Bad atheist arguments

[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...

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.

First of all you have to explain why it would exist in that state without expanding and cooling. Secondly, you would need an explanation for what made it begin to expand.

We already have the equations that back up everything I have already said.

Why is it that you are arguing against the universe popping into existence and then beginning to expand and cool?

 

[rightwinger]

Atheists don’t need to argue anything

We just don’t believe the religious theories we have had presented

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have zero basis for your beliefs

Which beliefs? Name two. Use your big boy words, ding. Nobody can take you seriously, if you don't explain yourself using your big boy words.

I dont have any arguments against believing in god, nor do i need any..That's just yet another self soothing red herring from the charlatan.

 

[ding]

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.

Ummmm..... I haven' done that.

I am merely discussing the two possibilities; space and time were created from nothing by spirit who willed space and time into existence or there is an unending loop that had no beginning (i.e. no first cause).

I don't believe you have the intellectual capacity to have this discussion. See your way out or find better manners.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Your position, and the position of atheists like you, is that a believer must be able to put God in front of you in order that you can physically observe and measure him to PROVE that he exists. That is an unreasonable expectation.

There is a plethora of evidence, logical, physical and otherwise, for the existence of God. You won't accept any of it because you don't want there to be a "God".

Incorrect. My position is that what you have offered as evidence for a God is lacking. On many levels really. But in general where most so called examples Given by others fall short; is that the existence of a God isn’t the only possible answer to that which they don’t know.

The problem is that you don’t have a realistic perception of what God is. Your perception of God skews your conclusions.

I have no preconception of God, any more than I have a preconception about the bird like jelly fish that inhabit the oceans beneath Europas ice sheets. Neither are things worthy of serious consideration until evidence of their existence is presented. At which point the evidence is to be scrutinized.

 

[ding]

You have zero basis for your beliefs

Which beliefs? Name two. Use your big boy words, ding. Nobody can take you seriously, if you don't explain yourself using your big boy words.

I always use big boy words. You? Not so much.

Your belief: God doesn't exist.

You have zero basis or reasons to believe that. You literally take that belief on faith. This is fact.

You don't have reasons for believing that. You have arguments against believing that. They aren't the same thing.

 

[ding]

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.

Your position, and the position of atheists like you, is that a believer must be able to put God in front of you in order that you can physically observe and measure him to PROVE that he exists. That is an unreasonable expectation.

There is a plethora of evidence, logical, physical and otherwise, for the existence of God. You won't accept any of it because you don't want there to be a "God".

Incorrect. My position is that what you have offered as evidence for a God is lacking. On many levels really. But in general where most so called examples Given by others fall short; is that the existence of a God isn’t the only possible answer to that which they don’t know.

The problem is that you don’t have a realistic perception of what God is. Your perception of God skews your conclusions.

I have no preconception of God, any more than I have a preconception about the bird like jelly fish that inhabit the oceans beneath Europas ice sheets. Neither are things worthy of serious consideration until evidence of their existence is presented. At which point the evidence is to be scrutinized.

Your perception of God is a fairytale. Be honest.

 

[ding]

Atheists don’t need to argue anything

We just don’t believe the religious theories we have had presented

That's odd, because you always seem to be arguing about it.

 

[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?

I dont know for sure. The best we do know is that the expansion of the singularity is responsible for the earliest detectable existence of space, and time.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Your position, and the position of atheists like you, is that a believer must be able to put God in front of you in order that you can physically observe and measure him to PROVE that he exists. That is an unreasonable expectation.

There is a plethora of evidence, logical, physical and otherwise, for the existence of God. You won't accept any of it because you don't want there to be a "God".

Incorrect. My position is that what you have offered as evidence for a God is lacking. On many levels really. But in general where most so called examples Given by others fall short; is that the existence of a God isn’t the only possible answer to that which they don’t know.

The problem is that you don’t have a realistic perception of what God is. Your perception of God skews your conclusions.

