Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[low preference guy]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

There is no cause for that. The existence of the universe as a whole doesn't have a cause.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There is no cause for that. The existence of the universe as a whole doesn't have a cause.

Right.... And those words you typed on the screen just now don't have a cause either, right? They just "are".

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There is no cause for that. The existence of the universe as a whole doesn't have a cause.

Then why does existence exist? (if I may ask)

 

[low preference guy]

Right.... And those words you typed on the screen just now don't have a cause either, right? They just "are".

Do you have an intelligent argument against what I said?

 

[low preference guy]

Then why does existence exist? (if I may ask)

What could the cause of existence be? Something that's not existing?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What could the cause of existence be? Something that's not existing?

I'm not sure what the cause of existence is. However, it is assumed by everyone (AFAIK) that existence itself is axiomatic. I can't prove it, but a creator/creative force of some sort existing outside of time is more likely than a spontaneous, random sequence of events leading from non-existence -> existence.

 

[low preference guy]

I'm not sure what the cause of existence is. However, it is assumed by everyone (AFAIK) that existence itself is axiomatic. I can't prove it, but a creator/creative force of some sort existing outside of time is more likely than a spontaneous, random sequence of events leading from non-existence -> existence.

But that creator/creative force has to already exist before it causes other things to exist. So the existence of the creator/creative force doesn't have a cause.

 

[dannno]

Perhaps you will be the one, then, to explain how matter was originally created if, as science states, matter can neither be created nor destroyed

Cool new stuff on matter

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...te-antimatter-they-can-actually-study/239933/

Answers this:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

 

[low preference guy]

Answers this:

where?

 

[MelissaWV]

where?

I didn't see it, either, so I'm glad I wasn't alone.

 

[Maximus]

Cool new stuff on matter

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...te-antimatter-they-can-actually-study/239933/

Answers this:

I understand the intricacies of the Big Bang, but this doesn't answer where the forces that caused the Big Bang came from.

Hawking said it was "gravity" well where did "gravity" come from, did it just randomly come into existence all on its own.

 

[MelissaWV]

I understand the intricacies of the Big Bang, but this doesn't answer where the forces that caused the Big Bang came from.

Hawking said it was "gravity" well where did "gravity" come from, did it just randomly come into existence all on its own.

Nor where the matter involved came from. It obviously did not create itself out of nothing, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed. If it existed in another state, then what was it prior to that? And prior to that? At its inception, Science finds itself painted into the same corner as Religion.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

But that creator/creative force has to already exist before it causes other things to exist. So the existence of the creator/creative force doesn't have a cause.

True. It's at this point where science and religion effectively merge. Both have unprovable hypotheses, and a great deal of faith in them.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Nor where the matter involved came from. It obviously did not create itself out of nothing, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed. If it existed in another state, then what was it prior to that? And prior to that? At its inception, Science finds itself painted into the same corner as Religion.

Drat! You beat me to this point by mere seconds! /pouts

 

[BUSHLIED]

Well this whole challenge you have presented is illogical since it starts with the assumption of theism, then ask people who do not believe to refute it. The burden of proof is on the theist, the one making the claim, not the atheist. The atheist position is not making the outrageous claim.

So I guess you can say my argument is that I refute your assumption of a deity.

What an appropriate response for the first response. The reply is exactly correct. The burden of proof is on the theist to "prove" or present evidence that supports the claim that a GOD exists...not the Atheist. As an agnostic, I see NO evidence of god in this world...even our own existence is a complete mystery. Props to Dustancostine for knocking out of the park on your first swing!

 

[MelissaWV]

I've learned from this thread (as I have learned previously in almost all the other atheism-related threads) that a lot of folks really need to figure out what the difference is between atheists and agnostics.

Anyhow, if you make that face HB it will stay that way; don't pout.

 

[Dustancostine]

Perhaps you will be the one, then, to explain how matter was originally created if, as science states, matter can neither be created nor destroyed

Why are you assuming a begining?..... There is no such thing as time, it is just a measurement of change used by humans.

And children are born without self awarenress... They sense and react but no awareness, I would not call this atheism, they canot know anything

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why are you assuming a begining?..... There is no such thing as time, it is just a measurement of change used by humans.

And children are born without self awarenress... They sense and react but no awareness, I would not call this atheism, they canot know anything

Says who?

 

[ClayTrainor]

I've learned from this thread (as I have learned previously in almost all the other atheism-related threads) that a lot of folks really need to figure out what the difference is between atheists and agnostics.

Atheism vs Theism are terms describing belief in a God, or lack thereof. Theism is a belief in one or more "God". Atheism is the absence of the belief in any "God".

Agnosticism is with regards to knowledge instead of belief. If one does NOT KNOW f there is or isn't a God, they are Agnostic. If one KNOWS there is or isn't a god, they are Gnostic.

Agnosticism is not an alternative to theism/Atheism. You can have Agnostic/Gnostic Atheists, and Agnostic/Gnostic theists.

How close / far off am i so far?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well, being that everyone is born an atheist, why don't YOU give us a reason why you chose a different path - a path of following a fairy in the sky? I gave up santa claus a long time ago, why don't you? Give is a logical reason; the burden of proof is on you, not atheists.

If in all the evidence within an infinite universe there exists only a single anomaly arguing to the contrary, one can only have faith.