What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

Your first paragraph is what I was saying in my original comments you responded to. I never intended that what I said to be par for the entire spectrum of knowledge, opinion and interpretation. Just in the contexts of believing in a god or not. 

You did bring up some interesting topics of discussion though. The internal struggles one has in determining what they do believe or not. Or hiding belief while on the lecture circuit so as not to lose respect from peers. Jordan Peterson in my opinion is an agnostic of sorts looking for theology that can conform to his epistemology. Didn't his wife, a catholic, claim to experience a miracle of some kind? Is that the same Jordan you're talking about?

The bottom line  is generally ordinary people discussing whether they believe in god or not in a neutral environment are motivated by two primary things. Yes they believe, or no they do not. The non believer has nothing to lose where as the believer has an entire belief system and world view that could come crashing down. They're the one that generally begin to compromise reality in various ways. Even if the non believer had some fear of hell upon death, they couldn't escape their own mind and would likely shift towards a more agnostic approach, I think. But they'd be on the fence, not atheist.

I think where some atheists are dishonest with themselves and their unwillingness to believe evidence that contradicts what they believe.  For example, May was angry that the doctor's for Barbara Commiskey said it was a miracle she was healed.  He claimed a doctor can never come to that conclusion.  Yet, these doctor's were all either working for or trained by the Mayo Clinic and are the best in their respective fields.  If anyone could make that determination, then they could. They did not need May's approval. May's belief that all things have a natural explanation was challenged by evidence that caused dissonance in him and he couldn't accept it.  So he tried to deny the evidence.

I could say the same for you in the case of the miracle of Calanda.  You claimed that we can't take seriously the 24 eyewitness statements taken under oath and certified by the king's official record keeper because old people can't count to 2 and were uncertain that the guy whose leg was amputated was then walking around with 2 legs.  You faced a crisis of faith versus the evidence of the miracle.  You wouldn't even allow yourself to call it evidence - even though it very much is - and incredibly documented evidence at that.  You couldn't handle evidence that didn't fit your faith.  Another atheist, unable to handle the evidence, postulated the evil twin referee theory to explain what happened.  To do so, he ignored eye witness testimony from 5 medical staff that testified to the amputation, the 2 doctor's who verified the leg was then present 18 months later, and the other witnesses who testified to knowing the man both without and with the leg that had been amputated.  No amount of evidence can shake the faith of some atheists.  Truth and evidence must take a back seat to their faith claims.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

Your first paragraph is what I was saying in my original comments you responded to. I never intended that what I said to be par for the entire spectrum of knowledge, opinion and interpretation. Just in the contexts of believing in a god or not. 

You did bring up some interesting topics of discussion though. The internal struggles one has in determining what they do believe or not. Or hiding belief while on the lecture circuit so as not to lose respect from peers. Jordan Peterson in my opinion is an agnostic of sorts looking for theology that can conform to his epistemology. Didn't his wife, a catholic, claim to experience a miracle of some kind? Is that the same Jordan you're talking about?

The bottom line  is generally ordinary people discussing whether they believe in god or not in a neutral environment are motivated by two primary things. Yes they believe, or no they do not. The non believer has nothing to lose where as the believer has an entire belief system and world view that could come crashing down. They're the one that generally begin to compromise reality in various ways. Even if the non believer had some fear of hell upon death, they couldn't escape their own mind and would likely shift towards a more agnostic approach, I think. But they'd be on the fence, not atheist.

I think where some atheists are dishonest with themselves and their unwillingness to believe evidence that contradicts what they believe.  For example, May was angry that the doctor's for Barbara Commiskey said it was a miracle she was healed.  He claimed a doctor can never come to that conclusion.  Yet, these doctor's were all either working for or trained by the Mayo Clinic and are the best in their respective fields.  If anyone could make that determination, then they could. They did not need May's approval. May's belief that all things have a natural explanation was challenged by evidence that caused dissonance in him and he couldn't accept it.  So he tried to deny the evidence.

I could say the same for you in the case of the miracle of Calanda.  You claimed that we can't take seriously the 24 eyewitness statements taken under oath and certified by the king's official record keeper because old people can't count to 2 and were uncertain that the guy whose leg was amputated was then walking around with 2 legs.  You faced a crisis of faith versus the evidence of the miracle.  You wouldn't even allow yourself to call it evidence - even though it very much is - and incredibly documented evidence at that.  You couldn't handle evidence that didn't fit your faith.  Another atheist, unable to handle the evidence, postulated the evil twin referee theory to explain what happened.  To do so, he ignored eye witness testimony from 5 medical staff that testified to the amputation, the 2 doctor's who verified the leg was then present 18 months later, and the other witnesses who testified to knowing the man both without and with the leg that had been amputated.  No amount of evidence can shake the faith of some atheists.  Truth and evidence must take a back seat to their faith claims.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

I think where some atheists are dishonest with themselves and their unwillingness to believe evidence that contradicts what they believe.  For example, May was angry that the doctor's for Barbara Commiskey said it was a miracle she was healed.  He claimed a doctor can never come to that conclusion.  Yet, these doctor's were all either working for or trained by the Mayo Clinic and are the best in their respective fields.  If anyone could make that determination, then they could. They did not need May's approval. May's belief that all things have a natural explanation was challenged by evidence that caused dissonance in him and he couldn't accept it.  So he tried to deny the evidence.

I can't speak for May but it's been my experience that when a medical professional speaks that way, it's more of an expression of astonishment, unusual, possibly hasn't happened before, type of situation. When I was Christian and debated much along the same lines as you I found most professionals who call an unexpected recovery a 'miracle' they tend to fall short of endorsing a particular god. Did these doctors specifically give credit to your god?

I could say the same for you in the case of the miracle of Calanda.  You claimed that we can't take seriously the 24 eyewitness statements taken under oath and certified by the king's official record keeper because old people can't count to 2 and were uncertain that the guy whose leg was amputated was then walking around with 2 legs.  You faced a crisis of faith versus the evidence of the miracle.  You wouldn't even allow yourself to call it evidence - even though it very much is - and incredibly documented evidence at that.  You couldn't handle evidence that didn't fit your faith.  Another atheist, unable to handle the evidence, postulated the evil twin referee theory to explain what happened.  To do so, he ignored eye witness testimony from 5 medical staff that testified to the amputation, the 2 doctor's who verified the leg was then present 18 months later, and the other witnesses who testified to knowing the man both without and with the leg that had been amputated.  No amount of evidence can shake the faith of some atheists.  Truth and evidence must take a back seat to their faith claims.

