Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[itsnobody]

If you understood M-theory you would realise there is no need for a god in the creation of our universe. Yes, it maybe a theory and so is god but at least its a rational one.


"..It is at least a suggestion of an intelligence behind the organization and creation of all the myriad compounds, processes, and interactions that govern our daily life..." - MelissaWV

Most can be explained if not all. There is no need to create a deity to explain them.

The type of God I believe in is not a Creator, as in a human-like designer, and the type of God I believe in also involves the origin of everything, so the M-theory poses no contradiction.

 

[itsnobody]

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!

This is not true.

The burden of proof lies on whomsoever makes the claim.

Using your reasoning if I claim "The string theory is false" or "abiogenesis is false" the burden of proof would lie upon those those who believe in abiogenesis or the string theory, and not me, when in reality the burden of proof would lie on me.

As for evidence, you're just using an argument from ignorance.

There cannot exist scientific evidence for any untestable hypothesis. What is means is regardless of if an untestable hypothesis is true or false, there shouldn't be evidence.

Meaning:

If it's true that God, multiple universes, the string theory, or any other untestable hypothesis is true, then there cannot be any scientific evidence.

And if it's false and God, multiple universes, the string theory, or any other untestable hypothesis is false, then there cannot be any scientific evidence.

Here's a simple example, when Einstein imagined up General Relativity in 1907, there was no shred of scientific evidence for General Relativity, so using an atheist's reasoning, General Relativity should be false, since they believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It was only after Einstein figured out the mathematics for General Relativity and found ways to test his hypothesis was it possible to gather scientific evidence. Without the mathematics Einstein just had an imagination, an idea.

If Einstein or someone else had never found a way to test his General Relativity hypothesis then to this day there wouldn't exist any scientific evidence.

It's impossible to gather scientific evidence for any untestable hypothesis.

 

[itsnobody]

lulz @ itsnobody for the good troll by presenting the challenge and then walking away...

There aren't any logical bases for any of the arguments on the origins of matter. Anything from science is theory and anything from religion is faith. In the end, nothing is really known. So to debate the unknown in the realm of logic is pointless.

I am agnostic for I can admit I don't know. I am a philospher of sorts in that I need not any proof to support my position. That is for scientists and theists to sort out.

Pass the popcorn Theocrat....

I don't know what you're referring to, I haven't walked away from anything.

Logic is not pointless, logic helps us determine the truth.

 

[itsnobody]

There are hundreds. When you refute the Logical Impossibility of Causation found here: Infidels-Causation
We can find another one for you.

Well why not explain the argument here instead of posting links?

As for that argument, it is just a straw man. I do not believe God as in a first cause, but rather a first and last. God is also not a causer the same way other things are, God is like something that's all-existing, unchangeable, unborn.

 

[itsnobody]

The likelihood that god exists is exactly the same as the likelihood that there is a flying spaghetti monster in the sky.

There is no evidence for god, so arguing in favor of it is silly. Just as if I said the FSM is real, you would say I was ridiculous, right?

Just a non-sequitur, the existence of God has nothing to do with the existence of an FSM.

You can't measure the likelihood of one thing by measuring the likelihood of something completely different, so it's just a common non-sequitur used by atheists.

Using your reasoning I can claim that the string theory or multiple universes must be unlikely because a Flying Spaghetti Monster is unlikely (non-sequitur)

Just another illogical argument.

 

[itsnobody]

Nobody needs to disprove God. Do you have a desire to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster? No, you think the entire idea is silly.

What "evidence" is there for god, by the way?

Boy, this will be good.

Just the same non-sequitur as I pointed out above.

Also absence of evidence for an empirically untestable hypothesis is not evidence of absence.

EVERYTHING in modern science lacked evidence and was unproven during the time period that it was empirically untestable, so using an atheist's reasoning everything in modern science should be false or unlikely to be true.

 

[itsnobody]

The logic is very simple. God is not proven to exist. If you cannot prove his existence then you cannot say an atheist position is illogical. No more so can one disprove his existence and claim a theistic position is illogical.