I have no preconception of God, any more than I have a preconception about the bird like jelly fish that inhabit the oceans beneath Europas ice sheets. Neither are things worthy of serious consideration until evidence of their existence is presented. At which point the evidence is to be scrutinized.

Your perception of God is a fairytale. Be honest.

I have no perception of God...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First of all you have to explain why it would exist in that state without expanding and cooling.

Yet anither silly lie. No he wouldn't, as the laws of physics we know do not apply to this state. Furthermore, we dont know why this state expanded in the inflationary period. Yet you claim it as fact, and scientists find it likely. So , no , he would not "first" have to explain that.

You're really falling on your face tonight. Ding, maybe exit stage right and end the show.

 

[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.

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?

That is THE answer. You dont have to like it but it remains true irrespective of your feelings on the matter...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ummmm..... I haven' done that.

Yet another lie. You have regurgitated the gotta kover argument countless times.

Goddamn ding, honest discussion with you is just not possible. Furthermore, your tricks have never worked on anyone, ever. How is this enjoyable for you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your belief: God doesn't exist.

Wrong. I believe there are, almost certainly no gods. But i believe there may be gods.

I have told you this before. And, when i did, I predicted you would misrepresent me later anyway. I called that one.

Now, what is the second belief? One down.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists is not a ‘belief.’

Again, religion and ‘god’ are creations of man – ‘god’ does exist as an idea, as a human construct, as a metaphor – but there is no extraterrestrial omnipotent deity that hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be followed lest transgressors are consigned to eternal damnation; that ‘god’ in fact does not exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Atheists don’t need to argue anything

We just don’t believe the religious theories we have had presented

That's odd, because you always seem to be arguing about it.

Wrong.

Denouncing the fallacies, sophistry, and lies propagated by theists is not to ‘argue’ – such as the lie that to be free from religion is a ‘belief.’

 

[ding]

Your belief: God doesn't exist.

Wrong. I believe there are, almost certainly no gods. But i believe there may be gods.

I have told you this before. And, when i did, I predicted you would misrepresent me later anyway. I called that one.

Now, what is the second belief? One down.

Sounds like you are hedging and quibbling at the same time to me.

 

[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?

I dont know for sure. The best we do know is that the expansion of the singularity is responsible for the earliest detectable existence of space, and time.

That’s not the best we know. The best we know is that ~14 billion years ago the universe popped into existence and then began to expand and cool. That’s what happens when nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter annihilate each other.

 

[ding]

Your position, and the position of atheists like you, is that a believer must be able to put God in front of you in order that you can physically observe and measure him to PROVE that he exists. That is an unreasonable expectation.

There is a plethora of evidence, logical, physical and otherwise, for the existence of God. You won't accept any of it because you don't want there to be a "God".

Incorrect. My position is that what you have offered as evidence for a God is lacking. On many levels really. But in general where most so called examples Given by others fall short; is that the existence of a God isn’t the only possible answer to that which they don’t know.

The problem is that you don’t have a realistic perception of what God is. Your perception of God skews your conclusions.

I have no preconception of God, any more than I have a preconception about the bird like jelly fish that inhabit the oceans beneath Europas ice sheets. Neither are things worthy of serious consideration until evidence of their existence is presented. At which point the evidence is to be scrutinized.

Your perception of God is a fairytale. Be honest.

I have no perception of God...

At the best you have no perception of God. At the worst you picture God as something magical like in a fairytale.

But neither one is conducive to investigating the origin questions which is one of the reasons atheism is an intellectual dead end.

 

[ding]

First of all you have to explain why it would exist in that state without expanding and cooling.

Yet anither silly lie. No he wouldn't, as the laws of physics we know do not apply to this state. Furthermore, we dont know why this state expanded in the inflationary period. Yet you claim it as fact, and scientists find it likely. So , no , he would not "first" have to explain that.

You're really falling on your face tonight. Ding, maybe exit stage right and end the show.

We know it expanded. No one cares about the rate of expansion when it comes to the question of did the universe begin.

You are literally arguing that the universe sat in a static state and then mysteriously began to expand.

The universe popped into existence and then began to expand and cool.