Atheism is unreasonable

[dimaniac]

From nothing.

Everything from nothing is logically impossible. There should be first cause.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

From nothing.

Everything from nothing is logically impossible. There should be first cause.

So...special pleading I presume?

[Jenny A]

From nothing.

Everything from nothing is logically impossible. There should be first cause.

Every cause should have a cause. The first cause is logically impossible.

[Surgenator]

From nothing.

Everything from nothing is logically impossible. There should be first cause.

So your god is impossible, because he create the universe from nothing.

[Cyberman]

So what caused the first cause?

[Jenny A]

Everything from nothing is logically impossible. There should be first cause.

So your god is impossible, because he create the universe from nothing.

Jinx.

---

So what caused the first cause?

And jink to you to. Buy me a Coke if I visit England?

[dimaniac]

Every cause should have a cause. The first cause is logically impossible.

So your god is impossible, because he create the universe from nothing.

1 Theists are right. Everything can't come from nothing
2 Atheists are right. God can't come from nothing.
Since there are no other options that means that Universe can't exist. But it exists. Therefore logic is delusion.

Universe is logically impossible

[Thumpalumpacus]

From nothing.

Everything from nothing is logically impossible. There should be first cause.

... and where did that first cause come from ... ?

Oh yeah, someone already called special pleading. You're still special.

[Surgenator]

I'll buy a coke if you are near sacramento.

[Esquilax]

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.

Yes, it all has to do with denying god. Nothing at all to do with the factual reality that the big bang does not represent the universe "beginning to exist."

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.

It does? "Everything that begins to exist has a cause," adequately explains why infinity is impossible? Why is it that you think just saying there is evidence is sufficient for me to accept what you say as true? Every time I make an argument, you essentially just say "I have a counter argument," and then stop talking. What the hell?

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, you're just asserting that time ceases to exist at some point in the past, which is interesting because the actual educated physicists and cosmologists don't do the same. Maybe you should try getting published, win that Nobel Prize, if you know something they don't.

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.

Logically possible is not the same thing as physically possible, you know. It is logically possible that Abraham Lincoln was a cat, if I were willing to do what you do, and feed absolutely no facts into logic.

Incidentally, there are logically incoherent portions of your god claim too, like creation ex nihilo or omniscience. The former has no evidence to justify it, and the latter is impossible to truthfully attain, as the mere claim of omniscience doesn't rule out the possibility of knowledge beyond the scope of that being's understanding, unknown unknowns.

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

Evolution plus objective physical reality, if you must know. But this is a red herring to distract from the faulty nature of the argument from morality, here. I take it you can't answer my contentions with that argument?

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

You need to be a biologist to speak on biology in a way that would be binding to everyone else. As it is, Bill Gates isn't a relevant source, making your use of him an argument from authority. In this area he is just some random guy, you might as well have just said that some guy you know named Richard said DNA was like a program, for all the good it does.

Lets just go with the webster dictionary to define information.

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

So how do you detect and quantify it, such that you can demonstrate its objective, real presence within DNA? That was a part of what I was asking too. The important part, actually.

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.

What the fuck are you talking about?

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

... Evolution, as I explained earlier. But this is entirely irrelevant to your claim that DNA contains information, and my contention regarding the nature of information too, so I suspect you're merely bringing it up as a smokescreen to cover for the fact that you can't demonstrate that information exists as anything other than a conceptual label applied by minds.

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.

Not all codes have programmers, because not all codes are intentionally inputted into a series of objects. If I run a random letter generator you'll find some words in there eventually, but that doesn't mean that those words were purposely placed there.

In the case of DNA, we aren't talking about a code really, we're talking about four sets of chemicals reacting in predictable ways. That it can be "read" as a code speaks only to the fact that we understand how these chemicals interact, and what they do once that interaction is complete. It's no more reading a code than predicting where a thrown ball is going to land is reading a code.

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

So you're reduced to just trolling. Gotcha.

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

Also not what I was saying. The bible is the claim, not evidence for that claim. And the books of the bible were written anonymously, so you have no way of knowing whether they are true accounts or not, as you have no way of establishing whether the authors have good information.

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

You keep saying that like it means anything. The consensus of christian scholars both religious and secular is that the bible was written anonymously, and the names attached to the individual books were merely traditional names. If you crack open an NIV you'll even see that admission printed in the foreword. You're talking out of your ass here.

Small steps, not leaps and bounds

An assertion isn't a step at all. It's just you turning in circles, convinced that you're getting just so far, you guys.

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

Well, how about you make one that isn't factually incorrect?

Oh, and by the way? Arguments won't establish the existence of god, because you can't argue something into existence. Evidence is what you need, and evidence is what you're summarily failing to provide.