Just the same argument from ignorance.

Lack of proof or evidence for an empirically untestable hypothesis does not indicate that a hypothesis is false or unlikely.

Rather the correct reasoning is that lack of evidence for an empirically testable hypothesis that's been tested is evidence that a hypothesis is false or unlikely.

Just another illogical argument.

 

[itsnobody]

can we debate whether or not a person would still believe in the same god if he/she was born on a different continent next?

I love that one....

Just the same illogical argument I pointed out previously.

You can't determine whether or not a belief is true by determining the psychology behind the belief.

So it's not relevant at all.

 

[itsnobody]

It's not up to the atheist or the Christian to prove/disprove their faith or lack thereof. It's up to God to prove who he is. It takes faith to believe, but in every case in the Bible, God took the initiative to communicate with mankind. Jesus is the culmination or fulcrum of his revelation toward us.

Philip requested of Jesus, "Show us the Father and it is sufficient for us."

Jesus replied, "Philip, have I been so long with you and you do not understand? He who has seen me has seen the Father."

We, as Christians, have failed in that we haven't properly exercised or demonstrated our faith which would provide opportunities for others to believe.

Jesus told his disciples, "They [those who do not believe] will know that you are my disciples by the way you love one another."

How do we demonstrate or exercise the kind of faith that reproduces the love that Jesus said was the defining character of a genuine Christian disciple? What evidence do we display that screams of Jesus?

Our answer should, and must be, "He who has seen me has seen Jesus."

Once we learn to get our egos (selfishness) out of the way by allowing Jesus to conform us to his nature, or Spirit, then will any arguments to the contrary will be dispelled. It is by our cooperation with Jesus that others would be more compelled or inclined to believe because they would see him rather than us; or more accurately, they would see his Spirit living through and in us.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim, so if atheists claim to be logical, then the burden is on them.

So if you admit that there's no logical reason to be an atheist then the burden wouldn't be on you.

 

[itsnobody]

So in conclusion...

Well I've exhausted all the arguments here and shown all of the atheistic arguments to be completely illogical.

It can be 100% certain to the extent that there doesn't even exist the smallest, slightest, most infinitesimal doubt that there is no logical reason to be an atheist, there is nothing logical about atheists, there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument

So anyone else have any other arguments?

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

I challenge any atheist to give me even one logical atheistic argument or logical reason for being an atheist.

I've seen lots of atheistic arguments and have never seen even one logical argument from atheists. I declare that there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

Everything is free and open, as soon as you provide your argument I'll just explain how it's illogical.

There is no logical reason to be an atheist.

There's no reason to believe that there is a god. Therefore I do not believe in a god.

Your confidence is highly misplaced.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

This 'Flying Spagetti Monster' used by atheists to try to build an argument against the existence of God is such a poor analogous example, that when it is mentioned, I can't help but giggle because of how amusing it is. This 'being' (which of course, nobody believes in, neither atheist nor theist) does not compare to what theists believe in, that is, it does not compare to a transcendent God Who has revealed Himself to humans throughout the history of mankind. The atheist, because they have not seen with their own eyes (which can only see a miniscule spectrum of energy wavelength), and because they cannot comprehend a being that would be outside the limits of time and space and their fallible three pound brain and the limited sensual perceptions associated with it, then quite arrogantly presumes that God must not exist. Oh the folly! Oh the vanity! That because their tiny brains cannot accept God Who is beyond them that He must not exist!

This 'being' called the Flying Spagetti Monster, which is used by atheists to mock those who believe in God, is a recent term, of which even those 'adherents' to this 'monster' do so jokingly with no serious faith in such a being's existence.

Where in history can they point to people believing in such a being made of linguini? The belief of God, on the other hand, goes as far back as human history, across all cultures around the entire globe.
Where in history can they point to prophecies which infer about a being made of pasta? Are there any? Whereas the prophecies of the Bible are numerous, coming true even today with revelations. In the Old Testament alone, the prochecies about Jesus Christ number over 250, including how He would be born, where He would be born, when He would be born -to the very year!-, how He would die, the miracles He would perform, etc, etc. Never, ever, in the history of mankind, have so many prophecies been so specifically fulfilled then with the Person of Jesus Christ.

