Abiogenesis is impossible

[shep]

You're asserting God doesn't exist or there is no good reason to believe that he does exist and you say this without knowledge or proof of the materialist alternative that would exist in place of God if there is no God.

I'm not asserting anything - you have made the assertion that there exists a god(s), the onus, as always (for it does not change) is on the claimee to prove there claim. I, by default, lack a belief in your god(s) until verifiable, empirical evidence is presented.

So that's a counter belief and the equivalent of a faith in God or a religion in it's own right.

No, it's not.

[Sword of Christ]

Look if you want to convert to a religion that isn't Christianity or doesn't involve belief in a monotheist God you can do that and then we can debate who has the better, more valid or more reasonable faith. Christianity has a great deal going for it so I would feel confident to the challenge. As an atheist who believes faith to be based on bullshit fairy tales and argues for naturalism (look back through this topic to see those naturalistic arguments I had to counter) which covers all atheists on this forum you are a material naturalist. Therefore all anyone has to do is target the belief of material naturalism. Atheists will try and hide their central belief behind some kind of claim of open minded agnosticism or claim it isn't a belief at all merely the default position or play and dance around with words and terminology. But the Sword of Christ doesn't get deflected by that bull it will cut right through all that and end up deep into the vital organs that provide the nourshing life blood of your atheism, which is philosophical reductionist material naturalism.

[Jackalope]

[Angrboda]

Your reading comprehension really needs work.

What does the Tao have to do with atheism? Atheists don't believe in the Tao they don't believe in anything other than just what they see. Tao, God, Brahma or whatever are the exact same damn thing.

As a Taoist and a Hindu, I can tell you first hand that this is false. It's not mere difference of detail. They are not the same thing. I reject your God. I embrace my god. Nonsense refuted. Again.

Atheism (Sanskrit: निरीश्वरवाद, nir-īśvara-vāda, lit. "statement of no Lord", "doctrine of godlessness") or disbelief in God or gods has been a historically propounded viewpoint in many of the orthodox and heterodox streams of Hindu philosophies. Generally, atheism is valid in Hinduism, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.

---

But the Sword of Christ doesn't get deflected by that bull it will cut right through all that and end up deep into the vital organs that provide the nourshing life blood of your atheism, which is philosophical reductionist material naturalism.

Funny. Your last few posts have all been you being deflected by someone who isn't even an atheist.

The reason the "Sword Of Christ" isn't deflected by bull is because it's buried past the hilt in bull shit.

[pocaracas]

As an atheist who believes faith to be based on bullshit fairy tales and argues for naturalism (look back through this topic to see those naturalistic arguments I had to counter) which covers all atheists on this forum you are a material naturalist.

Deep breath..... huummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

ok...

You do realize that your position requires something called faith, while the atheist's position requires no such thing, right?

Your requirement of faith is there because there is absolutely nothing tangible which you can use to substantiate the claim that there is a god, let alone your particular one.

I refuse to accept that something that magnificent exists on faith alone.

Besides, the holy book you follow is stock full of actual physical interactions between the divine and humanity, so it would stand to reason that such interaction are measurable and, as such, faith would be completely unneeded. Much like those peoples in those stories didn't require faith to accept the existence of such a wonderful being... they had first hand confirmation of its existence, didn't they?
All I ask is the same level of recognition as the people in the stories.
They never had general relativity and Hubble to tell them that the Universe had a definite beginning... they had direct contact with the alleged creator of everything, right?
Well, then I want what they had. And if you were not so stupidly invested in your faith, you'd demand it too.
Until then, stories are stories and reality is reality... and those stories in particular do not match up with reality.

[Bad Wolf]

Summary of the last few pages:
SoC still doesn't understand the burden of proof or what atheism is.

[Rampant.A.I.]

The fact that you believe in fairy tales because they make you feel good isn't evidence the fairy tales are true.

What evidence do you have? The universe exists for no reason without an explanation at all because it does? Therefore any evidence or philosophical argument that would support God is automatically null and void? You literally have belief based on absolutely nothing at all that explains nothing at all. Does this feel like an accomplishment?

You have the audacity to ask this after being asked repeatedly -- three times by myself, among others -- for some of the "mountains of evidence" you claim exist for your position, and failing to provide any?

Is this the Ecclesiastical I'm Rubber, You're Glue argument?

[The Valkyrie]

What evidence do you have? The universe exists for no reason without an explanation at all because it does? Therefore any evidence or philosophical argument that would support God is automatically null and void? You literally have belief based on absolutely nothing at all that explains nothing at all. Does this feel like an accomplishment?

You have the audacity to ask this after being asked repeatedly -- three times by myself, among others -- for some of the "mountains of evidence" you claim exist for your position, and failing to provide any?

Is this the Ecclesiastical I'm Rubber, You're Glue argument?

He's still accumulating his "mountain" of bibles to present as "evidence".

[Cyberman]

My point was that these memories can be formed while going into or leaving this inactive state. You can't tell the difference because when the brain is shutting down, the memory of perception of time passed gets completely skewed.

Or alternatively consciousness isn't dependent on matter but instead is interactive with matter.

Fine - now test for that. Don't just assert it as a possible alternative and then leave it at that.

[snowtracks]

---

Freewill and moral arguments are what I would find to be one of the main points as I believe there will have to be source for that and you won't get this from natural physics and biology. Other arguments include the teleological argument which I find to be compelling as well, particularly if you realize that the universe is one great mathematical framework of precise balance. The cosmos itself and everything within it seems to wok together as a complete whole in bringing about the eventual fruition of life and intelligence so that's a strong point there. The message of the Bible particularly NT but also the OT if you look is essentially a God of the oppressed and poor which I believe to be on firm moral ground there, a lot of emphasis good works and charity and so forth. Christianity seems to be the religion with the fewest man made religious laws and customs and so forth which to my mind makes it the most legit of the claimed revelations. Jesus to me seems like a perfectly good embodiment of God and the good I see as being within humanity as a whole regardless of class, nationality and race.

Also I believe there is a subjective relational element regarding humanity and God that I experience and is possible for all humans to experience. A few other points include the reverence of the natural world as a creation of God rather than an evil illusion of the maya or whatever it is they tend to believe in the Eastern religions. You have physical scientifically understandable rational universe and a transcendent God beyond it who created and sustains it and his creatures. There's a lot of other stuff as well but these would cover the the core of it.

So I have all these reasons to believe in God in the Christian sense which as you can see outweigh your reasoning for atheism which states you have to scientifically prove something as a fact before you can believe it. We can be clear that you can't scientifically prove God as it has to be a faith based, there's nothing you can do about that. But as long as all the rational reasons, evidence and arguments are there then it's a reasoned faith which ought to overpower the skeptical position unless you're really seriously dead-set against it. At which point it may as well be a faith but one without much of a foundation. You say "I don't think that's true imo" and then that's kind of it.

I asked for evidence. The arguments from free will, morality and the teleological arguments are not evidence, they are just arguments. And the bible is not evidence either, it is yet another claim that Christians have been unable to provide evidence for.

---

many scientist believe that not all scientific theories are empirically provable so they use scientific instrumentalism method that advance a cohesive theory that accounts for the phenomena. an example would be the string theory which posit an extra 6 dimensions which is not observable or testable.