[Nazaroo]

This video was created in response to a video by Darkmatter2525,
which insinuated that Theists (people who believe in a God) were delusional.
I'm reposting it here for a wider audience and discussion.

Theism vs. Atheism

[sky.]

I only got about 3 minutes into that video and lost interest. When people try to theorize God it is pointless to someone who believes in God.

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by sky.

I only got about 3 minutes into that video and lost interest. When people try to theorize God it is pointless to someone who believes in God.

Yes, I understand.
The purpose here is to document the error.
If only atheists were more interesting.

[Lost Comet]

Originally Posted by sky.

I only got about 3 minutes into that video and lost interest. When people try to theorize God it is pointless to someone who believes in God.

I didn't get past the "no evidence" nonsense.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Yes, I understand.
The purpose here is to document the error.
If only atheists were more interesting.

If they were more interesting, would you stop posting about how wrong they are?

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Whoever made this video should get some voice actors, a couple of drunk friends would be better than this.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Yes, I understand.
The purpose here is to document the error.
If only atheists were more interesting.

Whether a person is interesting at a casual glance is irrelevant. Ultimately we all have a story and that makes us all interesting. The most important factor is whether the person is interested in what you have to offer. There are many who are interested in what one might have to offer, though it becomes a waste of time to fixate on people who are less interested while being negligent of those who are more interested.

In 12 steps sponsorship they have a principle that addresses the reality of this scenario. And we had a speaker the other night who had previously been frustrated that certain people had not shown the effort to try and help him. He said "If they had just shown more concern to try to help me, then I might not have suffered so much." At the end of his speech he explained "But I realize now that they would have been wasting their time to help me, because I was less interested in getting help for myself than some others they did help." Now this does not mean that we should avoid all efforts at intervention, because sometimes people hide their interest. However this does bring about the question of:

How does one get other people to be more interested in finding the help they need?

I think we all need to examine our self and our methodology quite rigorously in that regard. Because no one can force others to seek the help they might need. By forcing a person through legal action and/or social pressure (court required diversionary programs and/or interventions), that individual might realize the help they need. But this still does not guarantee that they have the essential interest that would lead them to actually apply any methodology.

[sky.]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Yes, I understand.
The purpose here is to document the error.
If only atheists were more interesting.

The first error I heard is when the atheist says that the "theist" (whatever that is) I'm assuming Christian, was feeling rejected so she manifested a God to pump up her ego.

[PureX]

The arguments in this animation are foolish. Basically they all just pointless attempts at discrediting the other side's position by attacking their personality, because neither side has any actual proof to back up their position.

[chair]

Originally Posted by PureX

The arguments in this animation are foolish. Basically they all just pointless attempts at discrediting the other side's position by attacking their personality, because neither side has any actual proof to back up their position.

My impression as well. I gave up about halfway through.

Nazaroo. How about your personal view of the proof, or your view of the evidence, for Gods existence? That would be more interesting, at least to me.

Thanks,

Chair.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by chair

My impression as well. I gave up about halfway through.

That seems to be a commonality with most of Naz's posts. I watched it all the way through. You did not miss much.

Originally Posted by chair

Nazaroo. How about your personal view of the proof, or your view of the evidence, for Gods existence? That would be more interesting, at least to me.

Thanks,

Chair.

I do not think that will be forthcoming. It seems his only goal is to analyze/criticize other peoples world view.

[alwight]

@OP a couple of critiques.

As an atheist I am often asking for, and never getting it seems, real evidence of God. Some of which the female character (Lizzie?) in the video was apparently just about to divulge in the first few seconds, yeah right.
What was it, anyone care to suggest what it was?
Ancient scripture? Beautiful sunset perhaps?
Let's face it, clearly there never has been nor will there probably ever be any actual specific reasonable evidence of God that could be offered, and to imply that there is and that atheists just don't want to hear it, is to my mind being rather disingenuous.
But is it really true that atheists simply wouldn't want to know if such evidence were to be offered?
Try me, I'll consider anything reasonable which is not simply bald assertion or is based entirely in an ancient scripture.

Later on in the video it becomes clear that its creator doesn't actually know what an atheist is, since most atheists are actually also agnostic too.
Agnosticism is not a half way house between theism and atheism.
I'm an agnostic myself.
Most atheists are agnostic, since they don't generally claim to know that there are no gods.
Theism/atheism is about belief while gnosticsm/agnosticism is about knowledge (of gods).
I know it's perhaps easier for some theists to think of atheists as simply deniers of God (or gods) but sorry that just isn't true.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by alwight

Let's face it, clearly there never has been nor will there probably ever be any actual specific reasonable evidence of God that could be offered, and to imply that there is and that atheists just don't want to hear it, is to my mind being rather disingenuous.

Actually, I think you're wrong on both counts.

There is no proof of the existence of God, but there is evidence. And when it's offered, atheists very often reject it out of hand based on an irrational bias toward a vision of science that is neither accurate nor rational.

The evidence is that existence is inherently ordered. It is true that we do not know that "God" is responsible for this order, but it is also true that most definitions of "God" have as their foundational concept the source and sustenance of all that exists. So that by the very definition of the word, "God", this inherent order stands as evidence that God exists.

Many atheists, however, convolute the practice of science into an unjustified philosophical absolute that they then use to dismiss any theological proposition posed to them, unjustifiably.

Originally Posted by alwight

Most atheists are agnostic, since they don't generally claim to know that there are no gods.
Theism/atheism is about belief while gnosticsm/agnosticism is about knowledge (of gods).
I know it's perhaps easier for some theists to think of atheists as simply deniers of God (or gods) but sorry that just isn't true.

This is a different subject. But the truth is that atheists lost their argument before they made it, because the same lack of evidence they accuse the theists of, also applies to themselves. So, more recently, atheists have come up with this new bit of sophistry where they claim to be agnostic while they still accuse the theist's proposition as being false.

But logically and reasonably, they can't have it both ways, as they are so often trying to do these days. If someone wants to claim that the theist's proposition of the existence of God is false, then they have to logically and reasonably own up to their own atheism and not hide behind agnosticism. Because their claim of falsity is by definition an atheistic declaration, and not the position of an agnostic.

And, likewise, if someone is agnostic, by definition, they would not be making claims against the theist's proposition.

[Pahu]

Science Proves God


When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown).

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]

[Pahu]

The Law of Biogenesis


Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Ibid., p. 48.

What Wald did not appreciate in 1954 (before, as just one example, the genetic code was discovered) was how the complexity in life is vastly greater than anyone at that time could have imagined. So, today, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. Unfortunately, several generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our universities that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists think show vast time periods.

Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]