Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not a rebuttal, explain why the logical inference can be rejected "out of hand". Don;t wast my time with personal assertions without an argument to be made for them, or ill cease responding to you

Promises, promises. I doubt that someone so intent on wasting the time of others has any leverage for complaint.

It wasn't offered as a rebuttal. No rebuttal is required.

Not mistaken. If it must be inferred there is no observable evidence for it, thus must be taken in faith. Empirical evidence does not need to be inferred

Inference relies upon (and requires) accurate observation of some sort. Try it, try to make some logical inference that you won't be able to quantify with observation. You observed, for example - that there is life on this earth. You then inferred..from that observation -not blind faith- that life would be logically possible elsewhere in the cosmos. From that inference, you are not required to believe that there actually is life anywhere else (blind faith or otherwise), and a statement regarding what is logically possible is a description of a formal system - no faith required (either in forming the description or -of said system-).

You must assume the existence of something before you can infer the existence of something

-and lo, the ugly spectre of solipsism doth raise it's ugly head...and the people trembled, for they were afraid. Did you assume that there was life on this earth in your example? Uh-huh.......

Shall we delve into scientific hypothetical's? that have no observable evidence, eh?

A hypothetical with no evidence wouldn't be very scientific, now would it?

I have made a leap of faith based on observable evidence, logical inferences and evolutionary theory. Unless your going to postulate evolutionary theory predicts intelligence must stop evolving at some point. Which I doubt you will go there

I need to posit no such thing. Is there some point at which you are going to describe the observable evidence, logic, and evolutionary theory that led you to determine that at some point "The possibility of a creature 1% more intelligent, incrementally, than the last hypothetical species of hypothetical life is equivalent to "god"?

So yeah, I'd say you made a hell of a leap. Right over the entirety of what you claim to have done, and what you claim to possess.

Ill use your math for evolutionary theory. If it becomes exponentially more difficult for life to become more intelligent the longer it exists, then you argue against your own theory of abiogenesis and evolution

Are you done with incremental idiocy? Math, my friend, is what this thread is lacking. -Or- we could drop the pretense of statistics, odds, chance, this- that- or the other.

The odds of quantity are due to reproductive abilities and resources available.

Do you imagine that there are not similar (or even precisely the same) constraints upon intelligence? The claim that any two different creatures have exactly the same odds of existing is ludicrous and grinds against our observations, and our understanding of "chance". You've explained why, yourself - in this response to me. Logic has to allow those modifiers.

This has nothing to do with my argument, as I believe there is only one God. The only logical way to reject God is to have a logical reason to reject a God-like intellect, which you don't have

I "reject god" on moral grounds. I don't believe in god because I don't believe that characters from books have ever managed to jump out of the pages of those books. They are two very different positions. The second, that I do not believe - makes me an atheist. The first, rejecting god, makes me something else. Just because you make a demand....that doesn't mean that anyone has to give you what you what - or that your demands are reasonable. I'm sure that you're already aware of this

I should have clarified. Its what a rationally thinking atheist must do.

You hookers like to tell other people what they have to do, that's for sure. You'd think you'd be better at it, what with all the practice.

Any atheist that accepts the possibility of any other life (by faith) but rejects a God-like life form from existing is not logical, but emotional

You're shooting for "god-like" now? I'm sure the big guy will be pleased with how you've described him. You're a brave man, god has been known to fly dissidents from his alien world into volcanos. I have no problem accepting that there is a godlike species in our universe. Hell, we're one of them - for obvious reasons. Limited, capricious, irrational, etc. We sort of wrote that book...so I guess that's to be expected.

Of course, and since you have no idea what life forms do exist and don;t exist in our own solar system, you then can;t possibly know what life forms do and don't exist throughout the entire universe can you?. Thus can't logically make emphatic claims about what life forms do and don't exist

As above, I need look no further than the earth to find an example that would fit the bill. But no, I don;t have any idea what life would be like elsewhere - even in trying to imagine it I would unwittingly (and perhaps inescapably) draw from my experiences here on earth. Now...when you asked that question up above - how I might reject something out of hand.......

Therefore God could logically exists does follow unless you can prove a God-like intellect is incapable of existing or highly unlikely to exist. Therefore God could exist, just as life form 1.1 and 1.2 could exist.

Actually. "therefore incrementally more intelligent alien life is a possibility" would be what follows. God is the leap you took, after prevaricating on some bs about a "god-like" intelligence as a transitional peice. It's all over the board really. You'll need to rewrite from scratch.

Now explain to me why life form 1.1 can exist . but life form 10000000 can not. And if you can't explain it , then you have no logical basis for atheism.. You will eventually be forced to admit your atheism is based in 100% subjective faith

Why would I have to explain that? They could both exist and it would still be possible that neither 1.1 or 10000000 (nor any creature in between) is "god". We could go a step further, 100000001 is still 100000001..we still don't have a god on our hands. I gave you one of the reasons for my atheism above. I don't require faith to make that statement, so I guess your fantasies about what you might be able to force me to do don't apply.