Hi, require assistance in argueing for my position. Any help much appreciate. Cheers.

[JamesT]

Hey I need help to answer against this argument from the creation side. Any help greatly appreciated. Cheers
__________________________________________________ _____________

That's great you've managed to created more gaps for God to fill. The truth is that I'm not one the spoon fed by religion, I asked questions which makes more sense when intelligence is applied to bridge gaps than to assume the universe is based on chaos and disorder. God exists before time and makes His preexistence illogical for He's the source of all energy, time,space and matter. Tell me, are your thoughts products of randomness or consciousness? this consciousness is it a product of disorder? Because religion cannot base its argument on physical evidence doesn't make its claims invalid otherwise rather it superimposes science in its entirety. The problem is that nowadays people misuse religion for their selfish requests and make God distant them the non religious POV becomes warped about the truth throwing the baby out with the bath water, discrediting every ties to the Creator. We all know this but some people just choose apply the same principles of man to God. They think God is a finite entity that dwells in the Sky, that's limited because unfavourable things happen and fail to see they are part of a grand design.
All scientific facts still change to meet up with God's word. Today, the prophecies of the Bible are unravelling : internet, cashless transactions, space exploration, cloning and Modern Warfare are all documented. If we disregard the Bible as the truth because of the God you despise, then only those who pay attention will tap into the knowledge and be able to preemptively avert dangers by calling unto the Savior

Have ever wonder why there are miracles and faith healing that defy medical reports and diagnosis?
Have you asked what happens to consciousness when the body dies? The universe is vast and unexplored dimensions are merely touched and observed and man on his little blue rock doubt the existence of a Supreme Being ,the creator of the universe? Definitely science is taking the common sense out of people and philosophy is doing more harm of twisting faith with facts

One more thing, God is not "god of the gaps" as He's the source of all creation

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” —C.S. Lewis
__________________________________________________ _____________

That is what he said.. I have come across a site that completely obliterates this quote: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/com..._joke_and/

My overall view on the topic is this, which is a point within itself:

It seems like he's not advancing his own position by trying to trash another. It's called the argument from ignorance and incredulity. He's setting up a false dichotomy where either the current scientific theory explains everything, or else "whatever his explanation is" wins by default. Not the case at all. If he did manage to debunk current theory (not likely) then we would simply have no good explanation. We would then investigate to find a new one. We wouldn't fill the gap of knowledge with magical fairy tales. He's really just displaying his ignorance.

In short: "This is complicated and I think it would make more sense if someone did it deliberately" is not evidence. It is the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

But saying that I would want to try and counter the argument with what was said above and more, be it actually answering the questions or something else that science has taught us.

But the rest of it I would appreciate any assistance. I am doing this more for myself than debating but would like to do both.
Thanks

[Smellyoldgit]

JamesT wrote

God exists before time ....

Ask where (& when) his god came from - then kick him in the bollocks.

[JamesT]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Ask where (& when) his god came from - then kick him in the bollocks.

haha.. will do. Yea there is absolute no evidence for a god and to presume with certainty that he is behind anything is absurd... Occam's razor takes cares of this: Exceptional claims requires exceptional evidence and the person making the bigger claim has the burden of proof. He cannot just say god is behind everything by asking a shit load of questions that science hasn't discovered yet and or what science has discovered, that god must be behind them.. that is an exceptional claim within itself. It is nothing more than a speculation.

But you are correct.. if he can ask how and when the universe was created out of nothing, which is just a speculation too, why can't I say which god, Allah, Zues etc. and how did god do it. And saying 'because he is from out of the natural universe' is not an argument. As anything from outside the natural universe cannot be verified has we cannot experiment and research it...once again it is pure speculation... Science is the best option has it doesn't go behind what we do not know and science is happy to say "we don't know".

[Sinfidel]

There is a reason high profile atheists have stopped debating the religious - you can't win a debate with a liar. The godly sociopaths, who offer up their bullshit without a shred of evidence, ridicule science by pouncing on the slightest gap in scientific knowledge, demanding absolute perfection in the fossil record, or cosmology. This double standard, labelled as "cognitive dissonance" is simply a ruse, a red herring, a diversionary tactic, which atheists invariably fall for, expending their energy defending science whilst the cretinists laugh up their sleeves.
Instead, the attacks on science should be ignored, the only response being demands for evidence, REAL evidence, of the supernatural and miraculous claims. As the famous quote says, "that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Do that, and see how quickly the debate ends.

[AtomJack]

Sinfidel wrote

There is a reason high profile atheists have stopped debating the religious - you can't win a debate with a liar. The godly sociopaths, who offer up their bullshit without a shred of evidence, ridicule science by pouncing on the slightest gap in scientific knowledge, demanding absolute perfection in the fossil record, or cosmology. This double standard, labelled as "cognitive dissonance" is simply a ruse, a red herring, a diversionary tactic, which atheists invariably fall for, expending their energy defending science whilst the cretinists laugh up their sleeves.
Instead, the attacks on science should be ignored, the only response being demands for evidence, REAL evidence, of the supernatural and miraculous claims. As the famous quote says, "that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Do that, and see how quickly the debate ends.

BAM! Exactly why I stopped debating theists many years ago. The disingenuous lying and outright evasion of reality wore thin a long time ago. That, and the stupid, which ought to burn like hell.

[Sinfidel]

AtomJack wrote

BAM! Exactly why I stopped debating theists many years ago. The disingenuous lying and outright evasion of reality wore thin a long time ago. That, and the stupid, which ought to burn like hell.

Ah, memories of debating the religious. Joined a local online debate, received a warm welcome, soon withdrawn when my atheism became obvious. In the good ole days they often cut off the tongues of blasphemers, and they gave me the modern equivalent by changing my access to read-only. We had a newly formed Human Rights Commission, and after I filed a complaint, my access was restored, but then, of course, I was given the Shunning treatment. Those Christians are just brimming with love, aren't they. And they're so in favour of free speech - for them!