Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Are you arguing an oxy moron? What is a "possibily necessarily"? Either it is a possibility or a necessity, not both.

If 2+2=4, then it is possible for 2+2=4. Right?

There is a series of stages of chemical reactions that lead to a protocell. Are you claiming that there are no series of chemical reactions that can eventually lead to a protocell? Which stage(s) would be impossible?

A series of chemical reactions started and orchestrated by Intelligent Design.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shorts...rna-e.html

That was almost 5 years ago, yet abiogenesis is still not proven?

First off, your arguing as if they're on the same footing. They are not. The nonlife to life you are still working with physicsal stuff while God is an acting, talking intelligence without a physical body.

I can conceive of an immaterial "self". It's not difficult at all.

Actually we have seen consciousness from unconsciousness, think how humans are born. A human starts from a single cell and grows up to an adult. A single cell does not have consciousness while an adult human does.

Right, the cell comes from an adult that was already conscious. You can't get a living cell from something that isn't itself living. Two dead human beings can't procreate, and if you rewind the process all the way back to the very beginning, where would the consciousness come from? It can't come from consciousness, because there IS no consciousness.

So it is bad enough that you have to get this nonliving material living, then you've got to get it thinking. Double whammy.

There is also no physical laws preventing it to. What is your point?

Then we should be able to go in a lab and make shit happen, shouldn't we?

---

Heads up folks, I've posted my opening statement in the evolution debate. His_Majesty is quite confident in PM, so we'll see how he handles it.

---

[quote='His_Majesty' pid='794016' dateline='1415649008']
Sorry, wrong. Any descriptions and interpretations of the chain of cause & effect are necessarily dependent on the current state of the universe. Since we have no way of describing causality (or even suggesting that causality could exist) in other states, no premises can be made in that regard. Thus the Infinity Problem is one of your invention, not an actual concern until/unless it's possible to show that causality follows the current-state-universal models in other states.

Foolishness. "Shit" was happening, things were going on...regardless of how much you conveniently want to "downplay" causality because you are aware of the implications. By "cause", I mean "things that produce an effect", and there is no special definition that you could give causality that will negate the definition of "things that produce an effect" as it relates to the past history of any naturalist realm that exists in reality.

Then you posit the notion of not "suggesting that causality could exist", which is bullshit. How the hell could causality ever not exist at any point in the past, but exist now in the future (and present).

Makes no sense. You people go through such great lengths to NOT believe in God...so much lengths that you are willing to believe absurd notions...all of this just to not believe in God.

If that is the price of atheism, believing in logical absurdities...then by all means, have at it.

---

He did say "Universe", not "the entire cosmos".
And as far as we know, "the entire cosmos" may be the Universe. Whatever lies beyond it, if anything, is unknown. This is a known unknown.

Even, granting your terminology correction, how does that change anything?

It changes a lot. If Vilenkin is saying that the universe began to exist, and Guth is saying the universe may be eternal...and they both made the damn theory together, then they may mean "universe" in different contexts.

The entire cosmos, with its capacity to, somehow (quantum foam?), generate Universes, being of infinite space-time does what for the god hypothesis?

Infinity problem.