Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Add that another possibility that an intelligence can be a factor; and you can see hundred's of squares. So as one or a few can be counted; the possibility that someone else made those squares is even more "probable"

 

Maybe this link will tell you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

 

So now that we got that squared away; let's get back to the original topic at hand. Remember that we aren't proving the "Hebrew God", Jesus, or even Mohammad the profit are connected. We are discussing the possibility that the Universe and life itself could have a "creator". Keep that in mind before we move forward.

 

It's not really a discussion of possibilities. You are attempting to prove the existence of god, by providing evidence atheism is not a sound belief. Carry on.

 

Art and science, the self and philosophy, politics and economics, marriage and the family, right and wrong, body and soul - all have been radically transformed by the Christian influence throughout history.

There are more books written about Jesus than anyone who ever lived (more than twice as many as runner up), The Western calendar split the years based on the birth and death/resurrection of Christ (B.C. and A.D.), the Gospel message has powerfully changed lives and nations for centuries, and there is historical and archaeological attestations of Jesus, and He's mentioned by many ancient historians as well.

So back to my default question: if Jesus never existed, who made Him up? Why did they do it? How did they convince so many people He actually lived, let alone is the Son of God, now and throughout history? Basically if you deny the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth then you are denying the central figure of human history. In this case, an explanation needs to be given. If you can answer these questions without making me laugh and sounding like a complete nutjob conspiracy theorist, I'll do my best to respond.

 

Always willing to listen, but "I was sitting in the kitchen and suddenly realized god existed" is something I've heard often enough to know it won't be followed up with rational support of any kind.

I have noticed that nearly all who "become believers" later in life usually do so after something happens to make them lose faith in themselves or those they are close to. A divorce, a prison sentence, a career failure... Desperation and low self esteem breed dependence and an eagerness to please others, while seeking an escape from personal responsibility. Join a religion or join the military and you have an instant new family who will do all your thinking for you.

 

Well isn't that the point? If you take into context that an "Atheist" believes there is no God; then I need to provide evidence that God exists? On the same token; then is question #6.

6.) What evidence does the Atheist have that "God does not exist?".

Okay picture this thread as the court room. People reading this thread are the jury. Some believe in God, others don't, some really don't know or care for that matter. And since this is a debate on the existence of God; then wouldn't the Atheist need to provide evidence that God does not exist?

All I've seen so far, are the attempts to refute my evidence. I haven't seen the defense give one piece of evidence that God exists. So I ask the defense to give this evidence.

 

You're right, I might convince them all given enough time.

 

Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

And please stay on topic (hopefully mods can help us out here; and slap me if I'm going off topic too please). I don't want this thread to go from Jesus doesn't exist to God is a mass murderer. I also don't want silly questions about "Who made God?" And in this thread; this has nothing to do with "The Hebrew God" or any other for that matter.

This is about Atheism is not a sound belief. Okay? And I know a few of you in here have professions in Physics and some others believe they have quite a bit of knowledge of science in general. So I will not give "Faith" answers; nor will I take "Faith" questions as well. And to my fellow Christian brothers, or from any other Religion, please no youtube links or Dogma. I wanna see how we can keep this on topic civily.

With that; I will limit this to arguments of "lack of comprehension". That is like a blind person arguing that purple doesn't exist; when there is enough evidence from people able to see that proves it does exists. Also, since science has only determined the universe being a closed system (without any outside influence); we shall keep it that way. Okay here we go:

10 reasons why I have evidence that Atheism does not exist
But I am going to use my first 3. I think there is a lot to chew on and debate only on these three things. Keep in mind I have 7 more.

1.) The First Law of Thermal Dynamics - Conservation of "energy" law.
• In the universe, you have matter and energy.
• Matter and energy can be converted to each other, but it cannot be created out of nothing.
• Also matter and energy cannot be destroyed to were it ceases to exist.

So you can’t make matter/energy disappear from existence, nor can you make matter/energy from nothing. If there were no God, then it would be impossible to have all that’s in the universe exist from nothing.

So my question is “How do you violate the first law of thermodynamics by the creation of matter and energy?” It’s impossible scientifically.

2.) The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics – “heat” law.
• Everything will return to a state of “equilibrium”

In laymen’s terms: If I have a cup of coffee and I toss some ice in it; eventually they are going to be the same temperature.

• Things go from order to chaos
In laymen’s terms: Things degrade, things get sloppier.

So my question is: How can the universe violate the second law of thermo dynamics by gaining complexity from a “less complex” beginning?

Because if the universe was this condensed mass of quadrillion stars, planets, etc. condensed within itself; that wouldn't have more order than this vast universe we see today.

3.) Life cannot come from none-life
• There hasn’t been a single observation that life came from non-life.
• There is no test whatsoever that can prove life can be created by non-life.
• There are no predictions that can be made that produces life from non-life.

------------------------------------------------------------


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.

6.) What evidence does the Atheist have that "God does not exist?".

Okay picture this thread as the court room. People reading this thread are the jury. Some believe in God, others don't, some really don't know or care for that matter. And since this is a debate on the existence of God; then wouldn't the Atheist need to provide evidence that God does not exist?

All I've seen so far, are the attempts to refute my evidence. I haven't seen the defense give one piece of evidence that God does not exists. So I ask the defense to give this evidence.

 

I posted the update for item #6. I will have 3 more in a few days. I believe that there is enough to discuss until then.

 

I don't think anyone who actually knows God will be convinced by an angry little fella like yourself.

 

I might potentially agree with you, MARIS, had I thought this was some sort of whim or "crutch". However, as I had mentioned, I've had confirming power upon confirming power over the course of well over 20 years which continues to affirm my faith. In that period of time, my life has taken many twists and turns, highs and lows. Through it all, God/Jesus has been my rock and my strength....my joy and my sustainer.......my co-pilot, as it were. It's a beautiful thing, man.

 

So you are discrediting historical evidence then? This is very interesting... Are you discrediting what Bart Ehrman said; and how he even said 1,000 of credit scholars agree?

 

The defense has to give evidence here? No, the reason they haven't given evidence is sort of an innocent until proven guilty thing. You are trying to prove something, so you have to prove it. It's easy for many to refute the evidence, without a need at all to provide evidence of their own. in an actual case, if you were trying to provide evidence of, say, a murder, and the defense was able to shoot down all of your evidence, they don't need to provide evidence of their own really. Because your case and attempt to prove would fail.
So if there was a sound rebuttal for each piece of your evidence, by attempting to prove something themselves, the defense is just talking unnecessarily.

And, this has been mentioned to death, the burden of proof, if one is required, lies on proving something DOES exist. Unicorn, Santa, big foot, loch ness monster. Burden of proof for those that believe in those would be on them. It makes no logical sense to say i believe there are unicorns. Prove to me there are not, otherwise, there clearly are.

 

Not even remotely close, plus we're talking about actual historical people, not fairy tale wizards.

There are established creeds written within three years of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Many ancient historians from that time period attested to Christ. If you're seriously trying to argue that Jesus of Nazareth never lived then you are on a short list of crazies. No respected historian in the world would agree with you.

 

That is not evidence. That is your opinion. And I have already made a rebuttal on that Argument from ignorance. Even on the link you provided; explains my form of evidence is valid. So again, do you or do you not have any evidence that God does not exist?

 

Of course unicorns hold a ton of relevance to the question of whether the universe was created or not.