You can't say the same for me and it also wouldn't be true. Not going to happen. I faced no crisis of faith. I read what you said, read the sources, researched on that miracle, and concluded the only real evidence we can consider is the fact the guy had two legs in the end. Empty graves, testimonies, the church's archives, the kings investigators, the guy who wrote a book in our time, there is just too many alternative explanations and possible agendas. Starving people will say anything for food, or money. Too many variables with an abundance possible ulterior motives. That combined with not being able to examine the evidence or cross examine the witnesses. Before a claim like that can be accepted we would need to question the investigators, medical personnel, scribes. Which of course we can't. What we have in the end is a guy with two legs. Scars and scratches in tact. That's evidence the guy always had his legs. If your god did it why do lizards grow back tails minus any battle scars? Your god does that too, right? That's the closest thing you presented as evidence and it don't line up. 

I simply do not believe it. That's not a judgment of your faith. Believe me, I think it'd be awesome if we had rejuvenative abilities like that.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

Your first paragraph is what I was saying in my original comments you responded to. I never intended that what I said to be par for the entire spectrum of knowledge, opinion and interpretation. Just in the contexts of believing in a god or not. 

You did bring up some interesting topics of discussion though. The internal struggles one has in determining what they do believe or not. Or hiding belief while on the lecture circuit so as not to lose respect from peers. Jordan Peterson in my opinion is an agnostic of sorts looking for theology that can conform to his epistemology. Didn't his wife, a catholic, claim to experience a miracle of some kind? Is that the same Jordan you're talking about?

The bottom line  is generally ordinary people discussing whether they believe in god or not in a neutral environment are motivated by two primary things. Yes they believe, or no they do not. The non believer has nothing to lose where as the believer has an entire belief system and world view that could come crashing down. They're the one that generally begin to compromise reality in various ways. Even if the non believer had some fear of hell upon death, they couldn't escape their own mind and would likely shift towards a more agnostic approach, I think. But they'd be on the fence, not atheist.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that beliefs are not entirely personal. When we hide our beliefs from others, or soften them so others are more accepting of them, we do not just put a wall in front of our beliefs that we can later remove: our beliefs change as we do so. Every time we make a concession in order to please others, a part of us accepts the concession and our beliefs experience a small twitch.
That is not to say that this is an entirely undesirable phenomenon: peer pressure does have some benefits, providing certain "stability" of beliefs without each one's continuous existence is going to be very uncertain. Just something to recognize: that whenever we talk about "our" beliefs, they are not entirely ours, no matter how independently we try to think.

I do not know much about Jordan's wife, but whenever he talks about "god", I feel like he is trying to dance on two different pins at the same time. I do not think that he will ever answer the question of his belief in "god" in a binary way. There is this idea among some intellectuals that binary answers are always too simplistic and are to be avoided at all costs - yet some questions absolutely require binary answers. Now, a binary answer can be elaborated on: "It is complicated...". But the question, "In your view, does god exist?", really only allows for two answers: "Yes" and "No". You can refuse to give either answer and say something like "I do not know". But when your answer starts with, "It depends on what you mean by 'exist'", then we are entering the realm of sophistic philosophy which has no practical use. Nobody ever wonders what we mean when we say that flying elephants do not exist. It is only with these esoteric concepts that people suddenly become extremely sensitive to language.

I honestly do not entirely know what it means to "believe" something: my mind simply does not work along these lines. I think in hypotheses and models, not beliefs and stances. To me it makes sense to have a working model of the world in your head that you are constantly updating and refining through considering hypotheses and testing them against logic and physical reality. It is not like you "believe" in your model - it is just the model best matching the reality of all models you have considered. It is still flawed, deeply so, and virtually any element of it is open to reconsideration in the future.

It seems to me that "believing" something inherently involves accepting something to be true that you cannot justify to be true: if you can, then it is not a belief, but a logical conclusion. And linguistic games aside, believing anything seems incompatible with rational thinking to me.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

So the golden rule in your faith means showing how vile and repulsive Christians really are only the atheists?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Atheism is a destroyer of the soul and mind and body of our posterity...atheism is an evil that is ever present among us...I glory to see the day that atheism burns in Hell.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

You do like to delve deep into things. That's an observation not a criticism.   I get it that your mind doesn't work that way. Maybe I can offer some enlightenment as to how a mind can. Reality to children is often framed by what the adults in their lives define it as. Then culture steps in as reinforcement. Here in America movies like the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, and multitudes of secular movies and tv shows that would a piece of scripture for say a horror movie, or put out shows like 'Heaven can Wait' everything revolves around this thing called god, you just accept from a child on. Sure as one gets older they start questioning and that's when the adlib explanations start. The whole god moves outside of time, can make the universe look older than it is thing. Anyways by the time you become a young adult, all your life you've held the world views you were indoctrinated with. Most thing can fit into it easy so that strengthens them. So they continue to believe. Believe it or not I was in my twenties when I experienced the shock, and it was shocking, to meet people who didn't believe in god. Well eventually logic and reason began to resonate more than the flimsy adaptations of faith I was trying to work through at the time and I did conclude I no longer believed. 

Perhaps your experiences are similar though they may not be centered around a faith in god. Maybe for you, the culture you were raised in, it's more about freedom? Is freedom real? I don't think so. Sure, America, land of the free, but are we? Our wages are taxed to support things that work against our personal plights. A major portion of our country is too poor to escape the trap of generational poverty. Only if you have the funds can you move to a more positive economic environment. Enter you, a person who knows all too well how a government can restrict freedom only wind up here where freedom is cherished but not really understood. I certainly don't blame you for not completely believing in freedom. Freedom seems to be only what others dictate which leaves a sour taste. 

I have to stop now because the Tequila shots are getting to me and we've wondered away from the topic. God, isn't it?   

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Atheism is a destroyer of the soul and mind and body of our posterity...atheism is an evil that is ever present among us...I glory to see the day that atheism burns in Hell.

So your response on a debate site to this question..."So the golden rule in your faith means showing how vile and repulsive Christians really are only the atheists?" is what you just posted above? Keep in mind I asked that question because you posted this: "Atheists are narcissistic fools...arrogant, insolent, useless." You do not show the love of the savior you pretend to follow. And....Matthew 5:22

... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Your master ordered you to not call people fools yet you do. Perhaps people don't believe you because the power of god doesn't emanate from you? Ever think of that? Don't worry, I'll remind you. You sure don't act Christian.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Yes, I love peeling the layers of the intellectual onion and seeing what is underneath - and being pleasantly (or unpleasantly, which is rarer) surprised. Simple, superficial answers never satisfy me. It seems incredibly sad to me to live a life full of simple and superficial answers. It is like existing in two dimensions instead of three.
My parents did many things right, and one of them was making me into a devil's advocate junkie. A critical reaction to virtually anything I hear is almost hardwired in me, and that has gotten me into a lot of trouble in life in the past. I cannot imagine though what it would be like living without this instinct, to hear a statement and just accept it. Especially your own statements should be subjected to the harshest criticism: you should hold yourself to much higher standards than anyone else.

