(November 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, the #1 supernatural claim is that Jesus rose from the dead, and the we have early evidence of that particular belief in regards to him.

You clearly have no understanding of the definition of evidence.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The first premise is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"...which means that things don't just pop in to being uncaused out of nothing.

So then neither could god. And if god didn't begin to exist, then evidently there's no requirement that the universe do so either; this whole idea that the universe "began" to exist is based on faulty knowledge of the big bang. Truthfully, our understanding of causality breaks down at that point, so for all we know there isn't a way for it to "begin".

Quote:(gets ready for "virtual particle" spewage)

Yes, because if you don't believe it, it can't be real! I forgot the whole world revolves around what you want to be true, for a second there.

Quote:Actually, more like "If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then a maximally great being must exist"

I am speaking about the Modal version.

Yeah, and it argues that without ever demonstrating that it is possible.

Quote:The argument is saying if objective moral values DO exist, then these moral values must transcend the law of man. The question is, are things like first degree murder, and rape...are these things objectively wrong? And there is no way you can grant these things to be objectively wrong without implying a transcendent standard.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of morality, but I don't need to as my points still stand: this argument doesn't even attempt to establish that the only transcendent standard is a god, let alone the christian god. Nor does it even attempt to establish that these things are objectively wrong. It just asserts it. For an argument to be valid it needs to, you know, demonstrate the things that it's arguing for.

Quote:Bill Gates once said "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created".

Who cares? Bill Gates ain't a biologist, for one thing.

Quote:A computer program has information...man made information...and DNA also has information, information on how to make you...YOU.

How do you quantify information? Or even define it? If you can't measure it or detect it, how do you know it's there?

See, this is the thing: information doesn't exist objectively. It is an expression of a conscious mind's ability to discern patterns in an object after the fact. There is no thing called information that one can detect.

Quote:If DNA is more complex/advanced than man made information...either you are telling me that nature, being mindless and blind, is STILL more smarter than man (being able to CREATE DNA in the first place)...or you have to tell me that there there was an intelligent designer, a (Super mind), which created DNA, in the same way that an intelligent designer creates software programs.

Either way, you are in a lose-lose situation

Your information claim is incorrect to begin with, leaving you with yet another false dichotomy.

Quote:Actually, it isn't an argument from ignorance, because mind/body dualism can be demonstrated.

So put your money where your mouth is and fucking do it already. Don't just smugly assert it like your word means shit on its own.

Quote:There are contemporary reports of Jesus' followers.

Where? In the books of the bible? The anonymously written books of the bible?

... The ones that were all written after Jesus died, by people that never met him?

Quote:Well, the #1 supernatural claim is that Jesus rose from the dead, and the we have early evidence of that particular belief in regards to him.

Your problem is that you just keep asserting that there's evidence without ever presenting it. It makes it look as though you have something to hide.

Quote:Are you laughing because you find it funny to be in error? That has to be the case. If you noticed, the argument based on the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is #6 on the list, which is the last of the arguments, because it is based on that argument that the conclusion is drawn that the God that exists IS "the Christian God I actually believe in"



You get a D for effort.

Uh, yes... that's why I said five of the six arguments don't point to the christian god. And the sixth is entirely erroneous.

And you don't get to grade me; you don't have nearly the education for that.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The agreement of the innocent person has nothing to do with whether the only way to forgive people is to kill someone innocent.

Well, I will put it to this way Jenny: I think if there was a "better" way to do things, I think an all knowing God would have figured it out.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Gnostic atheism is belief that there is not god. Agnostic atheism is not simply lacking a belief in god. I am a agnostic atheism, though I find the god's lack of existence by far the more probable of the two choices, It know it certain.

Semantic babble. On judgement day, God will make no distinction between atheism, agnosticm, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, and any other ludacris combinations you throw at him lol.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Exactly, if science can prove a thing, then god. It's the argument of the gaps. Science has been filling in gaps pretty steadily.

