Atheism is unreasonable

[Jenny A]

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.

The agreement of the innocent person has nothing to do with whether the only way to forgive people is to kill someone innocent.

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?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Gnostic atheism is belief that there is not god. Agnostic atheism is not simply lacking a belief in god. I am a agnostic atheism, though I find the god's lack of existence by far the more probable of the two choices, It know it certain.

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.

Exactly, if science can prove a thing, then god. It's the argument of the gaps. Science has been filling in gaps pretty steadily.

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.[/Quote]

Citation please? Science is about evidence, inference, and demonstration. It changes with better understanding. Religion maintains the same beliefs in the face of changing evidence. Which one is more honest and more likely to reach the truth?

And I don't believe in evolution, btw.

Not surprising since you trust blind faith over facts.

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

Neither have abiogenesis.

But many other things once thought to be magic have. Nothing previously thought natural has since been proven to be magic.

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.

All debunked through out history and on this site.

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

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

Good luck with that. BTW. Speaking of getting your feet wet, it's polite and customary to introduce yourself in the introductions forum first.

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?

Not necessarily. People don't know everything, and despite the potent tool of science, probably never will. We couldn't do show many things just a year ago that we can now. That doesn't mean they were supernatural before.

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.

Being able to imagine something has no affect on whether it's possible.

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?

Nature does things we can't do all the time. Nuclear fusion (the sun does that), travel at the speed of light (light does that you see), planet creation, interstellar travel (comets do that), and on and on.

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

The Modal Ontological Argument.