3. If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.
Of course you cannot say there is never ever going to be existance for God, you can only say that you have not seen it, and that when you have requested it, it has not been presented, therefore, until you see it, you will assume it does not exist.
I mean, that IS how science works. It assumes things that are "nonsensical" don't exist until and unless evidence for them shows up.
4. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?
Y'know, this is a misguide question; it's practically begging an athiest to suckerpunch you.
Because the most likely answer is "um ... duh? Of course I don't think they exist. Do you?"
And how, pray tell, will you answer that? After all, by your reasoning so far, apparently you have to say yes you do. Unless, of course, you have unambiguous evidence for the existance of God...?
1. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the product of the universe or of people since people contradict each other. So, how do you account for them?
By pointing out that you're flatly wrong here.
Ever hear of Godel?
The "laws of logic" appear to fit reality quite well, and yet, they have problems.
Ever hear of a paradox?
Can you explain why seeing a red apple makes it more likely that all ravens are black?
In the village of Seville, The Barber (who is a man) shaves all men who do not shave themselves, and does not have those men who do shave themselves. Does the Barber shave himself?
What do the Laws of Logic say about that?
2. Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can't that be God?
There is an assumed premise that has no justification.
"to get to now you'd have to traverse an infinite past" contains the inherent assumption that you COULDN'T traverse an infinite past.
But of course you can, in an infinite amount of time.
Also "why can't that be God?" assumes that all possible first causes except for God are a priori
Furthermore, "Everything that was brought into existance was caused to exist" is a circular defintion; it has no justification, and only appeals to induction, which can never (by the "laws of logic"!) be certain.
3. If atheism is true: The universe has laws. These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot claim to have meaning in life.
The conclusion hardly follows from the assumption.
After all, language has "laws", and still has meaning.
Hell, mathematics DEFINITELY has laws, and definitely has meaning.
Furthermore, have you ever heard of the concept of "emergent behaviour"? It's really quite relevant.
1. If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
Conclusion fails to follow from assumption.
WHY is the definition insufficient? And would it remain insufficient with the obvious extention of "Lack of belief in a divine entity, given an exposure to that concept?
2. Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not...or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."
Sure you can.
I was exposed to the concept at an early age. I got skeptical as a pre-teenager, and simply considered it unlikely.
I've since concluded that God does exist, but also that most self-described Christians have gotten it all wrong.
And yes, it was a "simple lack of belief" at the time.
3. If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don't you go around attacking that idea?
Because nobody else expresses the idea of invisible pink uniocrns, and that idea doesn't lead to, for instance, judges trying to unconsitutionally forbid parents from raising their child as they would like.
It's not the idea, it's the rabid followers.
Snipping the ones I also consider indefensible...
1. You cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God.
So, do the screaming blue ants exist?
1. To say "there is no proof for God's existence," is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn't yet seen.
And, in fact, that's what the athiest means.
Claiming otherwise is simply an attempt to engage in sophistry.
We can never, in this life, truely know absolute truth *and know that we know it*. We can, at most, believe that.
But it would be extremely cumbersome to qualify all language such.
I mean, would you be saying "I believe that I am typing on my keyboard, given the evidence of the perceptions I have that I believe come from my hands and eyes, although of course I can't really prove that", if someone asked you what you were doing? No.
You wouldn't. Nobody talks that way, because everyone understands what you mean if you say "Typing.", and only people being actively disingenuous would claim otherwise.
6. "All of Science has never found any evidence for God"
1. That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.
So is your statement! After all, the definition of "scientist" is not only subjective, it's exclusively so, being a social construct.
2. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
Sophistry and chicanery!
You know full well that if it had found evidence for God, you'd be presenting it here.
3. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
And yet, that's deceptive.
After all, if science found things to be unexplainably inconsistant, that would itself be evidence of God.
Indeed, unless God does nothing at all in this world, there IS evidence for His existance that science could find.
7. What is God? or Define God.
1. God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.
But not omnibenevolence?
8. Prove your God is real.
1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
Of course, the problem here is that there would be objective evidence for your love of your family; for instance, if you help them them when they are in trouble, if you cry when they are in hard times, if you strive to make their lives better, then yes, there's evidence you love them.
And if you strive to hurt them, and rejoice in their pain, why, that's not evidence of love, but evidence of hate.
Note, now, how I can *predict* your likely behaviour, if your claim is true. That's a hallmark of science, right there.
2. I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it.
Athiests ASSUME the universe is all that exists becuase it's the simplest explanation.
3. The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
Fallacy of the excluded middle; what if the universe is cyclic? What if there's an infinite number of universes constantly created and destroyed in a quantum froth? What if the universe is a self-stable construct in four or more dimensions and "time" is a meaningless concept?
How do you know the universe was not caused by a closed temporal loop? After all, that's how things escape black holes, so we know it happens.
Furthermore, you assume that creating the universe makes something have the properties of God as you earlier described them; a very shady claim to make without justification.
1. When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don't count.
And what about "most likely" explanations?
What about the honest answer of "It is impossible to know from within the universe"?
What do you say to those?
4. Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism
1. "Evolution is a fact"
1. That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.
This is false, you see, since we *have* observed speciation. We've done it in the lab.
Furthemore, what would consititute a lack of gaps? Do we need an unbroken descent chain from the first single-celled organism to something alive today?
Surely you can see the absurdity of that.
Thus, of course there's gaps. This is what you would expect.
However, evolution, in the fallaciously create sense of "macroevolution" (A term, I should note, created by Creationists with no scientific validity to the distinction, due to the absolute lack of barriers to change), does make predictions.
It predicts that organisms that resemble one another physically should have similar DNA; indeed, they do, and to such a degree that is quite, quite extreme.
It predicts that introns should mostly be in the same place in related organisms; indeed, they are.
It predicts that our cells should work essentially the same as that of bacteria; indeed, they do.
It makes a *lot* of predictions, and they all bear out.
2. Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
And what if you have? (I have; they are, unfortunately, filled with lies, half-truths, and quote mining, akin to some of your other posts).
2. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
1. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
This is, in fact, one of the few things I've seen in here that are valid.
Unfortunately, what it's not valid as is as a response to that.
Note: The claim does not say Naturalism disproves God; the response correctly shows that it doesn't.
However, the claim DOES say Naturalism disproves the NEED for God, and the response ignores that entirely.
5. Responding to Atheist Statements about Truth
1. There are no absolute truths
1. To say there are no absolute truths is an attempt to state an absolute truth. If your statement is true, then it is self contradictory, and not true and you are wrong.
True enough, but I fail to see the relevance.
Also, there's a subtle thing in there that you might not notice; it attempts to subtly equate everyone who disagrees with CARM's specific brand of fundamentalism with athiests. I'm sure you'll agree that's not true.