The Atheist Logical Fallacy

Atheists claim that there is no God. If that is the case, then how could something come from nothing in the Big Bang?

It is much more logical to assume that something was caused to come from nothing, rather than saying that a big explosion conveniently occurred and we all conveniently became complex organinsms. Gee, how convenient  .

Ultimately, atheists, the thing that caused the Big Bang and all of creation must be God. This is much more sensible logically than ascribing it all to a random explosion from nothing.

Check mate, atheists.

Yes, because adding in the extra complexity of an 8th dimensional being completely simplifies things

You already tried this, Nimp. The universe has always existed, it didn't come from nothing. We made your last thread about popsicles for a reason. If you're going to keep making these threads, you could at least have the decency to actually take part in their discussion.

I love popsicles.

Popsicles are already a thread. Can this one be about mexican food?

Mexican food is great. I live in Arizona so we have some pretty authentic Mexican restaurants, right down to your waiter not knowing more English than your drink order can comprise of.

Mexican food is great. I live in Arizona so we have some pretty authentic Mexican restaurants, right down to your waiter not knowing more English than your drink order can comprise of.

Damn, I'm jealous. Up here in New Jersey we get exactly none of that.

PUT ANOTHER SHRIMP ON THE BARBY

Popsicles are already a thread. Can this one be about mexican food?

Eugh, refried beans and cheese?

Atheists claim that there is no God. If that is the case, then how could something come from nothing in the Big Bang?

It is much more logical to assume that something was caused to come from nothing, rather than saying that a big explosion conveniently occurred and we all conveniently became complex organinsms. Gee, how convenient  .

Ultimately, atheists, the thing that caused the Big Bang and all of creation must be God. This is much more sensible logically than ascribing it all to a random explosion from nothing.

Check mate, atheists.

Please stop confusing atheism with strong atheism, the big bang theory, evolution, and/or abiogenesis. If you are looking for a serious discussion, I will have one with you. If you are making these posts to reassure your own position and have no interest in open honest scrutiny and critique, do it in complete nonsense or ranting.

Quote from: Nimp on February 01, 2013, 08:59:10 AM

Atheists claim that there is no God. If that is the case, then how could something come from nothing in the Big Bang?

It is much more logical to assume that something was caused to come from nothing, rather than saying that a big explosion conveniently occurred and we all conveniently became complex organinsms. Gee, how convenient  .

Ultimately, atheists, the thing that caused the Big Bang and all of creation must be God. This is much more sensible logically than ascribing it all to a random explosion from nothing.

Check mate, atheists.

Please stop confusing atheism with strong atheism, the big bang theory, evolution, and/or abiogenesis. If you are looking for a serious discussion, I will have one with you. If you are making these posts to reassure your own position and have no interest in open honest scrutiny and critique, do it in complete nonsense or ranting.

This thread is about mexican food. Please refrain from posting off-topic.

This is the Kalām Cosmological Argument, revived in recent times by Daniel Lane Craig. It goes like this:

1. Everything that has a beginning to existence has a cause of existence.
2. The Universe has a beginning to its existence.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence.

Note that this presents no problem for the atheist. 1) The argument does not prove that the cause is in fact God, only, if you accept the premises, that there was indeed some cause. The exact nature of the cause is left to the imagination. 2) The premises don't have to be accepted at all. The whole argument relies upon cause and effect, dictated by objects and actions moving through time. If time did not exist before the Universe existed, how can there be cause and effect relationships?

Further, unless God exists indefinitely and infinitely, he is bound by the same logic. It would seem, anyway, that God is affected by cause and effect relationships. After all, people do things, and God gets angry. Cause and effect. So it would seem that God is infinite. So if God creates a finitely existing Universe while he exists infinitely, does that mean God waited forever until he decided to create the Universe? That seems contradictory. Indeed, some of Craig's arguments are based upon true infinities being impossible. Does this same logic apply to God as well?

In conclusion, the Cosmological Argument doesn't prove God, and further its premises are speculative at best.

This is the Kalām Cosmological Argument, revived in recent times by Daniel Lane Craig. It goes like this:

1. Everything that has a beginning to existence has a cause of existence.
2. The Universe has a beginning to its existence.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence.

Note that this presents no problem for the atheist. 1) The argument does not prove that the cause is in fact God, only, if you accept the premises, that there was indeed some cause. The exact nature of the cause is left to the imagination. 2) The premises don't have to be accepted at all. The whole argument relies upon cause and effect, dictated by objects and actions moving through time. If time did not exist before the Universe existed, how can there be cause and effect relationships?

Further, unless God exists indefinitely and infinitely, he is bound by the same logic. It would seem, anyway, that God is affected by cause and effect relationships. After all, people do things, and God gets angry. Cause and effect. So it would seem that God is infinite. So if God creates a finitely existing Universe while he exists infinitely, does that mean God waited forever until he decided to create the Universe? That seems contradictory. Indeed, some of Craig's arguments are based upon true infinities being impossible. Does this same logic apply to God as well?

In conclusion, the Cosmological Argument doesn't prove God, and further its premises are speculative at best.

Off topic posting will not be tolerated further. Consider this a warning.

I want some fajitas.