Lies Atheists Tell

*************
M*W: But you are trying to debate us on this forum. That makes you a liar.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you believe in Zeus?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, but everywhere I go I am accused of being an alt of someone else by atheist believers. Just goes to show you that atheists are not above unfounded superstitious conjecture. My name is really Dan and I graduated from Michigan State University in 1981 with a degree in biology. I taught science for 7 years in the public schools of Cincinnati before starting my own business. I have always had an interest in the creation evolution issue since sponsoring and moderating a debate between Dr. Walter Brown (MIT) and Dr. Patterson (of Iowa) in the early 80's. We had around 2,000 in attendance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you do not believe Thor exists and is a god, you are an atheist regarding Thor. It is a yes or no question. Your causality assertion is laughable.

 

Not at all, everything which has a beginning has a cause
The universe had a beginning
Therefore the universe had a cause.

This logical conclusion agrees with christian theism, rejects pantheism and panentheism as well as atheism.

 

Ok, then.. so the cause of the universe was God right ?

And where did you get the idea that the universe had a beginning, did you just make that up ?

 

What original montheistic faith? Paganism proceded monolatry as well as monotheism. Study ancient history from several sources( but not from Bob Jones U)

Paul was most likely a construct created by an orthodox group of Christians in the early yrs of the first century. There is more evidence for characters from other mythical tales being based on real people than there is for Paul.
He was created in an attempt to convert the local populations to a new religion.This was common for ancient cultures to do..the Greeks borrowed from the Egyptians,The Romans from the Greeks,etc.

 

right. A cause sufficient to create all of the known material and immaterial world would necessarily be God.

Isn't this a science forum? I thought everyone here knew that the prevailing scientific notion is that the universe had a beginning. The steady state theory was shown to be false during the last Century.

 

The cause could have been something insignificant, like a rabbit causing an avalanche. You have yet to show how a cause must have had the qualities attributed to God, omniscience, immortality, and all the rest.

 

"What original montheistic faith? Paganism proceded monolatry as well as monotheism. Study ancient history from several sources( but not from Bob Jones U)"

I am not an English major but I don't think "proceded" is the word you are looking for. Nevertheless, if monotheism evolved from polytheism it must of devolved rather than evolved. Here is at least one citation (which is one more than your offered) that agrees that monotheism came first:

Schmidt, W., The Origin and Growth of Religion, Cooper Square, New York, 1971.


"Paul was most likely a construct created by an orthodox group of Christians in the early yrs of the first century. There is more evidence for characters from other mythical tales being based on real people than there is for Paul."

There is more evidence that Paul existed than just about anyone else in history and even modern liberal scholarship would agree with this. I am not interested in your irrational internet conspiracy theories other than to point out that this is where atheism leads.

 

What is the evidence for the universe having a beginning, I'm not convinced..

Also, what was the cause of God ?

 

I don't have to prove that this cause has all of the attributes of the biblical God. If I can show that he has some of them and contradicts none of them I am doing pretty good. Pauls states in Romans that Gods divine nature and eternal power were clearly evidenced in the Creation. What could be more "divine" than the cause of all things? What could be more powerful (Omnipotent) than its creator? No one suggests that all of Gods attributes can be known by reason alone, but most suggest that atheism is equivalent to irrationalism.

 

First of all the current theory which holds sway in science points to a "big bang" beginning. Secondly, the laws of thermodynamics lead one to the same conclusion. The universe appears to be aging, spreading out and heading toward heat death. This implies a winding up which puts the first and second law in conflict. There must have been a time before time and the laws of science.

 

Do we know that the big bang was actually the beginning of the universe ?
And yes, in the first fraction of a second after the big bang the laws of physics (as we currently understand them) don't apply.

Also, please read your last sentence again and spot the flaw in your logic.

And you didn't answer my question about God

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But you haven't shown that this theoretical first cause had any of these attributes. A trigger event does not necessarily contain within it any plan for what comes later. In fact, nothing that evidenced order could come about much later, after things cooled, and then they evolved by natural impersonal laws that are understood.

 

it was just a poor choice of words. The point is that time itself had a beginning, just as the biblical theist has asserted for thousands of years.

I looked over those questions from yesterday and feel they have been answered sufficiently or did not need a reply.

 

"In an effort to hide the fact that no arguments exist in favor of atheism" ~Dan

I said atheism doesn't need any arguments and that the real issue is theists arguments.. You don't think that needs a reply ?

Also, you, again, did not reply to my question about God..

 

Apparently, not all agree with your conclusion:

"Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it--except myself." He finally felt forced to conclude, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."

Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan, 1933), p. 124.

"The problem of the origin [of the universe] involves a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting."

Hubert Reeves, Jean Audouze, William A. Fowler, and David N. Schramm, "On the Origin of Light Elements," Astrophysical Journal 179 (1973):

And this interesting comment:

"'What caused the big bang?' . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don't have too much choice. Either . . . something outside of the physical world . . . or . . . an event without a cause."

Paul Davies, "The Birth of the Cosmos," in God, Cosmos, Nature and Creativity, ed. Jill Gready (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1995), pp. 8-9.

Reason doesn't allow us to posit events without causes. Certainly science itself is based upon the assumption of cause and effect. So you may posit a causeless creation if you prefer, but this is irrational.

Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig puts it this way:

"We can summarize our argument as follows:

1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
4. The universe began to exist.
From (2) and (4) it follows that

5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.
From (1) and (5) it follows further that

6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.
From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that

7. Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked,{67} is what everybody means by God."

 

In fact, modern cosmology allows the possibility that another universe existed prior to the big bang, a universe that had no beginning but stretches back in time without limit.

Furthermore, everything that begins need not have a cause. Many events such as atomic transitions and nuclear decays occur without cause.​

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/FrozenNothing.htm

 

If atheism doesn't need any arguments than I was correct in saying that atheism is a parasite of religion and specifically, Christianity because only Christianity claims an objective apologetic which the atheist must destroy in order to preserve itself and multiply.

This is how many new atheists feel which is why the constant internet quarreling with Christian theists.

However, in truth, atheism asserts a universal negative position which is of course irrational. In addition, there is plenty of evidence in support of God. Even Dawkins admits that a one can make a case for a "deist god". If one can make a case for it then how can one still claim to be an atheist??? Well dawkins breaks atheism into various levels from Strong to weak. And you guessed it, he is a "very" weak one, like those I am encountering here.