Atheists can't explain existence.

[rareboy]

I am not arguing about wether (sic) things exist but wether(sic) things can exist with no cause.

Science is about looking for causes and explanations? No?

I have yet to hear what the basis for believing that everything we see and experience can exist independently of any action to create.

Things "just exist" according" to atheists. Lame and dishonest I say.

I would be a non deist if I had ever heard an adequate justigfication (sic) that didn't involve knocking comic notions of bearded gOds.

I have had a relevation to day (sic)

Nothing can exist independent of cause. I will never again see any validity in atheism.

It is illogical plain and simple (and reactionary)

Are you just typing drunk today?

What a pile of crap.

Physics and chemistry provide ample explanatory models for why matter exists.

You're like the christian mathematician who challenged Diderot with the proof that God existed, id est (a+b")/n = X.

Make up any bullshit you can in the absence of academic research and learning and then pronounce yourself the superior intellect.

I will never again see any validity in atheism.

But you never have. Why do you think that anyone cares whether you believe in anything. You're just not that important. There are many scholars and theorists who have been far more eloquent and elegant in their defense of a deist centred creationist theory.

What would be interesting is if you had travelled widely and were well read and could discuss the hundreds of creation mythologies that exist throughout the world and appreciate that each of them is as vailid as the single narrow view that you've adopted as the 'truth'. Why a single God? Why not many? Why not extraterrestrials? Why not the possibility that the universe is just in someone's test tube or petri dish or particle collider?

 

[belamy]

Bellamy, I accuse your brand of neutrality of being fundamentalist in itself. There is such a thing as a fundamentalist adherent to the middle ground, even if the middle ground proves to be meaningless. There is such a thing as the third-person point of view in a debate, and sometimes that person is himself quite dogmatic.

I repeat my challenge to find me a quote from any atheist who would argue that one ought to disbelieve in any god of your choice even if presented with substantial evidence to the contrary.

There is, sometimes... weasel words: be clear and honest and say what was wrong with my claims, whether dogmatic or whatever...

So basically you are trying to refute my argumentation on atheists' fundamentalism by simply saying "no, there are people apparently neutral like you who are the dogmatics". If you mean to say I'm being dogmatic by not being nice to atheists calling them "fundamentalist" and "dogmatic", please be aware that my claim derives from argument and not mere name-calling popping up from nowhere as you are doing.
Again, atheists are what they claim to be even when they try to divert our attention and confusing people by throwing an apparently milder claim (as you say they do as a rule) stating that they are open to change their mind concerning God. An atheist is defined, for the -nth time, by their firm belief that there is NO GOD. If there are atheists, as you say, who say they are open to believe in a God if they are given proof that there is one is a position outside their status as atheists, a mere game which is dishonest in a fair and strict logical argumentation and which makes sense only if it is the equivalent of a Sarah Palin who would ask an atheist that she would be willing to become an atheist if she is given proof that there is no God.

 

[gsdx]

you are easily impressed..! *sigh*

And you ignored him entirely. Just as I had predicted.

 

[sunoftheskye]

Athiests think we just appeared out of nowhere from a mud puddle. Case closed.

And where did your precious God appear from? He certainly didn't create himself, did he?

 

[Pill Pusher]

What things do you know that exist spontaneously?

Are you claiming that humans are not natural or part of nature and that the human capacity to design is not a natural capacity?

I am afraid you are falsely representing the term natural here...

.....

That's not what I claimed at all. I said cars are not natural. I don't think you would disagree with that, unless you're going to argue that cars can be freely found in nature, or that you can grow cars on trees....
But yeah, generally speaking, things that are manufactered are not considered natural.

A process is spontaneous if Delta G < 0, Delta G equal to 0?

But you're right, I should have used the term "spontaneous in nature", as it would narrowly define the process as being able to occur without human or other non-natural influences.

 

[sunoftheskye]

He can be said to be infinite and immortal and beyond human comprehension.

Unless you are claiming that everything is within human comprehension?

LMAO what???! So basically your response is, "It's magic!"

 

[TX-Beau]

I can take a crack at that one.

Non Logic 101.

God created nature.

Humans are natural

Humans created cars

God created natural cars.

Voila!!

You must be an idiot not to see this, It’s sooooooooo, obvious.


(this is a joke in case the Mods are wondering)

 

[TX-Beau]

LMAO what???! So basically your response is, "It's magic!"

