Atheism is a belief system.

[Memories]

Prove it then.

It’s very easy to prove this, it’s the presence of evidence against a claim that matters not the absence of evidence, and for example, we have robust evidence that points out to the fact that they are no T-Rex on the planet.

And if you do believe they are T-Rex on the planet then the burden of proof is on you.

 

[dogsgod]

It’s very easy to prove this, it’s the presence of evidence against a claim that matters not the absence of evidence, and for example, we have robust evidence that points out to the fact that they are no T-Rex on the planet.

And if you do believe they are T-Rex on the planet then the burden of proof is on you.

Yes, and if you believe there's some kind of god out there the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Memories]

Yes, and if you believe there's some kind of god out there the burden of proof is on you.

Yes, and I can provide many arguments that strongly suggest the existence of God, for example the ammount of fine tuning in our universe.

Wherever we look fine tuning is apparent, for example the laws of gravity, Gravity’s’ fine tuning is apparent, If gravity were too strong, stars would have
lifetimes shorter than a billion years, and if it were too weak (or negative), no solid
bodies could exist in the universe.

Given the range of forces, gravity must be fine-tuned to one part in 10^36 Carbon is another example among many of a fine tuned universe Carbon is extremely important for the existence of life, and if it were not for the
fine-tuning of the nuclear strong force, it would not be produced in sufficient quantities to allow life. An increase or decrease of this force by approximately 1 percent would cause
this unwelcome result.

Increasing this force more than two percent would prohibit the
existence of atoms and a reduction of 5 percent or more would make stellar burning
impossible.
It all boils down to this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

I will explain, in 2 it is not due to physical necessity because Attempts to explain fine-tuning by
means of physical necessity rely on the dubious assumption that all of the laws of the
universe can be reduced to a fundamental law and fail to consider initial conditions of the
universe, this only manage to push the question of design up one step.

And It is not due to chance because of absolute
Improbability, To deny the absolute improbability, the critic must address the evidence for fine tuning, I have provided 2 nice examples above.

The universe was designed it is obvious.:shout

 

[Tristesse]

Yes, and I can provide many arguments that strongly suggest the existence of God, for example the ammount of fine tuning in our universe.

Wherever we look fine tuning is apparent, for example the laws of gravity, Gravity’s’ fine tuning is apparent, If gravity were too strong, stars would have
lifetimes shorter than a billion years, and if it were too weak (or negative), no solid
bodies could exist in the universe.

Given the range of forces, gravity must be fine-tuned to one part in 10^36 Carbon is another example among many of a fine tuned universe Carbon is extremely important for the existence of life, and if it were not for the
fine-tuning of the nuclear strong force, it would not be produced in sufficient quantities to allow life. An increase or decrease of this force by approximately 1 percent would cause
this unwelcome result.

Increasing this force more than two percent would prohibit the
existence of atoms and a reduction of 5 percent or more would make stellar burning
impossible.
It all boils down to this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

I will explain, in 2 it is not due to physical necessity because Attempts to explain fine-tuning by
means of physical necessity rely on the dubious assumption that all of the laws of the
universe can be reduced to a fundamental law and fail to consider initial conditions of the
universe, this only manage to push the question of design up one step.

And It is not due to chance because of absolute
Improbability, To deny the absolute improbability, the critic must address the evidence for fine tuning, I have provided 2 nice examples above.

The universe was designed it is obvious.:shout

None of that is proof for the existence of a god. "fine tuning" is just another way of saying, "I don't know how else this could have happened, therefore some deity used magic and and poof here we are." The god explanation has no explanatory power. Because once you've stated that a deity of some sort created the universe, you now have to explain where the deity came from. And if you can't explain where the deity came from and how he created the universe, than you really haven't explained anything, you've just stated a bold assertion about the way things happened with zero evidence to back up your claim.

 

[dogsgod]

Chance can produce finely tuned results. Take the random event of flipping a coin. The odds are fifty-fifty that the results will be that heads turns up, and to a very high degree of accuracy.

 

[Memories]

None of that is proof for the existence of a god. "Fine tuning" is just another way of saying, "I don't know how else this could have happened, therefore some deity used magic and and poof here we are."

No, I have stated that the fine-tuning present in the universe in evidence of a designed universe, which would logically imply a designer, I consider it Big-time proof. If you don’t like it well you need to offer a counter argument: you have failed to do so.

