Bad atheist arguments

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The universe was created from nothing. God is no thing. No thing created the universe.

Youre not making sense. Pots are created from clay. That doesn't mean clay created the pot. Get your con straight.

 

[Vastator]

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

Who or what is the first un-caused, first cause?

Something which is beyond matter and energy, is eternal and is unchanging.

Those are the attributes for the only solution to the first cause conundrum.

You couldn't possibly support that claim unless you could provide an example of something beyond matter, and energy; and demonstrate the truth of your claim that such is eternal and unchanging. And you can't. Because you literally made that tripe up. If this is what passes for intelligent thought with you, I fear our discourse is nearing its end. I'll not be party to nonsensical bloviations....

 

[ding]

Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"

^^^ an example of an atheist’s argument.

No, thats an example of a conman making up stuff to soothe himself (you). Here is an actual example:

" I see no good evidence to believe any of this extraordinary, magical claims. So i don't".

And that's it.

Dude, I didn’t make up anything.

That was literally the argument of an atheist in response to 24,000 written manuscripts existing which are the basis of the NT.

Sure, ding. Sure.

100%

That was his response to 24,000 written manuscripts.

 

[Vastator]

Fair enough.

Ask yourself this. What can cause itself to exist?

One of the many questions for which I don't have an answer but I have no reason to believe anyone else does either.

My answer was "I don't know". Are you trying to make a point?

Nothing in the universe can cause itself to exist, not even the universe itself. Logic dictates that something or, someone, outside of said universe caused it to exist.

The committed atheist, of course, eager to advocate for the non-existence of a creator, mindlessly parrots the "I don't know" line in order to avoid arriving at the inescapable conclusion of the existence of a creator, otherwise known as "God".

Thats not an inescapable conclusion. That’s a forfeit to the “God of the gaps” fallacy. To simply admit that one doesn’t know is a sign of intellectual maturity, lacking presumption of that for which one has no evidence. There is nothing intellectual, or even reverent in the position of “I don’t know. Therefore god.” In fact it smacks of hubris to claim that simply because you don’t know the answer; the only possible answer must be some deity. That’s as arrogant as it gets.

The universe was created from nothing. God is no thing. No thing created the universe.

The first sentence is based on science. The second and third sentences are based upon logic.

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

So, yeah, I can prove it. In fact, it’s the generally accepted belief in cosmology. The question you should be asking yourself is why you are arguing against the generally accepted belief that the universe popped into existence and then began to expand and cool.

No. You can't. But if you insist you can... The floor is yours.

Show us....

 

[ding]

The universe was created from nothing. God is no thing. No thing created the universe.

Youre not making sense. Pots are created from clay. That doesn't mean clay created the pot. Get your con straight.

Pots can be created from clay. They can also be created from alloys. So what? Every piece of evidence we have tells us that the universe popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

That you argue against this is amazing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"

^^^ an example of an atheist’s argument.

No, thats an example of a conman making up stuff to soothe himself (you). Here is an actual example:

" I see no good evidence to believe any of this extraordinary, magical claims. So i don't".

And that's it.

Dude, I didn’t make up anything.

That was literally the argument of an atheist in response to 24,000 written manuscripts existing which are the basis of the NT.

Sure, ding. Sure.

100%

That was his response to 24,000 written manuscripts.

"His"

And, apparently, he had 4 names!

 

[Vastator]

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

Who or what is the first un-caused, first cause?

Who said there was one..?

Ok, for the sake of argument let’s assume there’s not. What caused space and time to exist?

It's a good question. It's one cosmologists study daily. I myself dont know the whole of it. However more, and more facets of that gem are being teased out as study continues. Well both have to stay tuned to the discoveries as they come in.

 

[anynameyouwish]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

I was born into a methodist home

my family went every week

like everyone else

i joined religious youth organizations but never felt like I fit in

by the time I was 14 I was attending church by myself, but not going.

by the time I was 21 I no longer thought about religion.

I still don't

fuk you

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That you argue against this is amazing.