Think on this, the probability that Jesus could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies (forget about the remaining 250) would be only 1 in 10^17. That's 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000!

That would be enough silver dollars to cover the face of the entire state of Texas two feet deep. Now I've been never been to Texas, but I know it is a big state and can take many hours and even days to drive across. Who in their right mind would suppose that a blindfolded man, heading out of Dallas by foot in any direction, would be able, on his very first attempt, to pick up one specifically marked silver dollar out of 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000?

The reasons are many as to why using a make-believe and mockingly-derived Flying Spagetti Monster to compare with God is a false comparison, and I really could go on and on, but the greatest and most profound proof has to do with the testimony of man and that men and women have since the beginning of time given the greatest witness possible (that is, with their very lives) to witness to the belief in the existence of God. That God has revealed Himself, not only in the forms of a Burning Bush or a Dark Cloud or a Pillar of Fire or ultimately in the Person of Jesus Christ, that is, to the vision and hearing and touching of which men and women have experienced and recorded and suffered for and ultimately died for, but even greater and more profound, with the experience of God witihin the hearts of countless people throughout the entire history of mankind. For God reveals Himself to the humble and poor in spirit, not to the proud and vainglorious doubter. God reveals Himself to those pure in heart, not to those who excuse their sins and passions as a natural human attribute, as if that somehow excuses them for the evil they do.

Until the atheist, full of pride for his self-made god and idol (which is his three pound brain) humbles himself and repents, tand open the door of his heart and allow God to enter therein and reveal Himself, then he will continue to laughingly use the Flying Spagetti Monster as his crutch and his defense.

First of all, you're straw manning atheism. Atheism does not necessitate the claim that no gods exist. All it can tell you is that the atheist does not believe in a god/s. If you're curious you can go ahead and ask him/her why he/she doesn't believe in any gods and they may tell you. There'd usually be 1 of two answers (largely depending on how "god" is defined). 1) The atheist sees no reason to believe that a god exists or 2) they claim knowledge that gods do not exist.

Until you acknowledge the difference between a knowledge claim and a lack of belief you're unlikely to get anywhere in a civil discussion (presuming that is what you're after... I gotta say, it doesn't seem that way tho -whatever happened to "love thy neighbour as thyself?")

As for the rest of your post, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell's Celestial Teapot, amongst others, are not supposed to be perfectly analogous to "God". The whole point of bringing FSM or RCT up is to show the absurdity of being asked to prove that a god, whether it's your god or any other, does not exist. You cannot prove that there is no Celestial Teapot.

I hope that helps. Perhaps you can be a little more humble, some might say "Jesus-like", next time you sit down to type.

 

[BUSHLIED]

The title is misleading. There is NO challenge to atheists, rather the title should read, Free and Open Challenge to Believers. Since after-all, they are making the fantastic claim that a supernatural god exists and intervenes in the world...it is up to them to prove or show evidence that there GOD does in fact exist...good luck...

 

[Revolution9]

Do you have an intelligent argument against what I said?

You are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

HTH
Rev9

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

First of all, you're straw manning atheism. Atheism does not necessitate the claim that no gods exist. All it can tell you is that the atheist does not believe in a god/s. If you're curious you can go ahead and ask him/her why he/she doesn't believe in any gods and they may tell you. There'd usually be 1 of two answers (largely depending on how "god" is defined). 1) The atheist sees no reason to believe that a god exists or 2) they claim knowledge that gods do not exist.

Until you acknowledge the difference between a knowledge claim and a lack of belief you're unlikely to get anywhere in a civil discussion (presuming that is what you're after... I gotta say, it doesn't seem that way tho -whatever happened to "love thy neighbour as thyself?")