The god explanation has no explanatory power. Because once you've stated that a deity of some sort created the universe, you now have to explain where the deity came from. And if you can't explain where the deity came from and how he created the universe, than you really haven't explained anything, you've just stated a bold assertion about the way things happened

Well This objection fails to recognize that God has existed eternally and thus requires no cause. Theists don’t argue that “Whatever exists requires a cause”, but rather, “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”. Therefore, since God never began to exist, He does not require a cause.

with zero evidence to back up your claim.

well then address the evidence I gave for fine-tuning.


All the best.

 

[Memories]

Chance can produce finely tuned results. Take the random event of flipping a coin. The odds are fifty-fifty that the results will be that heads turns up, and to a very high degree of accuracy.

The odds here are not comparable at all, picture you flipping 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 + + coins and all of them turning heads, its bsolute improbability.

 

[dogsgod]

The odds here are not comparable at all, picture you flipping 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 + + coins and all of them turning heads, its bsolute improbability.

The greater number of times a coin is flipped, the greater the accuracy that heads turns up fifty percent of the time. Look at the worlds population, the number of boys and girls born is close to fifty-fifty, a result of chance.

 

[dogsgod]

Well This objection fails to recognize that God has existed eternally and thus requires no cause.

So it's possible for things to exist eternally. OK, so energy may very well have existed eternally and thus requires no cause.

 

[Memories]

The greater number of times a coin is flipped, the greater the accuracy that heads turns up fifty percent of the time. Look at the worlds population, the number of boys and girls born is close to fifty-fifty, a result of chance.

In the case of the universes these coins were flipped only once, and they all turned out heads(life permitting universe).

Like I said, this is absolutely improbable and points towards design.

 

[Memories]

Well This objection fails to recognize that God has existed eternally and thus requires no cause.

So it's possible for things to exist eternally. OK, so energy may very well have existed eternally and thus requires no cause.

Again you show your misunderstanding of these concepts: energy cannot be eternal because in order to exist it requires a cause, and since energy is physical there is no infinite regression of causes.

I did not say ‘’ things’’ I said God by his given definition.


I hope this helps.

 

[Amill]

It’s very easy to prove this, it’s the presence of evidence against a claim that matters not the absence of evidence, and for example, we have robust evidence that points out to the fact that they are no T-Rex on the planet.

And if you do believe they are T-Rex on the planet then the burden of proof is on you.

Are you going to prove it yet? Have you checked every single place on earth? What if they are invisible or undetectable? Can you prove invisible undetectable tyrannosaurus rexs don't exist?

But, then again, insufficiency of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Memories]

Im glad you agree.

 

[Memories]

Are you going to prove it yet? Have you checked every single place on earth? What if they are invisible or undetectable? Can you prove invisible undetectable tyrannosaurus rexs don't exist?

well from this faulty line of reasoning then... nothing can be proven, what proof have you that I’m not an alien typing at this very computer? How can you prove that you are alive?

But we cannot think like that because then there wouldn’t be any reason to believe anything!: which is false. Unless you’re some sort of hard core sceptic.

So in that case might as well throw the theory of evolution out into the bin, because it cannot be proven and go jump off a bridge, because you cannot prove that you will die after the impact!

FUNNY STUFF.

 

[Amill]

well from this faulty line of reasoning then... nothing can be proven, what proof have you that I’m not an alien typing at this very computer? How can you prove that you are alive?

But we cannot think like that because then there wouldn’t be any reason to believe anything!: which is false. Unless you’re some sort of hard core sceptic.

So in that case might as well throw the theory of evolution out into the bin, because it cannot be proven and go jump off a bridge, because you cannot prove that you will die!

FUNNY STUFF.

It's the same reasoning you use to defend god, call it faulty if you like. And if we use a reasoning where things can be 100% proven, we can prove that god does not exist on this planet because we have an abundance of evidence that doesn't include a detectable presence of god. Right? Like you said, we don't have to cling to the absence of evidence because we have evidence against your claim.

 

[dogsgod]

Again you show your misunderstanding of these concepts: energy cannot be eternal because in order to exist it requires a cause, and since energy is physical there is no infinite regression of causes.

I did not say ‘’ things’’ I said God by his given definition.


I hope this helps.

You contradict yourself. You claim entities require cause, and then claim that your God entity does not require a cause. Don't play little games with semantics and don't try to debate me, you're no match because your little nonsense claims do not appeal to the intellect, they are simply nonsensical little ramblings repeated and passed on by those that can't think for themselves. You are no match for anyone here, most everyone has heard this nonsense before, we weren't born yesterday.

 

[Memories]

You contradict yourself.

how so?

You claim entities require cause, and then claim that your God entity does not require a cause.

