Atheism destroyed with a question

[Crossless2.0]

Just for the sake of playing along, I'll admit it: I wasn't there at the alleged resurrection of Jesus either. By Revelation777's reasoning, I am perfectly justified in rejecting the claim out of hand. There -- Christian nonsense dispensed with in one easy, fallacious step. Thank you, Revelation777. I'll sleep so much better tonight. I assume you will be consistent in applying your "were you there?" argument to your faith's historical claims and will be joining us non-believers immediately, right?

Or are you just another filthy, dishonest Christian apologist?

[Ryantology]

[Whateverist]

Man, we've got to get around to shoring atheism up better. We can't keep having it destroyed by one measly question by every true believer that passes through town. It just makes us look bad. Come on guys. Let's take up a collection at least to make some repairs to our battlements.

[Cyberman]

Here you go:

[Whateverist]

That's the spirit! Amen brother.

[Crossless2.0]

I'll provide the boiling oil. And for good measure I'll fart in their general direction.

[EvolutionKills]

Yes you do, for life to arise naturally. You need a very large and very old universe where improbable things happen all the time

The whole universe is a process that generated the structure and matter required to eventually form life in an orderly sequence or chain of events over time. This only works if the shit was fine tuned out of it right from the very start. God purposefully created the universe and he designed it in such a precise way as to guarantee the eventual natural product of life and the evolution of intelligence and civilization. It actually fits with the Genesis narrative quite well at least in general outline.

So your saying that your god created a universe that both looks and operates identically to an entirely natural universe that doesn't need a god to explain it. I don't suppose it says in the Bible why your god put on such a deception? I don't suppose you have any better evidence to support your claim that your god made the universe over say the Titans or Cthulhu?

Also, let me introduce you to the anthropic principle.

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.

The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the Universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no one would know it. That is, it must be possible to observe some Universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility.

A universe not conducive to life would have nothing around to observe that universe.

, by the very nature of it's size and age. These things are what we would expect to see from a universe where life has arisen naturally.

No it's what you would expect to see in a universe that was deliberately engineered by a supreme intelligence with a goal in mind. You really think this was non-intentional?

Once again, you show a frightening lack of imagination (it's sort of a trend I've noticed). You see god in everything, so of course you can't separate this universe (which there is no evidence for any gods), from what we can easily imagine a universe to be like if you assume that it is the product of divine creation and for our benefit. Simply put, this is not the universe we would predict given your first two assumptions (an all powerful creator, and our species as a possible end-goal).

An all powerful god could have made the needed heat and warmth of the sun simply radiate without a massive source of nuclear fusion, and without also happening to cause skin cancer and genetic mutations because of ultraviolet radiation. An all powerful god could have created a better water/land ratio, could have made all of the water fresh (or made us able to drink salt water without deleterious effect). He could have created a universe that didn't spawn black holes, super novae, gamma ray bursts, killer asteroids and comets, and planetary collisions; all things which are a danger to life on planetary or system wide scales. An all powerful god could have created a universe more conducive to life than the infinitesimal sliver we inhabit on one planet in a galaxy of billions, itself one of billions of galaxies.

I can imagine a universe like this, even if I don't know how god would have to rearrange things to make it work to maintain it; but of your god is all powerful and could control everything enough to make the constants, he could conceivably scrap them all and create an entirely new set that worked more directly. Unless you're saying that your god lacks the power to simply match the human imagination?

An all powerful creator god could have just created everything he wanted instead of setting off this elaborate Rube Goldberg mechanism that appears to be entirely naturalistic to most everyone with sufficient evidence and education (which is clearly not you).

God only needed one planet, he didn't need anything else.

He created the entire universe as a whole for life and intelligent life and we are among the intelligent forms of life. There will no doubt be countless others. It's not that the universe was created merely for humans unless you want to class all intelligent beings with language and culture and whatever as human.

So now we're not made in your god's image? If you're no longer taking the bit in Genesis where your gods says explicitly to make man in their image (Hooray for polytheism! You did notice there's more than one god in your creation story, right?), on what basis do you use anything else in that story as factually accurate?

Every additional star, every additional planet, is a piece of evidence against the Abrahamic god.

No it just increases the sheer scale of what God created.

