Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

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".

Actually, it isn't based on faulty knowledge. Why do you think scientists are constantly coming up with all of these crazy cosmological models? Because they are trying to come up with a pre-big bang scenario, that is why. They recognize the implications of a finite universe.

Second, the reason the universe could not have existed infinitely is because of the problems with an actual infinity...and the argument does an excellent job of explaining why.

Third, causality breaks down because you will eventually get to the point where time simply doesn't exist...which is why a timeless cause is needed, and since the universe is always in a state of change, the timeless cause could not itself be within the universe.

See where I'm going, here?

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

No concept of God (as identified in the argument) doesn't violate any laws of logic. It is a logical concept, therefore, it is possible. Unless you can demonstrate how the concept is incoherent, you have to admit that it is at least possible for God to exist.

Anything beyond that is just intellectual dishonesty.

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.

Where would this "thing" called morality come from in the first place? The concept of right and wrong coming from nature, huh?

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

I didn't know you needed to be a biologist to understand information.

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?

Lets just go with the webster dictionary to define information.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

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.

Ahhh, so where would you get this conscious mind from? See how one argument just leads to the other? All of your answers have to come from nature itself.

SO where would you get this conscious mind to "discern patterns in an object after the fact".

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

Actually, it isn't. This is your way of over-analyzing things to take away from the implications. DNA is a code, and any "code" consists of information, and our DNA contains information on how to make you...it is information for all of our physical characteristics....now how can you get this kind information on how to make ANYTHING from a mindless and blind process.

Codes have programmers.

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.

I will when I feel like it, how about that?

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

So because it is in the bible, it can't be true? Non-sequitur. Fallcious, I tell ya...fallacious

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

Historical evidence suggests that the Bible was written by either disciples, or friends of the disciples.

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.

Small steps, not leaps and bounds

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.

Well, only one argument for the Christian God is needed anyway.

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

And you dont have the education to get a grade higher than a D.