"no Evidence" For God Or Creation, The Atheist Claims?

[goldliger 57]

Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)

 

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

 

(Hint: The answer to the above is "yes", because the genetic code and DNA as potential evidence for anything else would be 100% falsified, when we have objective proof that God is/was its author.)

 

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

 

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

 

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

 

...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.

 

Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.

 

...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for God and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for God.

 

Further, unless you can provide another example of a code that was NOT created by an intelligent being under the definition provided, we have 100% inference that the genetic code and DNA was created by an intelligent being. And 0% inference that it was a result of naturalistic, mindless, Godless causation.

 

Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument, because we're assuming based on logic that *both* naturalism and creationism are theoretical possibilities. And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in.

 

Thanks for reading.

[jason 18]

Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)

 

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

 

(Hint: The answer to the above is "yes", because the genetic code and DNA as potential evidence for anything else would be 100% falsified, when we have objective proof that God is/was its author.)

 

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

 

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

 

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

 

...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.

 

Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.

 

...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for God and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for God.

 

Further, unless you can provide another example of a code that was NOT created by an intelligent being under the definition provided, we have 100% inference that the genetic code and DNA was created by an intelligent being. And 0% inference that it was a result of naturalistic, mindless, Godless causation.

 

Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument, because we're assuming based on logic that *both* naturalism and creationism are theoretical possibilities. And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in.

 

Thanks for reading.

72501[/snapback]

but that means i would have to repent of my sin. and God is real.

 

you can tell them this and they will argue around it. sadly

[goldliger 57]

but that means i would have to repent of my sin. and God is real.

 

you can tell them this and they will argue around it. sadly

72505[/snapback]

 

Sad but very true!

[Seth 1]

Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)

 

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

 

(Hint: The answer to the above is "yes", because the genetic code and DNA as potential evidence for anything else would be 100% falsified, when we have objective proof that God is/was its author.)

 

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

 

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

 

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

 

...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.

 

Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.

 

...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for God and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for God.

 

Further, unless you can provide another example of a code that was NOT created by an intelligent being under the definition provided, we have 100% inference that the genetic code and DNA was created by an intelligent being. And 0% inference that it was a result of naturalistic, mindless, Godless causation.

 

Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument, because we're assuming based on logic that *both* naturalism and creationism are theoretical possibilities. And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in.

 

Thanks for reading.

72501[/snapback]

 

Well said, Goldliger.

 

This has always been part of my argument. The evidence for God is overwhelming. There is no escaping the obvious because, if atheist's really gave it some serious thought, it's the only reality we know of. It's the only experience any of us can lay claim to that things like code, language etc. have ALWAYS had an intelligent source behind it, ALWAYS!

 

The only reality and experience we know of, as well, is that anything made had a maker. There are NO exceptions! Nobody sees a chair in the middle of a forest and thinks it was the result of the wind knocking branches off the trees. Why don't we? Because it's been our experience with REALITY. Therefore atheists must SHOW us the contrary with the same type of REALITY how non living matter came to life somehow someway. Instead we get Fantasy, Imaginations, Ideas and Stories of how there is somehow a reality that none of us has ever seen or experienced for ourselves.

 

Complexity with design and/or purpose are the signatures of the obvious that there MUST have been an intelligent source behind it for it's the only reality we've ever known and experienced.

[zendra 0]

If i may,

 

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

Well if you've already established that a god did create it( which i assume you were able to prove) then yes it is evidence. The problem is that we dont know that it did, perhaps you feel you know and if you could provide evidence that would be great.

 

 

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

 

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

No offence but theres also no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create it either, or Thor, or Ra, etc.

For there to be proof you need to outline what that proof would have to be. We could show that no signals are being sent to DNA but the theist could say that the signals are different.

 

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

 

...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.

The problem is the term meaningful. We are the ones that give things meaning. There were these random pulsars that were originally thought to be meaningful signals but little green men

[goldliger 57]

If i may,

Well if you've already established that a god did create it( which i assume you were able to prove) then yes it is evidence. The problem is that we dont know that it did, perhaps you feel you know and if you could provide evidence that would be great.

No offence but theres also no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create it either, or Thor, or Ra, etc.

For there to be proof you need to outline what that proof would have to be. We could show that no signals are being sent to DNA but the theist could say that the signals are different.