Yes, needlessly created; making your god out to be a bumbling, needlessly wasteful tinkerer. Not something one would expect from an all-knowing, all-powerful supreme being and creator. Please do try to keep up.

But for argument's sake let's say god, for his own mysterious reasons, wants it all to run via nuclear fusion and stellar nucleosynthesis in the Sun; and photosynthesis on Earth. He still only need one star and one planet, anything beyond that would be window dressing.

He made the whole entire thing with the outcome of producing life such as humanity. He will then reveal himself to his creatures as he sees fit, as happened in our own case.

Revealing himself by hiding his involvement by creating a universe that we would expect if it was the outcome of natural processes, and not a divine intelligent creator. Funny, why is your god so deceptive? If he's capable of creating and fine tuning the universe, then he's smart enough to know that revealing himself to a small group of illiterate bronze-age barbarian desert goat herders and then expecting them to ghost write his story, is a terrible way to convey any information. If your god is smart enough to make a universe, he's smart enough to know at least that; evidently however you are not.

In such an empty universe it would indeed seem the Earth was a special place, and the focus of creation; adding tremendous weight to the Earth centered religious beliefs But by that same token, if there were two suns that would bring the Earth centered religions into doubt. That would be doubly true if there were three suns; and for each addition sun after that the doubts grow.

It's unlikely binary or triple star systems would support complex life given the gravitational forces and erratic planetary orbits involved.

Then why are they the most common star systems? Not very conducive to a universe designed for life, now are they?

If there were only one world it might be unreasonable to say that life exists on that one world by chance alone. For atheistic ideas to have any support, for it to be true that life arose by pure coincidence, conditions, and elements; there must be more than one sun. More than one roll of the dice. A universe with two suns helps the atheistic argument, but not by much. Three suns would only offer a slight improvement over that. The current estimates (linked to the research in the sidebar) suggest that there are seventy sextillion stars (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) in the observable universe alone; and very good reasons to believe that the actual universe is far, far... far, far, far larger. Seventy sextillion? Each one of these countless chances at life is an argument in favor of atheism;

You're misunderstanding that it is the universe God created, not just the Earth.

What evidence do you have to support that? Nothing outside of your bronze age book of fairy tales and your own cognitive bias, anthropocentrism, and ignorance.

at least in it's opposition to the Earth centered religions of Christianity and Islam.

Back in the day people thought the universe was quite small and the Earth was at the centre of it, but it was the universe as a whole God created. All that has changed is that the universe God created is far bigger than we understood. Also we're not at the physical centre but we can still be the centre of the overall natural process if this was the intention from the start.

"Also we're not at the physical centre but we can still be the centre of the overall natural process if this was the intention from the start."

That is a monumentally huge IF, and it's one that you assume for your entire argument; indeed it requires that assumption. That assumption is both unjustified and lacks evidence, and thus your argument (however weak it already was) entirely falls apart.

[Minimalist]

Or are you just another filthy, dishonest Christian apologist?

My vote is "aye."

[Ryantology]

It's unlikely binary or triple star systems would support complex life given the gravitational forces and erratic planetary orbits involved.

Yeah, too bad the creator wasn't omnipotent, because then that wouldn't matter.

[Revelation777]

Do you believe that beautiful planet happened by chance?

---

Just for the sake of playing along, I'll admit it: I wasn't there at the alleged resurrection of Jesus either. By Revelation777's reasoning, I am perfectly justified in rejecting the claim out of hand. There -- Christian nonsense dispensed with in one easy, fallacious step. Thank you, Revelation777. I'll sleep so much better tonight. I assume you will be consistent in applying your "were you there?" argument to your faith's historical claims and will be joining us non-believers immediately, right?

Or are you just another filthy, dishonest Christian apologist?

No I was not there when Jesus rose from the grave. Both when I placed my faith in Christ He changed my life. I believe in Him and that He rose from the grave and He is coming back again.

---

Were you there?

Yes.

Your go.

oh

---

Were you there?

Were you there?

Were you there?

...

Are you freaking kidding me???

Perhaps God allowed changes in His entire creation when sin was introduced. Evolving from monkeys sounds more like magical thinking.

Seems like a lot of wasted effort, and you're still a monkey now. It's a fact, it's demonstrable, deal with it.

I don't understand your last post, please explain.