Perhaps that is what many ideologies, including religious ones, come down to: promoting mediocrity? When you just follow what others believe and do not form your own opinion independently, your opportunities in life are going to be severely limited - but you will be a perfect ideological pawn. Some people, like you, break out of it eventually: they are not satisfied with this state of affairs. Others do not. I know that many Soviet people in the late 80-s had serious issues with the Soviet ideology, but the fear of their suspicions turning out to be true was so great, they kept clinging to it, to the last moment, when the whole construct started going down. Brainwashing there was much greater than the religious brainwashing in Western countries: you were lied about everything, down to whether the current leader of the country is dead or alive. Soviet people accepted absolutely insane claims such as "There is no sex in the Soviet Union" (actual popular believe in the USSR; what it said was that the Soviet people were above filthy capitalist pleasures and only partook in activities in the bedroom to procreate), claims that their personal daily experience contradicted. It is not like it was that hard to see that this sex that "there was none" of there happened just last evening in one's own bedroom - but fully acknowledging the scope of the lies was so painful, people employed mental tricks similar to those @just_sayin and @RickeyHoltsclaw do, just plain denying what their eyes see and bodies feel and replacing it with their fantasies.

As for freedom, to me it is more about your mental state, than the environment you find yourself in. Sure, in a certain sense, there is a lot more freedom in the US than in North Korea: you are not going to go to jail here for forgetting to bow to your dear leader's statue. Yet if you are, say, one of the "woke" ones, constantly walking on eggshells, letting others tell you what to think, et cetera - then are you really freer than a North Korean who follows his dear leader in public, but in private curses at him? I do not think that there is a less free state than not thinking for yourself. You can live in a very comfortable environment, but if your brain is inert and just follows its programming induced by others, then you are barely more free than an ant in a hive.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
Not really tracking with your Russian sex analogy.  All I know is that I've provided positive reasons to believe in God - such as the universe having a beginning, the fine-tuning of the universe, the fact even the simplest one-celled creature has complex DNA code - and code needs a coder, and the documented examples of miracles.  The only 'fantasies' have been your weird Russian sex memories and your denial of eye witness testimony and medical records that contradict your world view.  

May, if you have paid any attention at all to our interactions then you have noticed that one of us is constantly bringing evidence into the discussion, and the other one is you.  Please feel free to provide your evidence that there is no God.  

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Jweishuhn ; All evidence points to design and an omnipotent Designer.

Obviously the evidence points to Brahma the Hindu god of creation. How did you know ricky? Thought your elf god book told you another myth all together???

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Atheism is a destroyer of the soul and mind and body of our posterity...atheism is an evil that is ever present among us...I glory to see the day that atheism burns in Hell.

So you believe in Thor? Or are you atheistic toward greek gods therefore by your own words headed for hell for being atheist?

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

The Vikings had one of the most badass religions ever. The afterlife for warriors is basically endless exercise and combat practice, in preparation for the biggest war in all eternity against wild monsters. Maybe it is my youthful spirit talking, but this sounds so cool to me. If there really was afterlife, I would rather it be packed with action, with struggle, with discomfort - than with cushy clouds and proud angels.

In the Dungeons & Dragons universe I always felt an uncanny attraction towards the Abyss. The place is wicked beyond human imagination, but no one can say that it is stale or boring. And if you can charm an influential succubus, then your life can be very-very interesting.

One of the things that I always found lacking with modern religions is how orderly and stiff they are. No room for playing around, joking, experimenting: just be a serious and boring monk and follow a thick book. This is not how humans are supposed to live.
The Greek and Roman religions were much more interesting. Gods there tricked the mortals, played complicated politics, backstabbed each other, engaged in orgies... That is what human spirit is about: dynamism, motion, adventure, with a slightly unhealthy mix of depravity. It is not about being a robot in grey rags mumbling Latin verses.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Haha, that's why the patriarchs of Judaism/Christianity had concubines! Oh, and it's not all puffy clouds and harps you know. You could be some kind of seven headed creature, heads of different species that is, and sing alleluia forever. Sound fun? LOL

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ;  There is One-Elohim....without Jesus, you have no hope.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

 There is One-Elohim....without Jesus, you have no hope.

Sure. So that means you're atheist to the god Thor? Atheist, to it? Or do you believe?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Atheism rejects the concept of a god....I do not....I acknowledge Elohim....but Thor is your god...the god of Satan.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Atheism rejects the concept of a god....I do not....I acknowledge Elohim....but Thor is your god...the god of Satan.

You reject hundreds of concepts of god, you're an atheist. Elf god knows your betrayal. It knows you doubt at times. You're hell bound atheist!

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; I reject anyone or anything calling itself "God" other than Elohim. Enjoy eternity.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

I reject anyone or anything calling itself "God" other than Elohim. Enjoy eternity.

The creator of evil, why? So you can troll minority neighborhoods for victims like you bragged about? And that's while you spew vile lies and hatred instead of love and peace, to impress this evil god?

Isaiah 45:7: 

 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; It is your god, Satan, that is the "creator of evil" and the Hebrew "ra" in Isaiah 45:7 is "disaster" or "calamity"...not evil but you don't understand this because you're lost, blind, without hope.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

Haha, that's why the patriarchs of Judaism/Christianity had concubines! Oh, and it's not all puffy clouds and harps you know. You could be some kind of seven headed creature, heads of different species that is, and sing alleluia forever. Sound fun? LOL

I love the devious stuff like this. In the Forgotten Realms universe there is goddess Lolth who is also called the "Spider Queen". She has many forms, the main one being a large spider, as the name suggests. She is an evil goddess, pitting her followers against each other and rewarding either those who survive, or those who amuse her in some way. Spending the afterlife with her is... a questionable pleasure at best, but there are... "perks" as well. They are what you can imagine they are, and beyond.

I suppose the Christian marketers are failing at their job a little. They should emphasize that the heaven features a lot of diversity and weirdness. Maybe there is a gigantic horse with 20 tentacles at the end of each hoof, playing piano, singing with a horsy voice and putting a jazz spin on the ancient Greek songs? That would make it an interesting travel destination.

Jweishuhn

@Joeseph

WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE , YOU POST A DEBATE TOPIC UP AND PROMISE TO BEHAVE DECENTLY AND YET YOU RUN FOR THE HILLS WHEN QUESTIONED........... .....

Please repost whatever question you speak of. I am happy to admit that I completely stopped looking at posts because of the fact that 90% of them had nothing to do with the topic. I am not interested in bashing one another's beliefs. I genuinely want to have respectful dialogue, but as soon as people start calling one another fools, and cowards, and bashing people I am done. There is nothing productive that can come from such immaturity. 