The problem is the term meaningful. We are the ones that give things meaning. There were these random pulsars that were originally thought to be meaningful signals but little green men

72534[/snapback]

1. We've just provided evidence.

 

2. The question of "which God" is a different question entirely. This is where we start looking at corroborating evidence. Such things as flying pasta and pink unicorns are arbitrary ideas, and without corroborating evidence. The God of the Bible is not an arbitrary idea by any stretch. There is a reason you see billions of believers in the God of the Bible throughout history (and religions that essentially try to copy Christianity by applying *some* of its truth), and none truly for flying meals.

 

3. "Meaningful" in this case simply means "provides instructional value" - which DNA provides.

[gilbo12345 859]

1. We've just provided evidence.

 

2. The question of "which God" is a different question entirely. This is where we start looking at corroborating evidence. Such things as flying pasta and pink unicorns are arbitrary ideas, and without corroborating evidence. The God of the Bible is not an arbitrary idea by any stretch. There is a reason you see billions of believers in the God of the Bible throughout history (and religions that essentially try to copy Christianity by applying *some* of its truth), and none truly for flying meals.

 

3. "Meaningful" in this case simply means "provides instructional value" - which DNA provides.

72535[/snapback]

1. Perhaps giving examples would be more constructive rather than a one-liner

 

2. Arguementum ad populum won't really help in this case, perhaps talk about the historical evidences of Jesus

 

3. True

[Salsa 171]

If i may,

We are the ones that give things meaning. There were these random pulsars that were originally thought to be meaningful signals but little green men.

72534[/snapback]

This is like the common "snowflake" argument that evolutionists like to use despite the incredible difference there is behind something that is basically symetrical or binary, with something that requires an enormously complicated decoder. You could argue that complicated code consists of these "simpler" constructs, but to get there would require more than simply rinsing around in primordial slush.

 

Genetic codes were hardly meaningless until "we" came along. A code such as that has just as much "meaning" with or without an interpreter. It just becomes "meaningless" in the sense that it no longer serves a purpose without a decoder. The code itself remains meaningful as long as decoding the code produces a consistant meaning.

 

Cells lack the kind of thinking capacity that would be required to decode a language. The intelligence required to do that must have come externally. Intelligence doesn't just splash together in a pond.

[goldliger 57]

1. Perhaps giving examples would be more constructive rather than a one-liner

 

2. Arguementum ad populum won't really help in this case, perhaps talk about the historical evidences of Jesus

 

3. True

72537[/snapback]

 

1. The genetic code was already a given example of evidence.

 

2. Historical evidence is the type of corroborating evidence I was referring to. I simply meant that it's corroborating such as this, that is the reason so many believe. The fact that so many believe was not cited as corroborating evidence.

 

3.

[gilbo12345 859]

1. The genetic code was already a given example of evidence.

 

2. Historical evidence is the type of corroborating evidence I was referring to. I simply meant that it's corroborating such as this, that is the reason so many believe. The fact that so many believe was not cited as corroborating evidence.

 

3.

72559[/snapback]

I think what zendra is getting at is even if there is evidence of a designer, (of which I agree there are countless examples), how do we know it was the Christian God who did it? As he said, (tongue in cheek I assume), it could be the flying spaghetti monster etc... This is similar to my stance on the subject, whilst I do not deny the existance of a higher power due to complexity in life and intelligence required for such complexity, I do realise that there must be an assumption made as to WHO this higher power is. This is where faith comes in, (which is fine ), I personally prefer to take a neutral stance, (though I do lean towards Christianity since I was a Presbyterian), hence theistic agnostic

 

Thats cool, just sounded very similar to an arguementum ad populum, evo's are picked up on here for it, it would be hypocritical not to impose the same standards.

 

So what historical evidence do you have that you have mentioned? Not because I am skeptical, because I am interested.

[zendra 0]

I think what zendra is getting at is even if there is evidence of a designer, (of which I agree there are countless examples), how do we know it was the Christian God who did it? As he said, (tongue in cheek I assume), it could be the flying spaghetti monster etc... This is similar to my stance on the subject, whilst I do not deny the existance of a higher power due to complexity in life and intelligence required for such complexity, I do realise that there must be an assumption made as to WHO this higher power is. This is where faith comes in, (which is fine smile.gif  ), I personally prefer to take a neutral stance, (though I do lean towards Christianity since I was a Presbyterian), hence theistic agnostic biggrin.gif

You summed it up great thanks. I was also hopng to note that the question said "If the statement is true" but I feel goldliger is now saying something more like 'given the statement is true'.

