Atheists have no evidence to proclaim that God does not exist

[dadmansabode]

..... In order for atheists to have any credibility .. they must provide scientific evidence of life emerging from non-life. How do two dirt-clods decide to be three ? Indeed folks .... the evidence belongs to the theist, especially the believer in Jesus Christ Reasons I am not an Atheist .....

​

 

[Yttrium]

Have any atheists been invited to this site?

 

[Musician]

I don't feel they need evidence to proclaim a Faith Based God doesn't exist, how is that even possible? I can't stand some of the Atheists but looking at this from a logical perspective, neither side of the argument has scientific evidence either way. In our Justice system the burden of proof falls on the Prosecution, which would be the Atheists. But God isn't based on our Justice system. This comes down to one faith against another, since neither can be proved.

 

[dadmansabode]

I don't feel they need evidence to proclaim a Faith Based God doesn't exist, how is that even possible? I can't stand some of the Atheists but looking at this from a logical perspective, neither side of the argument has scientific evidence either way. In our Justice system the burden of proof falls on the Prosecution, which would be the Atheists. But God isn't based on our Justice system. This comes down to one faith against another, since neither can be proved.

"neither side of the argument has scientific evidence" ..... well, no evidence if you're not paying any attention to this issue

 

[dadmansabode]

btw: .... it's the atheists who pervade the 'religion' forums and demand 'prove your God' / 'prove your God' / 'prove your God' ..... well, ?? ... let's allow the atheists an opportunity to talk about the 'proof' the atheist posses ... let's see them lay some cards on the table .... bet it's not gonna happen ... but either way, the believer needs to understand that the atheists have absolutely no evidence for their claim ... because whatever 'equation' man can contrive, man has not the ability to remove time from the equation ...... Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear ..... Hebrews 11:3

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In order for atheists to have any credibility, they must provide scientific evidence of life emerging from non-life.

Although I am not an atheist, I was for the first 33 years of my life, so I believe that qualifies me to assume that role for this conversation.

If I were an atheist, I might reply, "You, sir, are my scientific evidence of life emerging from non-life. Your body is constituted by untold trillions of atoms, molecules, and organic compounds, none of which are alive—but you are. You're alive. Thus, we have life emerging from non-life."

 

[dadmansabode]

Although I am not an atheist, I was for the first 33 years of my life, so I believe that qualifies me to assume that role for this conversation.
If I were an atheist, I might reply, "You, sir, are my scientific evidence of life emerging from non-life. Your body is constituted by untold trillions of atoms, molecules, and organic compounds, none of which are alive—but you are. You're alive. Thus, we have life emerging from non-life."

omG !!!! .... your 'atheist reply' needs to take a class in Bio 101 .....
you have a father and a mother all the way back to Adam and Eve (DIRECT creations of God) ... nuff said ? thank you.
give it another shot DialectSkeptic .... life from non-life (matter alone) .... atheism has no answers .... I'm hoping this was not a 'serious' reply from your atheist perspective.




.....

 

[dadmansabode]

also .......

the origin of life

#30 - During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced
from anything other than another living thing.




.....

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Your atheist reply needs to take a class in Bio 101.

Why? What did I say that conflicts with basic biology?

 

[dadmansabode]

Why? What did I say that conflicts with basic biology?

It's answered in the post above ... btw: what would you tell your 'atheist friend' ??

 

[Yttrium]

also .......

the origin of life

#30 - During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced
from anything other than another living thing.




.....

This is true. And currently there is no theory of abiogenesis in science.

Of course, science is all about trying to find natural explanations for things. So scientists will keep poking and prodding at it to see if there's a way. Even if there isn't a way, we're still learning a lot about the building blocks of life just by looking at it.

Asserting that abiogenesis happened would simply be a statement of faith.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It's answered in the post above.

That post said, "During all of recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing."

And my Atheist Friend refuted that. Your body is constituted by untold trillions of atoms, molecules, and organic compounds, none of which are alive—but you are. You are an exmaple of life emerging from non-life.

By the way, what would you tell your Atheist Friend?

I would tell him that his atheism is an unintelligible and self-defeating mess which undermines his ability to speak of logic or science, never mind evolution or abiogenesis.

Unless you were asking only how I would respond to what my Atheist Friend said, in which case I would say, "That is technically correct and a bit cheeky."

 

[Manfred]

And my Atheist Friend refuted that. Your body is constituted by untold trillions of atoms, molecules, and organic compounds, none of which are alive—but you are. You are an exmaple of life emerging from non-life.

