Science and religion

[Creed of Heresy]

See here the problem Strodel is that you're now citing scripture as if it's somehow scientifically valid or it has done something more than make vague claims and vaguer allusions...except it has not.

To address above:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Then who created the creator? If everything that has a beginning has a cause of its existence, what, then, in your claim, created god? Because god would have to have a beginning as well, if we compare this to the Big Bang. Because, see, prior to the Big Bang, there was no time before it...and what has no time cannot be measured with a beginning. Ergo the Big Bang did not have a "beginning" since it was necessarily "before time," so therefore it has no cause of its existence.

1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Uh, no, god is not seen to be the best or only explanation of moral experience, in fact biological morality has much stronger claims and evidence to show for it. Most of the arguments of those who are atheistic are, quite often, that god's supposed teachings are anything BUT moral; in fact to a growing number they're amoral more than they are even immoral. This is also a really weak apologetic stance; "goddidit."

Allow Neil deGrasse Tyson to explain what exactly is wrong with your stance, here:



Isn't he so dreamy? *sighs longingly*

But seriously, that is pretty much the argument you are trying to make. You are GotGing.

Also on fallacies of logic; you're the one that started opening up against other people on this forum claiming fallacies of logic. Now that all everything you take a stance on is logically fallacious you're suddenly accusing people of picking and choosing fallacies? No, sir. It is YOUR fault that the fallacies are being levied against you because you are the one making them. Man up and own your arguments or just give up and deconvert because if you're actively proclaiming your stance to be above mere logic then there's no point to debating with you and you're intellectually dishonest and disingenuous knowing full well that what you believe is in error with reality but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Seriously, what DID atheism supposedly do to you to drive you to this sort of illogical chain of arguments? I am just assuming but I think your, uh, faith is actually the result of an emotional response...meaning, not thought-out and knee-jerk instinctual response rather than formulated, reasoned, and clinically addressed.

Rhythm: I don't think he's so much preaching as just quoting scripture in an attempt to justify his point.

It's not working.