Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[IDScience]

There is only one way to "dismantle" atheism, and that is to provide testable evidence that a god exists. This has never happened, and until it does, atheism is the rational position (as well as a very
misunderstood position). If god gets defined as something untestable, then that's that. It is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

We do have testable evidence for ID (not necessarily God). The universe and biological system contain the Hallmarks all other ID systems. These Hallmarks are functional fixed (can not evolve) elements (FFE). The universe has FFE with the constants, and biological systems have FFE with the conserved elements. These are elements that must remain frozen in place or the system will not function Just as your car engine, PC codes, a bicycle, carnival rides etc.. all have functional elements that are fixed in place and do not evolve.

And because 100% of ID systems have FFE, we can deduce the conclusion that the universe and biological systems were also ID, from the premise that all ID systems also have FFE.

Stable function is impossible without fixed elements firmly established. Even Dawkins admits if evolution is proven false, God is proven true. And elements that do not evolve falsifies the theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, and science has yet to understand (or admit) this

[Chas]

This brings up another topic. I believe God "evolved" (via self direction) before the singularity and before the 2nd law of thermodynamics existed.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist until man defined it. Entropy is a property of the universe.

The first law is never violated, therefore we must believe energy in some form existed for all of eternity in the past.

And because entropy can not be eternal, usable energy must have existed forever in the past.

Did you know that the sum of all energy in the universe is calculated to be zero? Therefore, none of it existed before the Big Bang, which was not necessarily a singularity. In Hawking's no boundary proposal "there would be no singularities, and the laws of science would hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe."

Therefore this eternal usable energy had literally forever to become aware of its self, i.e. “I think therefore I am” (abiogenesis of God).

That is woo for which there is no evidence. Do you have a proposed mechanism?

And any life form that exists in a place in which entropy does not exist, can never die, and any life form that can never die must eventually become/evolve into an all knowing all powerful being, no matter how painstakingly long it may take.

Must? Really? How does it do that?

Therefore if the eternal "something" exists, the chances of it becoming a sentient all knowing being is 1/1 (100%) because it has literally all of eternity for it to happen. Thus if the eternal something exists, God must also exist. And atheistic science knows this very well, this is why they need an illogical "something from nothing" hypothesis to reject God from existing.

Must? Your conclusion does not follow.

[IDScience]

You can posit any number of dimensions you want.....but say you posited 100....that wouldn't be string theory....that would be some other theory.

String theory posits 10 or 11(depending on the flavor of String theory) dimensions. An 11 dimensional universe allows for at least 10^500 different configurations(size, curvature, etc) of those 11 dimensions which means String theory allows for at least 10^500 number of ways the universe could be different(i.e. have different physics).

And you have Bosonic string theory with 26 dimensions. I'm not a physicist, but I'm reiterating what I heard a physicist on youtube say. How do you falsify 10 other dimensions?, its currently impossible. As a theist I believe in other dimensions (spirit world), but I accept them by faith, just as science accepts the 10 dimensions of string theory by faith

[Mystic]

Because unless it's demonstrable, it's not rational.

Non sequitur. I can't prove free will exists either. I like to pretend it does, but it's just my robotic self programmed to pretend.

So you're saying it's irrational to believe in free-will? If a child appreciates his mother and praises her thinking she is doing something kindly of out her free-will then the child is being irrational?

Exactly. There aren't any universal moral truths.

So you don't think murder is wrong?

Sorry if you feel belittled, but you have no evidence of god.

I have evidence of God. Whether you agree with the evidence is another thing.

[Jenny A]

True dichotomies actually do exists, and your faced with one in Gods existence/non-existence

The dichotomy exists. But knowledge of any dichotomy of two has three states: A, B, and no knowledge. How many times does it have to be said?

[Alex K]

There is only one way to "dismantle" atheism, and that is to provide testable evidence that a god exists. This has never happened, and until it does, atheism is the rational position (as well as a very
misunderstood position). If god gets defined as something untestable, then that's that. It is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

We do have testable evidence for ID (not necessarily God). The universe and biological system contain the Hallmarks all other ID systems. These Hallmarks are functional fixed (can not evolve) elements (FFE). The universe has FFE with the constants, and biological systems have FFE with the conserved elements. These are elements that must remain frozen in place or the system will not function Just as your car engine, PC codes, a bicycle, carnival rides etc.. all have functional elements that are fixed in place and do not evolve.

Where did you pull this notion from? How is this FFE business in any way special to IDed systems as opposed to, erm, just some aspect of reality which you just arbitrarily attributed to designed things?

And because 100% of ID systems have FFE, we can deduce the conclusion that the universe and biological systems were also ID, from the premise that all ID systems also have FFE.

Erm. What??? That's nonsense.

Stable function is impossible without fixed elements firmly established. Even Dawkins admits if evolution is proven false, God is proven true. And elements that do not evolve falsifies the theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, and science has yet to understand (or admit) this

Did he now? I don't think evolution can really be proven false at this point, we just know it happens. Therefore this point is entirely moot. And what's with these elements which do not evolve disproving evolution, because somehow *everything must* evolve? You just pulled that out of your behind, nowhere does the theory predict this. Can you maybe be a bit more specific what you even mean by this? One example of what you think must evolve, but doesn't?

It is for example quite possible that the physical constants did evolve, with new universes birthed from others with modification. It's speculation, but it flies in the face of what yiu are trying to argue here.

[IDScience]

This is like saying your chances of winning the lottery are 50/50 either you win or you wont.

It discounts all the other possible explanations for everything and reduces them to a binary either or which they aren't

Incorrect, There is a chance that both can happen, there is not a chance that God can both exist and not exist depending on random chance.