Prove that consciousness can come from unconsciousness and life can come from nonlife...then we are smokin'.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Citation please? Science is about evidence, inference, and demonstration. It changes with better understanding. Religion maintains the same beliefs in the face of changing evidence. Which one is more honest and more likely to reach the truth?

Citiation for what? The fact that our universe began to exist can be found in any text book on modern cosmology. It is a religiously neutral statement.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Not surprising since you trust blind faith over facts.

What facts?

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But many other things once thought to be magic have. Nothing previously thought natural has since been proven to be magic.

Well, science answers your prayers by providing you answers with tough questions...and God answers my prayers. We both get what we want from our "Gods"

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: All debunked through out history and on this site.

Really? I'm sorry I missed it.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Good luck with that. BTW. Speaking of getting your feet wet, it's polite and customary to introduce yourself in the introductions forum first.

Actually...I did. Have you checked the intro forums first? (Granted, this was after my first two posts lol)

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Not necessarily. People don't know everything, and despite the potent tool of science, probably never will. We couldn't do show many things just a year ago that we can now. That doesn't mean they were supernatural before.

My point is, it should be ABLE to be explained via science. The potential should always be there, right? After all, it is science, right?

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Being able to imagine something has no affect on whether it's possible.

Yes it does. Can you imagine for 2+2=11? Can you imagine that? No, you can't. Because it isn't possible, thats why.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Nature does things we can't do all the time. Nuclear fusion (the sun does that), travel at the speed of light (light does that you see), planet creation, interstellar travel (comets do that), and on and on.

Notice I was specifically talking about "smarts". Nice try, though.

(November 2, 2014 at 3:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The Modal Ontological Argument.

I can just as easily post a vid that backs up my position, can't I? How about explaining to me why you think the argument isn't sound/valid?

(November 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, the #1 supernatural claim is that Jesus rose from the dead, and the we have early evidence of that particular belief in regards to him.

Great - let's see it.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: But as an atheist, here is what you have to believe...

How would we ever manage without you helpful lot stopping in to explain this for us.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: you have to believe that billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.

This actually comes closer to describing what you believe, at least the "suddenly" part. So do you think god made us from dead matter or did he use the special direct-to-life magic stuff?

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE. For the life of me, I just can't get myself to believe that, even if I tried. I just don't understand how naturalism/atheism is a more reasonable position than theism.

Well, we're not stuck believing in an always existing, whimsical genie who after some amount of time decides something is even better than nothing. Then decides this something would be even better if it had someone other than Him to appreciate it, so poof, let there be man.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You have to believe that a process that can't think or see, created consciousness. So consciousness came from a process that can't think??

So god "thinks"? And where exactly are god's eyes located? Interesting how you can deduce this stuff about a being that no one has ever seen or studied first hand. You may not have any faith but you are pretty near omnipotent when it comes to making shit up.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:33 pm)dimaniac Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I seriously doubt you understand virtual particles.

Where did quantum vacuum come from?

Nowhere.

From what did your god create the universe?

(November 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Probably dropped out in the 8th grade.

Jesus likes them stupid, you know.

He claims to have finished high school.

I'm still awaiting evidence on that, though.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:33 pm)dimaniac Wrote: Where did quantum vacuum come from?

Nowhere.

From what did your god create the universe?

1 Theists are right. Everything can't come from nothing
2 Atheists are right. God can't come from nothing.
Since there are no other options that means that Universe can't exist. But it exists. Therefore logic is delusion.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:50 pm)dimaniac Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Nowhere.

From what did your god create the universe?

1 Theists are right. Everything can't come from nothing
2 Atheists are right. God can't come from nothing.
Since there are no other options that means that Universe can't exist. But it exists. Therefore logic is delusion.

Answer the question, from what did your god create the universe?

(November 2, 2014 at 4:50 pm)dimaniac Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Nowhere.

From what did your god create the universe?

1 Theists are right. Everything can't come from nothing
2 Atheists are right. God can't come from nothing.
Since there are no other options that means that Universe can't exist. But it exists. Therefore logic is delusion.

Well, enjoy your solipsism, then. We'll just, you know, pay you even less attention than we already do.