Atheism is unreasonable

[Nintentacle]

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

[Ben Davis]

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Yeah... good one. Ray Comfort uses this quote, too. 'Self-evident truths'... Bollocks, more like.

[Chad32]

Well that's demonstrably false. Forgetting the paradox of invisible things being clearly seen, I doubt we'd be having debates about it if it was so obvious. I doubt that cultures who never met each other would have such different religions if it was so obvious. Judaism didn't spring up all over the world. It started in one spot and spread out.

[His_Majesty]

Because there are multiple scenarios for which the math works.

Yeah but the math wont get you an infinite universe, according to the BGV theorem.

Yes, why wouldn't they?

Well, if I was a naturalist and I found out the universe had a beginning, I would too.

More like they don't know what preceded the Big Bang and would like to.

Well, if the end solution to the problem is just "more nature"...I don't see what the excitement is about.

There's no problem a past-eternal universe has that a past-eternal God doesn't also have.

The difference is a past-eternal God wasn't in time, but a past-eternal universe was in time.

Or it has to be timeless because it was before time began. A quantum fluctuation in a quantum vacuum existing prior to the Big Bang would be timeless.

Quantum fluctuations are described by physical law and operates within the domain of quantum physics...and within that domain there is constant change...things are happening...and as long as things are happening, these things are in time, because something can only happen in time.

Or causality doesn't apply to the universe because causality being observed within the universe does not imply that causality applies TO it.

So you are basically saying that the universe (all physical reality) is infinite. The only way causality cant apply to the whole is if the whole itself is infinite. You have an infinity problem, which means that if time is infinite, no event can possibly come to pass if there was an infinite numbers of events which preceded it. The fact that events do come to pass would only suggest that there is a past-boundary somewhere on the timeline.

And unfortunatley for you, there cannot be a naturalistic explanation that can explain the origin of time itself. Whatever caused time had to transcend time itself.

That would be a fallacy of composition, the whole does not necessarily share the qualities of its parts.

No it isn't the fallacy of composition. If the parts within the universe can not possibly be true (because of the infinity problem), then the whole cannot be true.

You may be on to something. Or you may have used a double negative accidentally.

Oh..do tell.

Only if the premises are true in addition to the form being valid.

Well, I've yet to see you point out a false premise.

The proposition can't be demonstrated to be coherent unless you define God.

God: A supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevlent being.

Refusing to define God would be an example of intellectual dishonesty.

Well, judging by the fact that I've been defending the Christian God throughout my brief tenure on here...unless you don't know the definition of the Christian God?

If it's determined by God, it's subjective to God. A standard that could be otherwise if God wills it isn't an objective standard. Either morals are divine fiat, and therefore subjective; or they're objective and would be the same even if there were no God.

If there is no God, then where do we get the standard from in the first place? The idea that things like rape is wrong...where does this standard come from? The moral law of God is just as necessary as God himself. If God doesn't exist, then where does objective moral law come from? Kings? Presidents? socieities? civilizations? But that can't be true, because Kings change, Presidents change, and civilizations and societies change. But true objective standards never change...which is why God doesn't change.

DNA isn't actually a code, it is just somewhat analogous to one.

Either way you put it, it still contains instructions...how can you get instructions from something that can't think??

For instance, you can't substitute any elements with 'different letters' and have it still work.

Right, because usually when something is specified, if you change the specifications, whatever goal that was to be accomplished wont work.

It's not made of symbols, it's made of molecules with specific functions. It doesn't require decoding and no one has to understand it for it to work. It's more like an automated molecular factory than a code.

Automated molecular factory? The odds of this "molecular factory" producing one just one molecule by this mindless and blind process called "nature" is so astronomical, to believe it happened by mere chance is utilizing as much faith as any theist could ever use.

Scientist Stephen Meyer, in Lee Strobel's book "The Case for a Creator" on page 229, said that the odds of a protein molecule being produced by random chance would be "one chnace in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion".

That is a ten with 125 zero's after it. And that is just one protein molecule out of the minimum of 300 molecules needed.

It's not actually a code.

Well, informaton has informats, and instructions have instructors.

Being in the Bible doesn't make it true. It needs corroboration, just like any other historical document before it becomes reasonable to accept it at face value.

Who said "just because it is in the Bible, it is true"? I am saying the Bible (Particularly the Gospels and some of Paul's letters) should be treated with the same historical criterion that any other book or piece of work that has names, dates, and geographical locations. And once you apply that criterion to it, it becomes very reasonable to accept at face value.

I'd love to see that historical evidence.

I will be glad to give my evidence in a separate thread. Stay tuned.

Apologetics only seems to be convincing to people who are already convinced that the thing the apologetics are for is true. It's not a method of persuasion, it's a method of reassuring the faithful that they're being reasonable.

Actually, William Lane Craig's website has a feature at which you can see the testimonials of people that converted to Christianity based on his work.

So in other words, it works on whom it will work and vice versa.