Joeseph

@Jweishuhn

My conversation with you ended with me accusing you of cowardice as you refused to defend several,points I made , what conclusions do you think I could otherwise reach?

You at least could have have the courtesy to say you wished to concede as you had no valid rebuttals.

Why would I repost my questions when you can easily access them yourself don't be so lazy and disrespectul.

If you wish to be treated with respect maybe its time you offered the same courtesy to others.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; Your god is your aberrant lust.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Your god is your aberrant lust.

There you go accusing me of being like your wife again , your wife is a slut ......hey why not pray for her?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; It's true...you hate God because your lust and your penis are your god.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

It's true...you hate God

You really need to look up the term Atheist.


 because your lust and your penis are your god.

Talking about your wife again lusting after c-ck ......she's a right little she devil isn't she?

Jweishuhn

@Joeseph

1 : I'm afraid you're totally wrong the term faith when used by the relgious is as I clearly pointed out based on spiritual conviction the term faith as used in any other way is based on trust.

Maybe you should look up.what it says in the bible regards the term faith there's a specific verse that says exactly what it is ,you seem totally unaware of this whys that?

So I know that Hebrews 11:1 says, "Faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof (or conviction or assurance according to other versions) of what is not seen." But if you are trying to say that this is talking about a personal spiritual conviction you are mistaken. It is better understood as how other versions of the Bible translate it as the word proof. The Bible is very clear about faith coming from trusting in what Jesus said and did, and trusting in God's promises. Just think about it, when people came from all over the land to be healed by Jesus, they did it by faith, and He very clearly spoke about such faith, in many instances. The reason that brings a lot of weight is because those people were not being spiritually convicted to follow Jesus, they just had faith, and trusted that He would do what they had heard He was doing. When looking at the Old Testament and seeing the faith that Abraham and Noah and Moses had in God, their faith was all about trusting in the promises that God made with them. I will admit that our spiritual convictions deepen our faith (trust) but in every sense of the word, faith is trust.     

2: I asked you 2 questions and you avoid answering by switching and baiting  but I'll play anyway.

Nothing can be proved for certain, you're argument is fallacious as you're attempting to claim that your belief in God is equivalent to an Atheist believing in Evolution.

But if nothing can be proven for certain, which I will admit that the existence of God cannot be proven for certain, how does one choose a side? Believe it or not, people on both sides, look at the evidence that is presented before them and determine which one they think makes the most sense. You think being an atheist and the theory of evolution makes the most sense based on the evidence that you have seen. I believe in a creator God and yes a young earth based on the evidence that I have seen and I have seen evidence from both sides. Which I am curious as to whether or not you have ever really looked at the evidence from the other side with an open mind. And yes I am claiming that a belief in God is equivalent to an atheist who believes in evolution. Because you have chosen to put your faith in the unknown part of the evolution theory that cannot be proven with complete and unquestionable certainty. 

As a former Catholic there was no problem believing in Evolution the Protestants held the same view the ones who rejected it were the lunatic fringe of young earthers and nuts like Ken Ham.


What church are you a member of? I have a feeling you won't say prove me wrong.

My denomination does not matter, I am fully aware that there are believers out there that take a stance with the evolution theory, and that is their prerogative and right, and has nothing to do with the question that was posed for this debate. You mentioned earlier that the burden of proof rests on my shoulders, I agree. Since I am taking a stance on a topic there is a burden of proof that I am responsible for just as there is a burden of proof for any other person who is making a truth claim, and that includes you. When someone poses a debate topic asking me to share my proof I will consider doing so, but I have posed the question to this debate for those who are willing to provide their proof for why they believe in what they believe as atheists.

Evolution is fact a denial of this firmly puts you intellectually in more or less the same category as flat earthers.
Evolution is supported by mountains of peer reviewed papers that you're free to challenge and destroy and disprove and thus become the first Christian to disprove Evolution, but of course we both know that not one peer reviewed science paper exists that destroys Evolution or not one peer reviewed paper exists that proves a god ,whys that?

Your view of this is very skewed if you ask me. The evolution theory is a theory that is a truth claim and therefore is either right or wrong. I submit to that I as a Christian am making a truth claim as well and can be either right or wrong, but to say that evolution is a fact and to say that there is no evidence that contradicts findings within the evolution theory is a bit naive. Even within the study of evolution there have been self contradictions noted throughout history. The field of Science in a sense is about proving itself wrong. This is how the they discovered after decades of believing that the Universe had been around for eternity, that there was a beginning point and that it had not always existed. I can also tell you that the many irreducibly-complex organisms and cells that exist in this world due in fact bring some serious questions to the evolution theory (something that Darwin was very aware of). If you have not looked them up, I implore you to do so. Also, there has been evidence discovered that brings the age of the earth into question. i.e. soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils. Impossible to have surviving soft tissue within something that has been dead for hundreds of millions of years. Trees that have been discovered through several of the sedimentary rock layers show evidence for a rapid burial and not millions of years. Rock being found buried under other rocks that were dated millions of years old but the buried rock was dated to thousands of years old.   

Also you say Evolution cannot be seen heard or touched , do you really want me to tell you the flaws in that ridiculous claim?

Can you touch billions of years? Do you know of eye witnesses that were there when nothing became something. Do you have a cousin that is an ape that that you can communicate with? I do not question what we have seen first hand. There is such thing as evolution, however, I believe that it is a more micro evolution rather than a macro evolution. There is no denying that creatures can adapt and evolve to their surroundings, we have seen that first hand in labs and in the wilderness. But we have yet to see the fish and the apes turn into humans, or dinosaurs turn into birds. We have yet to see a specific kind of creature turn into a completely new kind of creature. Those are all things that are theories as to what happened to the creatures in the past. 

Another problem now looms for you, just say I didn't believe in Evolution how does that in any way prove a god?

Again this specific debate set out to find atheists who were willing to provide their proof for what they believe in, however, if you did not believe in evolution that alone would not prove a god. What I argue is that there is tremendous evidence for an intelligent design based on the extreme complexity of everything that is in this universe. To me that holds a lot of weight because, I cannot in good conscious come to believe that everything just happened by accident. The odds of that happening are beyond astronomical, and because of the evidence for an intelligent design I would argue that there has to be a designer that set everything in motion, placed everything in its exact location that it needed to be and provided all the resources that needed to be provided in order for there to be survival.  

I also asked you do you also accept every other god claim and claims of supernatural enties from around the world and if not why not?