Just as your birth mother is your real birth mother, or is not your real birth mother. Its either true or its not true, its not possible for both to be potentially true or false, unlike the lottery

[Silver]

I have evidence of God. Whether you agree with the evidence is another thing.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

[Mystic]

True dichotomies actually do exists, and your faced with one in Gods existence/non-existence

The dichotomy exists. But knowledge of any dichotomy of two has three states: A, B, and no knowledge. How many times does it have to be said?

Yet you state no objective morality exists, if God exists, don't you think objective morality would exist?

Doesn't seem you really are all that neutral.

---

That word does not mean what you think it means.

What does it mean to you?

[IDScience]

So, let me get this straight: first, you decide to "define true atheism," by telling us what we believe and demanding that we go with your definition and not our own or the dictionary's. Essentially, you strawman us.

Yes I do know what you believe if you adhere to proper definitions, and I can prove it

Atheism is famous for equating the concept of God with flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, etc.. Now if this comparison holds valid in your own mind, you should be able to positively assert the same thing about God as you do about theses other fictional characters, or anything else you claim you don't believe

1. You don't believe flying spaghetti monsters exist
2. And you can positively assert "I believe flying spaghetti monsters do not exist”

1. You don't believe invisible pink unicorns exist
2. And you can positively assert "I believe invisible pink unicorns do not exist"

1. You don't believe the earth is flat
2. And you can positively assert “I believe the earth is not flat”

And this example works in 100% of all other things you claim you “don't believe”. Yet you still can't see what should be blatantly self evident to a honest rational mind

Your problem is, you either lie to yourself about Gods existence, or lie about the absurd comparisons to
known fictional characters. I believe its the former, you believe God exists, but willfully lie to yourself for convenience sake.

Rejecting somethings existence equates accepting its non-existence, and vice versa. because the law of non contradiction dictates something can't both exist and not exist at the same time.

Therefore according to the law of non contradiction, God can't exist and not exist at the same time, therefore if you don't believe God exists -Just as with spaghetti monsters and invisible unicorns- you must believe God does not exist because the final outcome of your equation equates GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

"Has intelligence that is godlike" is your criteria for a god? Nothing else? Dodgy - isn't obviously contradictory. Congratulations, jackass, you managed to define a- possibly fictional!- concept that doesn't collapse in on itself"

Yes it is my criteria, because the only thing that is needed to prove (the belief in) theism correct and (the belief in) atheism incorrect is an intelligence capable of creating a universe and all life it in, nothing more. And you have given no argument against a God-like intellect from existing, therefore your post is nothing more than arrogant insults with no explanatory value. Angry rhetoric is not competing in a debate

And then to cap it, the sun-drenched monument to your ignorance at the top of the summit of ineffective argumentation you've thus far provided, is blatant special pleading and a shifting of the burden of proof: I don't need to provide any positive evidence for my god, but unless you can provide comprehensive evidence that my god does not exist, your position is irrational!

Lets reword that to. "I don't need to provide any positive evidence for other superior life in the universe, but unless you can provide comprehensive evidence that other superior life in the universe does not exist, your position is irrational!"

Now you should see where your argument falls apart. You don't need positive evidence to believe in other life in the universe, and you don;t need positive evidence to believe in other superior life in the universe. You use logical inferences and mathematical odds to make that leap of faith. The difference between theists and atheists is, theists don;t irrationally cap intellect and attribute levels of all life that can possibly exist, so that it is less than God-like

Just as the unimaginably small atom was proven to mimic a solar system -a concept that would have been laughably ridiculous 200 years ago-, the entire universe can also be a "single cell" in a much larger system. Your problem is your mental scope is extremely narrow and limited in its ability to comprehend the fact that, SIZE HAS NO RELEVNCE at all to the potential existence of a system or a life form or intelligence. Now expand your mind and comprehend what I just said. And you can start this mental expansion by researching “universal fractals”. Everything that exists, patterns, systems,, and life, exist on unimaginably small and large scales.

But let me ask you this, genius: wouldn't it logically follow that if my position is irrational because I can't provide evidence against your argument, that yours is irrational because you haven't provided any evidence for it?"

First, I don't need evidence for my claim for it to be rational. Just as the multiverse of inflationary cosmology and the “many worlds” of quantum physics do not need evidence of their existence to be a rational concept. If one universe exists, many or endless other universe all with different attributes/constants can also logically exist, and this is based solely on inference

And I have logical inferences for my position, a fact that has blown right over your head. Life exists here, therefore life can exist elsewhere. Varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects exist here, therefore varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects is a logical possibility and can't be ruled out of existence.

If we find an statue of an elephant on mars, do I need observable evidence of the potential designer or the design process to assume a designer could exist?. No I do not. And proving the existence of the elephants designer is unfalsifiable, yet ID is not rejected based on logical inferences of design. Now if you want to be inundated with "appearance of design" quotes from evolutionary science, ill be happy to give them to you.

Because let me be absolutely clear: "It's logically possible!" is nowhere near "it exists." Possible gods are not extant gods, and moreover, it's only possible if our only criteria for possible is "not logically inconsistent,

Did I say that?. No. I said because its logically possible, it can't be rejected as atheism does. If God is logically possible, it then goes without saying to reject what can be logically possible is illogical in its self, just as rejecting all other possible life in the universe (big or small) is illogical.

because you've got no indication that it's physically possible, or that it did happen, just that intelligence might grow to that threshold because we've seen intelligence"

Oh but you do, because you believe a primordial soup gave rise to a single cell, and a single cell gave rise to progressively more intelligent life forms with a wider range of attributes. Therefore your own theory (if true) indicates it is "physically possible".

I observe a wide range of intellects co-existing, thus logically assume a wide range can exist throughout the universe, and beyond. Which is independent of how they became a wide range of intellects.