Atheism is unreasonable

[dimaniac]

All of them?

When you consider how long human beings have been around and how long we have been recording history, in relation to the universe, we haven't even been a heartbeat for the universe. It's not surprising that we haven't encountered alien life in the inconcievably brief amount of time we have been around.

But there should be signs of Type III civilization even if only 1 civilization arises in every galaxy.

[abaris]

But there should be signs of Type III civilization even if only 1 civilization arises in every galaxy.
[/quote]

Why?

Do you even have any clue of our technical capabilities when it comes to telescopes?

[Esquilax]

But there should be signs of Type III civilization even if only 1 civilization arises in every galaxy.

How fucking closely do you think we can examine these planets?

[dimaniac]

Why?

Do you even have any clue of our technical capabilities when it comes to telescopes?

Type III civilization obviously consumes all parts of electromagnetic spectrum so it is not hard to detect it.

[FatAndFaithless]

[abaris]

But there should be signs of Type III civilization even if only 1 civilization arises in every galaxy.

How fucking closely do you think we can examine these planets?

Well, obviously he thinks we should have seen ET grinning back at us. That's why I suggested doing some reading. Hell, even watching a random discovery show might raise the horizon.

Why?

Do you even have any clue of our technical capabilities when it comes to telescopes?

Type III civilization obviously consumes all parts of electromagnetic spectrum so it is not hard to detect it.

Wow, I'm kinda speechless. Reminds me of my 6 year old self asking my father, why they're certain there's no life on the moon when we watched the first moon landing together.

[Mister Agenda]

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".

Actually, it isn't based on faulty knowledge. Why do you think scientists are constantly coming up with all of these crazy cosmological models?

Because there are multiple scenarios for which the math works.

Because they are trying to come up with a pre-big bang scenario, that is why.

Yes, why wouldn't they?

They recognize the implications of a finite universe.

More like they don't know what preceded the Big Bang and would like to.

Second, the reason the universe could not have existed infinitely is because of the problems with an actual infinity...and the argument does an excellent job of explaining why.

There's no problem a past-eternal universe has that a past-eternal God doesn't also have.

Third, causality breaks down because you will eventually get to the point where time simply doesn't exist...which is why a timeless cause is needed, and since the universe is always in a state of change, the timeless cause could not itself be within the universe.

Or it has to be timeless because it was before time began. A quantum fluctuation in a quantum vacuum existing prior to the Big Bang would be timeless. Or causality doesn't apply to the universe because causality being observed within the universe does not imply that causality applies TO it. That would be a fallacy of composition, the whole does not necessarily share the qualities of its parts.

No concept of God (as identified in the argument) doesn't violate any laws of logic.

You may be on to something. Or you may have used a double negative accidentally.

It is a logical concept, therefore, it is possible.

Only if the premises are true in addition to the form being valid.

Unless you can demonstrate how the concept is incoherent, you have to admit that it is at least possible for God to exist.

The proposition can't be demonstrated to be coherent unless you define God.

Anything beyond that is just intellectual dishonesty.

Refusing to define God would be an example of intellectual dishonesty.

Where would this "thing" called morality come from in the first place? The concept of right and wrong coming from nature, huh?

If it's determined by God, it's subjective to God. A standard that could be otherwise if God wills it isn't an objective standard. Either morals are divine fiat, and therefore subjective; or they're objective and would be the same even if there were no God.

Actually, it isn't. This is your way of over-analyzing things to take away from the implications. DNA is a code, and any "code" consists of information, and our DNA contains information on how to make you...it is information for all of our physical characteristics....now how can you get this kind information on how to make ANYTHING from a mindless and blind process.

DNA isn't actually a code, it is just somewhat analogous to one. For instance, you can't substitute any elements with 'different letters' and have it still work. It's not made of symbols, it's made of molecules with specific functions. It doesn't require decoding and no one has to understand it for it to work. It's more like an automated molecular factory than a code.

Codes have programmers.

It's not actually a code.

So because it is in the bible, it can't be true? Non-sequitur. Fallcious, I tell ya...fallacious

Being in the Bible doesn't make it true. It needs corroboration, just like any other historical document before it becomes reasonable to accept it at face value.

Historical evidence suggests that the Bible was written by either disciples, or friends of the disciples.

I'd love to see that historical evidence.

---

From nothing.

Everything from nothing is logically impossible. There should be first cause.

What property does nothing possess that makes it impossible?

How does nothing prevent a first cause?

What makes you think there ever was nothing, from either of our points of view?

---

By the grace of God, I was raised with a Christian foundation. As I got older, I started to get into apologetics, which is nice, because not only do I have faith, but I have good REASONS to believe what I believe.

And here I am today.

Apologetics only seems to be convincing to people who are already convinced that the thing the apologetics are for is true. It's not a method of persuasion, it's a method of reassuring the faithful that they're being reasonable.

If you don't believe that God did it, then you believe that nature did it. If someone tells me "I don't believe the light is on", then by default, they believe that the light is off.

Or they don't believe they know and they don't believe you know either.

[Mudhammam]

I swore I saw this movie before...

[Esquilax]

Why?

Do you even have any clue of our technical capabilities when it comes to telescopes?

Type III civilization obviously consumes all parts of electromagnetic spectrum so it is not hard to detect it.

Maybe they do, but there's a secret extra part of the electromagnetic spectrum that hides their activities from everyone else.

See, I can make shit up based on absolutely no data too.

[Mister Agenda]

Cool, what a fine proof that an all knowing being doesn't exist.

Really?

Really. Because a child could come up with a better plan for forgiveness than that. If God couldn't do better, God is not only not omniscient, God is not very smart.

It doesn't even have to be a two step process. Step 1: Forgive people for not being better than you made them.

---

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.

I can't think of one that DOES believe that. What happened prior to the initial expansion is unknown, but no cosmologist thinks absolute nothingness became the universe.