Proving Atheism Is True

[Zen Badger]

So what evidence do you have for the existence of your god?

Evidence of design in the universe is not conclusive because there are valid alternative explanations.

One that springs to mind(and a personal favorite)is that our universe is just one of many popping up through the cosmos like so many bubbles in a glass of beer. And the constants for each slightly different.

Some will be inimical to life as we know and some not. Some would be even better suited.

This of course is pure theory, since we have no way of verifying it. But it is still much more plausible than the universe being created by some childishly petulant half witted fool with the design skills of a

crack addicted ferret.

So you'll have to try something else.

P.s it has been explained at length why we are more rational than you. If you can't understand it we can't help that.

---

Christians arrogant or obnoxious? Hardly. How can one be arrogant or obnoxious about something they dont know?

Where do I start? Every christian claim to know what god thinks is ultimate arrogance, cos they certainly cannot know. Every time a creationist twit refutes Evolution when they know nothing about it or how it works. Every claim that the bible is the inerrant word of god when most christians haven't even read their own damn book!
And knocking on my door on a Sunday is very, very obnoxious.

Most Christians are ignorant and naive.

First true thing you've said

[Skeptisma]

Lets try it again.

Me: How are you more rational than me?

You: I dont believe in faires or santa or A big invisible monster.

Me: I dont see your point, neither do I?

You: God is on that line

Me: Why? Perhaps you arent being open minded enough? You still havent shown me how you are more rational than me?

You: Lalalalala logic lalalala rational lalalala me skeptic

You dont listen. You dont think theism is on the same line as atheism, for no reason.

First off, I have a hard time trying to grasp exactly what you mean by that last sentence... what line? What similarities do they have other than the fact that they relate to a supernatural force (i.e. belief or disbelief)?

As far as your made-up conversation goes... I find it a little ironic that you're painting atheists with a broad, childlike brush while you diddle around any pertinent questions posed to you. "You" don't even answer "yourself" with any sort of reason.

Funny, its only athesits and fundies who say religion is based on blind faith. There is evidence for a God, it just depends how you interpret.

Faith is faith, period. You can add blind, half-blind, color-blind, and whatever other preface you want to it - it doesn't change the meaning. Faith is belief that is not based on evidence or reason. There is no scientific evidence for a god (if you've found some I'm sure lots of people would LOVE to hear about this) so your belief in one, or thirteen, does have a faith-based element. Denial of that would definitely be irrational.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Imagine if we didnt have all that water, do you think we would still be around.

Probably, but I'll give God the benefit of the doubt on that one. I can't see what benefit there is to volcanoes, though. Any suggestions? As for refuting the fine tuning argument, I said that there's nothing objectively special about life. Why pick that phenomenon out as the purpose of the universe?

[solja247]

So what evidence do you have for the existence of your god?

Evidence of design in the universe is not conclusive because there are valid alternative explanations.

Correct, its not conclusive. I may be refuted later on. However, we are only going deeper into the rabbit hole when it comes to the universe, so I doubt it.
Even a cell appears to designed, the more we learn about it, the more complicated it gets.
As I have said, it depends on your philosphical baggage to what you conclude (or dont conclude).

One that springs to mind(and a personal favorite)is that our universe is just one of many popping up through the cosmos like so many bubbles in a glass of beer. And the constants for each slightly different.

Just because other univeres most likely exisit. Doesnt mean that anything is possible. Is there a world where there is magic? Another with the force?

This of course is pure theory, since we have no way of verifying it. But it is still much more plausible than the universe being created by some childishly petulant half witted fool with the design skills of a

crack addicted ferret.

If God did create this universe, it is nothing but a master art. Are you a Physicist or a Cosmologist? Even they look at the universe in awe and wonder.

As far as your made-up conversation goes... I find it a little ironic that you're painting atheists with a broad, childlike brush while you diddle around any pertinent questions posed to you. "You" don't even answer "yourself" with any sort of reason.

As I have said before, it depends on what you believe. Some Atheists see it as being completely rational to believe in the supernatural, just no God or gods. (Most) Atheists dont adress the question, they use sacarsm or straw men to rationalise their arguement (atempt) and thus, completely reject the idea that (some) theists are completely rational.

Faith is faith, period. You can add blind, half-blind, color-blind, and whatever other preface you want to it - it doesn't change the meaning. Faith is belief that is not based on evidence or reason. There is no scientific evidence for a god (if you've found some I'm sure lots of people would LOVE to hear about this) so your belief in one, or thirteen, does have a faith-based element. Denial of that would definitely be irrational.

Well thats where you are wrong. I have evidence first, then faith comes. I have evidence for God most likely existing and evidence for the life of Jesus and resurrection (I will bring the evidence forward latter, I need to do more research)

If someone could prove to me, through evidence and logic that Jesus didnt rise from the dead, I wouldnt be a Christian, I would be a Deist.
If Someone could prove to me that God probablly doesnt exisit, I would be Agnostic. (It is much easier to make someone doubt than bring evidence to the table)

Probably, but I'll give God the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Heard of climate change? All that is that we have shifted the equilibrium (slightly) and we may destroy our world. Our World is at a very very intricate equilibrium.

I can't see what benefit there is to volcanoes, though. Any suggestions? As for refuting the fine tuning argument, I said that there's nothing objectively special about life. Why pick that phenomenon out as the purpose of the universe?

Volcanoes?
http://www.universetoday.com/32576/benef...volcanoes/
I am sure there are many other benefits, perhaps you should do a little research?