[Fred Williams 0]

You summed it up great thanks. I was also hopng to note that the question said "If the statement is true" but I feel goldliger is now saying something more like 'given the statement is true'.

72579[/snapback]

If you need to know who this inteligent designer is, there is overwhelming evidence it is the God of the Bible. See my sister site BibleEvidences.com.

[zendra 0]

QUOTE(zendra @ Jun 7 2011, 08:54 PM)

You summed it up great thanks. I was also hopng to note that the question said "If the statement is true" but I feel goldliger is now saying something more like 'given the statement is true'.

*

 

 

 

If you need to know who this inteligent designer is, there is overwhelming evidence it is the God of the Bible. See my sister site BibleEvidences.com.

 

I dont see how thats related to my post but anyway. I trust that you have come to this conclusion after researching through other biblical texts for other religions, at the least?

[gilbo12345 859]

I dont see how thats related to my post but anyway.  I trust that you have come to this conclusion after researching through other biblical texts for other religions, at the least?

72590[/snapback]

Ummm its directly related to your post...

 

You said I summed up your post great, and in it I talked about how we are unsure of WHO the designer is...

 

Hence evidence of WHO the designer is, is directly related to your post of which you already claimed I accurately summed up....

[zendra 0]

Ummm its directly related to your post...

 

You said I summed up your post great, and in it I talked about how we are unsure of WHO the designer is...

Not you, Fred williams

[Fred Williams 0]

I dont see how thats related to my post but anyway.  I trust that you have come to this conclusion after researching through other biblical texts for other religions, at the least?

72590[/snapback]

Yes, to some degree. See chapter on that page entitled 'Other Religions'.

 

How are things in ChristChurch? We have a building out there that was heavily damaged by the earthquake.

 

Fred

[zendra 0]

How are things in ChristChurch? We have a building out there that was heavily damaged by the earthquake.

It depend who you ask, personally the only real inconvenience is having to share my school which actually makes it easier to study( due to the edited school hours).My cousin however has an automatic closing door due to a tilt in the house. What building are you talking about,they differ as well.

[Ron 10]

If i may,

72534[/snapback]

Certainly…

 

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

Well if you've already established that a god did create it( which i assume you were able to prove) then yes it is evidence. The problem is that we dont know that it did, perhaps you feel you know and if you could provide evidence that would be great.

72534[/snapback]

Actually, God Himself established His creation. But, having said that; given that Jesus is who He said He is, and has done what He said He did, and the eye witnesses are who they said they were, and saw what they said they did; that alone is enough evidence that God did what He said he did.

 

Further, this is in fact a far larger problem for the atheists because they are basing all their hope that absolutely nothing happens (i.e. we came from nothing, and are going to nothing); and they have absolutely NO evidence to support their claim. Therefore, the atheist is in for a bigger surprise if something DOES happen!

 

 

 

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

 

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

No offence but theres also no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create it either, or Thor, or Ra, etc.

72534[/snapback]

Bad analogy , because your conclusion does not follow the premises (non sequitur). There are many-many eyewitnesses for the actions of Jesus Christ (for example); and there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses for anything that has to do with your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster†(or an orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…).

 

DO you have ANY eye witnesses for your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster�

DO you have ANY eye witnesses that will testify to the actions of your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster�

DO you have ANY eye witnesses who were willing to die horrendous and torturous deaths instead of recanting their eyewitnesses testimonies supporting your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster�

 

Here’s the thing Zendra: your tired and rehashed atheistic argument that attempts to analogously reconcile a “flying spaghetti monster†with the personage of God, fails because it is illogical (just like the orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…). Whenever the atheist has no real refutation, they trot out the flying spaghetti monster argument.

[Fred Williams 0]

It depend who you ask, personally the only real inconvenience is having to share my school which actually makes it easier to study( due to the edited school hours).My cousin however has an automatic closing door due to a tilt in the house. What building are you talking about,they differ as well.

72661[/snapback]

I work for a company called Trimble (we build asset-tracking GPS systems for heavy highyway equipment, among other things). Our office there is in the Riccarton suburb. They got hit pretty bad.

