Atheism is unreasonable

[Minimalist]

Can you guarantee that your children will raise their children? The end is near.

Why are you so interested in other people's children?

Bit weird don't you think?

Maybe he's a priest?

[TaraJo]

2) Placement. We're at a perfect place where none of those nasty things can kill us.

There are 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars in every galaxy. There are plenty of perfect places in the universe

1) Not every star has planets around it
2) Not every star with planets has a planet that's just the right distance from that star to support life
3) Even if a star meets criteria 1 and 2, it can't be in a part of the galaxy that has deadly radiation or stuff like that.

There are a few others, but I can't seem to look them up right off the top of my head. The point is that there are several criteria that need to be met for a planet to support life, so, no, there won't be too many planets nearby to support life.

Now, if you wanted to argue that god exists because there's no other way all these criteria could line up by accident, at least that would be a more intelligent argument.

There aren't as many places that meet all three of those criteria. And they have to have been places that have met it for several million years.

3) Distance. If the universe actually is infinite, yes, there is intelligent life out there. But it may very well be so far away that we'll never reach it. And vice versa; we're so far away from them, they'll never reach us.

Type II civilization can easily reach any star in the galaxy.
[/quote]

Uhm..... Wat? From what I understand, a type 2 civilization is dependant on a dyson sphere, which, in turn, is dependant on a star. I could see a civilization from further off being able to move to another star and build a dyson sphere, but that's all kinda hypothetical at the moment. There would be a lot of logistical issues a civilization would have to overcome to build just one dysonsphere, let alone many.

[The Valkyrie]

Do you actually believe atheist don't have sex and raise children?

Can you guarantee that your children will raise their children? The end is near.

Can you guarantee yours will?

And why do you ignore questions and points made to you and then just post jibberish?

Finally, the "end" has been near, according to Christian mythology, for the past 2000 years. Even Jesus supposedly stated that some of his original followers wouldn't die before he returned.

2000 Years later: Nada.

Stuck in traffic, is he?

[Esquilax]

Theists use argument, logical arguments as evidence for the existence of God.

1. Kalam argument
2. Ontological argument
3. Moral argument
4. Argument from Design
5. Argument from Consciousness
6. Argument based on the Historicity of Jesus Christ

to name a few.

Okay, okay, I got this. *Deep breath.*

1. Breaks its own first premise with its conclusion, and is therefore invalid.
2. "If I can imagine that it needs to exist, then it does!" Sorry, your imagination is not that powerful.
3. The premises are unsupported: the argument never attempts to demonstrate either that objective moral laws must necessarily come from god, nor that they even exist. It's just an assertion.
4.Assumes design without demonstrating it, is therefore an assertion.
5. Argument from ignorance.
6. There are no contemporary reports of Jesus' existence, and additionally, the existence of a man named Jesus Christ is not evidence of the supernatural claims attached to him.

As an added bonus, did everyone else notice that five of his six arguments are, at best, arguments for deism and not the christian god he actually believes in?

[Mudhammam]

Theists use argument, logical arguments as evidence for the existence of God.

1. Kalam argument
2. Ontological argument
3. Moral argument
4. Argument from Design
5. Argument from Consciousness
6. Argument based on the Historicity of Jesus Christ

to name a few.

Can I introduce you to some friends of mine who would like to meet you? Their names are Science, Philosophy, and History.

[His_Majesty]

OP,

Let me summarize what you've said and you can tell me where I got it wrong:

Life began either naturally, or supernaturally. There is no middle possibility (Actually there is. A number of theists believe god created life using natural means, but I'm willing to ignore that for the moment).

But it required a supernatural hand, right?

Because no one has created life in a lab or recorded it forming from inanimate matter, therefore life was created supernaturally.

I cannot conceive the notion of inanimate naturally coming to life at all.

The formula would be

If A than not B and if B than not A.

But, you have taken a gigantic leap and posited:

If there is no proof of A than B. That is illogical since there is no proof of B either and one could just as well say if no proof of B than A.

But there is evidence for B, but keep in mind that I am not basing it off of just that alone. I am basing it off of at least 6 other arguments that I find to be sound, valid, and therefore persuasive.

So in essence, is it the positive affirmation of those 6 arguments, and the arguments I can give AGAINST abiogenesis which would make one big positive case for Christian theism.

Let's apply your formula to something that really has no middle ground. I toss a coin here at my desk. It will land either heads up or tails up. But you can't see it. So if you can't prove it's heads, does that mean it's tails?

No, it doesn't mean that it's tails. But remember, law of excluded middle means that if one position is NEGATED, then the other one wins by default. In the heads/tails example, one position is not negated, unlike the case with abiogenesis.

Or take a real world situation. For centuries humans applied your formula to lightning, i.e. we can't prove how it occurs naturally, therefore god did it. Now we can show how it is caused naturally. Surely you don't believe god did it until we discovered how nature does it.

Well, just because you can naturally explain lightning doesn't mean that God isn't the ultimate origin of lightning, or that God doesn't step into the natural realm and intervene with anything. It is called "God intervening in nature", and biblically speaking, God has intervened with nature throughout history.

Now of course, I can see your point.

[abaris]

Well, just because you can naturally explain lightning doesn't mean that God isn't the ultimate origin of lightning, or that God doesn't step into the natural realm and intervene with anything. It is called "God intervening in nature", and biblically speaking, God has intervened with nature throughout history.

Now of course, I can see your point.

And what if Zeus is responsible for lightning? It's his domain after all. There's just as much evidence for him doing it as there is for god.

[dimaniac]

Can you guarantee yours will?

No, that's one of reasons I believe in god.

Stuck in traffic, is he?

I'm not a Christian

[Minimalist]

No, that's one of reasons I believe in god.

You've already demonstrated that you are an idiot. You can stop now. It's redundant.

[dimaniac]

There aren't as many places that meet all three of those criteria.

Only one such place is needed so aliens could colonize whole galaxy.

Uhm..... Wat? From what I understand, a type 2 civilization is dependant on a dyson sphere, which, in turn, is dependant on a star. I could see a civilization from further off being able to move to another star and build a dyson sphere, but that's all kinda hypothetical at the moment. There would be a lot of logistical issues a civilization would have to overcome to build just one dysonsphere, let alone many.

Such civilization could build billions of drones to explore and eventually colonize other stars and it would take only 50,000 years.

---

You've already demonstrated that you are an idiot.

After your death you will be dumber than any believer.