Posted by Damien [24.159.250.195 - 24-159-250-195.jvl.wi.charter.com] on 31 May 2003 at 03.46.23 ZuluTime:

In Reply to: Does God Exist? posted by Apollojedi on 30 May 2003 at 18.04.09 ZuluTime:

Posted by Apollojedi [65.205.85.194 - ] on 30 May 2003 at 18.04.09 ZuluTime:

     I was invited here to discuss evidence for God.

>You weren't invited here to discuss evidence. You cannot discuss evidence if it doesn't exist. If you think you have evidence, you can post it here and we can discuss whether or not it qualifies as evidence.

Can I prove God (of Christian Theism) 100%? No. But I can show that it is more reasonable that He exists than that He doesn't, i.e. that the evidence for theism is superior to atheism.

>Since when has atheism required evidence? What claims does atheism make that require evidence to back it up?

Let me outline some basic evidences.

1). God best explains the beginning of the universe. Current cosmology demonstrates that the universe had a beginning.

>....and what? That's non-sequitar, how do you go from 'the universe had a beginning' to 'God best explains the beginning of the universe'? There are many theories about the beginning of the universe, you cannot just make that claim and expect us to accept it. How is your claim any more valid or likely than any naturalistic claim? What evidence do you have to back up this claim?

2). God best explains the fine tuning of the universe for life.

>What is this 'fine tuning' thing I keep hearing about? The phrase is absolutely meaningless until it can be shown that the universe is indeed 'fine tuned' for life. How can a universe that is 99.9% nothing be 'fine tuned'?

3). God best explains the existence of objective moral values.

>Hey, anyone here seen ANY 'objective' moral values? No one? I guess there are none, well, that point's down the drain.

4). God best explains the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

>I don't think this even deserves a reply, I'm sure this god also best explains the life and death of Heracles.

5). God best explains the transcendental aspects of life and man's "religious" nature.

>'Trancendental aspects of life' anyone seen those? Anyone? No? As for man's religious nature, that's a result of tradition and indoctrination, not some all powerful deity who has nothing better to do than keep an eye on what people are doing with their peckers.

Now, perhaps you can return the favor. Let's hear your evidence that atheism is true or superior where I post.

>How about I do it right here? My evidence? The absolute dearth of ANY reliable evidence for ANY deity, much superior to your 'evidence' since you have none.

There are thoughtful atheists and agnostics there who will evaluate the dialogue.

>Why do I doubt this claim? When you post laughable 'evidences' like the ones above, then claim that where you post, 'thoughtful atheists and agnostics there who will evaluate the dialogue.' It kind of exposes your fraud. If there were 'thoughtful atheists' there, they would have long ago pointed out the multiple false dichotomies, strawmen, basic misunderstandings of science, psychology, civilization, and culture that seem so prevalent in your post.

My perusal of this board is that it contains atheists who are simply antagonistic to Christians and not thoughtful atheists who wish to explore the issues.

>Ah, it becomes clear, 'thoughtful' means 'accepting my claims without question.' As for us allegedly being antagonistic towards christians, don't be so selfish, we're only antagonistic towards dipshits who expect us to accept their claims without any evidence to back them up. You are NOT representative of all christians you stupid fundy twerp.

So unless you come to www.carm.org and look for Kevin H (on either the Apologetics or Atheist Boards) I bid you adieu.