The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning

[I.S.L.A.M617]

This is a question that should be turned to Deep Thought, to which she will answer somethign to the effect of 'Banana'.
The Blind Watchmaker analogy was put forward by Dawkins quite nicely and illustrated the lack of need for a creator in order for life to take place, or 'intelligent life' as it were. in fact already in the 19th century Darwin burried the Watchmaker analogy, that the complexity of life is an indication of a creator. people who are attracted to such simple solutions, should make more effort in being more updated with 200 years of intense research into natural selection.

Fatihah's claim is that no intelligent life can exist without some form of intelligence creating it though. I'm asking him what intelligence created God.

 

[Caladan]

Fatihah's claim is that no intelligent life can exist without some form of intelligence creating it though. I'm asking him what intelligence created God.

I understand that. you are asking a master in circular reasoning to do what he does best.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah's claim is that no intelligent life can exist without some form of intelligence creating it though. I'm asking him what intelligence created God.

Response: I.S.L.A.M.617 can not quote any post of mine in which I say "no intelligent life can exist without some form of intelligence creating it though". Demonstrating once again the irrationality of the atheist arguments.

 

[Fatihah]

I understand that. you are asking a master in circular reasoning to do what he does best.

Response: I never asked you anything.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

If you were to ask an atheist about how the universe, life itself, and all that exists came to be, the answer would be scientific. Scientific study requires a key element, observation. And after extensive study through observation, atheists conclude that there is no God, or rather, there is no proof that God exist. Thus they conclude, through scientific study and observation, the origin of the universe, life itself, and all that exist. This being the case, how does an atheist view emotions? Love, happiness, sadness, laughter, etc. Where are these emotions derived from? What is it's origin? For if we look through a microscope, we can see atoms, microorganisms, etc. But you can not see sadness. Or happiness. Or love. So where do these emotions originate from and derive from, if not the human soul? And how do you know where it's derived from, if you can't see it? This alone should demonstrate that it's origin and where emotions are derived from is not visible as well, thus the human soul. Many atheists say that there is no proof of God because no one can see God. Yet they have no delay in accepting that humans have emotions, yet they can not look inside any body and see emotions. A contradiction. How do atheists explain this?

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design. That the beautiful design, perfect detail, and consistancy in which things were created was not done by intelligent design. In other words, it was done by chance. Let's look deeper. When you walk into a room, and see things placed and organized in a nice manner, do you accept that it happened by chance? That something beautifully organized and arranged, can be created without intelligence? Take the Mona Lisa painting for example. Do you believe it possible to create the Mina Lisa by chance? That someone can throw or splatter paint on paper, and the end result can be a beautiful piece of art work like the Mina Lisa? Or would it be more reasonable to believe that the Mona Lisa was created by intelligent design? Do you accept that something by chance or unintelligence, can create something intelligent? Is it not more logical, that something made of intelligence can only be created by intelligence? Thus the intelligence and conformity in the creation of the universe, life itself, and all that exists, had to be created by intelligent design?

Response: I.S.L.A.M.617 can not quote any post of mine in which I say "no intelligent life can exist without some form of intelligence creating it though". Demonstrating once again the irrationality of the atheist arguments.

Will the OP do?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Response: I.S.L.A.M.617 can not quote any post of mine in which I say "no intelligent life can exist without some form of intelligence creating it though". Demonstrating once again the irrationality of the atheist arguments.

So when we speak of how the creation of humans came to be, it had to originate from someone of intelligence, because humans are intelligent beings. Simple. What other proof does an atheist need? If an atheist rejects the idea that someone or something of intelligence created the universe, then you are saying that unintelligence created intelligence, which makes no sense. Unintelligence can not create intelligence because by definition, it's not intelligent. Whatever caused the universe to be had to come from intelligence, if the creation is intelligent.

I dare you to tell me you didn't say this...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: You mean like the trolling you do because of the anger you feel after having your arguments utterly debunked over and over and over and over again? Yes, I can see that.

