Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

I will certainly agree with this!

So say we all!

 

BINGO!

 

I will try and get back on this. Still trying to get the next 3 questions.

 

There is still a lot of mystery behind lightning.

 

Okay so I only made two more; because the third one is really a complex question. But I posted the next two on the OP and I will post the duplicated after this post.

 

4.) What is the alternative?

Lets imagine for a moment that you are walking along the street. You are walking next to a building and you noticed a couple hundred toothpicks lying on that sidewalk spelling your name. The toothpicks are arranged in such a way that it’s very neatly, in perfect sequence spelling out your name.

So now you are looking at these toothpicks, scratching your head and you see no one around. You look up and you see an open window on the third floor; and see an empty box that says “toothpicks” on the ledge. But you still don’t know how it got there. You don’t know how they were arranged in that way.

Now let’s say two people come along. They meet you in front of the toothpicks and you tell them. “Look at these toothpicks, they spell out my name”. And these two people are trying to explain how these toothpicks got there in that way.

Person (A) has his theory: Someone with intelligence has put those toothpicks there in that way.

Person (B) has his theory: His theory is that those toothpicks somehow fell from that window and coincidently landed in that way. That no one designed the toothpicks in that way.

So out of these two theories; which person has the true burden of proof?

The Person (B) screams out loud. You better PROVE TO ME, that intelligence designed this. You got to prove to me that someone placed those toothpicks in such a way. You have to show me the person that put the toothpicks there.

That is illogical and you know it. Simple cause and effect is evidence that God exists. Come on now, what’s more complex? The toothpicks or the human brain, the cosmos, all life on earth, the earth itself? If you can’t believe the toothpicks can’t come together on their own; then why would you believe that the human brain could?

So why would the person that believes intelligence designed the universe and everything in it must have the burden of proof; yet the person that all of the universe and it’s very existence doesn’t need proof? What’s more logical?

5.) Basic logic, common sense and reasoning

This is a hypothetical conversation between an Atheist and me. I want to tell a story; because I’m sure there will be hundreds of different responses, so bare with me.

How many of you seen an painting “The Mona Lisa”. Are you open to the possibility that no one painted the Mona Lisa? Be it having all the pigments in the earth and canvas material; that wind, billions of years have somehow put the Mona Lisa on that canvas? After all, you weren’t there when it was painted, so you couldn’t see how it was created. Neither of us can prove that we know for sure who painted that painting. So are you OPEN to the possibility that the Mona Lisa naturally became a painting we see today? YES or NO.

The Atheist will say “NO”. Then I ask “Why are you not open to that possibility”. And then the atheist will say “There is too much complexity and design for this to happen by chance”

Then I ask “What’s more complex, the Mona Lisa, or your human body?” and he answers “Well the human body of course!”. So then I ask “So you are willing to admit that your body; clearly more complex than the Mona Lisa was created by happen stance; but are unwilling to accept the Mona Lisa being created by happen stance.”

That is a total contradiction in logic.

Now sometimes an Atheist says, “Well give me enough time + chance and anything is possible” I think this logic is not true.

Let me give you another example:

Let’s say I have this clock and I completely dismantle every part of that clock. I take this clock and put it in a tin can and shake it up for 1 billion years. Is it logical that every piece of that clock will come together in perfect synergy? I think not. And guess what?!?! You actually have all the pieces necessary to make this clock; and still it isn’t logically possible.

This is another evidence to me that there was a designer.

 

Okay so you admit that it is perfectly logical that toothpicks can fall from a window and land on the sidewalk to spell out your name, over some intelligence, knowing you grabbed the toothpicks and spelt out your name?

LOL okay.... At least I know who I'm dealing with now.

 

I think the problem with 4 is stating someone with intelligence. If you say someone with intelligence designed toothpicks versus random, I go with a person putting them that way. If you say an omnipotent being nobody could see that exists everywhere, I go with the random chance over millions of years that those toothpicks might happen to spell your name.

 

We aren't even talking about my God RR7. We are talking about intelligent design.

 

LOL okay if you say so Denny. :MARIS61:

 

so your proof of someone's beliefs being not sound is silly hypotheticals? That's not great proof. It's just hypothetical situations. It doesn't have to be your god, or anyone's specific god. Things can look like they were designed intelligently, and not be so. I can splatter paint from a 2nd story building onto a canvas, and another world renowned painter can "design" a similar splatter onto canvas. One happened by chance, the other designed. My splatter doesn't disprove the painter, and vice versa.

But in everyday life, to see matchsticks, you are "hiding" part of the equation to just say hey, do you think those matchsticks got there by a smart person, or random. Well, anyone will say a person. NOW, add into that, to a person who has never heard of a god, and say hey, do you think odds are there is an omnipotent being who placed these here to give me a sign, he is all aroun dus, all knowing, yadda yadda, or they got here randomly, it becomes a bit harder to go with that side. Matchsticks placed on a sidewalk is hardly, in my opinion, a good comparison to, say, the human body. And a hypothetical as such hardly helps an argument to prove atheism isn;t a sound belief.

 

Wow that looks just as complex as the "Mona Lisa" how silly of me Denny.

 

You do know Denny, you are kinda proving my point here.