I apologise if my personal opinions and thoughts offend you. It's not my intention.
Offense is irrelevant. Argument is everything. If I appear to be hostile to your position, it is because I see your argument as seriously flawed.
I merely believe that having experienced all sides of the debate, I conclude that a rational answer is an intelligent creator, especially if we look at information.
Mmmm hmmm. Describe, specifically, your argument in favor of an intelligent creator. What evidence leads you to conclude that everything must have been created?
quote:
Your entire argument consists of a double standard (the Universe needs a cause and God doesn't),
It would be a double standard if and only if I had no prior knowledge of the bible, which tells me about an eternal creator.
Bullshit. Reading a book does not justify an insistence that the Universe requires a creator due to its complexity, and the creator does not despite being even more complex. If you beleive it does, you might want to watch out becasue I hear Lord Voldemort is out to rule the world.
You are applying a double standard. Your arguemnt rests entirely on the premise that complexity requires a creator. You observe the compelxity of life and the Universe and conclude that this complexity requires a creator. However, you observe that the creator would need to be
at least as complex as his creation, but then conclude that your creator does
not need to have been created, despite complexity.
You apply your premise to one argument and not the other. It is a double standard. Your knowledge of the Bible is irrelevant to the fact that you are applying your premise to one argument and not to the other.
I can't be accused of a DS if I am not able to apply any other standard.
This does not make sense. The very problem is that you
are applying another standard. For some reason the Universe requires a creator due to its complexity, but the creator does not. You
are applying a different standard.
quote:
You can provide no objective evidence suggesting the existence of your deity. This puts your invisible man in the sky right up there next to fairies and Zeus.
Well, no - that's a genuine non sequitur. Logically this can put my deity right up there with [insert anything], as a lack of evidence doesn't = absurd falsity.
Incorrect. A lack of any evidence puts your deity right up there with all thing s
for which there is no evidence. Any of these, including fiaires and Zeus,
may exist. None have been
falsified.
It's interesting that you apparently believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence for Zeus and fairies. I never claimed that fairies and Zeus were "absurd falisties," you did. Another double standard?
It
is true that absence of evidence is evidence of
a likeilihood of absence.
To once again use the old Athiest argument, when you understand why you are an Atheist regarding Zeus and Thor, you will understand why I do not believe in
your deity.
There is no evidence for your deity. There is also no evidence for Zeus or fairies. This means that objectively your deity has the same chance of existing as Zeus or fairies.
There
is however evidence of the Universe existing - we're part of it, after all.
What can we conclude?
If compelxity implies a designer, then we reach the infinite-regression problem where every creator requires his own creator.
With no evidence suggesting the existence of a deity, there is no reason to assume a deity exists, despite what an old book and tradition may say, since neither of those amount to objective evidence.
We know the Universe exists, but we do not know that a deity exists.
It is reasonable to conclude that the Unvierse did not require a "cause," as there is no evidence suggesting it
does require a "cause" outside of preconceived subjective religious beliefs.
quote:
Perhaps you're not as logical as you thought you were. And this is what ultimately dissapoints me about many atheists, their wild jump to conclusions.
Bullshit. Atheists are not atheists becasue we do not like god
quote:
But you see, I never said they were! You're speaking not rationally, but belidgerently, by assuming I am out to get you. This is what I genuinely believe, whether you object or not. I can't change genuine conviction.
Liar. From you immediately preceding post, relevant portion bolded:
quote:
From a neutral standpoint, God makes a lot of sense, which begs the question; then why question God? Which allows us to conclude = because the person dislikes God being an answer to the problem. So ultimately it comes down to the person's disbelief being a problem, rather than the creation, which declares the glory of God.
You said, very specifically, that (those who do not believe in god base their disbelief on "disliking god being an answer to the problem.") You then insist that you did
not claim that (those who do not believe in god base their disbelief on "disliking god being an answer to the problem.") You have directly contradicted yourself.
I am speaking compeltely rationally. You are the one appealing to motive (god is unacceptable as a solution because of a dislike of god as opposed to a lack of evidence). You are the one applying double standards (the Unvierse requires a creator becasue it is complex, but the complex creator does not reuire a creator). You are the one making baseless asumptions (god, zeus and fairies are "absurd falsities," when the statement was clearly one noting the equivalence in evidence for all three entities).
You are the one
lying.
I may come across as hostile...but again, this is not because I
dislike your conclusion. My vehemence is directly correlated to the weakness and illogic of your arguments. Make a well-reasoned argument, stop claiming to be logical when fallacies plague your every paragraph, and I will stop being hostile.
™ Version 4.2