Forget about life! Fine tuning arguement is everything! From the elements on the periodic table, to the construction of planets and stars. If th Big bang was a tiny bit bigger or smaller no life, stars, planets, elements would exisit. It has be pretty much perfect. (Francis Collins makes a great case in his book, 'The language of God.'

[Skeptisma]

As I have said before, it depends on what you believe. Some Atheists see it as being completely rational to believe in the supernatural, just no God or gods. (Most) Atheists dont adress the question, they use sacarsm or straw men to rationalise their arguement (atempt) and thus, completely reject the idea that (some) theists are completely rational.

Although I'd beg to know just how many of these atheists believe in supernatural phenomena, those people aren't being consistent and I'd question how they got to be atheists in the first place.

I think the basic fundamentals of proof and evidence are being twisted here. I cannot disprove something that has not been proven. I cannot disprove a god, or Russell's teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or gremlins hiding underneath my bed. I have not, nor has anyone else, observed these entities in a consistent, provable manner. In any case, regardless of what you believe - belief is not dependent upon reasonable and rational thinking, like in your case.

Well thats where you are wrong. I have evidence first, then faith comes. I have evidence for God most likely existing and evidence for the life of Jesus and resurrection (I will bring the evidence forward latter, I need to do more research)

Why do you need faith if you already have evidence? Faith is there to bridge the gaps from what we think we know and what we want to be true.

Something tells me that if you had such compelling evidence for god and Jesus existing (which it's not looking likely at all by the way that he did - and if you use biblical literature you won't be saying anything new) you wouldn't need to go find your so-called evidence... and we wouldn't even be having this conversation!

[SleepingDemon]

The fact that this planet is just right for us isn't evidence for a supreme creator. The universe provides a multitude of planetary permutations, so quite frankly, if life did not happen on this planet, it would have happened somewhere else.

[Zen Badger]

Just because other univeres most likely exisit. Doesnt mean that anything is possible. Is there a world where there is magic? Another with the force?

This is your idea of a refutation?

In a possibly infinite mutiverse full of little universes such as ours anything is possible, just very, very improbable.

The object of course being to provide a plausible explanation as to why our universe seems so well suited to our type of life. Other than "It was designed".

Don't forget too that we evolved to suit the conditions, not the other way around.

[Welsh cake]

Well thats where you are wrong. I have evidence first, then faith comes. I have evidence for God most likely existing and evidence for the life of Jesus and resurrection (I will bring the evidence forward latter, I need to do more research)

You supposedly have evidence, yet refuse to present any, so all you really have is one broad assertion after another for the Fine-tuned Universe argument. So why then did your god concept finely tune most of the universe to be hostile to most life-forms? That also includes many environments on this small planet as well.

[chasm]

Imagine if we didnt have all that water, do you think we would still be around.

Probably, but I'll give God the benefit of the doubt on that one. I can't see what benefit there is to volcanoes, though. Any suggestions? As for refuting the fine tuning argument, I said that there's nothing objectively special about life. Why pick that phenomenon out as the purpose of the universe?

Volcanoes create new land.

[solja247]

I think the basic fundamentals of proof and evidence are being twisted here. I cannot disprove something that has not been proven. I cannot disprove a god, or Russell's teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or gremlins hiding underneath my bed. I have not, nor has anyone else, observed these entities in a consistent, provable manner. In any case, regardless of what you believe - belief is not dependent upon reasonable and rational thinking, like in your case.

Lets start from the beggining.

An inteligent being may of been behind the start of the universe or it was natural. It was either God or something natural. This alone gives the existence of God more probability than FSM.
An inteligent being ma of fine tuned this universe and this Earth, it was either God or something natural.
I think these two things alone makes the idea and concept of God much more credible than something imaginary.

Why do you need faith if you already have evidence? Faith is there to bridge the gaps from what we think we know and what we want to be true.

Well the evidence isnt empirical, its a start. Since no one can claim God exisits or not. I believe the probability of God's existence is more likely than His probability of being something religion created.

Something tells me that if you had such compelling evidence for god and Jesus existing (which it's not looking likely at all by the way that he did - and if you use biblical literature you won't be saying anything new) you wouldn't need to go find your so-called evidence... and we wouldn't even be having this conversation!

I need to do more research. Our philosophical ideas also determine how interpret evidence which isnt empirical.

The fact that this planet is just right for us isn't evidence for a supreme creator. The universe provides a multitude of planetary permutations, so quite frankly, if life did not happen on this planet, it would have happened somewhere else.

I think the idea of aliens and other lifeforms is incrediable and would be wonderful. However, we have found no lifeforms on other planets, so I would becareful. Fine tunning arguement would not be refuted if we did find aliens on another planet...

This is your idea of a refutation?

Im not physicists. So why would I attempt to refute something, I have no idea about?

Perhaps George Lucas was wrong, 'A long time ago, in a far away universes.'

I thought multiveres doesnt equal universes where anything is possible, only things which are naturally possible. Unfortuantely, I dont think the force is naturally possible...

Don't forget too that we evolved to suit the conditions, not the other way around.

What started life on this planet?

The more we learn about the cell, the more complicated it gets (The cell appears to be designed). Are we going to find a natural explanation for something which is unnatural?

You supposedly have evidence, yet refuse to present any, so all you really have is one broad assertion after another for the Fine-tuned Universe argument. So why then did your god concept finely tune most of the universe to be hostile to most life-forms? That also includes many environments on this small planet as well.

Why not?
The fine tuning arguements also argues that the universe appears to be fine tuned. If the big bang was a little bit bigger or a little smaller, we wouldnt a have a universe. elements wouldnt exisit, thus stars planets and other celestial bodies.