Why I Don't Believe in Atheism

[LostLocke]

I am glad none of us can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

This guy sounds an awful lot like someone else here a year or so ago.

Sock? Another account?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Where are these eyewitness accounts recorded?

I've never read them, and to my knowledge neither has anyone else.

[Brakeman]

Just a little more from his awful lawyer..

So gentlemen of the jury and lawyers may I sum up briefly:

The Bible is unique. It comprises Books written by the most unusual men conceivable, a Fisherman, a King, a Prime Minister, a Cup Bearer and so on. It is truly God breathed.

The Old Testament was written before the New Testament, that is before the birth of Jesus and this is proved by history and by science.

The hundreds of Prophecies all recorded in the Old Testament have come to pass; the hundreds of prophecies about the birth, life and death of Jesus all happened even down to the most meticulous of details.

These hundreds of prophetic fulfilments are set out and that prove beyond doubt that the Bible is the Word of God.

Jesus lived; Jesus lives; He conquered death. He said He was the Way, the Truth and the Life and He proved it by His life, His actions, His teachings and His conquest of the grave.

The case is now in your hands my dear brother Lawyers, consider well for this is the moment of your decision, this is the time for your verdict. God has given you freedom of choice as well as a conscience. Will you agree with my humble and inadequate representations and say “Your case is proven” “I accept God” “I accept the Bible, His Son and the Holy Spirit?”

So because if I write a book and claim that I foretold all the amazing events of history and gave vague future prophesies like a horoscope or a fortune cookie, then anything else I would claim has to be the unvarnished truth no matter how silly.. Gotcha .. great jungle lawyering there Luckhoo!

[Ben Davis]

The reason Lawrence Krauss to me is dumb is because I NOEZ TEH SCIENSZ!!1!

*disclaimer: may not be a completely accurate quote

[vodkafan]

MPCADF: That's absolutely fine you don't believe. I exercise exactly the same right to not believe in your skydaddy.

[Brian37]

For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects, so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally. The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

Yes, because an invisible magical super hero makes much more sense.

Now, take this argument above in which you presume the Christian god as being the one true god, replace it with another god like Allah or Vishnu, and ask yourself if this same argument would convince you.

[archangle]

I am glad none of us can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. The lawyer in the Guinness World Records who won 400 cases in a row said the best evidential case he has ever seen was for the life, death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus. So in terms of evidence, God has provided the best proof we could ever reasonably ask for.

In fact, you nor I can even come up with better evidence for Jesus being God. That's powerful.

Actually if we claim "common sense" then we would listen to your account, and theirs, to Jesus rising. We have to take it into account in order to be true to ourselves. But in all fairness, you would have to listen to our stance on the probability it did not happen with the same intentions. Those being to find the truth to the best of our ability. You in the name of your Christ and ours in the name of whatever we give it. Both would converge on the same point anyway.

You, in the name of your Christ, should be reasonably expected to follow your rules too. And his. When you are not locked into a book, then you become free to use "proper" weight to observations seen and unseen. This interpretation would be at least, reasonable. would you be willing to give it a go? This game of "truth the best we can?" You have to understand that jesus would welcome your questions and doubt about him if he is what you claim he is that is.

They killed him for playing this game ya know,

---

Read Lawrence Krauss, he will turn your nothing into something.

actually, this is not quite true. he turned something into nothing then back into something. Unless of course he did not follow the standard model. Which I doubt.

Let's not butcher the truth like MD is.

[RobbyPants]

I am glad none of us can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

Huh, changing the topic. Are you giving up on your debunked cosmological argument, now?

The explanation is that it didn't happen. If it did, I'd expect to see even more eyewitness testimony from all of "the multitudes" who allegedly witnessed said events. Instead, all we have are a bunch of books written several decades after Jesus' death by a bunch of apologists with an agenda. When someone makes a claim that involves walking on water, transmutation, and resurrection, I'm going to be skeptical. When those claims aren't corroborated by outside sources, and the claims contradict each other, I'm calling bullshit.

