Atheism is unreasonable

[Jenny A]

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

Well, I will put it to this way Jenny: I think if there was a "better" way to do things, I think an all knowing God would have figured it out.

Cool, what a fine proof that an all knowing being doesn't exist.

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.

Semantic babble. On judgement day, God will make no distinction between atheism, agnosticm, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, and any other ludacris combinations you throw at him lol.

Surely you know better than to threaten an atheist with god. It's like little boy warning his father about the monster under the bed.

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

Prove that consciousness can come from unconsciousness and life can come from nonlife...then we are smokin'.[/Quote]

Prove god exists and he created life. Lack of evidence proves nothing one way or the other. But as a method of making predictions about the real world science has a great track record and alas does not.

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?

Citiation for what? The fact that our universe began to exist can be found in any text book on modern cosmology. It is a religiously neutral statement.

Citation for the scientists believing in a static unchanging world and for sheppards believing the world began 5000 years before their time.

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

Well, science answers your prayers by providing you answers with tough questions...and God answers my prayers. We both get what we want from our "Gods"

I don't pray to science. And I've never seen anyone really get answers to prayers at a rate better than chance.

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.

My point is, it should be ABLE to be explained via science. The potential should always be there, right? After all, it is science, right?

Potentially yes, sometime in the future. Your point?

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

Yes it does. Can you imagine for 2+2=11? Can you imagine that? No, you can't. Because it isn't possible, thats why. [/Quote]

That's backwards honey. You just said if something is logically impossible it can't exist. That was no baring on whether something imagined does exist. Imagining a thing does not make it exist.

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.

Notice I was specifically talking about "smarts". Nice try, though.[/Quote]

You are presuming that "smarts" are required to make life. That's a leap.

The Modal Ontological Argument.

[/quote]


I can just as easily post a vid that backs up my position, can't I? How about explaining to me why you think the argument isn't sound/valid?
[/Quote]

You want to discuss the Model Ontological Argument fine. Start a thread. There are various permutations of it, and I want to see yours before I refute it.