atheism and axeman have fallen

CONTRARIAN · Dec 7, 2003

axeman has lost this debate.

more proof.

axeman misinterprets Scripture.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=385623#post385623

Evolution is FALSE.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25092&perpage=6&pagenumber=24

Quote from Guardian Angel:

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 possibility 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 personal 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 divine 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 cultural, 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 cultural). 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...

More...

axeman · Dec 7, 2003

Only in your delusional mind.
Any reasonable person can see this clear as day

You have never pointed out why the biblical contradictions
that a PREACHER gave are invalid.

You simply assert they are, but you failed to back it up.

peace

axeman

Quote from CONTRARIAN:

axeman has lost this debate.

more proof.

axeman misinterprets Scripture.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=385623#post385623

Evolution is FALSE.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25092&perpage=6&pagenumber=24

More...

Shrewd Dude · Dec 7, 2003

axeman has never lost a religion debate...ever. y'all are delusional, as axeman said.

Guardian Angel · Dec 8, 2003

Quote from Shrewd Dude:

axeman has never lost a religion debate...ever. y'all are delusional, as axeman said.
More...

So far he is losing this one.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=385990#post385990

Per the above I have exhaustively pointed out what I believe and why I believe it.

axeman has yet to do that. He has not clearly pointed out what he believes and why he believes it.

He has not yet addressed the origins debate nor has he addressed the abortion argument.

I agree that failure to come up with a better explanation does not in anyway validate my argument. However, up to this point my reason for belief is stronger than his position for refusing to believe.

Again as I noted earlier:
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."

He has yet to deal with this argument.

axeman · Dec 8, 2003

Nonsense, you simply lack the intellectual capacity
to recognize defeat. You have also proven that
you are incapable of basic reasoning.

The link you provided is just more proof of this, since it
only points to your unsupported statements and opinions
and nothing that even remotely resembles a real argument.

Claiming im losing this one, when you have made it so
obviously clear that you are one of the WORST theistic
debaters on ET, simply points out the DEPTH of your
self delusion.

Even 777 debates better than you

peace

axeman

Quote from Guardian Angel:

So far he is losing this one."
More...

Gordon Gekko · Dec 8, 2003

Quote from Guardian Angel:

So far he is losing this one.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=385990#post385990

Per the above I have exhaustively pointed out what I believe and why I believe it.

axeman has yet to do that. He has not clearly pointed out what he believes and why he believes it.

He has not yet addressed the origins debate nor has he addressed the abortion argument.

I agree that failure to come up with a better explanation does not in anyway validate my argument. However, up to this point my reason for belief is stronger than his position for refusing to believe.

Again as I noted earlier:
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."

He has yet to deal with this argument.

More...

you're a failed atheist.

Guardian Angel · Dec 8, 2003

Quote from axeman:

Nonsense, you simply lack the intellectual capacity
to recognize defeat. You have also proven that
you are incapable of basic reasoning.

The link you provided is just more proof of this, since it
only points to your unsupported statements and opinions
and nothing that even remotely resembles a real argument.

Yet you fail to address them but rather YOU state that they are sooooo invalid. Where is YOUR proof? Why is it that you fail to address them.

Claiming im losing this one, when you have made it so
obviously clear that you are one of the WORST theistic
debaters on ET, simply points out the DEPTH of your
self delusion.

Even 777 debates better than you

More Ad Hominems

Again when you are losing you simply resort to ad hominem attacks and you continue to ignore the original question
in response to your comments:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25092&perpage=6&pagenumber=75

peace

axeman

Quote from Guardian Angel:

So far he is losing this one."
More...

stay on topic.

(1) Creation vs. Evolution.
(2) The Bible divine rather than human in origin.

Are you open to such discussion or am I wasting my time?

More...

axeman · Dec 8, 2003

We have gone through the creationism versus evolution
thing here way too many times. Im done with that one.

However, if you wish to debate that the bible is divine, then
I will gladly accept this challenge after you prove you
at least possess enough reasoning skills to enter a more
formal debate. Answer my question in the other thread.

No need to jump between these two.

peace

axeman

Quote from Guardian Angel:

stay on topic.

(1) Creation vs. Evolution.
(2) The Bible divine rather than human in origin.

Are you open to such discussion or am I wasting my time?

More...

Guardian Angel · Dec 8, 2003

Quote from axeman:

We have gone through the creationism versus evolution
thing here way too many times. Im done with that one.

However, if you wish to debate that the bible is divine, then
I will gladly accept this challenge after you prove you
at least possess enough reasoning skills to enter a more
formal debate. Answer my question in the other thread.

No need to jump between these two.

peace

axeman

More...

How can we continue when you have not address my initial response to your lighting round of questioning?

Houston we have a problem:

You doubt my ability to debate properly.
I doubt your ability to interpret Scripture in light of Scripture.

Let us move on from here and answer what we have already posted. I have dealt with your questioning now you must deal with my answers.

Guardian Angel · Dec 8, 2003

Quote from axeman:

AXE:3) God sends wild animals sent to kill infants, but THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!

In case you haven't noticed, the modern body of
scientific knowledge is directly against you.
Creationism isn't even taken seriously by the scientific community.

Darwinian Evolution? It is because of the above statement
that atheist kill millions of innocent unborn children everyday in the U.S.A.

Did you not say this?

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...6&pagenumber=20

"Babies are innocent by any reasonable definition.
I reject any silly story which says you are BORN a sinner/guilty."

"Slaughtering infants would be considered evil by any rational
modern human being."

Then WHY do atheist partake in partial birth abortion?
Why did they lobby Capital Hill to make it legal?

3) God sends wild animals sent to kill infants, but THOU SHALT NOT KILL!! MOST atheist believe that their is NO GOD and that the above Scripture you referenced is EVIL but yet the continue to kill the unborn- at a rate of about 30 million a year in the U.S.

CONT:Therefore, What makes God's judgement less righteous then sinful mortal men? God's law is vastly more merciful and infinite than yours or mine. If you can not explain the universe how can you understand the mind of God?

NICE DODGE. You FAILED to address the contradiction.
NICE DODGE. YOU axeman likewise FAILED to address the above portion of my comment about abortion and atheism.
NICE DODGE on your part as well. You simply deleted that portion of my argument.

God commands that thou shalt not kill, but then sends
people to kill one another. The idea is that instead of divine intervention God allowed these savage nations to destroy one another because they rejected God's rule. It's only an apparent contradiction because you fail to understand the text within it's entire context.

In the Old Testament God would judge a nation with another nation. In those times the earth was a barbaric place and men did what was right in their own eyes. God would often judge these nations for their evil deeds. God even removed his protection over Isreal and allowed them to be led into captivity by their enemies as a direct result of disobedience to God's commands and these were his chosen people! How much more will he judge the evil deeds of men in these last days?

The contradiction STANDS.
No it does not. That argument has been squashed!

Have you read the entire Bible?
Just because God commands judgement does not make it a contradiction. He told Isreal not to kill (murder). The word for "kill" is the hebrew word for murder- the killing of the innocent.

For a guy who is so diligent about proper definitions you sure did botch this one up. Sloppy. Very Sloppy dude.

How many times must we go over this?
Biblical definitions:

Killing: Death of the guilty.
Murder: Death of the innocent.
More...