require time. Perhaps a better word for what you are trying to convey would be 'omnitemporal'.

So what is the number right before infinity?

Infinity minus one.

Think again.

Too bad. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Stick to the analogy.

Stick it in your ear.

The future is infinite, but the past is finite.

That's the claim, and I think it's probably true, but it remains unproven.

Wow.

That is a proper attitude to have towards the magnitude of the future.

If you don't care then why are we having this discussion?

Because you imagine you know the unknowable, and I disagree.

Well, how?

There must be over a thousand articles on the topic online. Bother to educate yourself if you want to know.

If it can't happen in an analogy, it can't happen in reality. If it can happen in reality, it can happen in a analogy.

Thanks. We have a thread to record such spectacularly inane statements.

Unfortunately for you, you can't explain how it could happen in either reality, OR analogy. Not my problem.

Not mine either. You're the last person I want to convince. You're way too useful for my purposes as you are.

Ok, constructing a syllogism is easy...but it is pointless given the fact that I would have to explain why each premises is true...but since I am already doing that with the analogies, no need for a syllogism.

Argument from 'analogies ARE my argument!'.

Looking it up in the dictionary? I find it funny that you are requesting that I look the terms up in the dictionary, but yet in the same paragraph where you are giving such good advice, you are showing your ignorance of the terms definitions. If something is objective, then its objectivity is independent of who has what nature

ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

u·ni·ver·sal/ˌyo͞onəˈvərsəl/
adjective
of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

This has been at least the second time (and counting) time you've questioned my intelligence only to showcase your own ignorance in the process.

I don't think YOU are unintelligent. Many of your posts are, but that's despite your intelligence, not because of it. A little humility would prevent many of your mistakes.

So a slave master, who from birth always experienced the slavery of Africans to be a good thing, since that was his experience, that makes it right?

No, that means the subtleties of English are going over your head. No one's personal experience trumps another's. Our collective experience is what matters. And collectively, we've realized that slavery is an institution that is counter to human thriving.

SMH. No need to discuss the subject of morality with you any further.

Certainly not if you're so determined to misunderstand everything I have to say about it.

I repeat, on judgement day, God doesn't give a damn what kind of atheist you are..and since he don't, then I don't.

Argument from 'you'll be sorry you didn't admit I was right after you're dead' again?

But your belief that reptiles came from birds does.

I absolutely don't believe reptiles came from birds.

It can all be revised with more false interpretations lol.

The correct term would be 'more evidence'.

The lengths people will go to not believe in God lol.

The lengths people will go to not believe in more that two possibilities, lol.

Maybe he wanted to show his engineering skills.

You can 'maybe' anything. Maybe he wanted black holes and we're a side effect. Maybe he doesn't exist.

If the low entropy is getting high and will run out in a finite proper time, that must mean it couldn't have been running for an infinite amount of time, now doesn't it?

Nope, and it hasn't. It's only been running since the initial expansion. What went on before that is unknown, but clearly it didn't prevent at least one universe from forming. If you think entropy must apply to anything that exists, it must apply to God, and you run into the same problem. If it doesn't apply to God, it can not apply to other things, like conditions before the expansion.

I will ask again; how will the level of chaos be that low if it started from a singularity point with no guided hand to orchestrate the process??

And I will say again, that we can't say it was low in the first place. It could have been the maximum entropy possible for the conditions. If you want to know how order can come from chaos, there's a whole branch of mathematics devoted to it.

Right, a mathematically precise system/order of events from a mindless and blind process. Would you trust a mentally handicap person that is blind to do your math homework for you? No? But you trust it to create life, intelligence, and consciousness?

More argument from incredulity. The evidence we have is MORE mysterious if someone was running the show. What kind of moron would come up with a process that has a 98% failure rate and call it intelligent?

What does that have to do with a low entropy singularity?? Nothing.

What low entropy singularity?