 

Fred

[Portillo 15]

The evidence for God is all around us but unfortunately we are living in a time where over 200 years of antiGod philosophy and science have brainwashed everyone into thinking that there is no God.

[zendra 0]

I work for a company called Trimble  (we build asset-tracking GPS systems for heavy highyway equipment, among other things). Our office there is in the Riccarton suburb. They got hit pretty bad.

Havent heard of the place sorry. But if they were in riccarton then they should be going ok( you'l probably know more than me). The main problem is in the CBD where business owners cant even get in to see their building.

 

 

Further, this is in fact a far larger problem for the atheists because they are basing all their hope that absolutely nothing happens (i.e. we came from nothing, and are going to nothing); and they have absolutely NO evidence to support their claim. Therefore, the atheist is in for a bigger surprise if something DOES happen!

I almost didnt reply to this because i suspect you know better. As i have said in other posts( im working on my reply on that evolution thread), being atheist doesnt mean you think we came from nothing. The big bang theory proposes the matter was already there, just compressed.

 

 

Bad analogy , because your conclusion does not follow the premises (non sequitur). There are many-many eyewitnesses for the actions of Jesus Christ (for example); and there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses for anything that has to do with your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster†(or an orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…).

 

DO you have ANY eye witnesses for your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster�

DO you have ANY eye witnesses that will testify to the actions of your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster�

DO you have ANY eye witnesses who were willing to die horrendous and torturous deaths instead of recanting their eyewitnesses testimonies supporting your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster�

 

Here’s the thing Zendra: your tired and rehashed atheistic argument that attempts to reconcile a “flying spaghetti monster†with the personage of God, fails because it is illogical (just like the orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…). Whenever the atheist has no real refutation, they trot out the flying spaghetti monster argument.

yes its funny thats the first time i'v actually mentioned the FSM myself.

The point i was making is that Goldliger was asking for proof that a god didn't create the universe etc. I could ask you do you have any proof there isn't a flying spaghetti monster. Would that be fair? Or would it be onto me to provide proof for it?

[goldliger 57]

Certainly…

 

 

 

Actually, God Himself established His creation. But, having said that; given that Jesus is who He said He is, and has done what He said He did, and the eye witnesses are who they said they were, and saw what they said they did; that alone is enough evidence that God did what He said he did.

 

Further, this is in fact a far larger problem for the atheists because they are basing all their hope that absolutely nothing happens (i.e. we came from nothing, and are going to nothing); and they have absolutely NO evidence to support their claim. Therefore, the atheist is in for a bigger surprise if something DOES happen!

 

 

 

 

Bad analogy , because your conclusion does not follow the premises (non sequitur). There are many-many eyewitnesses for the actions of Jesus Christ (for example); and there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses for anything that has to do with your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster†(or an orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…).

 

DO you have ANY eye witnesses for your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster�

DO you have ANY eye witnesses that will testify to the actions of your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster�

DO you have ANY eye witnesses who were willing to die horrendous and torturous deaths instead of recanting their eyewitnesses testimonies supporting your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster�

 

Here’s the thing Zendra: your tired and rehashed atheistic argument that attempts to analogously reconcile a “flying spaghetti monster†with the personage of God, fails because it is illogical (just like the orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…). Whenever the atheist has no real refutation, they trot out the flying spaghetti monster argument.

 

 

 

Great reply. The one, true God of the Bible is not an *arbitrary* concept, so there is zero comparison to flippant, arbitrary ideas. And of course, there is VAST *corroborating* evidence in a variety of forms supporting the Biblical God (historical, archaeological, scientific, medical (NDE's), etc., vs. absolutely zero evidence of realistic substance for flying pasta dinners and other such ridiculousness.

[Ron 10]

 

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

Well if you've already established that a god did create it( which i assume you were able to prove) then yes it is evidence. The problem is that we dont know that it did, perhaps you feel you know and if you could provide evidence that would be great.

72534[/snapback]

Actually, God Himself established His creation. But, having said that; given that Jesus is who He said He is, and has done what He said He did, and the eye witnesses are who they said they were, and saw what they said they did; that alone is enough evidence that God did what He said he did.

 

Further, this is in fact a far larger problem for the atheists because they are basing all their hope that absolutely nothing happens (i.e. we came from nothing, and are going to nothing); and they have absolutely NO evidence to support their claim. Therefore, the atheist is in for a bigger surprise if something DOES happen!

