atheism and axeman have fallen

Guardian Angel · Dec 4, 2003

Gordon Gekko · Dec 4, 2003

seek help, brainwashed fool.

Guardian Angel · Dec 4, 2003

Quote from Guardian Angel:

More...

Guardian Angel
Member

Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 59

12-04-03 03:45 PM
Re: My final word on the subject!

Quote from Guardian Angel:

"Is there really a God?"

Though there are a variety of possible responses to this question, there are three traditional responses that predominate in Western society:

(1) God does not exist- atheism
(2) we cannot know whether God exist- agnosticism
(3) a personal God does exist- theism.

To begin, atheism involves a logical fallacy known as a universal negative. Simply stated, a person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say "there is no God" from his own pool of knowledge. Only someone capable of being in all places at the same time- with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe- can make such a statement based on the facts. In other words, a person would have to be God to say there is no God. Hence, the assertion is logically indefensible.

By using arguments like this, you will often find that an atheist quickly converts to agnosticism and is thus making progress rapidly in the right direction.

This leads us to the second possible response: agnosticism. In dealing with an open-minded agnostic, one who can realize and understand that the universe is in an effect which requires a sufficient cause, and the only sufficient cause is God. As Scripture says. "the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalm 19:1)

It is helpful to clarify that there are only four possible explanations for how the universe came to be. The first is that the universe is an illusion. This ultimately reduces to solipsism- the theory that "self" is the only reality, that "I alone exist." This view is unacceptable in an age of scientific enlightenment. (Even a full-blown solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.)

The second possiblity is that the universe is eternal. This possibility flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that everything in the universe is running inexorably downhill from order to disorder, from complexity to chaos. If the universe was eternally old, it would have died a heat-loss death an eternity ago.

The third "possibility" is that the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about the absurdity of this option. Reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing. This position militates against the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. To say an effect can exist without a cause, one must deny the basis for all scientific investigation and rational thought.

The fourth (and only tenable) possibility is that the universe was created by God. Clearly, theism- the belief in a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe- is the only viable option on the question of God's existence. Once this is established, it can be pointed out that only a pesonal God can account for human personality, thought, and morality. Furthermore, this personal God has manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated His deity through the undeniable fact of the Resurrection. Additionally, God has provided His written Word which can be shown to be devine rather than human in origin.

The "Presumptuousness" of atheism

Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist". Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism". Another atheist Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus on the same level. However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false.....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues tha the atheist does not treat the statements "God exist" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist- whether or not one has evidence against God's existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exist"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist mus give plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Forth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheist fail to see.

Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe- in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death)- demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answeres the question of the universe's origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe- with complexity balanced conditions that seem tailored for life- points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.

The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just culteral, then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with its sense of "oughtness", on strictly nateralistic terms. (Most people can be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is not simply culteral). These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational- not presumptuous- in embracing belief in God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Guardian Angel:

It is now time to blow your silly illogical ramblings out of water.

IS ATHEISM LOGICAL?

Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. More specifically, traditional
atheism argues that there never was and never will be a God. But is this position rationally
justifiable?
Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You
see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all
things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to
all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you
would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist
is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot
adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live
cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself -- however, the atheist is unable to
provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to
account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic -- and, of course, absolute moral
standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.
If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims
of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This
astounding claim was supported, however, by his matchless personal character, His fulfillment of
predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history -- and most importantly, the
historical fact of His resurrection from the dead. The evidence is definitely there for the skeptic
to analyze. As Francis Schaeffer, the noted apologist, stated: "God is there and He is not silent."
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Ultimately man does not deny
the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to
his creator.
More...

axeman · Dec 4, 2003

This from the guy:

1) Who has proven he cant even define atheism
2) Has proven he doesnt posses the most basic
of reasoning skills. GLARINGLY I might add. Very embarassing.

3) Failed to address ANY of the blatant bible
contradictions I posted.
4) Failed to provide a SHRED of evidence for his silly fables.

Ugh yeah....

Fact is.... you got STOMPED in a debate against the
atheists and now your crying spilt milk.

You are by far the MOST ignorant theist I have come
across along with Thunderdolt.

Its pathetic. Now get off your crack pipe.
You are already too easy to destroy in debate.
Better try again without the drugs effecting your mind
because you obviously dont make any sense.

peace

axeman

LongShot · Dec 4, 2003

He fell first and hardest on the Diet thread AT MY HAND! LMAO!! LOL!!!

CONTRARIAN · Dec 4, 2003

GA has completed embarrassed you.
you still have not been able to get up from what he has just posted here.

YOU GOT KNOCKED DA F%*k OUT!

Quote from axeman:

This from the guy:

1) Who has proven he cant even define atheism
2) Has proven he doesn't posses the most basic
of reasoning skills. GLARINGLY I might add. Very embarrassing.

You are definitely RETARDED if you think the above statement has not destroyed your fallacy!

axeman
More...

What a buffoon!

LongShot · Dec 4, 2003

Quote from CONTRARIAN:

YOU GOT KNOCKED DA F%*k OUT!

More...

FRIDAYS! FRIDAYS! ANOTHER FRIDAY!! LOL! LMAO!!! ROFLMAO!!

CONTRARIAN · Dec 4, 2003

you are a fool

Quote from axeman:
It leaves out the most popular atheist position, which is:

(4) I do not believe in god/gods - ATHEISM (The majority type of atheism)

On what grounds?

where is your evidence to contradict the reasons given against your position?

From what I have seen GA has given very good scientific arguments as to what he believes and why he believes it.
You on the other hand have not. You are still stuck on definitions and the redefining of words to suite your needs.

How pathetic.

Quote from axeman:

This from the guy:

1) Who has proven he cant even define atheism
2) Has proven he doesn't posses the most basic
of reasoning skills. GLARINGLY I might add. Very embarrassing.

3) Failed to address ANY of the blatant bible
contradictions I posted.
4) Failed to provide a SHRED of evidence for his silly fables.

Ugh yeah....

Fact is.... you got STOMPED in a debate against the
atheists and now your crying spilt milk.

You are by far the MOST ignorant theist I have come
across along with Thunderdolt.

Its pathetic. Now get off your crack pipe.
You are already too easy to destroy in debate.
Better try again without the drugs effecting your mind
because you obviously don't make any sense.

peace

axeman
More...

More...

Gordon Gekko · Dec 4, 2003

Quote from CONTRARIAN:

you are a fool
More...

you wish you were the thinker axeman is.

LongShot · Dec 4, 2003

Quote from Gordon Gekko:

you wish you were the thinker axeman is.

you are simply not anywhere near his high level (or mine).
More...

do you have an 80 IQ?

then YOU TOO could be the thinker axeman is.