If this were a question solely on there being an intelligent designer I would say that someone's god did all this. But if questioned about my faith, I would argue for the one God of the Holy Bible. This would be based on my discovery of evidence that points me to Him and I have come to find is the most logical god to believe in. Again though that is for another debate.  

3: If you're going to be dishonest and make up nonsense about what I said you can go away , you asked a question I've answered and I said at the beginning I'm not concerned about convincing you yet you say I am. 

You said you wanted fair respectful exchanges so do you think you can stick to that?

You keep saying that I am doing a bait and switch, however, I am the one who posed the debate question seeking out atheists who are willing to provide evidence for their side of the argument. So if you are not willing to admit that as a person who makes a truth claim you too hold a burden of proof, I will concede that our dialogue together is over.

What other Atheists say and do is not on me so please don't once again try and tar me with that brush.

4: No I cannot tell you how everything came into existence ,you claim you can based on the words of a book of mostly contradictory nonsense written by bronze age goat herds yet you think Evolution is nonsense yet you haven't a shred of proof to back your claims up, do you even see the numerous flaws in your arguments?

I will admit that there is no argument that is perfect and as you stated about what atheists say and do, I too cannot be tarred with a brush based on what other Christians say and do. I will also attest that my personal argument may not be done to the fullness it deserves, but I am not afraid to admit that as someone who holds to a truth claim I do hold a burden of proof for it. Lastly I can tell you that you should probably check your facts again about the historicity of the the Bible. Because I can tell you that there has been no other documents from antiquity that have the same pedigree as the Holy Bible. Literally, nothing that we have ever discovered comes even close to the amount of historical evidence that has been discovered to validate the Bible. But don't take my word for it. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; Every atheist knows our Creator exists though they reject this knowledge publicly due their demonic lust for the flesh and they're without excuse...you're simply another foolish atheist headed to death in Hell in your aberrant lust and affections.

xlJ_dolphin_473

@ZeusAres42
Yes, I saw that video. Alex saying "I know" every time ChatGPT said "You are right" was golden

Jweishuhn

@JulesKorngold

• Problem of Evil: The presence of evil and suffering in the world contradicts the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god.

I have to say that I would argue to the fact that since there is evil out there, it increases the argument for a god. The first question you have to ask yourself when making this argument, is what determines the things that are evil? I am assuming you believe in morals based on this argument, but where do our morals come from. Below you point out that science has been able to help us understand the thing we did not understand before and I do agree with that in many ways, however, moralism is still one of those things that science cannot help us to understand and it never will be able to help us understand. To bring it back around though, if you believe that there is and evil out there that means you believe that there is good out there. What do you constitute as good and how is it you have come to that conclusion. C.S. Lewis points out that when he was an atheist his “argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust…”, but he began to realize that he needed to figure out where he got the idea of just and unjust. He states “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” And Lewis asked himself, “What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” 
If you are an atheist and believe that there is no God, you believe that we as beings are just a ball of matter and therefore, our morality is subjective and not objective. You are saying that if you believe murdering a child is wrong that is your moral truth, but I am okay with thinking that it is okay to murder children since that is my moral truth, if that was something that I believed. The fact that evil is out there helps us to know that there is an objective good out there and that objective good cannot just be something that we construct therefore, it is something that has been given to us in order to know how to love one another. Now I cannot say why God allows things to work in the manner and way they work, but what I can say is that the fact that there is evil in this world is because of the free will that God has allowed us to have. 

• Diversity of Religions: The existence of many religions with conflicting beliefs about the nature of god(s) makes it difficult to determine which, if any, is true.

I agree there are many religions out there and as most of them have great guidance on how to live a good life, they do have many conflicting beliefs. However, if you were to take away all those religions and simply look at the evidence that points to an intelligent designer, who created this universe with such precision and intricacy, so much so that the probabilaty of all the things falling into place that needed to happen in order for our universe to be stable by accident are beyond atronomical. I think this fact alone is a starting point for one to believe in a creator and than determining which creator becomes a whole other process. I choose to believe in the Christian God because after seeing the evidence and experiencing the things I have, it makes the most sense to me, it is not illogical or blind faith I promise you that. Could I be wrong, maybe, but if I am wrong, the implications are what? Nothing happens to me after I die? But if those who are atheist are wrong their eternal future is at stake.  

• Unexplained Phenomena Attributed to Gods: Historically, many phenomena we now understand scientifically were attributed to gods. As science progresses, explanations for the natural world become less reliant on divine intervention.

Some things that were once deemed miracles have indeed been scientifically explained. I will grant you that, however, there are still so many things that cannot and will never be able to be explain through science because science can only prove natural things. For example: Morality something that science will never be able to explain. How something was created from nothing, and whether there is something else on the other side of death. Those are just a couple of things that science can never explain and or prove. 

I want to thank you for being one of the only ones who has actually addressed the question being debated. 

I would like to ask you, where do you get your concept of evil from? 

Factfinder

@Jweishuhn

It is very hard to ask someone to prove a negative of this magnitude. I would say the total and complete lack of empirical evidence of a god speaks volumes. Possibly that fact alone causes one to consider it's evident god doesn't exist. Many will claim creation itself declares gods existence but that's just an assertion of faith. Never are they able to demonstrate creation is the work of their particular god. Faith in god is called faith for a reason.

Jweishuhn

@Factfinder

There is a reason why people claim the creation of the universe is evidence, because the scientific evidence that shows the precision and complexity of what lies within our universe in order for it to survive, leads one to believe that it had an intelligent designer. You speak of that being based off of faith and in many ways you are correct, because at the end of the day, it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it was created by a designer. However, the same can and should be said about those who hold to the Big Bang theory. For the simple fact that, that theory is pretty much based on a miracle in itself. There is no empirical evidence that proves that the universe was created from nothing, it is simply a theory that a magical atom appeared out of nowhere, that it exploded and somehow everything managed to fall into the exact places they needed to in order for the universe to survive. The probability of that happening is beyond astronomical. Therefore, is it not fair to conclude that those who hold to the Big Bang theory hold to an assertion of faith as well? 

Factfinder

@Jweishuhn

But there is some evidence of the big bang where there is none for god. True a very puzzling question is what about before the big bang, and what caused it? Unknowns however only default to "god did it" to people of religious faith. And every time once that which wasn't known became known; there was only natural causes behind it. Never has there even been evidence of a supernatural being or supernatural activity.

I hear the argument of precision quite a lot. That only works if you believe the earth is the center of creation, that everything else was created to support life on earth. But that simply is not so. The earth is in a solar system on the outer edge of a galaxy called The Milky Way.  One of billions of galaxies that will never have anything to do with life on earth. Life as we know it anywhere in something as big as the universe comes down to beating extremely high mathematical odds. Which as lotteries demonstrate on a smaller scale, is done and eventually does become inevitable. 