Or they don't believe they know and they don't believe you know either.

I never claimed to "know" anything. I believe that the arguments for theism are persuasive and out of the two options that are presented to me, I am going with what I think is the best (more reasonable) explanation. The God hypothesis, in my opinion, has more explanatory value than the contrary.

---

Really. Because a child could come up with a better plan for forgiveness than that. If God couldn't do better, God is not only not omniscient, God is not very smart.

That is your opinion. To the billions of Christians in the world, we feel differently than you.

It doesn't even have to be a two step process. Step 1: Forgive people for not being better than you made them.

So God made Dahnmer eat people? Got it.

I can't think of one that DOES believe that. What happened prior to the initial expansion is unknown, but no cosmologist thinks absolute nothingness became the universe.

A cosmologists can come up with any scenario he/she wants too...but if a cosmologists can come up with a scenario that is the exception to the BGV theorem..or an exception that will allow infinity to be traversed...not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed. hock:

---

Again the talk about where the universe came from, or where the quantum vacuum came from. I dare anyone to give me a coherent definition of what that phrase means. I'm looking at you, His Majesty.

What phrase?

---

It speaks volumes that you believe yourself to be superior after some Google searching and some heavy indoctrination in matters of theorietcal physicists than those who spent their entire lives dedicated to learning and research.

Well I will put it to you this way, Mr. Moderator...unless you have a degree in physics, I expect google to be your friend also.

It's fairly simple to figure out that you're not in academia or indeed have studied to any high level.

I get my info from those that DO study. And btw, it is simple to figure out that most of these people who are responding to me...it is apparent that they aren't in academia or studied to any high level either.

'Brevity is the soul of wit'. It's not our fault that we can't figure out what the hell most of your posts are saying.

Yet, dang near every sentence that I make is being quoted and responded to.

Please don't act so puerile.

It is called "the actual factuals".

The bible is only a claim. You can Try and equivocate it to records of governments held in antiquity or to fictional novels like the odyssey, but none of those things are claiming supernatural, life controlling constraints on the lives of every human and neither are they claiming to know how life started or how it will end.

The bible is only a claim? Well, so was the statement "The Bible is only a claim."

And that's without going into any detail about the blatant falsities contained in the bible, of which there are many.

Like?

Nah. They give reasons, not necessarily good ones.

Speak for yourself

[Esquilax]

Yeah but the math wont get you an infinite universe, according to the BGV theorem.

So you're still insisting this, despite being given video evidence that G and V don't agree with you?

[The Valkyrie]

Yeah but the math wont get you an infinite universe, according to the BGV theorem.

So you're still insisting this, despite being given video evidence that G and V don't agree with you?

You can lead a creationist to evidence but you cannot make him think.

[His_Majesty]

Wow really?
You know that after things have been investigated and understood it has never turned out that the supernatural did it.
Not once.

Well, "investigate" and get an "understanding" of where life originated, and where consciousness originated...and lets see how far your naturalistic experiments take you.

No it didn't.
You are just saying that because you think it sounds good.
You need to show to show your working in order to convince us that your position is in any way reasonable, but so far you are babbling like the brain washed sheep you seem to be.
All juiced up on those god delusions.

[Dolorian]

Well, "investigate" and get an "understanding" of where life originated, and where consciousness originated...and lets see how far your naturalistic experiments take you.

Farther than goddidit has ever taken us, for sure.

[downbeatplumb]

Wow really?
You know that after things have been investigated and understood it has never turned out that the supernatural did it.
Not once.

Well, "investigate" and get an "understanding" of where life originated, and where consciousness originated...and lets see how far your naturalistic experiments take you.

Nothing has ever been proven to be supernatural, not one thing.
You remember all those things that were attributed to the supernatural, things that turned out to have a natural answer, you know the ones, everything that has ever been investigated and an answer found.

Oh and consciousness has emerged through evolution.

You must be the product of an American education.

[His_Majesty]

I checked the thread and you haven't defined this. What do you mean by "specified complexity"?

A good example of specified complexity would be your car...you pop the hood, and you will see all kind of complex parts. Every single part in there has a general purpose, some has more important purposes than others, but nevertheless, every single part has a function.

Each part at face value on its own may not mean to much of anything. But for the primarily goal of ensuring that your vehicle run as smoothly as possible, each part means something.

Each part is a certain size, shape, and length. If it is to big, it may not function properly (or at all). If it is to small, it may not functin properly (if at all). Each part is complex enough, but it is the SPECIFICATIONS of each part as it relates to the car as a whole which makes it specifically complexed.

For example, the engine to my Durrango is the perfect size, shape, and length to fit inside the hood in conjunction with the rest of the parts...but is my engine the perfect size, shape, and length to fit in a Boeing 757 jet? No, specifically tailored to fit in MY hood, not the jet's hood.

This is specified complexity...and the only way you would get that kind of complexity, that kind of specification, that kind of precision is from an intelligent designer...an intelligent orchestrator...to engineer the process.