Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Yes, it all has to do with denying god. Nothing at all to do with the factual reality that the big bang does not represent the universe "beginning to exist."

Please tell me one cosmologist that doesn't believe that our universe, the one that we live in, began to exist at some point in the finite past. I will wait.

It does? "Everything that begins to exist has a cause," adequately explains why infinity is impossible? Why is it that you think just saying there is evidence is sufficient for me to accept what you say as true? Every time I make an argument, you essentially just say "I have a counter argument," and then stop talking. What the hell?

Well, you were the one that made it seem as if you were so familiar with the argument when you briefly "rebutted" my 6 arguments. I thought you were at least somewhat familiar with the arguments against infinity so I would be spared of having to get full in depth with it.

But anyway, the arguments against infinity is more geared towards the second premise of the argument, which is "The universe began to exist". It is basically saying that if God doesn't exist and there was no "first cause", then the beginning of our universe was just one event on a past eternal time scale. But this can't be true, if it was true, then infinity would be traversed. But infinity can't be traversed.

Analogy: Your birth was an event in time. If there was an infinite number of births which PRECEDED yours, the event of your birth would never come to pass, because for ever birth in the past, an event number of births would have preceded it, so your birth would never come to pass.

The same thing with the universe, the universe would be a product of an infinite regression of "causes", and no effect from these causes could come to pass for the same reason your birth would never come to pass.

A timeless cause is needed...a timeless cause that wasn't a product of preceded "cause"...a cause that doesn't depend on anything external for it to exist. "God" is the only being that is capable of this.

And Im sorry, there is no cosmologist or no mathematician that can help you with this infinity problem.

Yeah, you're just asserting that time ceases to exist at some point in the past, which is interesting because the actual educated physicists and cosmologists don't do the same. Maybe you should try getting published, win that Nobel Prize, if you know something they don't.

Tell you what...I want you do consult any physicist that can help you with the infinity problem. The infinity problem is independent of any bogus scientific experiment or any latest bogus theory or development in science.

Logically possible is not the same thing as physically possible, you know. It is logically possible that Abraham Lincoln was a cat, if I were willing to do what you do, and feed absolutely no facts into logic.

Makes no sense. Logically possible that there was a cat named Abe Lincoln, or logically possible that a man named Abe Lincoln was a cat?

Incidentally, there are logically incoherent portions of your god claim too, like creation ex nihilo or omniscience. The former has no evidence to justify it

When God created the universe, time was also created. If the universe wasn't created from nothing, that would mean that it had to exist infinitely. But I already gave reasons why it couldn't have existed infinitely. So creation ex nihilo is justified, otherwise explain to me how you can any event in time come to pass if time is infinite??

, and the latter is impossible to truthfully attain, as the mere claim of omniscience doesn't rule out the possibility of knowledge beyond the scope of that being's understanding, unknown unknowns.

Omniscience is the attribute of knowing all true propositions. Newsflash; if you know all true propositions, then there is no knowledge "beyond the scope of your understanding".

Evolution plus objective physical reality, if you must know. But this is a red herring to distract from the faulty nature of the argument from morality, here. I take it you can't answer my contentions with that argument?

Please. Before getting in depth, I was trying to set a foundation regarding the mere origins of morality, just like I try to focus on with regards to consciousness and life..the origins of these things. Before we get to which view is the correct view (or seemingly correct), lets start with where do we get them from in the first place.

Red herring? Please.

You need to be a biologist to speak on biology in a way that would be binding to everyone else. As it is, Bill Gates isn't a relevant source, making your use of him an argument from authority. In this area he is just some random guy, you might as well have just said that some guy you know named Richard said DNA was like a program, for all the good it does.

Bill Gates made a quote about the complexity of a particular "thing" called DNA. Any geneticists or biologists can tell you complex DNA is. This is a known fact. Nothing new.

But since that is your criterion, Michael Behe is a biochemist who has written books which discuss the complexity of DNA and cellular structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

So how do you detect and quantify it, such that you can demonstrate its objective, real presence within DNA? That was a part of what I was asking too. The important part, actually.

READ

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

What the fuck are you talking about?

Figure it the fuck out.

... Evolution, as I explained earlier.

Evolution? Please explain the origin of consciousness via evolution.

But this is entirely irrelevant to your claim that DNA contains information, and my contention regarding the nature of information too, so I suspect you're merely bringing it up as a smokescreen to cover for the fact that you can't demonstrate that information exists as anything other than a conceptual label applied by minds.

Bringing it up as a smokescreen? DNA contains specified information, that is a fact, and the last I checked, information has informants. You said that the argument from design begged the question, and I pointed out the fact that DNA is one thing that is apparently designed due to the specified complexity of the information that is in it.

Any biologist/biochemists will confirm this, whether they are believers or not. So if you are not DENYING the fact that DNA contains information, then you don't have a argument, and your objections are irrelevant and meaningless.

Not all codes have programmers, because not all codes are intentionally inputted into a series of objects. If I run a random letter generator you'll find some words in there eventually, but that doesn't mean that those words were purposely placed there.

Foolishness. If the words weren't placed there purposely, it isn't a freakin code!!!

In the case of DNA, we aren't talking about a code really, we're talking about four sets of chemicals reacting in predictable ways.

That it can be "read" as a code speaks only to the fact that we understand how these chemicals interact, and what they do once that interaction is complete. It's no more reading a code than predicting where a thrown ball is going to land is reading a code.

No it isn't acting in predictable ways. Consider this video by Stephen Meyer, where he is explaining the complexity of DNA...and he is explaining it to school children, which would make it easier for you to follow.

Me and him draw a theistic conclusion because of this..that is our implication...your implications may be different, but the science is the science...and no one can deny that. Show me a video which shows that DNA is not as complex as we make it to be, or the probability of getting one protein molecule is not as high as Dr. Meyer makes it to me. Can you? Probably not.

So just deal with it, and stop making these miniscule objections.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuc6t-Jvxs4

Also not what I was saying. The bible is the claim, not evidence for that claim. And the books of the bible were written anonymously, so you have no way of knowing whether they are true accounts or not, as you have no way of establishing whether the authors have good information.

No one living today knows who wrote anything in antiquity. It isn't as if we are so sure of who wrote anything else in history, but when it comes to the Bible, all of a sudden it is time to be a skeptic.

Your entire knowledge of ancient history is based on what you've been told from someone else. You weren't there. We use the same criterion to establish historical truths regarding biblical claims that we use for anything else in history.

You keep saying that like it means anything. The consensus of christian scholars both religious and secular is that the bible was written anonymously, and the names attached to the individual books were merely traditional names.

So just because the individual books were "traditionally" attached to the alleged people, that mean that it isn't true? Of course you are gonna say "thats not what I meant", well, if it isn't what you meant, then why the hell are you saying it?

You are right, the Gospels were written anonymously, but both Jews and Christians had a tradition of carefully passing down creeds, oracles, parables, scriptures, etc to future generations.

And the majority of Paul's writings precede the Gospels, which makes his epistles an even early source as a testament to the Resurrection.

If you crack open an NIV you'll even see that admission printed in the foreword. You're talking out of your ass here.

The "foreword" stuff in the NIV is irrelevant if I am on here admitting that the Gospels are anonymous. Again, I said we have historical evidence, which comes from the Early second century apostles who stated whom the Gospels were written by. Historical evidence = shit that was written down and or passed along to people that were a lot close to the scene than people typing in message forums 2,000 years later.

Oh, and by the way? Arguments won't establish the existence of god, because you can't argue something into existence. Evidence is what you need, and evidence is what you're summarily failing to provide.

Arguments give good reasons why we believe what we believe.