Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Okay, okay, I got this. *Deep breath.*

1. Breaks its own first premise with its conclusion, and is therefore invalid.

The first premise is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"...which means that things don't just pop in to being uncaused out of nothing.

(gets ready for "virtual particle" spewage)

2. "If I can imagine that it needs to exist, then it does!" Sorry, your imagination is not that powerful.

Actually, more like "If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then a maximally great being must exist"

I am speaking about the Modal version.

3. The premises are unsupported: the argument never attempts to demonstrate either that objective moral laws must necessarily come from god, nor that they even exist. It's just an assertion.

The argument is saying if objective moral values DO exist, then these moral values must transcend the law of man. The question is, are things like first degree murder, and rape...are these things objectively wrong? And there is no way you can grant these things to be objectively wrong without implying a transcendent standard.

4.Assumes design without demonstrating it, is therefore an assertion.

Bill Gates once said "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created".

A computer program has information...man made information...and DNA also has information, information on how to make you...YOU.

If DNA is more complex/advanced than man made information...either you are telling me that nature, being mindless and blind, is STILL more smarter than man (being able to CREATE DNA in the first place)...or you have to tell me that there there was an intelligent designer, a (Super mind), which created DNA, in the same way that an intelligent designer creates software programs.

Either way, you are in a lose-lose situation

5. Argument from ignorance.

Actually, it isn't an argument from ignorance, because mind/body dualism can be demonstrated.

6. There are no contemporary reports of Jesus' existence

There are contemporary reports of Jesus' followers.

, and additionally, the existence of a man named Jesus Christ is not evidence of the supernatural claims attached to him.

Well, the #1 supernatural claim is that Jesus rose from the dead, and the we have early evidence of that particular belief in regards to him.

As an added bonus, did everyone else notice that five of his six arguments are, at best, arguments for deism and not the christian god he actually believes in?

Are you laughing because you find it funny to be in error? That has to be the case. If you noticed, the argument based on the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is #6 on the list, which is the last of the arguments, because it is based on that argument that the conclusion is drawn that the God that exists IS "the Christian God I actually believe in"



You get a D for effort.