In the end there is still no evidence of god which still speaks volumes. And though there is a lot we do not know, every time unknowns were attributed to a god of some kind and they became known later; 100% of the time it was natural phenomenon that explained it.

ZeusAres42

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

@ZeusAres42
Yes, I saw that video. Alex saying "I know" every time ChatGPT said "You are right" was golden

most likely outdated Gpt3 or just some human manipulation via some coding and the right API keys. I wouldn't take it literally. Default chatgpt 4 as of now can not be manipulated with just mere conversational input. 

OakTownA

@just_sayin
"1)  The universe had a beginning.  (i) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. - Since the cause can not be the universe itself, it is logical to believe God is that cause."
Why can't the universe create itself? The universe is the result of physics. There is zero reason in this argument to support a god, or, more specifically, your god. The universe was created by Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe, Leaf be upon Her. Prove me wrong.

2)  The universe is very finely tuned to permit life.  I've gone over the astronomical odds with you before.  Suffice it to say that all of the fundamental forces of the universe are incredibly finely tuned to permit life and that there is no law that forces them to be as they are.  To think that the universe randomly came from nothing on its own with just the right finely tuned parameters seems unrealistic, instead such finely tuned complexity suggests an intelligence.
To quote Douglas Adams: 

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

If the universe was "very finely tuned to permit life," why is life currently only found on Earth? Scientist have identified about 5,500 planets in our galaxy. Assuming every star has at least one planet, that's around 100 BILLION planets in our galaxy alone. Based on results from the Kepler space telescope, it's estimated that there could be as many as 300 million potentially habitable planets. While this looks like a lot on the surface, the numbers boil down to a 30% CHANCE that a planet will have life. If this universe was truly "finely tuned to permit life" why is that chance so small?
 
3)  Even the simplest cell is incredibly complex.  When we see something like code,, as we do in a DNA strand, we know that it is more likely that there is a coder.  The fact that science can not create life from non-life also points to a God.
Why? DNA is not a code anymore than H2O is a code. DNA consists of a chain of amino acids. While it is common to say things like "DNA is the blueprint for life," these are analogies to help people understand how DNA works. It does not mean that DNA contains actual blueprints or information. DNA is not a "code," any more than iso-propyl cyanide, the most complex molecule scientists have found, and it was found a giant gas cloud called Sagittarius B2, an area that is often thought of as a star nursery in interstellar space. Notably, its structure is the closest to that found in living cells to date, so this molecule could have been pivotal in forming life on Earth. (Yes, this is a hypothesis that will need further study to prove out one way or the other.)

4) Miracles - We've gone over this.  I've provided eye witness testimony, medical records, even legal documents signed by the king of France to show you examples of miracles such as people miraculously getting their eyesight back, having amputated limbs grow back, the lame walking, and even the dead come back to life.  I've provided numerous doctor's statements that these events happened and were medically impossible.    Some atheists faith won't allow them to consider such evidence so they appeal to the science of the gaps argument, 'we may not know the answer now, but trust me, we'll figure it out one day'.  I'd say miracles are a good indication that God exists. 
What is a miracle? How does one know that it was a miracle as opposed to hard work by the people involved or a streak of good luck. If you can provide a single verifiable, documented case where an amputee's limb has grown back, I will stop being an atheist, and donate ALL of my current savings to the church of your choice. 

OakTownA

@just_sayin
What do you believe are the tenets of atheism? I can go to various religious texts to find the tenets of, say, Catholicism. Where can one go to find the tenets of atheism? Theism/atheism are two answers to the same question: do you think a god/gods exist. If all atheists share a set of tenets, then, reciprocally, all theists  must share a set of tenets. What are the set of tenets that ALL theists share?

Factfinder

@OakTownA

If you can provide a single verifiable, documented case where an amputee's limb has grown back, I will stop being an atheist, and donate ALL of my current savings to the church of your choice. 

I made the same request awhile back and Just_sayin responded with this fantasy...

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/171521/#Comment_171521

He actually believes a moch trial meant to lift the spirits of a gullible people during the dark ages is proof. He also thinks the fact the guys leg has all the scars means it grew back instead of the guy simply never had his leg amputated. He will not back down from asserting this silliness as it would destroy his faith.

MayCaesar

Jweishuhn said:

@Factfinder

There is a reason why people claim the creation of the universe is evidence, because the scientific evidence that shows the precision and complexity of what lies within our universe in order for it to survive, leads one to believe that it had an intelligent designer. You speak of that being based off of faith and in many ways you are correct, because at the end of the day, it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it was created by a designer. However, the same can and should be said about those who hold to the Big Bang theory. For the simple fact that, that theory is pretty much based on a miracle in itself. There is no empirical evidence that proves that the universe was created from nothing, it is simply a theory that a magical atom appeared out of nowhere, that it exploded and somehow everything managed to fall into the exact places they needed to in order for the universe to survive. The probability of that happening is beyond astronomical. Therefore, is it not fair to conclude that those who hold to the Big Bang theory hold to an assertion of faith as well? 

As it has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the Big Bang theory does not claim that "the universe was created from nothing". It does not posit any "magical atoms", any "exploding atoms", et cetera.

It is quite boring to hear the same erroneous statements repeated over and over by the same people, while their correction is just one google query or one ChatGPT prompt away. Here, I will even do the latter for you. Here is its reply (the highlights are mine):

Certainly! Here’s a concise explanation of the Big Bang theory that you can use to clarify misunderstandings in your discussions:

---

The Big Bang theory is a scientific model describing the early development of the Universe. According to this theory, the Universe began from an extremely hot and dense state about 13.8 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. This initial state is not described as "nothing"; rather, it was a singularity encompassing all of the mass and energy of the Universe.

Key points about the Big Bang theory include:

1. Initial Singularity: The Big Bang started as a singularity, a point where the density and gravity may have been infinite. This singularity marks the limit of our understanding, as the laws of physics as currently known do not apply in such extreme conditions.

2. Expansion, Not Explosion: The term "Big Bang" might suggest an explosion, but the theory actually describes an expansion. This means space itself has been expanding, and continues to expand, carrying galaxies with it.

3. Cosmic Background Radiation: The Big Bang theory is supported by observable evidence such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the cooled remnant from the early state of the Universe, now observed as microwave energy permeating the cosmos.

4. No Claim About Prior Conditions: The Big Bang theory does not provide a mechanism or explanation for what "caused" the singularity or what conditions were like before it. It merely describes the evolution of the Universe from that initial state onward.

5. Does Not Address Creation: Importantly, the Big Bang theory does not address the creation of the Universe from "nothing." It does not speculate on what preceded the singularity or if "before" the singularity is a meaningful concept, as our understanding of time itself starts with the Big Bang.