Well by his definition, and I have alredy stated it, God requires no cause, Im not making stuff up.

Don't play little games with semantics and don't try to debate me, you're no match

I take head of the warning.

because your little nonsense claims do not appeal to the intellect, they are simply nonsensical little ramblings repeated and passed on by those that can't think for themselves. You are no match for anyone here, most everyone has heard this nonsense before,

we weren't born yesterday.

Well then if you might want to involve your heavily philosophical self in the debate go ahead and blow these claims away with (I suspect) your number of convincing arguments you have against them.
This should be a walk in the park for you.


some other guy wrote:

we have evidence against your claim.

Well by all means provide some!

 

[Tristesse]

No, I have stated that the fine-tuning present in the universe in evidence of a designed universe, which would logically imply a designer, I consider it Big-time proof. If you don’t like it well you need to offer a counter argument: you have failed to do so.


Well This objection fails to recognize that God has existed eternally and thus requires no cause. Theists don’t argue that “Whatever exists requires a cause”, but rather, “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”. Therefore, since God never began to exist, He does not require a cause.


well then address the evidence I gave for fine-tuning.


All the best.

The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

This is a false premise. You are asserting that there are only three ways that you know of. Once again, this is an argument from ignorance. You can’t think of any other way in which this could have happened. Not to mention that you left at least one possibility out; natural causes.

It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

No one ever said that it was chance. But here you have a prime example of simply discarding other choices based on bold assertions. You’re simply stating that it cannot be physical necessity or chance, without offering any evidence or data to support that claim.

Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

You missed quite a few steps. How do you get from, “it can’t be physical necessity or chance,” to “therefore the universe was designed?” Do you know anything about this designer, do you know how he created the universe, do you know how he “fine tuned” everything? I mean these are important questions, it seems to me that the god hypothesis offers more questions than answers. You might want to spend some more time on this.

Oh and btw, if the universe wasn’t “fine tuned” as you say, we wouldn’t even be here to discuss it. We need the laws to work in order for life to exist in some capacity. So, that fact that life does exist and the physical laws work says nothing about how they got here, or how they operate.

I think you're running on emotions more than logic here. Because I bet anything that once you smuggle in some sort of deistic god, than you're going to make a special plea for one of the monotheistic gods. Who, btw needs a lot more explaining and evidence than a deistic god needs.

 

[challupa]

Memories, I could just as easily say that the troll under the bridge is the reason for all the fine tuning of the universe. No one can ever prove me wrong, at least not yet. I'm honestly baffled at what you are trying to prove here. Even if atheism was a belief or disbelief, which it isn't, what difference would that make to you. What was the purpose of this thread? It seems completely irrelevant to me.

 

[Memories]

This is a false premise. You are asserting that there are only three ways that you know of. Once again, this is an argument from ignorance.

Well, this is not an argument from ignorance, these are just the modern scientifically accepted causes for a fine tuned universe

You can’t think of any other way in which this could have happened. Not to mention that you left at least one possibility out; natural causes.

Im not sure what you mean by natural causes, please do explain,

and secondly Can you think of any other way of how this could of happened?

Oh and btw, if the universe wasn’t “fine tuned” as you say, we wouldn’t even be here to discuss it. We need the laws to work in order for life to exist in some capacity. So, that fact that life does exist and the physical laws work says nothing about how they got here, or how they operate.

I will answer to this particular claim of yours, What you bring up here is the Antropic principle, however their is some faulty reasoning in this.

For starters picture this:

imagine a firing squad of fifty well-trained

marksmen. After being convicted of high treason, you are dragged in front of the fifty
marksmen to be executed. Your body tenses up as the general counts down
3…2…1…BANG! All fifty marksmen fire their guns, and, to your absolute
astonishment, you notice that you are still alive!
It would hardly be sufficient to say; “Well, it seems unlikely that all fifty
marksmen would miss me, but there is no reason for me to be surprised that I am still
alive. After all, if I weren’t alive, then I wouldn’t be around to notice it!” Clearly, it is
appropriate to be genuinely surprised that we survived the marksmen, and at this point we
are probably entertaining the possibility that the whole thing was a hoax or a malicious​

joke.

We still ought to be surprised to observe a life-permitting universe since such​

a universe is extremely unlikely.

I think you're running on emotions more than logic here. Because I bet anything that once you smuggle in some sort of deistic god, than you're going to make a special plea for one of the monotheistic gods. Who, btw needs a lot more explaining and evidence than a deistic god needs.

My arguments are aimed at proving the existence of the judeo-christian-God and not some other God.