I didn't, charlatan. I argued against your silly argument, itself based on dubious premises, that everything being made from nothing means nothing created everything. Your silly distraction attempt (pots can also be made of other things!) and your bait and switch (substituting a different idea than that which i argued against) are hallmarks of an amateur conman. Ding, you know your amateurish parlor tricks dont work on me.

 

[ding]

One of the many questions for which I don't have an answer but I have no reason to believe anyone else does either.

Nothing in the universe can cause itself to exist, not even the universe itself. Logic dictates that something or, someone, outside of said universe caused it to exist.

The committed atheist, of course, eager to advocate for the non-existence of a creator, mindlessly parrots the "I don't know" line in order to avoid arriving at the inescapable conclusion of the existence of a creator, otherwise known as "God".

Thats not an inescapable conclusion. That’s a forfeit to the “God of the gaps” fallacy. To simply admit that one doesn’t know is a sign of intellectual maturity, lacking presumption of that for which one has no evidence. There is nothing intellectual, or even reverent in the position of “I don’t know. Therefore god.” In fact it smacks of hubris to claim that simply because you don’t know the answer; the only possible answer must be some deity. That’s as arrogant as it gets.

The universe was created from nothing. God is no thing. No thing created the universe.

The first sentence is based on science. The second and third sentences are based upon logic.

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

So, yeah, I can prove it. In fact, it’s the generally accepted belief in cosmology. The question you should be asking yourself is why you are arguing against the generally accepted belief that the universe popped into existence and then began to expand and cool.

No. You can't. But if you insist you can... The floor is yours.

Show us....

OK. Have you heard of CERN?

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang..."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[ding]

^^^ an example of an atheist’s argument.

No, thats an example of a conman making up stuff to soothe himself (you). Here is an actual example:

" I see no good evidence to believe any of this extraordinary, magical claims. So i don't".

And that's it.

Dude, I didn’t make up anything.

That was literally the argument of an atheist in response to 24,000 written manuscripts existing which are the basis of the NT.

Sure, ding. Sure.

100%

That was his response to 24,000 written manuscripts.

"His"

And, apparently, he had 4 names!

Yeah, his. See?

Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

False. Scientists do not say that, as some of the matter in existence today was created from energy since the big bang. Some of it was created formed from energy in the labs in which those scientists work.

Ding, these lies are not helping your credibility.

 

[Vastator]

Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"

^^^ an example of an atheist’s argument.

No, thats an example of a conman making up stuff to soothe himself (you). Here is an actual example:

" I see no good evidence to believe any of this extraordinary, magical claims. So i don't".

And that's it.

Dude, I didn’t make up anything.

That was literally the argument of an atheist in response to 24,000 written manuscripts existing which are the basis of the NT.

Sure, ding. Sure.

100%

That was his response to 24,000 written manuscripts.

Correction. I was there. That post was made as a mockery of your supposition that numerous texts, making a claim lent weight to the validity of the claims being made by virtue of the sheer volume of claims.
So the respondent demonstrated a similar counter claim. And that is where that quote came from. And you know it. Pro tip. When you have to misrepresent your opponents position; your own is untenable.
Ahhh how easily your dishonesty is exposed...

 

[Votto]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

WOW ! We agree on something ! More people have died in the support of Their "gods" than any other reason in human history. Humans worship so many gods it's hard to count! Please! Someone tell me which entity I should believe in ! Sheep!

Actually the Bible says we are sheep, so you agree with the premise. Great!

As for people dying in support, what you are referring to are various governments who convince people that they speak and kill for God.

Then there are other governments, like communists of the last century, that murdered around 100 million people.

So the issue is finding a good shepherd. Is it God or the state?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, thats an example of a conman making up stuff to soothe himself (you). Here is an actual example:

" I see no good evidence to believe any of this extraordinary, magical claims. So i don't".

And that's it.

Dude, I didn’t make up anything.

That was literally the argument of an atheist in response to 24,000 written manuscripts existing which are the basis of the NT.

Sure, ding. Sure.