This explanation underscores that the Big Bang theory is focused on describing how the Universe has evolved over time from a hot, dense state and does not make assertions about existential origins or what might have come "before" the Big Bang.

And before someone accuses of me having no arguments and having ChatGPT speak for me... I have said pretty much the same things as it did on numerous occasions - but the resident religious folks pretended that it did not happen. They cannot pretend that ChatGPT does not say it, however, for anyone can verify that first-hand. Anyone can also verify that I have said all of these things before, but looking for my comments on this website is clearly more time-consuming than writing a short ChatGPT prompt.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

We are arguing against dogma and doctrine. At what point should we question our own sanity for engaging them? 

Well okay boredom is a pretty good reason. LOL

OakTownA

@just_sayin
"t's because they don't have any evidence that there is no God."
It is impossible to prove a negative. It is up to the person presenting the positive assertion (god is real) to present evidence that defends their position. I have yet to see any evidence that has convinced me that a god exists. 

When asked to explain how a universe could start from zero space, the atheist just wants you to take it on faith. 
Please provide evidence that "atheist just wants you to take it on faith." There is evidence that supports the hypothesis that our universe started from a singularity, and expanded rapidly, including the cosmic microwave background radiation, Hubble's Law, and observations on the distribution of large cosmic structures. Individuals can even use Hubble's Law to calculate the age of the universe by following this formula: t=D/v 
t= time
D= distance between two galaxies
v= velocity
According to Hubble's Law, v=H0D, so t=D/H0D, which can be reduced to 1/H0. According to scientists, H0=73km/s/Mp. After some conversions, we are left with 
 t = 1/H0 = 1 / 2.37 x 10−18 1/s = 4.22 x 1017 s = 13.4 billion years.

When you ask them why the universe is astronomically finely tuned
It's not.

 "...there are no laws of nature that require the fundamental forces to be as they are"
What do you mean by this? By "laws of nature" do you mean scientific and/or mathematical laws? Why would there be a law of nature "require the fundamental forces to be as they are?" Scientific laws are descriptions of what people observe. Why do two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom form water? Because they do. That's what we observe. There doesn't need to be some great force behind it; it just is.

When you ask the atheist to provide evidence that abiogenesis works - just make life from non-life, they just stare at you with the 'I got nothin' look. 
Saying "I don't know" is not the same as "I got nothin'." Do I know how life formed on this planet? Nope. Am I a scientist who studies and does research on abiogenesis? Also no, so I read studies and articles on studies (lets be real; studies can be dry AF to read) to understand what the most current research is demonstrating. Personally, my hypothesis is that meteors brought some amino acids to the earth, where they combined near hot ocean vents or area of chemical concentrations similar to those found at the Rainbow Hot Springs in Yellowstone

When you ask the atheist to explain documented instances of miracles, they just start the science of the gaps song.  When you point out that it is actually science which is saying that the miracles are impossible, yet they happened, you get the 'I got nothin' look again. 
Please provide documentation for these miracles. 

 Instead atheists want us to believe:
1) everything came from nothing
2) complexity came from chaos
3) life came from non-life
4) Consciousness came from inanimate objects
5) Morals came from matter
The first four statements on this list have nothing to do with a belief or lack there of in god or gods. There are many theists who accept the Big Bang (though I hate that name) hypothesis, abiogenesis, and evolution, as well as an old earth. They are also straw man arguments, except for #4.

Morals come from society. Even the morals presented in the Bible have changed. When the Bible was written, women were the property of their husband or father. They had little to no autonomy, and were often required to marry the person their father chose for them. They could not get divorced unless the husband agreed, while the husband could leave their wife for any reason without permission. Women could not own property on their own, unless they were the sole heir. It was considered "immoral" for a woman to make money on her own. It was also immoral for a woman to refuse to sleep with her husband. Do you find working women immoral? Is it okay to rape your wife if you want to have sex, but she doesn't?

John_C_87

Okay read and watch this selfevident truth about a republic very carefully, nothing is up the sleaves,nothing in the pockets.

GOD = 400, 11, 500
400 + 11 = 411 ( information please) 411 is < 500 so 500 must move one place to the left and  411 shall be subtracted from 500. 500 - 411 = 89
8 < 9 so 9 goes one place to the left and 8 shall subtrated from 9. ( 9 - 8 = 1).  ( 1 ) = the one GOD.


Oak,
It is impossible to prove a negative. It is up to the person presenting the positive assertion (god is real) to present evidence that defends their position. I have yet to see any evidence that has convinced me that a god exists. The correction is it is made on impossible to prove a negative, No! as fact it is not impossible to prove a negative, what is highly unlikely and for all accounts impossible is to prove a negative that is not there. Christianity is a demonstration of a highly unregulated democracty. 

Joeseph

@Jweishuhn

So I know that Hebrews 11:1 says, "Faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof (or conviction or assurance according to other versions) of what is not seen." But if you are trying to say that this is talking about a personal spiritual conviction you are mistaken. It is better understood as how other versions of the Bible translate it as the word proof. The Bible is very clear about faith coming from trusting in what Jesus said and did, and trusting in God's promises. Just think about it, when people came from all over the land to be healed by Jesus, they did it by faith, and He very clearly spoke about such faith, in many instances. The reason that brings a lot of weight is because those people were not being spiritually convicted to follow Jesus, they just had faith, and trusted that He would do what they had heard He was doing. When looking at the Old Testament and seeing the faith that Abraham and Noah and Moses had in God, their faith was all about trusting in the promises that God made with them. I will admit that our spiritual convictions deepen our faith (trust) but in every sense of the word, faith is

You have "faith" that a supernatural entity called god exists you cannot see, hear or touch this entity yet you base your whole life on your " faith" this entity exists , this is prime example of blind faith.

But if nothing can be proven for certain, which I will admit that the existence of God cannot be proven for certain, how does one choose a side? Believe it or not, people on both sides, look at the evidence that is presented before them and determine which one they think makes the most sense. You think being an atheist and the theory of evolution makes the most sense based on the evidence that you have seen. I believe in a creator God and yes a young earth based on the evidence that I have seen and I have seen evidence from both sides. Which I am curious as to whether or not you have ever really looked at the evidence from the other side with an open mind. And yes I am claiming that a belief in God is equivalent to an atheist who believes in evolution. Because you have chosen to put your faith in the unknown part of the evolution theory that cannot be proven with complete and unquestionable certainty. 

One follows the evidence there are mountains of peer reviewed evidence for Evolution , there's zero peer reviwed evidence for a god or a young earth otherwise you would present it.

What's the " unknown part of Evolution"? You're making stuff up now.


