Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

God doesn't test us because he wants to know what will will do.

That's why I said God is not doing it for his benefit, but for ours and others that are reading the narrative. It is for our benefit. When a teacher gives his students a test, the test is not for the teacher's benefit, but for the students.

And the "ok, there are some areas that I need to work on" argument is probably the weakest I've ever heard.

Hey, can't please everyone.

Either he is all-knowing, all-powerful or he's not. If he is, there's nothing to improve on, since his creation should have been perfect in the first place.

Non-sequitur.

---

The bible claims regarding the exodus have been found wanting (i.e. nothing has ever been found to give any validity). and whilst absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence, the total lack of any sort of evidence for those claims lends weight to the argument they are total nonsense.

You are the one using the canard of animal x only produced animal x as a way to somehow discredit evolution, when if you knew anything about the theory to which you are criticizing you'd know that evolution doesn't deny this is true. You conveniently miss out all the variables that in fact do inform the hypothesis and subsequent conclusions drawn through ToE.

Your non-rebuttal only again informs the general audience here that you know nothing about the theories you are arguing against and casually dismissing. It would actually be embarrassing for anyone, except you, it seems.

See evolution debate. Coming soon.

Yes, doubly so because you've omitted the main conclusion you've drawn from the above. Shame you can't see it, though. I can only assume you are either really, really stupid, or a POE (or indeed both).

Word.

120, actually (Deuteronomy 34:7).

Which would put his age even more closer to the age of the oldest living person today, which is 116. Never knew a correction would be in my favor.

Still a ludicrous age for the time, but possible.

Even more possible if there was a God that existed which wanted him to live that long.

Impossible for Noah and the other Patriarchs though, as above.

Again, it isn't impossible if there was a God that existed which allowed man's tenure on earth to be longer than it is today.

Not taking a position is not equivalent to taking a position of rejection.
You're the idiot making the claims/assertions and not substantiating them with anything aside more claims/assertions.

You stated that the Exodus never happened...that is an unsupported assertion.

Saying "we don't know" is intellectually honest. Combining that with what we currently know, and what we theorise could have happened and then testing those theories is also intellectually honest.

I am saying "We have reasons to believe".

Saying "Godidit", or shoehorning god into the gaps of knowledge formed by the aforementioned lack of knowledge, is lazy, intellectually dishonest, and the cornerstone of every ignorant apologist who can't be bothered to read up on what s/he's rejecting (evidenced by every post you've made thus far that has misrepresented the various scientific theories you seek to discredit).

Saying "Godidit" isn't any more lacking knowledge, being lazy, ignorant, or dishonest than saying "Naturedidit".

Don't be stupid. We're looking for someone with either new arguments or, even better (the best actually), evidence to support their assertions .

Good luck with that.

Yes it is. What, you think you're different to the other guys in the AIG crowd who think because they've done a 5 minute google search they know better than people who have done millions of hours of research and have an infinitely better grasp of the principles of their field?

5 mins? Almost 15 years.

---

Nior did I say that it does. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that torturing someone for skepticism doesn't fit any definition of mercy I've seen.

Torturing someone for skepticism?

Also, Aquinas and Anselm both argued that your god is the most perfect in everything. Here, you appear to be contradicting them; yet earlier in this thread you'd used one of their arguments in a post. How do you explain this inconsistency of yours?

What did I say that would allow you to draw the conclusion that I contradicted them regarding God's perfection.

That might be the case. But in thinking this over, it comes to me that if he knows everything, including how we will respond to his tests, then we really don't have free will.

Ok...assuming you don't believe in God, are you freely not believing in God, or are you forced to not believe in God? Which is it?

Also, why can't he just teach us, instead of forcing us to suffer in order to learn?

It is called "tough love".

So god didn't create cancer? He didn't create the 2LoT?

I was under the impression that he created everything.

2nd law of thermodynamics.

No, all humans die, and that's a fact. Of course you realize that I'm talking about physical death, and you're deliberately equivocating here.

If when you physically die you will spend an eternity with God, then physical death doesn't really seem to mean much, now does it?

But you worship a god who has killed every huma who has ever lived, because the first two bit the apple. That is hardly a picture of perfect justice there.

Anyone that accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior will live forever. You keep talking about physical death on earth...that is not the big picture, the big picture is eternity with God.

Um, have you not heard the phrase "hide nor hair"? It means you can find no sign of him.

No, I haven't.

If English is not your first language, let me know, I'll be happy to write more formally if that will help your comprehension.

Ebonics is my first language.