 

I almost didnt reply to this because i suspect you know better. As i have said in other posts( im working on my reply on that evolution thread), being atheist doesnt mean you think we came from nothing. The big bang theory proposes the matter was already there, just compressed.

 

Then you place yourself squarely into another series of conundrums Zendra, and I suspect you should have known better:

 

First - If you don’t think you came from nothing (which is contrary to mainline materialistic atheist thinking), then where did “the matter was already there” come from?

 

Second - And following up on that, if you are living your life believing in a proposal (sans any evidence) you are thusly living your life placing your entire faith (life and eternity) on an unsubstantiated proposal! That’s more faith than I have.

 

 

 

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

 

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

No offence but theres also no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create it either, or Thor, or Ra, etc.

72534[/snapback]

Bad analogy , because your conclusion does not follow the premises (non sequitur). There are many-many eyewitnesses for the actions of Jesus Christ (for example); and there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses for anything that has to do with your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster” (or an orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…).

 

DO you have ANY eye witnesses for your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?

DO you have ANY eye witnesses that will testify to the actions of your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?

DO you have ANY eye witnesses who were willing to die horrendous and torturous deaths instead of recanting their eyewitnesses testimonies supporting your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?

 

Here’s the thing Zendra: your tired and rehashed atheistic argument that attempts to reconcile a “flying spaghetti monster” with the personage of God, fails because it is illogical (just like the orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…). Whenever the atheist has no real refutation, they trot out the flying spaghetti monster argument.

 

yes its funny thats the first time i'v actually mentioned the FSM myself.

 

It is funny only because it (the flying spaghetti monster logical fallacy) is easily refuted as a non sequitur, and yet the atheist continues to use it. Further, the atheist only uses it when they are painted into a corner, and have no other argument to pull out of their bag, therefore they use fallacies like “Squared Circles”, “the paradox of the stone” etc…

 

 

The point i was making is that Goldliger was asking for proof that a god didn't create the universe etc.

 

That is incorrect and a misinterpretation (Purposefully or not?) of the argument Goldliger was making. His argument is basically; with ALL the evidence (logical, rational and scientific) for design (the Teleological Argument) we know there was a creator. Your fallacious argument was attempting to equate the flying spaghetti monster (for which there is no evidence) to the Christian God (for which there is ample evidence). Therefore your “point” is “moot”.

 

 

I could ask you do you have any proof there isn't a flying spaghetti monster. Would that be fair? Or would it be onto me to provide proof for it?

 

Actually, no, it would not be fair; because it make absolutely no sense. And mainly (as I pointed out above) because yours is a completely fallacious comparison:

 

First - The Christian posits God based upon eyewitness testimony, physical evidence (fingerprints of God’s presence), logical evidences (Teleological Argument, Cosmological Argument etc…)

 

Second - The Atheist posits the flying spaghetti monster based upon absolutely NO evidence; and solely as a fallacious argument against God. It is a totally refuted argument on many levels(logically, rationally and scientifically), and is therefore a non sequitur.

 

Therefore, YES, the responsibility is totally upon the shoulders of the atheist to provide proof for their claims that the flying spaghetti monster exists, because when you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to provide the facts to support that claim.

 

Further, the Christian Theist has many-many lines of evidence FOR the existence of God.

[gilbo12345 859]

I almost didnt reply to this because i suspect you know better. As i have said in other posts( im working on my reply on that evolution thread), being atheist doesnt mean you think we came from nothing. The big bang theory proposes the matter was already there, just compressed.

 

 

 

 

You do realise that that will lead to an infinite regression, and that is not logical... Where did the matter come from in the first instance? This is the fundamental question..

 

Lets assume that the universe has been on this roller coaster of expanding and shrinking X amount of times... There must have been a beginning before this X amount of times otherwise with no finite beginning then in actual fact you are claiming that the world came from nothing, by definition of it having no beginning.

 

So what will it be? Illogical infinite regression and indirect admission to the world having no beginning and thus came from nothing, or will you admit that this is a silly idea?

[jason 18]

lol,magic matter that popped in the form of a grapefruit with the energy to form what we see today, yet we have know way of verifying this at all.nor could observe such phenomon. only agrue that stellar nucleo synthesis could happen via the argument by anology as the atom smashers and also the nuclear fission and fusion has been done in a controled enviroment.