Conversational Challenges

[Simon Moon]

So this is my first thread. 

I've been having fun challenging christians on the internet in sites such as omegle, but I always come across christian arguments that are hard to answer, if I don't answer and remain silent, they would respond by saying: "Ha! See?", or feel a victory atleast. 
This has been bothering for me a while and I'd like to ask for advice on how to answer them.

Arguments such as: 

"How do you explain how you come from a rock?"

This is what is known as a 'straw man' fallacy. They are creating a ridiculous model of evolution or abiogenesis, then making fun of their ridiculous model.

NO scientists, or any theory, claims that we 'came from a rock'. 

"What came before the big bang?"

This may actually be a nonsensical question. According to the evidence, time and space both came into being with the expansion of the universe. There was no time before the big bang.

"You can't proof the big bang occured!"

Science does not try to prove things. Science builds models, based on all the available evidence. There are mountains of evidence pointing to a big bang like event. There are other models, besides the big bang, which also fit the evidence. But the facts and observations don't change. And all the available observations point to a natural source for the existence of our universe. 

"How do you proof god did not exist?"

As others have already said, the theist claiming a god exist has he burden of proof. There is no need to disprove their god.

Ask them, "how do you prove that Allah or Shiva, or any of the other 1000's of gods, do not exist?".
[/quote]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

"How do you explain how you come from a rock?"



I don't.  Isn't it lucky for me that no one - and I mean NO one - has ever made that claim?

"What came before the big bang?"

Fun answer:  Foreplay.

Serious answer:  'Before the big bang' is a not a coherent question.  Time instantiated with the expansion event commonly called 'The Big Bang'.  Asking what happened before there was such a thing as time is like asking, 'What does yellow smell like?'.

"You can't proof the big bang occured!"

True, but misguided.  Theories are never 'proved'.  But an expansion event that created all of what we now know as 'spacetime' is the best explanation for the Universe we see around us.  This isn't to say that a better explanation won't come about - it very well may.  If it does, and explains the Universe better than current models, then those models will be abandoned.   Science is about best explanations ('God did it' is NOT an explanation, it is a plaintive howl of ignorance).


"How do you proof god did not exist?"

I don't need to do so, since I'm not making the claim 'God does not exist'.  Atheism, in its most basic form, makes the claim, 'I do not believe that gods exist', which isn't the same thing at all.

Furthermore, it is up to believers to demonstrate the existence of their particular god(s) either empirically or with coherent, convincing arguments.  

Boru

[robvalue]

Good point Boru, I missed that.

Atheism in its standard form makes no claims, it's simply reserving judgement on the issue of whether or not god's exist.

If there is one, it must be pathetically irrelevant to have not even captured my attention for a single second in my whole life. Doesn't really fit with the magnitude of the claims made about it.

Or, you know, maybe it's got better things to do than wait with baited breath to see what hole we stick our dicks into.

[brewer]

All I got is Welcome!

Want to be happy? Stop arguing with delusional idiots.

[Cecelia]

"How do you explain how you come from a rock?"


Just because we can't explain something because we don't know the answer for certain, doesn't mean that your answer of 'magic' is the right one.  I'll get right on answering this one as soon as you explain how everyone descends from Noah and his three sons yet every culture has their own story of origin, and no references to the flood, and then explain just how he fit two of each animal on the ark along with enough food and water to take care of them, and without using the argument "God did it." because if that were the case, God wouldn't have told Noah to bring enough food.  And if you say Noah's just a story, then so is Jesus.

"What came before the big bang?"

What came before God?  If nothing came before God, then why can't the same be possible of the Big Bang?

"You can't proof the big bang occured!"

There's evidence supporting the big bang.  It's just a theory in any case, but it's the best theory we have available.  You can't prove God exists, so this is nothing more than a stalemate at best.  Though again, there's evidence supporting the big bang, which is more than you can say for God.  And no, the bible doesn't count as evidence because it's a book filled with all sorts of nonsense.  It's a book that belongs in the fiction section until it's shown to have any credibility whatsoever.

"How do you proof god did not exist?"

Did I miss something, and someone proved God did exist?  Go on prove to me that Zeus doesn't exist.  Prove that Unicorns don't exist, or Leprechauns.  God doesn't get some special treatment where we all pre-suppose he exists, especially since there's thousands of religions.  None of which have any stronger claims than the other.  Prove God exists, and then we'll talk.

[The Inquisition]

I'll give you this link to another atheist forum (sorry AF):

Atheist/Agnostic Informational Resource Library

And here is a great resource, goodwithoutgod is a poster here at AF as well, but he has a shit-ton of info here:

GWG's resource thread

Believers are absolutely horrible at confusing abiogenesis and evolution, these are two distinct branches of science, the more you understand this and can explain it, the better.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If the answer is that you don't know, then you don't know.

It's much, much worse to make stuff up in lieu of admitting one's ignorance.

That's right. The surest obstacle to learning is certainty.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"What came before the big bang?"

This may actually be a nonsensical question. According to the evidence, time and space both came into being with the expansion of the universe. There was no time before the big bang.

It seems to me that if the multiverse hypothesis pans out, time would seem to be implicitly above the local physical laws of our own Universe.

Perhaps I'm just nesting one egg inside another (our time existing inside a larger version regulating the formation of universes inside the multiverse), but wouldn't the multiverse hypothesis imply that causality -- i.e. time -- exist "above" our local physical laws, hierarchically?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's right. The surest obstacle to learning is certainty.

I'm certain you're right.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's right. The surest obstacle to learning is certainty.

I'm certain you're right.

Boru

You are, of course, correct.