Behind what? You only answered one question with a modicum of sense, and even that is much more problematic than your facile answer would indicate.

Not even Jesus was able to please everyone.

Whoever those atheists were you claimed helped you hone your argument did a shitty job. The only difference between you and most Christian trolls is that you type more.

My posts are of good quality, and good quantity.

Do you not know their consituent molecules? Would you like a class in that?

Your avoidance of the question "Where did amino acids come from" is quite apparent.

Or, if you're asking where did matter come from, it came from the singularity, which you've already had explained to you.

That is like saying "the furniture IN the house came FROM the house". Makes little to no sense and you don't even have to think too critically to draw that conclusion.

---

Exactly!
So if an infinite regress does in fact happen, it's not illogical.

There is no "if's, and's, or but's" about it. It cannot happen in reality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ahw, the smug arrogance allied with ignorance. Precious.

I vote pigeon.

After trotting out Aquinas, baseless claims, personal attacks, strawmen, red herrings, and brazenly ignoring countervailing points, pigeon is the only play left in his playbook.

[His_Majesty]

This shows a lack of understanding about thermodynamics, cancer, and chemistry. Now ignorance of these subjects isn't terrible, they're hard subject to grasp, so I'll assume that the statement was made in ignorance.

I will assume that the statement was right on the money in the context I was saying it in.

Cancer is rarely, if ever, just due to decay. What I learned in chemistry was that it was often the result of added energy. This can be the result of radiation, viruses, or other pathogens in the body.

Even of it was the result of general decay, it would not follow that this was due to the second law as you claimed. The human body is NOT a closed system, and as such the second law does not apply.

According to Christian theology, when God made Adam and Eve, they were "good". They were the best specimen of mankind that the world had ever seen...after they disobeyed God, their bodies began to deteriorate, and they eventually grew old, and died. The same thing with their offspring. That is the second law of thermodynamics, which state that over time, closed systems will begin to lose its energy to do work. The human body IS a closed system. There is nothing outside it that will keep you from getting old and dying. Over time you will start losing more and more of your senses, until your body just stops operating as a whole.

---

No thank you, I will take it now please. You will be too busy getting demolished by Esquilax to bother with petty assertions like there is no fossil record. I will hear what you have to say right here.

Mannn please

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nior did I say that it does. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that torturing someone for skepticism doesn't fit any definition of mercy I've seen.

Torturing someone for skepticism?

Yes. Christian dogma is that not believing in the Christian god dooms one to Hell.

Also, Aquinas and Anselm both argued that your god is the most perfect in everything. Here, you appear to be contradicting them; yet earlier in this thread you'd used one of their arguments in a post. How do you explain this inconsistency of yours?

What did I say that would allow you to draw the conclusion that I contradicted them regarding God's perfection.

Are you not reading what you write? You wrote: "I don't think omnibenovelence necessarily entails omni-mercifulness." That means that you're saying that you don't necessarily think that your god is perfectly merciful.

That might be the case. But in thinking this over, it comes to me that if he knows everything, including how we will respond to his tests, then we really don't have free will.

Ok...assuming you don't believe in God, are you freely not believing in God, or are you forced to not believe in God? Which is it?

Myself, I don't believe in any gods, which means that I believe this about myself freely.

You, on the other hand, believe in a God who knows everything, who made everything, and who has a Plan. Based on those premises, you must logically believe that your god has made me the way that I am.

As has already been pointed out to you, free will and an omnimax god are contradictory.

Also, why can't he just teach us, instead of forcing us to suffer in order to learn?

It is called "tough love".

Well, so much for your merciful god, then.

So god didn't create cancer? He didn't create the 2LoT?

I was under the impression that he created everything.

2nd law of thermodynamics.

Answer the point, quit shilly-shallying.

No, all humans die, and that's a fact. Of course you realize that I'm talking about physical death, and you're deliberately equivocating here.

If when you physically die you will spend an eternity with God, then physical death doesn't really seem to mean much, now does it?

If worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them. Quit equivocating; you're only showing further that you're not honest.

But you worship a god who has killed every huma who has ever lived, because the first two bit the apple. That is hardly a picture of perfect justice there.

Anyone that accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior will live forever. You keep talking about physical death on earth...that is not the big picture, the big picture is eternity with God.

So you claim. Yet you cannot provide one shred of evidence for this god-thingy, nor can you even coherently define him, nor can you reconcile the internal contradictions of the god you whimsically worship.

Remind me again why I should give two shits rubbed together about your opinions.

Um, have you not heard the phrase "hide nor hair"? It means you can find no sign of him.

No, I haven't.