The burden of proof is on you.

The lawyer in the Guinness World Records who won 400 cases in a row said the best evidential case he has ever seen was for the life, death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus. So in terms of evidence, God has provided the best proof we could ever reasonably ask for.

In fact, you nor I can even come up with better evidence for Jesus being God. That's powerful.

What evidence do you have for the resurrection? You have four contradictory claims. They could have all been explained also by either:

1) the body being stolen, or

2) the story being fabricated.

Given that your option involves unsubstantiated magic, I don't see any reason to assume it's true.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The burden of the proof remains on the atheist because I've done my part with the proof for the 'uncreated Creator' which remains unchallenged.

We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing (that is, non-existence), so nature can't start up from nothing.

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

And nature cannot always have existed because if it did, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

... and what makes you think that this is not the exact point in eternity wherein we come to exist? Because by your logic, that point had to arrive sometime. Now is as good a time as any.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Oooh, you used "therefore" again ... this must be logical.

This uncreated Creator is what we are talking about when way say 'God'.

No, that is what Christians mean. The Christian god is certainly logically impossible, by the way.

Now that you know God exists find out which religion is the correct one, since only one religion can be true since God does not contradict Himself.

There is no true religion. They all founder on the selection bias of their adherents; you exemplify the phenomenon in this very thread.

---

Oh, and rehashing arguments without taking into account objections is intellectually dishonest, and therefore (there's that word again!) I will resume mocking your posts and no longer try to engage you thoughtfully any more. Pearls, swine, etc etc.

[Mister Agenda]

The burden of the proof remains on the atheist because I've done my part with the proof for the 'uncreated Creator' which remains unchallenged.

You ignoring every challenge to it doesn't make it unchallenged, it makes it refuted since you didn't bother to respond substantively to any of the criticisms of your so-called proof, which didn't prove anything.

We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing (that is, non-existence), so nature can't start up from nothing.

Virtual particle formation: an effect without a cause. Particle decay: an effect without a cause. Checkmate.

And nature cannot always have existed because if it did, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

God cannot always have existed because if it did, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. That argument is so bad that I feel vicarious shame for throwing it back in your face.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Conclusion is based on nothing since you failed on every point leading to it.

This uncreated Creator is what we are talking about when way say 'God'.

It's what YOU are talking about when YOU say 'God'. There are plenty of people who wouldn't accept a definition of God that doesn't include God having a mind or being a person.

Now that you know God exists find out which religion is the correct one, since only one religion can be true since God does not contradict Himself.

Bad arguments for theism are support for atheism. No one would make a bad argument for theism if they could fined even one good one. Thank you for your efforts.

---

Read Lawrence Krauss, he will turn your nothing into something.

The reason Lawrence Krauss to me is dumb is because he claims non-existence which doesn't even exist can split into two things. This was proven obviously false because that which does not exist can't do anything, can't cause anything and can't split into anything. Nature always exhibits causation from something.

If you read him, you'd know that the closest physics can come to nothing insn't actually nothing, but quantum foam. There never was absolutely nothing, but quantum foam seems to have the property of not being able to not exist. Sound familiar?

And you have not responded to any comment where it has been explained to you that it is a fallacy of composition to ascribe properties TO Nature because they are found IN Nature.

The reason there are no billion bound gorillas stomping over NYC is because they don't exist so they can't cause anything. I think Krauss knows he is being belligerent. He gets off on it, perhaps making lots of money on the atheist circuit. He's probably having more fun doing that than his previously boring life and at least getting more attention.

Since you either haven't read or don't understand Krauss, your opinion about his motives is completely worthless.

But according to the Bible which has been proven to be true what's it worth to have all that entertainment yet go to Hell for rejecting Christ as his Lord and Savior for forgiveness of sins on the cross of salvation?

Unsupported assertions don't require evidence or argument to dismiss. The above is mere preaching.