Mestemia isn't trolling. You want to accuse him of trolling because he is refuting your position and you have no defense for your ludicrous claims.

The anger and frustration is yours, Fatihah - not Mestemia's.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... because you constantly fail in comprehending the simple english presented.

In this post, you accuse Autodidact of not comprehending simple English.
And in the very next post, you mistakenly label me as an atheist:

Another example of the flawed logic presented by some atheists.

I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I've probably had to point that out to you five or six times, but you don't seem capable of grasping that fact. The worst part is, the fact that I'm an agnostic is clearly stated directly below my avatar.

Now, I know that you don't seem to be capable of admitting your limitations (numerous as they are), but even you should be able to see the irony of how pointless a conversation is with someone that can't comprehend English - like yourself.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Fatihah's claim is that no intelligent life can exist without some form of intelligence creating it though. I'm asking him what intelligence created God.

... and you might as well be asking a third grader how nuclear fission works. The third grader might not know the answer, but he'd probably try to evade it, or throw out some innocuous BS to try to impress someone.

Now, where have we seen that before?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: I.S.L.A.M.617 can not quote any post of mine in which I say "no intelligent life can exist without some form of intelligence creating it though". Demonstrating once again the irrationality of the atheist arguments.

Again with the intentional use of gross generalizations.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I dare you to tell me you didn't say this...

Surely you don't think he's going to admit to his own writings, do you?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Surely you don't think he's going to admit to his own writings, do you?

I shouldn't get my hopes up...

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Funny how you don't include the actual statement in question with it's proper context. Why not? Perhaps this is another one of your lies, or another example of your lack of comprehension that you don't want exposed. I understand.

I'm done talking to you. Please have the courtesy to not address me. Thank you.

 

[DarkSun]

Response: Which makes such a rejection illogical when scientists themselves create or design by intelligence. So to have those same scientists reject intelligent design or to say that science rejects intelligent design is illogical and contrary to science to begin with.

The fact that we can design doesn't have any relevance at all to the idea that God designed everything. With that in mind, just because we have objective evidence that we can design doesn't mean we have objective evidence that God can design. Science is about what can be proven. Intelligent Design cannot be proven, since there is no evidence for it, therefore it is not science, it is a personal philosophy.

There are atheists out there who believe in Intelligent Design, you do realise that? Atheism = anti-theism. In other words, it's the view that there is no God. However, there is the belief among some people that we were designed by aliens. Richard Dawkins actually likes this version of Intelligent Design himself, actually. But that doesn't mean he has any evidence to support this viewpoint - therefore, it's not science.

 

[nrg]

Response: To first state a fallacy, you can do so with fallacious english.

English isn't my first language, not that I really see how that has anything to do with anything, I've quite clearly demonstrated how an argument based upon a metaphor is open to overload statements, and thus is known as a runaway metaphor.

What is a metaphor of patterns with known creators? The statement itself makes no sense.

Ok, I'll once again make a slightly modified version of your statement. That statement begins with patterns created by known creators and tries to apply that as logical evidence that every single pattern is created by a creator.

"Every painting has a painter, every building has a builder, thus every pattern has a designer."

If this statement is true, then this statement is also true:

"Every single thunderbolt has a thunderer, every single wave has a waver, every single dog has a dogger, every single duck has a ducker, every single buolder has a boulderer, every single pool of water has a pooler."

And since we have no evidence of omni-max entities being possible to exist, we are forced to assume that other living things, such as humans or animals, have created all these patterns, not God. Until you've proven these other patterns I've mentioned can only be created by God, through falsifiable means, of course.

And even then, your argument is fallacious because of infinite regression. Who created God? This question wont go away just because you say "God is eternal", you have to prove he is through empirical and falsifiable means.

We have a saying in my country where we speak fallacious English: "Den som är med i leken får leken tåla" (essentially, "If you play the game, don't whine about how tough it is").

