Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Nice work, man -- it was a sweet dime!

 

Guys we should gives mags some credit here for coming here to learn and demonstrating that he can change his opinion if convinced. This isn't something Shooter would do (though it would be a lot more hilarious).

Mags, if you really changed your opinions on the age of the universe and evolution based on internet forum arguments, I would wonder what you would think after even a years worth of college level physics. You're obviously smart and open to new information.

I don't get why intelligent design advocates need to try and undermine scientific principles just to shoehorn God into the conversation and try to discount the big bang or the start of life on earth. God can still certainly be involved. I mean, he is a giant magic man in the sky, he can do anything. ANYTHING! Why can't he just be the "author" of all the rules of the universe? The rules that caused the big bang and the start of life. The rules that we're trying hard to understand, but we still don't know them ALL yet. You can still stay "God did it." But, just not how the Bible says so. You already said you're open to an ancient universe and evolution, which run counter to the Bible, then why not the big bang and the start of life?

 

Sounds like something copied/pasted from a creationist web site by a person who never took Physics 101. Nothing I haven't seen copied/pasted a thousand times already.

 

I actually believe the big bang theory could happen. In fact I actually think the big bang did happen. The difference is, I think a designer designed the big bang. After the universe was completed, then he designed life. Either it be through evolution by seeding the right types of organisms to help macro evolution or putting us here to be without macro evolution. Either way is possible.

 

I actually believe the big bang theory could happen. In fact I actually think the big bang did happen. The difference is, I think a designer designed the big bang. After the universe was completed, then he designed life. Either it be through evolution by seeding the right types of organisms to help macro evolution or putting us here to be without macro evolution. Either way is possible.

 

Copied and paste, no. But definitely some of the creationist arguments that I have adopted yes. Wouldn't be anything more than, let's say you that have been taught physics 101 and used what you learned and create a case God doesn't exist.

If you actually think one man has the answers for everything, then you believe more about the improbable than I do.

 

Or Julius Caesar, or genghis khan, or so on. Yeah sounds good.

 

Are you putting Julius Caesar in the same category of proof of existence as god and unicorns?

 

According to Denny's logic. Yes...

 

the problem is that the claims of julius caeser are humanly possible. the claims of jeshua of nazareth are not humanly possible.

 

Ask any credited historian on this and they would disagree. In fact, most historians actually say that there is more historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than any of the ones I mentioned. In fact, many historians say Jesus has the most.

But this is actually off-topic to the thread. I only brought that up because I wanted to expose the logic.

 

So you're saying there's not compelling evidence that Caesar existed?

 

According to Denny's criteria, Yes...

 

what criteria did denny lay out for existence?

 

Because I've got my popcorn popping, I want to keep this conversation going:

"Anyone who claims to be guided by science in their beliefs would not deny his existence (or that of unicorns) if there were objective and measurable evidence."

I think the last phrase (objective and measurable evidence) is what Mags is talking about. Of course, the fact that Jesus only has a biography, while Casear has an autobiography might throw a monkey wrench into the works but whatevs.

 

That there is no compelling evidence that God exists; like unicorns. And since he cannot except historical data, philosophy, logic or scientific theory; then that would explain the same criteria that Caesar doesn't exist.

I remember him saying that in order for him to believe; he must see God come from heaven and talk to him in a burning bush. Well he can discount every living being not on this planet during his lifetime. It's absolutely not logical.

 

hmm, I could be wrong. But I think he's referring to god the creator, and not jesus of nazareth. I don't know what historical data, other than the bible, shows god existed. If you are speaking of jesus, different story. philosophy, logic, etc. does not need to be used for caesar.

 

The same rule applies RR7. Doesn't have to be Jesus. How can you prove that the cave paintings from prehistoric man were even made by prehistoric man? What happens when you think this way is you can go on forever. There will be no outcome. You must look at the evidence and make a logical decision one way or another. This thread can last forever and get no where with that logic.

And this is why I keep saying "I am not trying to prove anything, but give the evidence I see for you to make that choice all by yourself". I am not trying to win some argument. I am just giving a different angle. You can believe what you want because you have a "free thinking" mind. I, nor Denny, nor anyone else for that matter can force you to think in their way. Merely, they can provide you logical reasoning and possible evidence for you to make that choice all by yourself.

 

God doesn't exist.