Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief
And please stay on topic (hopefully mods can help us out here; and slap me if I'm going off topic too please). I don't want this thread to go from Jesus doesn't exist to God is a mass murderer. I also don't want silly questions about "Who made God?" And in this thread; this has nothing to do with "The Hebrew God" or any other for that matter.
This is about
Atheism is not a sound belief. Okay? And I know a few of you in here have professions in Physics and some others believe they have quite a bit of knowledge of science in general. So I will not give "Faith" answers; nor will I take "Faith" questions as well. And to my fellow Christian brothers, or from any other Religion, please no youtube links or Dogma. I wanna see how we can keep this on topic civily.
With that; I will limit this to arguments of "lack of comprehension". That is like a blind person arguing that purple doesn't exist; when there is enough evidence from people able to see that proves it does exists. Also, since science has only determined the universe being a closed system (without any outside influence); we shall keep it that way. Okay here we go:
10 reasons why I have evidence that Atheism does not exist
But I am going to use my first 3. I think there is a lot to chew on and debate only on these three things. Keep in mind I have 7 more.
1.) The First Law of Thermal Dynamics - Conservation of "energy" law.
• In the universe, you have matter and energy.
• Matter and energy can be converted to each other, but it cannot be created out of nothing.
• Also matter and energy cannot be destroyed to were it ceases to exist.
So you can’t make matter/energy disappear from existence, nor can you make matter/energy from nothing. If there were no God, then it would be impossible to have all that’s in the universe exist from nothing.
So my question is “How do you violate the first law of thermodynamics by the creation of matter and energy?” It’s impossible scientifically.
2.) The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics – “heat” law.
• Everything will return to a state of “equilibrium”
In laymen’s terms: If I have a cup of coffee and I toss some ice in it; eventually they are going to be the same temperature.
• Things go from order to chaos
In laymen’s terms: Things degrade, things get sloppier.
So my question is: How can the universe violate the second law of thermo dynamics by gaining complexity from a “less complex” beginning?
Because if the universe was this condensed mass of quadrillion stars, planets, etc. condensed within itself; that wouldn't have more order than this vast universe we see today.
3.) Life cannot come from none-life
• There hasn’t been a single observation that life came from non-life.
• There is no test whatsoever that can prove life can be created by non-life.
• There are no predictions that can be made that produces life from non-life.
------------------------------------------------------------
4.) What is the alternative?
Lets imagine for a moment that you are walking along the street. You are walking next to a building and you noticed a couple hundred toothpicks lying on that sidewalk spelling your name. The toothpicks are arranged in such a way that it’s very neatly, in perfect sequence spelling out your name.
So now you are looking at these toothpicks, scratching your head and you see no one around. You look up and you see an open window on the third floor; and see an empty box that says “toothpicks” on the ledge. But you still don’t know how it got there. You don’t know how they were arranged in that way.
Now let’s say two people come along. They meet you in front of the toothpicks and you tell them. “Look at these toothpicks, they spell out my name”. And these two people are trying to explain how these toothpicks got there in that way.
Person (A) has his theory: Someone with intelligence has put those toothpicks there in that way.
Person (B) has his theory: His theory is that those toothpicks somehow fell from that window and coincidently landed in that way. That no one designed the toothpicks in that way.
So out of these two theories; which person has the true burden of proof?
The Person (B) screams out loud. You better PROVE TO ME, that intelligence designed this. You got to prove to me that someone placed those toothpicks in such a way. You have to show me the person that put the toothpicks there.
That is illogical and you know it. Simple cause and effect is evidence that God exists. Come on now, what’s more complex? The toothpicks or the human brain, the cosmos, all life on earth, the earth itself? If you can’t believe the toothpicks can’t come together on their own; then why would you believe that the human brain could?
So why would the person that believes intelligence designed the universe and everything in it must have the burden of proof; yet the person that all of the universe and it’s very existence doesn’t need proof? What’s more logical?
5.) Basic logic, common sense and reasoning
This is a hypothetical conversation between an Atheist and me. I want to tell a story; because I’m sure there will be hundreds of different responses, so bare with me.
How many of you seen an painting “The Mona Lisa”. Are you open to the possibility that no one painted the Mona Lisa? Be it having all the pigments in the earth and canvas material; that wind, billions of years have somehow put the Mona Lisa on that canvas? After all, you weren’t there when it was painted, so you couldn’t see how it was created. Neither of us can prove that we know for sure who painted that painting. So are you OPEN to the possibility that the Mona Lisa naturally became a painting we see today? YES or NO.
The Atheist will say “NO”. Then I ask “Why are you not open to that possibility”. And then the atheist will say “There is too much complexity and design for this to happen by chance”
Then I ask “What’s more complex, the Mona Lisa, or your human body?” and he answers “Well the human body of course!”. So then I ask “So you are willing to admit that your body; clearly more complex than the Mona Lisa was created by happen stance; but are unwilling to accept the Mona Lisa being created by happen stance.”
That is a total contradiction in logic.
Now sometimes an Atheist says, “Well give me enough time + chance and anything is possible” I think this logic is not true.
Let me give you another example:
Let’s say I have this clock and I completely dismantle every part of that clock. I take this clock and put it in a tin can and shake it up for 1 billion years. Is it logical that every piece of that clock will come together in perfect synergy? I think not. And guess what?!?! You actually have all the pieces necessary to make this clock; and still it isn’t logically possible.
This is another evidence to me that there was a designer.
6.) What evidence does the Atheist have that "God does not exist?".
Okay picture this thread as the court room. People reading this thread are the jury. Some believe in God, others don't, some really don't know or care for that matter. And since this is a debate on the existence of God; then wouldn't the Atheist need to provide evidence that God does not exist?
All I've seen so far, are the attempts to refute my evidence. I haven't seen the defense give one piece of evidence that God does not exists. So I ask the defense to give this evidence.