As for the rest of your post, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell's Celestial Teapot, amongst others, are not supposed to be perfectly analogous to "God". The whole point of bringing FSM or RCT up is to show the absurdity of being asked to prove that a god, whether it's your god or any other, does not exist. You cannot prove that there is no Celestial Teapot.

I hope that helps. Perhaps you can be a little more humble, some might say "Jesus-like", next time you sit down to type.

How could a being which exists outside of time and space intervene within it? Do we have any evidence whatsoever that a being existing in such a state is possible?

Furthermore, what is the basis behind your assertion of Christianity's superiority?(Including the superiority of your sect of Christianity against other sects of the same.)

 

[Revolution9]

How could a being which exists outside of time and space intervene within it? Do we have any evidence whatsoever that a being existing in such a state is possible?

Furthermore, what is the basis behind your assertion of Christianity's superiority?(Including the superiority of your sect of Christianity against other sects of the same.)

Creations exist. The Creator creates. We are a Creation as is the god the atheists constantly refer to and place that little word "exist/s" in context with making their argument self-referential and booby-trapped for the unaware. Man -The Creation. From whence does that template assemble itself? Is there a Prime Template of Man? Reason would logic it so. Even the joints and anatomical structures point out the self embedding irrational number Phi. Interestingly enough the molecule laminin holding all living cells together in our body looks just like the Christian Cross. laminin info and images

The amazing thing is that it all goes on within you and without you

Rev9

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

How could a being which exists outside of time and space intervene within it? Do we have any evidence whatsoever that a being existing in such a state is possible?

Furthermore, what is the basis behind your assertion of Christianity's superiority?(Including the superiority of your sect of Christianity against other sects of the same.)

I make no such assertion. I don't believe in any god.

 

[robertwerden]

The funny thing is, a true god denier will not even reply to your thread because they think you are absolutely nuts for believing in god and want nothing to do with you.
I could care less if you believe in god or aliens or my little pony, as long as you don't push your shit on me there will be no punch to your face.

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

It was to "TodaysEpistlesReading", sorry.

 

[TER]

First of all, you're straw manning atheism. Atheism does not necessitate the claim that no gods exist. All it can tell you is that the atheist does not believe in a god/s. If you're curious you can go ahead and ask him/her why he/she doesn't believe in any gods and they may tell you. There'd usually be 1 of two answers (largely depending on how "god" is defined). 1) The atheist sees no reason to believe that a god exists or 2) they claim knowledge that gods do not exist.

Until you acknowledge the difference between a knowledge claim and a lack of belief you're unlikely to get anywhere in a civil discussion (presuming that is what you're after... I gotta say, it doesn't seem that way tho -whatever happened to "love thy neighbour as thyself?")

As for the rest of your post, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell's Celestial Teapot, amongst others, are not supposed to be perfectly analogous to "God". The whole point of bringing FSM or RCT up is to show the absurdity of being asked to prove that a god, whether it's your god or any other, does not exist. You cannot prove that there is no Celestial Teapot.

I hope that helps. Perhaps you can be a little more humble, some might say "Jesus-like", next time you sit down to type.

Thank you for your reply. You are right that I could be a little more humble. I beg your forgiveness and will try to control my tongue (or in this case, my typing fingers!) If I sound obtrusive and stubborn, it is because I am weak and lack many virtues and do not have perfect patience. Please forgive me.

(speaking of perfect patience, maybe in another thread we can discuss what 'perfect patience' is? Can you tell me what perfect patience is? I would be interested in knowing if you do or if you know where I might learn about it.)

In reading your post, I am happy to see how you used some very beloved commandments of Jesus Christ, namely that we are to "love thy neighbour as thyself" and that we should be humble before men.

On thinking about these above commandments, is there anything you disagree with? Or were you just mentioning them in order to point out my hypocrisy?

I ask in earnest because if we are to begin discussing such important and essential matters in earnest, namely virtues (or do you deny there is such a thing as virtues? ), then we must first come to understand what each of us believes (or does not believe).

Do you believe that we must "love thy neighbour as thyself" and that should be of humble disposition?