Nor have I found any sign of him.

If English is not your first language, let me know, I'll be happy to write more formally if that will help your comprehension.

Ebonics is my first language.

You'll have to try harder in the wit department. D+. Credit for surprise, demerit for obvious race-baiting. Rewrite and resubmit.

Behind what? You only answered one question with a modicum of sense, and even that is much more problematic than your facile answer would indicate.

Not even Jesus was able to please everyone.

Climb down off the cross, kid. You're no prophet.

Whoever those atheists were you claimed helped you hone your argument did a shitty job. The only difference between you and most Christian trolls is that you type more.

My posts are of good quality, and good quantity.

No. They've been dissected page after page, just like any other AiG boilerplate, and just like every other Christian troll I've ever seen, you're either too stupid to see it, or to dishonest to admit it.

Do you not know their consituent molecules? Would you like a class in that?

Your avoidance of the question "Where did amino acids come from" is quite apparent.

Nonsense. Clarify what you want, and you'll get an answer. Obfuscate any more, and you'll suffer mockery.

Or, if you're asking where did matter come from, it came from the singularity, which you've already had explained to you.

That is like saying "the furniture IN the house came FROM the house". Makes little to no sense and you don't even have to think too critically to draw that conclusion.

Not at all, to anyone who knows a little cosmology.

Present company seems to be excluding herself.

[Mister Agenda]

Right now, there is no physical law of nature which state that life can come from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness.

There's no law of nature that say life can't come from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness. Your basis for asserting it's not possible seems to rest entirely on you not wanting it to be true.

[His_Majesty]

Right. I'm going to put this in the most simple language I can so that there's no ambiguity:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause - This attribute of causality is only known to be true in the current state of our universe

The argument against infinity is independent of the state of the universe, whether you want to call it the current state, prior state, or future state. Doesn't matter. The argument is against any past-eternal chain of cause/effect, no matter what you want to theorize it as.

2. The universe began to exist - This can't be inferred as we can only describe the current state of our universe, not any pre-expansion states

Infinity problem.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause - This can't follow as 2. can't be applied to 1.

Infinity problem needs to be addressed and taken care of.

[Thumpalumpacus]

According to Christian theology, when God made Adam and Eve, they were "good". They were the best specimen of mankind that the world had ever seen...after they disobeyed God, their bodies began to deteriorate, and they eventually grew old, and died. The same thing with their offspring. That is the second law of thermodynamics, which state that over time, closed systems will begin to lose its energy to do work. The human body IS a closed system. There is nothing outside it that will keep you from getting old and dying. Over time you will start losing more and more of your senses, until your body just stops operating as a whole.

ITT, "On the eighth day, God created entropy."

As far as the human body being closed, it takes in energy from outside. The state of a system being open or closed doesn't rely upon the end result. Decay doesn't define a closed system; a lack of interchange with the outer environment does.

You really need to go buy that education.

[Cyberman]

According to Christian theology, when God made Adam and Eve, they were "good". They were the best specimen of mankind that the world had ever seen...after they disobeyed God, their bodies began to deteriorate, and they eventually grew old, and died. The same thing with their offspring. That is the second law of thermodynamics, which state that over time, closed systems will begin to lose its energy to do work. The human body IS a closed system. There is nothing outside it that will keep you from getting old and dying. Over time you will start losing more and more of your senses, until your body just stops operating as a whole.

But we're not talking about xtian theology. You're making truth claims about real-world scientific phenomena. If you get to pull out theology, I get to quote Star Wars.

[Esquilax]

Infinity problem needs to be addressed and taken care of.

Not in, say, a cyclical universe. Or any number of other causal states that we can't even dream of, and you certainly can't rule out. Our minds work in linear time, even coming up with the vocabulary for other states of time is hard, but that doesn't mean that there's only two possibilities. If you don't know, and you don't have sufficient evidence, you are not justified in ruling out the possibility that the unknown unknowns involved in the scenario don't behave in ways you've never even considered.

That's why the smart answer right now is "we don't know," and the incorrect answer is "the universe had a beginning."

[FifthElement]

Right now, there is no physical law of nature which state that life can come from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness.

Right now, yes, that is a key world.

Emergence is the process which happens all around us ALL the time.

However, we do not understand it yet ...

Life and consciousness are emergent properties of matter which is emergent property of fundamental particles which are in return emergent property of laws of nature. Who knows how deep it goes ?

But, yeah, in some way I understand that inability to fully wrap our mind around this coupled with self importance and fear of death and "backed up" with fairy tale can lead some to say: God did it