Inorganic substances do not make organic substances.

Please describe a method in which inorganic substances "create" organic life

 

[dadmansabode]

Inorganic substances do not make organic substances. < ... amen
Please describe a method in which inorganic substances "create" organic life

I think we're starting to 'beat a dead horse' here .... Mr DSkeptic is starting to sound like a broken record ... I'll pass him off to others.
How do two dirt clods decide to be three ?
Tell your 'atheist friend' he/she needs to go back to the drawing board.




.....

 

[ChristB4us]

Why? What did I say that conflicts with basic biology?

What you had stated below;

Although I am not an atheist, I was for the first 33 years of my life, so I believe that qualifies me to assume that role for this conversation.
If I were an atheist, I might reply, "You, sir, are my scientific evidence of life emerging from non-life. Your body is constituted by untold trillions of atoms, molecules, and organic compounds, none of which are alive—but you are. You're alive. Thus, we have life emerging from non-life."

That has never been observed.

Spontaneous generation has been disproven for why the Law of Biogenesis which is life did not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life testify to an Intelligent Designer rather than random chance as if life will find a way to come forth out of nothingness on its own.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Inorganic substances do not make organic substances.

Please describe a method in which inorganic substances "create" organic life

In order for me to do that, you will first need to explain what "make" means, when you said inorganic substances do not "make" organic substances. Do you mean that organic compunds do not emerge from inorganic substances? Or do you mean that inorganic substances do not constitute organic compounds? If I have to confront two or more possible meanings, then my answer would be rather long. Help narrow down the scope, please, with a more precise question.

 

[dadmansabode]

btw: DialectSkeptic ..... did God create the animal world in his image, or was it just man ?
and if just man .. then how would 'evo-ism' have 'directed' that ??




.....

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't feel they need evidence to proclaim a Faith Based God doesn't exist, how is that even possible? I can't stand some of the Atheists but looking at this from a logical perspective, neither side of the argument has scientific evidence either way. In our Justice system the burden of proof falls on the Prosecution, which would be the Atheists. But God isn't based on our Justice system. This comes down to one faith against another, since neither can be proved.

Lewis wrote of this in "Two Lectures" about the egg and the bird (aka chicken). He concluded that the great snow-job of the 'developmentalist' (evolutionist) was to claim to know things/processes we see each day, but was not actually doing so. He says we see eggs developing to adults each day, but no word on adults producing eggs--which is more remarkably visible! And there is no explanation about the design of the environment in the womb--which has to be perfect to start with.

I find the same thing in checking the ratios of streams to their ravines. They say the annual process carved the whole thing, yet you can often see the high point of scouring and the stream is never higher. Given that the material carved for the ravine is often sediment, not solid, there also has to be an explanation of how that sediment arrived. So they are not really seeing what is there.

Looking at extraordinary rock formations (4 Corners NM) we would have to say the same. There is no process seen doing anything remotely close to producing such things; however, they demonstrate that enormous forces were at work and the things we see are the left-behinds of those abrupt and quick events.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[What you said about Manfred] has never been observed.

I'm confident that Manfred has been observed, that atoms and organic compounds are not alive, and that Manfred is.

So, once again, what did I say (here) that conflicts with basic biology?

 

[Manfred]

In order for me to do that, you will first need to explain what "make" means, when you said inorganic substances do not "make" organic substances.

When you read the scriptures (and I trust that you believe they are the inerrant inspired word of God) you find this:
Gen 1:24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Do you see that God from the earth (all the atoms molecules etc.) brought forth kinds of animals that were alive. Each according to its kind.
You and your evo-ism believe that all had a common ancestor. See verse 25: God made the beasts and livestock and everything that creeps according to their kind.
This alone debunks the theory of evolution.

Do you mean that organic compunds do not emerge from inorganic substances?

Yes. Many scientists have tried to replicate this. If you could "create" life in a lab by mixing the right Amino Acids together to form a living cell, capable of reproducing a male and female of a species you would have sung it from the rooftops.

Or do you mean that inorganic substances do not constitute organic compounds?

Nope

If I have to confront two or more possible meanings, then my answer would be rather long. Help narrow down the scope, please, with a more precise question.

How does God fit into your theory of evolution? Did He manipulate the process of evolution for us to see the design in the universe?
Do you believe in the supernatural, or do you think all miracles can be explained in the natural?