100%

That was his response to 24,000 written manuscripts.

"His"

And, apparently, he had 4 names!

Yeah, his. See?

Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"

Ah yes, an example of the trend. Youre going to need more examples. Like, a lot. Also, You're lying, as that is not all that he has ever argued.

 

[ding]

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

Who or what is the first un-caused, first cause?

Who said there was one..?

Ok, for the sake of argument let’s assume there’s not. What caused space and time to exist?

It's a good question. It's one cosmologists study daily. I myself dont know the whole of it. However more, and more facets of that gem are being teased out as study continues. Well both have to stay tuned to the discoveries as they come in.

That's a great non-answer. But we are discussing the implications of there not being a first cause, right?

That implies that there is an unending loop which had no beginning, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But we are discussing the implications of there not being a first cause, right?

False. We are laughing at the people who say that, therefore, means god exists.

 

[Vastator]

Fair enough.

Ask yourself this. What can cause itself to exist?

One of the many questions for which I don't have an answer but I have no reason to believe anyone else does either.

My answer was "I don't know". Are you trying to make a point?

Nothing in the universe can cause itself to exist, not even the universe itself. Logic dictates that something or, someone, outside of said universe caused it to exist.

The committed atheist, of course, eager to advocate for the non-existence of a creator, mindlessly parrots the "I don't know" line in order to avoid arriving at the inescapable conclusion of the existence of a creator, otherwise known as "God".

Thats not an inescapable conclusion. That’s a forfeit to the “God of the gaps” fallacy. To simply admit that one doesn’t know is a sign of intellectual maturity, lacking presumption of that for which one has no evidence. There is nothing intellectual, or even reverent in the position of “I don’t know. Therefore god.” In fact it smacks of hubris to claim that simply because you don’t know the answer; the only possible answer must be some deity. That’s as arrogant as it gets.

The universe was created from nothing. God is no thing. No thing created the universe.

The first sentence is based on science. The second and third sentences are based upon logic.

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

So..? That doesn't tell us how long the singularity existed prior to expansion. The expansion that is responsible for space and time as we know it.

 

[ding]

Dude, I didn’t make up anything.

That was literally the argument of an atheist in response to 24,000 written manuscripts existing which are the basis of the NT.

Sure, ding. Sure.

100%

That was his response to 24,000 written manuscripts.

"His"

And, apparently, he had 4 names!

Yeah, his. See?

Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"

Ah yes, an example of the trend. Youre going to need more examples. Like, a lot. Also, You're lying, as that is not all that he has ever argued.

I'm not lying about anything. And I don't need anymore examples. You have zero basis for your beliefs. You have arguments against believing in God. Not the same thing.

 

[Vastator]

Fair enough.

Ask yourself this. What can cause itself to exist?

One of the many questions for which I don't have an answer but I have no reason to believe anyone else does either.

My answer was "I don't know". Are you trying to make a point?

Nothing in the universe can cause itself to exist, not even the universe itself. Logic dictates that something or, someone, outside of said universe caused it to exist.

The committed atheist, of course, eager to advocate for the non-existence of a creator, mindlessly parrots the "I don't know" line in order to avoid arriving at the inescapable conclusion of the existence of a creator, otherwise known as "God".

Thats not an inescapable conclusion. That’s a forfeit to the “God of the gaps” fallacy. To simply admit that one doesn’t know is a sign of intellectual maturity, lacking presumption of that for which one has no evidence. There is nothing intellectual, or even reverent in the position of “I don’t know. Therefore god.” In fact it smacks of hubris to claim that simply because you don’t know the answer; the only possible answer must be some deity. That’s as arrogant as it gets.

The universe was created from nothing. God is no thing. No thing created the universe.

The first sentence is based on science. The second and third sentences are based upon logic.

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

So... from your own mouth theres one thing besides god that can pop out of nothing... how many more will you admit may exist? You blew your own ship out of the water. How amusing....
But then... just because these appear in a space they didnt previously occupy, doesn't mean they came from nothing. It means we haven't been able to observe where they came from. Huge difference.