Atheists can't explain existence.

[Pill Pusher]

What you are refering to as nature doesn't exist it is merely a human catergorisation for phenomena. Humans design are you im plying that that is nota natural process?

Your use of the term nature is unclear. You seem to be implying that the tweeting of birds and a horse shitting is natural but human consciousness and application of natural laws in design is somehow in a completely different sphere?

Anything that exists is part of nature and has a cause.

Humans in Christianity are said to be made in Gods image.. so if you wanted to define God you could define him in terms of our own creative sentient abilities.

As I have said ...you attempt to manipulate the term nature in which makes humans seem endowed with supernatural power?

A car is a product of us.. we are a product nature hence a car (Mechanism) is a product of nature. hence nature CAN produce design.

You're absolutely right in saying that the term natural is a human creation. There's a clear distinction between what is found in Nature, and what is produced by Humans.
These distinctions are set by man, since we have been able to manipulate nature to produce substances that are not normally found without human intervention. What is natural is defined as being intrinsic, and being being available without the intervention. That is the definition of Natural. You can't distort the definition of a word just to make it fit your argument.

Secondly, humans are very well part of nature, and our technology and products are produced with resources from nature, but we have a direct hand in cultivating and manufacturing it. This does not fit the definition of natural.

Although there are some areas where Human Nature and Nature share, there is also a pretty clear distinction. And no, human inventions are not "supernatural" or "subnatural". They are not particularly above or below nature, but they certainly are unnatural.


If your argument is that because we are part of nature, then humans designs are synonmous to the what designs the universe, we can address that as well.

I subscribed to the theory that life is indeed designed. However, I would use this term loosely. Rather than having a complex "Designer", what I believe to have shaped life is a combination of the optimal conditions (pH, temperature, reactants, the affinity of the matter etc.) and a sufficient amount of time. Complex lifeforms, or "designs", are produced from less complex structures (subatomic matter -> atoms-> molecules -> organic molecules -> amino acids -> DNA/RNA -> organelles -> cells -> tissues -> organs), so the structures of life is designed from bottom to up, where less complex structures fit together to produce more complex ones.

And of course, you're going to ask "where did the first matter come from?", my answer to that is, "I don't know". Scientific knowledge is still rather young, but that is no reason to make something up just so that you would feel more comfortable, or because you're insecured about not knowing why we exist.

Sorry for this muddled response, I hope I was able to articulate my thoughts properly.

 

[sunoftheskye]

What?

People have always known that a person indicates that they have parents?

Where did I say that? I was speaking in terms of the present day, where we have modern science to explain the existence of most things we encounter in the world.

But apparently matter came from nowhere in the middle of nowhere.

Much like your magical God.

 

[TX-Beau]

Andrew, because I'm nice and because you asked, you can start your education here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

[sunoftheskye]

Andrew, because I'm nice and because you asked, you can start your education here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

[sunoftheskye]

That takes the onus off atheists does it?

Quite the opposite, actually. You claim God exists. The burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.

 

[TX-Beau]

OK I've got a challenge for you Andrew - and just up front I don't think you'll be able to do this, I think you'll ignore it or declare loudly that "I don't have to just 'cause you asked wanted me too!"

Anyway, I don't believe it's possible for you to state the gist of your argument in one sentence or less. you wander so far and wide, I really have no idea what you're trying to say in the first place.

So, one sentence or less, what the hell is your point to begin with?

 

[Aaron]

Atheism is claiming that you can logically prove that no deity is needed to create existence.

I completely disagree. As an atheist, I claim no such ability.

An atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods. It is a non-belief. My being an atheist does not imply that I have any proof that gods do not exist, simply that I deny their existence.

 

[Pill Pusher]

If nature is a concept/term/definition provided by humans then its boundaries are going to be by consent but the boundary you are trying to make isn't adequate because it leaves us with no explanations for humans actions as part of nature.

You're not reading what I'm writing are you? Or maybe I didn't make my point clear.

Again, what is natural is defined as something that exists without HUMAN INTERVENTION. Human Nature addresses human actions, and yes, there are times when these two terms are not as clearly divided

 

[Pill Pusher]

Everyone love a little attention.

 

[sunoftheskye]

I completely disagree. As an atheist, I claim no such ability.

An atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods. It is a non-belief. My being an atheist does not imply that I have any proof that gods do not exist, simply that I deny their existence.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is what he fails to understand.

 

[TX-Beau]

I'm in the attention camp, he doesn't actually have an argument, just some vague, relatively general, badly thought out positions.

 

[sunoftheskye]

I haven't claimed God exists.
Talk about missing the whole point of the thread including the thread title.

The claim I am refuting is the one implicit in atheism that matter can exist for no reason with no initial cause.
Do i have to repeat that ad infinitum.

What is the basis of atheism? Nothing..Its an unprovable claim about the nonexistence of something in a world full of things that exist.

Just reread the entire thread dear.

Atheism doesn't need a basis, as it doesn't make a claim. As someone just recently pointed out, and as I already pointed out to you earlier in the thread, I do not 100% know that God does not exist. But there's an infinite number of things I cannot prove DON'T exist. That doesn't mean they do. The only way you can "disprove" atheism would be to prove the existence of God.

 

[TX-Beau]

See what I mean.

 

[sunoftheskye]

Oh dear....

 

[TX-Beau]

Actually the religious are claiming there is a god, the atheists, aren't buying.

See how that logic works.

The atheists made no claims at all.

 

[sunoftheskye]

Actually the religious are claiming there is a god, the atheists, aren't buying.

See how that logic works.

The atheists made no claims at all.

AndrewD, please read this post over and over and over again until you get it through your thick head.

 

[gsdx]

Have you noticed not one person has offered an even half reasonable explanation of how things can exist soley on there own for no reason without a cause.

And have you not noticed, Andrew, that you have never, ever, in any of the multitude of posts you've made on the same subject, offered a single shred of evidence that things exist because God wished it to be so.

That's because you can't, yet you fully expect everyone else to do so, and when they can't you attack them.

Can you give us any evidence whatsoever that God had anything whatsoever to do with your existence? Atheists can give you more than enough evidence to explain their existence.

But why bother? You'd ignore it all anyway and call them names and create a whole new round of bullshit nonsense logic.

 

[sunoftheskye]

And have you not noticed, Andrew, that you have never, ever, in any of the multitude of posts you've made on the same subject, offered a single shred of evidence that things exist because God wished it to be so.

That's because you can't, yet you fully expect everyone else to do so, and when they can't you attack them.

Can you give us any evidence whatsoever that God had anything whatsoever to do with your existence? Atheists can give you more than enough evidence to explain their existence.

But why bother? You'd ignore it all anyway and call them names and create a whole new round of bullshit nonsense logic.

This. fjkdlafd

 

[quasar]

I'm in the attention camp, he doesn't actually have an argument, just some vague, relatively general, badly thought out positions.

Wait until he starts his next batch of threads. As he's reading about the Origins of Totalitarianism, I'm sure we'll be treated to questions involving Nazism, Stalinism, New Imperialism and 'biological racism' in the next few weeks!

 

[Pill Pusher]

I am asking you how exactly you could define human actions if you don't consider them to be natural/supernatural or divine?

The meaning of natural/nature is a huge field of philosophical controversy.

Is homosexuality natural.. yes sheep do it..

Is a car natural? No.. because sheep can't drive cars.

Either you're misreading or I'm misspeaking. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that that I'm misspeaking/mistyping. let me clarify, I said that cars are not natural because they are human inventions, I'm not saying that humans are not natural. However, generally speaking, Human Nature is the category where human actions are classified under. There are overlaps as well as distintions between the two.