Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Sure: the only way to forgive peoples' sins is to kill someone innocent;

It would only not be fair if Jesus didn't agree to do it. Jesus wasn't forced to be a sacrifice and die for the sins of mankind, he did so voluntarily.

three beings are both separate and one at the same time;

They are separate in persons, but one in nature.

a god capable of creating the universe exists

I fail to see the problem there.

; sacrifice of a son a good thing

Scripture is clear that Jesus voluntarily gave his life...the point of the whole matter is to demonstrate the LOVE he has for us.

; there is life after death

I fail to see the problem here.

; sacrificing a son is a real sacrifice if you can and do just bring him back to life

Well, his body died, didn't it (according to the "story")? When you do something you don't have to do for the greater good of someone else, that is a sacrifice.

; eternal hell is a just punishment for anything.

When you reject eternal life, the only thing left is eternal death. Eternal hell is for people that said "I dont need God, I don't believe in God, I don't want God".

And what is hell? Separation from God. You want it, you got it.

[quote='Jenny A' pid='788152' dateline='1414953810']
It doesn't. I don't believe this: "billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.

Ok, so if you don't believe in God, and you don't believe in the above, what do you believe?

Yes, but there are three possible beliefs: 1) it was supernatural; 2) it was natural; 3) I don't know.

"I don't know" isn't a belief. And if atheism is the "I don't know" position, then what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

The fact that we can't demonstrate something now, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What you are arguing is that if we don't know it must be god.

I am saying it is beyond the realm of science to demonstrate consciousness from unconsciousness, and life from nonlife. If there was a point at which absolutely no life existed whatsoever, there is no mechanism that would get you life from nonliving material...or consciousness from non-living material.

The funny thing about that is that science keeps usurping that position with one thing after another from the age of the earth, how it formed, how man evolved and so on.

Well, based on the history of my religion, ancient shepards were saying that the universe began to exist 5,000 years ago, when scientists were maintaining that the universe was static and eternal. So modern cosmology has just recently confirmed what creationists have been saying for thousands of years.

And I don't believe in evolution, btw.

Magic on the other hand is never a plausible solution. So far magic has never been demonstrated with scientific rigor.

Neither have abiogenesis.

And there are only natural theories proves that the explanation must be supernatural? Hardly. There's nothing supernatural proven at all about anything.

Theists use argument, logical arguments as evidence for the existence of God.

1. Kalam argument
2. Ontological argument
3. Moral argument
4. Argument from Design
5. Argument from Consciousness
6. Argument based on the Historicity of Jesus Christ

to name a few.

Prove a god, any god, or anything supernatural and we'll talk.

I will soon. I am just getting my feet wet on here

Only if by conceivable you mean it can be imagined. But it's just as easy to imagine life just popping into existence out of matter.

BUT, if that could happen, it should be described by natural law, and it should be able to be empirically demonstrated. But neither is the case, now is it?

In other words the fact that you can or can't image a thing has nothing to do with whether it happened.

Right, but if you can imagine it, that makes it POSSIBLE, because you can't imagine something that isn't logically possible. If you start off with nothing but dead matter, you will always have dead matter, because life requires a special "ingredient", a ingredient that the universe does not possess on its own.

Whether life from non life will ever be demonstrated has yet to be seen. But that it hasn't yet, or even never will be, in no way proves the explanation is supernatural.

So basically, again, nature is smarter than humans. Nature was able to do something that intelligent human beings are unable to do. Is that it? Yes or no?

Show god necessarily exists and that sentence will make sense. Right now it's nonsense.

The Modal Ontological Argument.