 

[Fatihah]

In this post, you accuse Autodidact of not comprehending simple English.
And in the very next post, you mistakenly label me as an atheist:
I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I've probably had to point that out to you five or six times, but you don't seem capable of grasping that fact. The worst part is, the fact that I'm an agnostic is clearly stated directly below my avatar.

Now, I know that you don't seem to be capable of admitting your limitations (numerous as they are), but even you should be able to see the irony of how pointless a conversation is with someone that can't comprehend English - like yourself.

Response: Another one of your answers, in an attempt to distract from the clear fact that you have no logical answer to the questions posed in the Opening Post. It's amazing how you can participate on threads, and do nothing but run the whole time. Most people don't like the idea of being exposed as a person who has absolutlely nothing logical to say, but you amazing like the exposure. Interesting.

 

[Fatihah]

I'm done talking to you. Please have the courtesy to not address me. Thank you.

Response: This is the second time you've said this to me. So when you speak of courtesy, try following it. Where was the courtesy when you said before not to address you, but addressed me anyway? Newsflash. If you don't want me to address you, then don't address me, or my religion. Very simple.

 

[Fatihah]

The fact that we can design doesn't have any relevance at all to the idea that God designed everything. With that in mind, just because we have objective evidence that we can design doesn't mean we have objective evidence that God can design. Science is about what can be proven. Intelligent Design cannot be proven, since there is no evidence for it, therefore it is not science, it is a personal philosophy.

There are atheists out there who believe in Intelligent Design, you do realise that? Atheism = anti-theism. In other words, it's the view that there is no God. However, there is the belief among some people that we were designed by aliens. Richard Dawkins actually likes this version of Intelligent Design himself, actually. But that doesn't mean he has any evidence to support this viewpoint - therefore, it's not science.

Response: If there is no proof of intelligent design, then you should be able to provide an answer to how a pattern which repeats itself can be designed without intelligence. You have no logical answer. No one does, because there is none. Thus your non-answer alone is evidence which supports the proof of intelligent design.

 

[Fatihah]

English isn't my first language, not that I really see how that has anything to do with anything, I've quite clearly demonstrated how an argument based upon a metaphor is open to overload statements, and thus is known as a runaway metaphor. Ok, I'll once again make a slightly modified version of your statement. That statement begins with patterns created by known creators and tries to apply that as logical evidence that every single pattern is created by a creator.

"Every painting has a painter, every building has a builder, thus every pattern has a designer."

If this statement is true, then this statement is also true:

"Every single thunderbolt has a thunderer, every single wave has a waver, every single dog has a dogger, every single duck has a ducker, every single buolder has a boulderer, every single pool of water has a pooler."

And since we have no evidence of omni-max entities being possible to exist, we are forced to assume that other living things, such as humans or animals, have created all these patterns, not God. Until you've proven these other patterns I've mentioned can only be created by God, through falsifiable means, of course.

And even then, your argument is fallacious because of infinite regression. Who created God? This question wont go away just because you say "God is eternal", you have to prove he is through empirical and falsifiable means.

We have a saying in my country where we speak fallacious English: "Den som är med i leken får leken tåla" (essentially, "If you play the game, don't whine about how tough it is").

Response: Thus you've pointed out your problem from the start. You modified what I said, then responded. Thus your whole argument is flawed to begin with and refutes nothing, because you admitted, you're responding to your own modification, not my actual statement.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: If there is no proof of intelligent design, then you should be able to provide an answer to how a pattern which repeats itself can be designed without intelligence. You have no logical answer. No one does, because there is none. Thus your non-answer alone is evidence which supports the proof of intelligent design.

DNA is the answer to your question. It is a complex pattern that repeats itself and it is designed without any intelligent involvement whatsoever.

DNA is the answer. Unfortunately, as you have already clearly demonstrated in this thread (and others) it isn't an answer you'll accept. Thus, you're inability to accept a logical answer or produce a rational challenge is clear evidence that your argument is a farce.