My denomination does not matter, I am fully aware that there are believers out there that take a stance with the evolution theory, and that is their prerogative and right, and has nothing to do with the question that was posed for this debate. You mentioned earlier that the burden of proof rests on my shoulders, I agree. Since I am taking a stance on a topic there is a burden of proof that I am responsible for just as there is a burden of proof for any other person who is making a truth claim, and that includes you. When someone poses a debate topic asking me to share my proof I will consider doing so, but I have posed the question to this debate for those who are willing to provide their proof for why they believe in what they believe as atheists.


What are you embarrassed to name your denomination? Atheists have a stance on one question alone you seem very confused over this , also why do you keep mentioning Evolution?

If the impossible happened and Evolution was proven wrong it doesn't prove a god.

Your view of this is very skewed if you ask me. The evolution theory is a theory that is a truth claim and therefore is either right or wrong. I submit to that I as a Christian am making a truth claim as well and can be either right or wrong, but to say that evolution is a fact and to say that there is no evidence that contradicts findings within the evolution theory is a bit naive. Even within the study of evolution there have been self contradictions noted throughout history. The field of Science in a sense is about proving itself wrong. This is how the they discovered after decades of believing that the Universe had been around for eternity, that there was a beginning point and that it had not always existed. I can also tell you that the many irreducibly-complex organisms and cells that exist in this world due in fact bring some serious questions to the evolution theory (something that Darwin was very aware of). If you have not looked them up, I implore you to do so. Also, there has been evidence discovered that brings the age of the earth into question. i.e. soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils. Impossible to have surviving soft tissue within something that has been dead for hundreds of millions of years. Trees that have been discovered through several of the sedimentary rock layers show evidence for a rapid burial and not millions of years. Rock being found buried under other rocks that were dated millions of years old but the buried rock was dated to thousands of years old.   


Your personal opinions and preaching are based on nothing but YEC nonsense, give it a rest.

Don't accuse me of naivety when I'm the one who can post mountains of peer reviewed evidence by credible scientists  for Evolution you on the other hand have not one peer reviewed paper by a credible scientist to back up your totally naive pseudoscientific nonsense.


Can you touch billions of years? Do you know of eye witnesses that were there when nothing became something. Do you have a cousin that is an ape that that you can communicate with? I do not question what we have seen first hand. There is such thing as evolution, however, I believe that it is a more micro evolution rather than a macro evolution. There is no denying that creatures can adapt and evolve to their surroundings, we have seen that first hand in labs and in the wilderness. But we have yet to see the fish and the apes turn into humans, or dinosaurs turn into birds. We have yet to see a specific kind of creature turn into a completely new kind of creature. Those are all things that are theories as to what happened to the creatures in the past. 

Where are your peer reviwed papers disproving Evolution?

Again this specific debate set out to find atheists who were willing to provide their proof for what they believe in, however, if you did not believe in evolution that alone would not prove a god. What I argue is that there is tremendous evidence for an intelligent design based on the extreme complexity of everything that is in this universe. To me that holds a lot of weight because, I cannot in good conscious come to believe that everything just happened by accident. The odds of that happening are beyond astronomical, and because of the evidence for an intelligent design I would argue that there has to be a designer that set everything in motion, placed everything in its exact location that it needed to be and provided all the resources that needed to be provided in order for there to be survival.


Evolution is fact , prove otherwise. Your personal feelings on the matter are preaching , you believe in magic its up to you to prove it.

If this were a question solely on there being an intelligent designer I would say that someone's god did all this. But if questioned about my faith, I would argue for the one God of the Holy Bible. This would be based on my discovery of evidence that points me to Him and I have come to find is the most logical god to believe in. Again though that is for another debate.  

It's based on where you were born,  if you were born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim parents you would be a Muslim , you're a victim of indoctrination.

You keep saying that I am doing a bait and switch, however, I am the one who posed the debate question seeking out atheists who are willing to provide evidence for their side of the argument. So if you are not willing to admit that as a person who makes a truth claim you too hold a burden of proof, I will concede that our dialogue together is over.

What truth claim have i made?

will admit that there is no argument that is perfect and as you stated about what atheists say and do, I too cannot be tarred with a brush based on what other Christians say and do. I will also attest that my personal argument may not be done to the fullness it deserves, but I am not afraid to admit that as someone who holds to a truth claim I do hold a burden of proof for it. Lastly I can tell you that you should probably check your facts again about the historicity of the the Bible. Because I can tell you that there has been no other documents from antiquity that have the same pedigree as the Holy Bible. Literally, nothing that we have ever discovered comes even close to the amount of historical evidence that has been discovered to validate the Bible. But don't take my word for it. 


What claims did  I make about the historicity of the Bible?  Prove I made such or apologise? My dispute with the bible is not its historicity but its miracle claims which puts me with the most credible historians not-one of who believes in its ridiculous miracle claims.

Nothing validates miracle claims stop making nonsense up, also who awarded the bible this pedigree you boast about ? Names please?

Joeseph

@Jweishuhn


PLEASE STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF YOU SOUND EXACTLY LIKE ONE THOSE UNFORTUNATE LUNATICS ONE HEARS RANTING ALOUD ON STREET CORNERS......

Joeseph

@Jweishuhn

If morality is god given do you approve of slavery and the laws on such as laid down by your god regards the buying , selling and beating of your poperty as in your slaves?

Name me ten objective god given moral dictates you and fellow Christians agree on?

Also why do you keep mentioning " something coming from nothing" what is " nothing"?

Joeseph

@Factfinder

Apparently the guys leg was buried yet  no leg was found in the plot it was buried in ......is it possible its B-lls-it.

Barnardot

@Jweishuhn ;I am a Christian

That figures since no body in there right mind would ask such a silly question as asking people to prove the absence of some thing. It takes a God believer to be so silly and deluded.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

We are arguing against dogma and doctrine. At what point should we question our own sanity for engaging them? 

Well okay boredom is a pretty good reason. LOL

Not really dogma, I would say, but dishonesty coupled with ignorance. These people never apply the same reasoning when it comes to things directly affecting their life. If (and I sincerely hope not) one of these posters gets cancer, what do you think their response will be? Well, I am not sure about Rickey - he is a true nutcase - but none of the other posters will say, "Well, we do not know everything about cancer, so I do not trust those doctors. Instead, I will pray to god!" No, they will go and get a treatment.

Factfinder

Joeseph said:

@Factfinder

Apparently the guys leg was buried yet  no leg was found in the plot it was buried in ......is it possible its B-lls-it.

Yeah LOL so true. I went round and round over this claim with him and got nowhere. He thinks an empty hole in the ground and a guy with his original two legs, scars and all, ancient archived cult transcripts, and a guy who wanted to sell books to Christians in modern times is all evidence of an amputation and regeneration.