Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

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.

So then neither could god. And if god didn't begin to exist, then evidently there's no requirement that the universe do so either; this whole idea that the universe "began" to exist is based on faulty knowledge of the big bang. Truthfully, our understanding of causality breaks down at that point, so for all we know there isn't a way for it to "begin".

(gets ready for "virtual particle" spewage)

Yes, because if you don't believe it, it can't be real! I forgot the whole world revolves around what you want to be true, for a second there.

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.

Yeah, and it argues that without ever demonstrating that it is possible.

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.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of morality, but I don't need to as my points still stand: this argument doesn't even attempt to establish that the only transcendent standard is a god, let alone the christian god. Nor does it even attempt to establish that these things are objectively wrong. It just asserts it. For an argument to be valid it needs to, you know, demonstrate the things that it's arguing for.

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

Who cares? Bill Gates ain't a biologist, for one thing.

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

How do you quantify information? Or even define it? If you can't measure it or detect it, how do you know it's there?

See, this is the thing: information doesn't exist objectively. It is an expression of a conscious mind's ability to discern patterns in an object after the fact. There is no thing called information that one can detect.

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

Your information claim is incorrect to begin with, leaving you with yet another false dichotomy.

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

So put your money where your mouth is and fucking do it already. Don't just smugly assert it like your word means shit on its own.

There are contemporary reports of Jesus' followers.

Where? In the books of the bible? The anonymously written books of the bible?

... The ones that were all written after Jesus died, by people that never met 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.

Your problem is that you just keep asserting that there's evidence without ever presenting it. It makes it look as though you have something to hide.

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.

Uh, yes... that's why I said five of the six arguments don't point to the christian god. And the sixth is entirely erroneous.

And you don't get to grade me; you don't have nearly the education for that.