I will prove to you that God exists

[Drew_2013]

No, I just have fun at atheists expense.

You having your arse handed to repeatedly, is hardly at the expense of any atheists? Come to that, it's an odd notion of fun, to invite the intellectual equivalent of being publicly "spanked" like this, over and over. 

Oh, and thanks for finally having the integrity to admit you're trolling, we all knew of course, but that is something at least. Though it's clearly you who is being so triggered by the idea that others don't share,  and don't care about, your superstitious beliefs. 

We seem to be living rent free in your bonce. 

And an utter failure in the market place of ideas.

[Drew_2013]

My arguments aren't fallacious because people can look one up and claim its so. 

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact intelligent life exists.
4. The fact the universe has laws of physics, 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.
5. The fact that in order for intelligent humans to exist requires a myriad of exacting conditions including causing the ingredients for life to exist from scratch.

Those are objective facts. 

1. Bricks are red
2. Apples are red.
3. Apples are sweet and delicious.

Those are objective facts. I've concluded that bricks are sweet and delicious.

This post exemplifies why atheists can't convince anyone (except themselves) we owe our existence to happenstance. So they resort to stupidity like this.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know where you live...but in the us, there are more atheists and nones than christian IDers. As usual, your attempt to employ a fallacy backfires.

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon

The natural is always going to have a higher probability as an explanation in any scenario, than the supernatural, as the former exists as an objective fact, and the we have no objective evidence the latter is possible, nor that any deity is possible, why you think you can keep ignoring that fact is unclear? Just because your Christian indoctrination has left you desperate to cling to deism, is not a sound or objective argument.

Black holes are supernatural. 

Nope, everything science has evidenced, and understood about them, can be explained as an entirely natural phenomenon. 

For all your alleged logic, hubris and braggadocio atheists have only been able to persuade about 5% of the population

The 5% who understand that this argument you keep repeating is still an argumentum ad populum fallacy, so another moment of comedy gold, cheers for that chuckles. 

it means you folks haven't been able to convince people our existence and the entire universe was just a stroke of sheer luck.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never tried to do this, or even claimed it, or to believe it come to that, it seems a rather facile claim to me. No, it is you after all, who came to us remember, desperate to peddle your superstitious wares. 

you admit you don't know how the universe came into existence yet undaunted you insist nature did it. 

Nope this is still a lie, never claimed this not once. 

Liar liar pants on fire! 

No one can't say I didn't warn you. 

What nature was that Sheldon? 

What nature was what? The one you just included in your lie above, and falsely assigned a claim  I have never made, to me? Since it's your lie, and I have never made the claim, I have no way of knowing, especially as dictionaries are clearly anathema to you. 

The only nature we know of came into existence 13.8 billion years ago.

Ah, so you along can see past the big bang, and say what existed? You are funny, chuckles. Though it is good of you to admit that natural phenomena do in fact exist, unlike the supernatural that you're trying to peddle, which you can't objectively demonstrate is even possible.

I can't bother to respond to the rest of your drivel I have things to do.

 

More comedy gold, chuckles. 


Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

You'll be wanting needing this...   

[Sheldon]

You having your arse handed to repeatedly, is hardly at the expense of any atheists? Come to that, it's an odd notion of fun, to invite the intellectual equivalent of being publicly "spanked" like this, over and over. 

Oh, and thanks for finally having the integrity to admit you're trolling, we all knew of course, but that is something at least. Though it's clearly you who is being so triggered by the idea that others don't share,  and don't care about, your superstitious beliefs. 

We seem to be living rent free in your bonce. 

And an utter failure in the market place of ideas.

Is that a working title for your memoirs?

[Sheldon]

1. Bricks are red
2. Apples are red.
3. Apples are sweet and delicious.

Those are objective facts. I've concluded that bricks are sweet and delicious.

This post exemplifies why atheists can't convince anyone (except themselves) we owe our existence to happenstance. So they resort to stupidity like this.

Well the tricky part is getting them to understand how irrational their arguments and beliefs are, but look who I am telling. I mean look at your response here, to an analogy that illustrates perfectly why your argument is not sound. Do even know what that means? I'd ask if you even care, but that seems to have answered itself long ago.

[Angrboda]

If there is no evidence they could be different than what they are then you have no basis for making an inference of design, and thus you have no evidence for the existence of God.  Design implies that the specific characteristics were chosen -- if there was no choice as to what these characteristics are, then there is no design involved and no reason to make that inference.  Far from a moot point, showing that you cannot provide any evidence for design is central to whether your argument from design counts as evidence.  Since you have no evidence that the values are the result of choice, you have no evidence of design.

For the last time since you're obviously in broken record mode. If the universe had to be as it is, why would it happen to be in a extremely narrow configuration to allow life to exist? One reason if the universe had to be as it is to cause life, is because it was intentionally designed that way. Its false to say if there was no choice in how the universe came out then it wasn't designed. Does the fact engineers cause motherboards to come out the same some how prove it wasn't by design? 

And now you're denying obvious truths. If it was designed such that it had to be that way, then in a fundamental sense, it did not have to be that way. You're using the concept of necessity in a self-contradictory way.

[Sheldon]

If the universe had to be as it is, why would it happen to be in a extremely narrow configuration to allow life to exist?

Now that is comedy gold.   Deliberate?

[Sheldon]

If there is no evidence they could be different than what they are then you have no basis for making an inference of design, and thus you have no evidence for the existence of God.  Design implies that the specific characteristics were chosen -- if there was no choice as to what these characteristics are, then there is no design involved and no reason to make that inference.  Far from a moot point, showing that you cannot provide any evidence for design is central to whether your argument from design counts as evidence.  Since you have no evidence that the values are the result of choice, you have no evidence of design.

1. If the universe had to be as it is, why would it happen to be in a extremely narrow configuration to allow life to exist?
2. One reason if the universe had to be as it is to cause life, is because it was intentionally designed that way.
3. Its false to say if there was no choice in how the universe came out then it wasn't designed.
4. Does the fact engineers cause motherboards to come out the same some how prove it wasn't by design? 

1. Comedy gold, no response is really necessary there, chuckles. 
2. No chuckles, if it had to be that way, no design would be necessary, obviously. 
3. No, chuckles, it is not false at all, it's blindingly, painfully, excruciatingly obvious, but not to you apparently. 
4. False equivalence fallacy, we know motherboards are designed and created, because there is overwhelming objective evidence they are, but none for universes, or anything supernatural or any deities, see the difference, chuckles?

You don't need to respond 

Well, if you don't want your superstition pulled apart like warm bread, then don't seek out people that will inevitably subject your schoolboy "logic", to critical and objective scrutiny. Sulking afterward is rather silly, chuckles. 

I responded for the sake of anyone else reading.

Aww bless, now I feel a little bad for him again.

[Nay_Sayer]

I believe that you've hit the nail on the point with this one. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you seek out atheist websites and wander about objecting that we don't believe as you do. If you're looking for dogmatic validation of your beliefs, then you've come to the wrong place.

No, I just have fun at atheists expense.

Big yikes my guy. You've been getting steamrolled.

Thoughts and prayers. You also might wanna reconsider being so open about trolling.