Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

I just, wow. ATHEISM IS NOT A SOUND "BELIEF," AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO DEFEND IT.

Please. All humans are born NOT believing in a higher power, and then are introduced to the concept later. I'd say the burden of proof is on the people constantly shoving this idea down out throats.

 

Atheism needs no defense.

You are the one claiming reality isn't real. The burden is on you and your 3 (not 10) points are evidence god does not exist since they infer the creation of life from nothing is impossible. They support atheists and debunk their critics.

Unless you're willing to offer more points I think we might as well close this thread.

 

Unfortunately for you I have given proof. You are just ignoring the fact. Regardless of whom or what created the universe; it was created. It cannot be created on its own; life cannot be created without life and the universe cannot create order through entropy.

So if you think your arrogance can just tell me "Well I say so, then it's true" would be just as real as me saying "My religion is true because a talking crocaduck told me.

 

Sorry, before you read just the last comments; I have given my proof. Now it is up to the Atheists to show their proof that the Universe can exist without existing; life can be made without life and the universe can organize through chaos.

Until Atheism can show evidence that this can happen; then it is not very sound at all.

 

"The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."

and I'm using your wikipedia for reference too.

 

the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists would disagree with your semantics.

in practice an atheist is just someone who lacks belief in god, not claims to know god does not exist or claims to be able to prove it. it refers to someone who rejects the evidence for god.

semantically an agnostic refers to someone who thinks it's in principal not possible to know if god exists or not. so technically it does not apply to someone who doesn't care, or to someone just because they are uncertain.

and a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic, and most atheists are agnostic. you're an exception.

 

And

How is my statement of The Law First Law of Thermal Dynamic mass and energy different than what I described?

 

well, by your definition of the term it actually does. "strong" atheism, which is your claim that you have knowledge that no god exists, does bring a burden of proof.

 

Last point is B.S.? Show me evidence that life must create life is B.S.? I think there is no fallacy on point two? And regardless if you cannot create energy to matter; which I disagree; explain that mass and energy even exists from nothing?

 

i don't think it's even relevant, since your premise requires that atheists claim matter/energy emerged from nothing, which they don't.

 

Yeah right. here's a smiley. It created the universe. I have given you proof, you are just ignoring the fact....ghoti created the universe.


Atheism is the knowledge that god is fiction. Only proof of god's existence can alter that fact. You've offered no proof or even token evidence that god is real.

So far all you've done is claim he couldn't have created life out of nothing, which is what atheists say.

You have not even laid out anything to support your premise, so there's really nothing here to debate.

 

Matter/energy has infinitely been present in some form? If so, to me, that would be a quantum leap in logic.

 

Something has to be eternal, I think logical reasoning points to a Creator. All the evidence we have supports a Creator, plus we have the Bible as God's infallible Word.

 

Thought u would say that because that goes against number two.

 

Also, the physical universe most definitely had a finite beginning. If it didn't, the energy it operates on would have burned out an infinitely long time ago.