DING, DING,DING,DING,DING!!!!!!!!!!

We have a winner!

 

[TX-Beau]

How does the green dog bark at dawn????

It's a ridiculous question, pointless sophomoric sematics that ultimatlely don't mean anything at all.

Go back and read up on the subject, there are people out there who argue your position, who actually make sense.

 

[sunoftheskye]

No. I am saying that it is beyond human comprehension.

Can you explain to me what beyond human comprehension means?

It doesn't mean magic.

It means accepting our inability to understand everything.

I am claiming not to know.

Atheist are claiming to KNOW that there is not a God and that it is improbable. I am awaiting a justification of this stance.

Beyond human comprehension? Can YOU explain to me what that means? Because to me it sounds like a cheap cop-out when you don't have an answer to the question. And hasn't the link between science and atheism already been debunked in this very thread?

Not all atheists claim to know 100% anything. I don't know 100% that some fairy princess named Ariel didn't create the universe. But just because I can't prove or know 100% that she didn't, doesn't mean the theory that she did, holds any water.

 

[TX-Beau]

Alright show me excerpts quotes....no?

Pay me and I'll do your research for you........no? You're on your own.

 

[sunoftheskye]

What evidence are you looking for.

As the saying goes " the heavens are telling the glory of God"

If you see a person walking down the street you can't necessarily see their parents but they themselves are evidence of their parents.

Right, but we have scientific evidence of what will happen when a man and a woman have sexual intercourse. In fact, we have video proof of what happens inside the female reproductive system.

In fact, the proof happens every day as women around the world continue to give birth in hospitals everywhere.

Sorry, your analogy doesn't make sense.

 

[TX-Beau]

which assumes

nature=painting.

That assumption isn't valid anywhere but in your head, it's an opinion, not a fact.

 

[sunoftheskye]

That doesn't relate to my point at all. I am not talking about further evidence I am pointing out how the existence of something can lead us to believe in the existence fo something else without needing other proof.

IE existence of a painting=painter

Existence of artwork=artist.

ie things carry within theself evidence for other entities.

It still doesn't make sense. We know that a painter had to paint the painting in order for it to exist.

You don't need further evidence because we already know what had to come first in order for the painting to be sitting in front of us.

I still fail to see how this makes a point in your favor.

 

[sunoftheskye]

I gave an example earlier on in the thread. If I write something on a peice of paper and then burn it straightaway.. how can you know what was on the paper?
Assuming their are no hidden cameras etc.

This is an example of something you can never know or even have an idea about.

What did I write on the paper? To find out you would have to posses powers such as time travel and omipresence that would seem to defy natural laws.

Magic is illusion and sleight of hand. Beyond comprehension means currently completely inaccessible.

Right, but it still requires an assumption on your part, with absolutely nothing to back it up but your own imagination. Under this "logic", one could come up with all sorts of stories as to how the universe came to exist.

 

[sunoftheskye]

which assumes

nature=painting.

That assumption isn't valid anywhere but in your head, it's an opinion, not a fact.

Exactly. The way in which nature operates is not even remotely comparable to something like a painting.

The analogy just doesn't work, no matter which way you try it.

 

[TX-Beau]

Running away are we?

I was extremely concise. Go back re-read the post. It tells you exactly where the assumption is.

 

[sunoftheskye]

You construed and conflated the false analogy yourself..

My initial point was that in a person there is evidence of his parentage.

You "waffled" about scientific evidence thus leading us up this path.

A person was created by his parents egg and sperm but he doesn't need to carry his parents around on his shoulders to prove that that is true.

The truth is inate in his nature.

Yes you'd need science to validate it but we don't go around asking for scientific proof before we anything/everything.

We don't go around asking for the scientific proof because it's been around so long that when we see each person it is assumed. We don't need the visual image of their parents on their shoulders in order to know how they came to exist, because it's obvious based on years of science to explain it.

 

[gsdx]

What things do you know that exist spontaneously?

Are you claiming that humans are not natural or part of nature and that the human capacity to design is not a natural capacity?

I am afraid you are falsely representing the term natural here...

Are you blind as well as willfully decietfull then?

If you consider what you said to Pill Pusher a 'response'. . .

It was more of a double challenge and a single insult to him than a response.

And where was I 'willfully (sic) decietfull (sic)'?

(Buy a bloody dictionary, will ya!???)

 

[TX-Beau]

Just like God, apparently.

Lol.............