Why Does Atheism Have to be False?

[crosssaves]

If time did not exist, how can God do anything?

Actions are temporal.

You are stating an awful lot of assertions as if they are scientific fact.

I presume you have a particular favourite God and aren't suggesting a deistic God? And why should I care, again?

That's what supernatural is, doing something outside of time and space. Just because you don't know how He did it, but you know He exists, shouldn't pose a problem for you.

Natural actions are temporal. Supernatural actions are not temporal.

You are stating lots of assertions, but not dealing with the proof in the opening post why infinite regress of nature is impossible. At least you agree non-existence can't cause anything. Not review that proof for why infinite regress of nature is impossible.

I wouldn't worry about which God is the correct one before realizing the uncreated Creator exists. Drink some milk before having some meat.

[Aoi Magi]

Hi Crosssaves, first of all welcome to the forums. If you truly wish to discuss this, then please create a introduction for yourself and then please keep an open mind settle down in this forum for a few days at least. Your arguments have all been answered several times in the past when proposed by other theists, and thus people here can get a bit annoyed for repeating the same thing over and over.

Your first claim is that nature cannot come from nothing, and science agrees. Science says there might be something be fore our nature existed, but we don't have the means yet to know what it is.
Your second claim is that we have to be as knowledgeable as God to truly be sure of him, and I agree.
You say, "That which is unfalsifiable is itself false", and I, considering that God is unfalsifiable, agree (and I think science agrees too) .

Now, why does it have to be a 'uncreated creator' for our world to exist? Why can't our world arise from or be part of an 'untriggered process'? You would reject the second because we don't normally 'see' that happening (though in the quantum world particles do pop in and out of existence), and similarly we don't 'see' the uncreated creator in this world (not in the quantum world either), so shouldn't they both be equally valid or invalid?

Even if there is a sentience beyond our understanding, how do we know or be sure of it's characteristics if we cannot comprehend it? How can we differentiate between Yahweh and Odin? How do we know it's thoughts? How can we claim it wants to have a 'personal relationship' with anyone? Would you want to have an personal relationship with a bacteria?

[crosssaves]

Right. And you know all that how exactly?

you fucking don't

Read the opening post. That's why I posted it, not for you to ignore it. Don't shut your mind down.

[robvalue]

You have somehow managed to become even more arrogant and dismissive. I've no further interest in talking to you.

I don't care if there is a god, and I'm not claiming there isn't. And to expect all atheists to agree is to utterly misunderstand everything about the subject.

If you decide to become polite and respectful and interested in actually learning anything, then get back to me.

[Homeless Nutter]

Great. Another arrogant and deluded 12 year old, who thinks he/she discovered proof of god.

Hey, dumbass - word salad is not evidence. Except - evidence of your low intelligence.

[LastPoet]

Another guy that has been rummaging trough WLC's dirty underwear basket and just grabbed the most stained piece

[crosssaves]

Hi Crosssaves, first of all welcome to the forums. If you truly wish to discuss this, then please create a introduction for yourself and then please keep an open mind settle down in this forum for a few days at least. Your arguments have all been answered several times in the past when proposed by other theists, and thus people here can get a bit annoyed for repeating the same thing over and over.

Your first claim is that nature cannot come from nothing, and science agrees. Science says there might be something be fore our nature existed, but we don't have the means yet to know what it is.
Your second claim is that we have to be as knowledgeable as God to truly be sure of him, and I agree.
You say, "That which is unfalsifiable is itself false", and I, considering that God is unfalsifiable, agree (and I think science agrees too) .

Now, why does it have to be a 'uncreated creator' for our world to exist? Why can't our world arise from or be part of an 'untriggered process'? You would reject the second because we don't normally 'see' that happening (though in the quantum world particles do pop in and out of existence), and similarly we don't 'see' the uncreated creator in this world (not in the quantum world either), so shouldn't they both be equally valid or invalid?

Even if there is a sentience beyond our understanding, how do we know or be sure of it's characteristics if we cannot comprehend it? How can we differentiate between Yahweh and Odin? How do we know it's thoughts? How can we claim it wants to have a 'personal relationship' with anyone? Would you want to have an personal relationship with a bacteria?

Why avoid this topic and not allow me to have a discussion in this thread, but require me to make an introduction thread? Seems vain and fruitless. The discussion has commenced and people are participating.

People have repeated their patented responses, and I was happy to show their misreading and mistaken assumptions in their responses so the proof goes unchallenged. People might get annoyed that I can respond to their mistaken assumptions with the truth but that doesn't make their assumptions any less false.

Science doesn't say 'might' but absolutely something existed before nature. We know what that is--the uncreated Creator (proof given in the opening post).

You misread what I said. I did not say "we have to be as knowledgeable as God to truly be sure of him." I said you don't need to be God "all knowing" to know if God exists since obviously you are not God and that would be unfalsifiable -- unfalsifiable because you make it impossible to disprove atheism when you claim you have to be God and never will be. Your silly rule is unfalsifiable, and thus, disingenuous.

Atheists seem to think they can falsify God so the concede God is falsifiable. God is falsifiable but atheism is unfalsifiable. I would say you could falsify God if you could show something from nothing or infinite regress as true. But you fail on both fronts.

Just because you are not smart enough to know where quantum particles come from, doesn't mean you should assume they come from nothing. That's overassuming and the height of arrogance. Especially considering we have trillions of cause and effects, and no hard evidence to the contrary. An 'untriggered process' you admitted before is false of something from nothing so don't turn around and argue for something from nothing. Be "not doubletongued".

You demand to see God in this world, but that would be illogical since the uncreated Creator is outside of time and space. Space and time are used to see things in nature not out of nature.

Why assume you can't know the characteristics of God? The first characteristic which we have proven is that He is uncreated so you know at least this much already. Like I said before, don't worry about which claim on the uncreated Creator is the correct one. That would be putting the cart before the horse. You are not ready yet to have meat. Just drink some milk first.

[Longhorn]

Right. And you know all that how exactly?

you fucking don't

Read the opening post. That's why I posted it, not for you to ignore it. Don't shut your mind down.

The opening post is a disgusting pile of Kalam that has been digested and vomited several times.

Give me the facts, give me the evidence, then we can talk

[Longhorn]

Supernatural.



Right.

Here we call it 'special pleading', but whatever.

Ok now you start freaking me out. I didn't know that you spy skills involve mind reading 

Oh please, it comes with the starter kit

[TubbyTubby]

I am so glad that if an atheist thought the universe always existed, you would correct them on that fallacy. Atheists can't seem to agree on the reason why they believe what they believe. You're all over the place.

I suggest you aquaint yourself with the meaning of the word atheist before you make an even bigger tit of yourself.