Why aren't you atheists agnostic?

[snake river rufus]

There's no contradiction, atheists should learn to read instead of cherry-picking

Read carefully I said there's evidence just no evidence atheists would accept they say "this isn't evidence" and any evidence is automatically a "god of the gaps"

The evidence for example is the anthropic principle, which shows that everything in the universe is specifically fine-tuned for intelligent life. all of the constants, forces, etc...are fine-tuned for it, for instance if you change gravity by 0.1% there's no more intelligent life, if reality was something causeless and meaningless like atheists say nothing should be so fine-tuned, it shouldn't matter if you changed something by 0.1%...

You're making even less sense than usual. The anthropic principle (A.P.) shows evidence for a successful big bang. nothing more. You see design because you want to see it, not because it's there.

 

[snake river rufus]

Vitalone, please respond in full and intelligently to post #42 before you do anything else.
If you can't then I'll have no choice but to consider you a troll.

 

[VitalOne]

You're making even less sense than usual. The anthropic principle (A.P.) shows evidence for a successful big bang. nothing more. You see design because you want to see it, not because it's there.

Well it may be evidence for the big bang, but its also evidence for an intelligent creator, just about all the evidence that you can possibly gather that an intelligent creator exists is there

No, I see design because its there, and physicists agree that its there, you DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOD JUST ADMIT IT OTHERWISE YOU COULD EASILY GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A GOD OF THE GAPS

Atheists are so irrational, come on bring it on man give me an actual challenge, this is so easy

 

[original]

From what I read of your statement it appeared to be a contradiction, but with your recent explanation it seems to be a broad generalization of atheists and a fairly pointless statement. So am I correct in thinking that you believe there is evidence everywhere of the existence of god(s)? You used the anthropic principle as an example to demonstrate how life on Earth could not exist as we know it, a statement I agree with, because we are a product of our environment. But can you explain how or why natural laws prove the existence of god(s)?

 

[snake river rufus]

I've asked you to respond to a post. If you are unable to do so fine. welcome to ignore

 

[VitalOne]

I've asked you to respond to a post. If you are unable to do so fine. welcome to ignore

Vitalone, please respond in full and intelligently to post #42 before you do anything else.
If you can't then I'll have no choice but to consider you a troll.

There's nothing to respond to, there's no argument there just an insult, where as I have insults + arguments combined into one, you just have insults

But I'll respond anyway, clearly I can read I'm the one that uses actual logic you on the other hand "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're just wrong, I don't have to explain why "I say disbelieving in something supernatural is logical just because I think so"

From what I read of your statement it appeared to be a contradiction, but with your recent explanation it seems to be a broad generalization of atheists and a fairly pointless statement. So am I correct in thinking that you believe there is evidence everywhere of the existence of god(s)? You used the anthropic principle as an example to demonstrate how life on Earth could not exist as we know it, a statement I agree with, because we are a product of our environment. But can you explain how or why natural laws prove the existence of god(s)?

Its not a broad generalization, its a TRUE GENERALIZATION, otherwise JUST GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD THAT CAN'T BE A "GOD OF THE GAPS", if you can't give an example, then you agree with my statement that ALL evidence of God is a "god of the gaps" to atheists

I never said it absolutely proves God exists, but it is evidence for an intelligent Creator, a God-like figure, see you're an atheist, so due to your immense bias you say "man this isn't evidence, thats just the way things are", but in reality (I know atheists hate reality and prefer delusion) it is evidence, the chance that its a coincidence is so remote, everything shouldn't be so perfectly fine-tuned for intelligent life to exist, where in changing ANYTHING to very very slight extent would cause no more intelligent life

Now to escape this conclusion atheists will favor the many-worlds interpretation, but there's no evidence for the many-worlds interpretation, what's this? All of a sudden atheists no longer need evidence to believe in something like they falsely claim, they'll believe anything as long as it favors naturalism and is against theism

You also re-confirmed what I said, any evidence of God is not considered eivdence to atheists, they can't accept any evidence, yet they ask for evidence, deny evidence, then say "see there's no evidence, but I can NEVER EVER tell you what can be considered evidence that can't be considered a "god of the gaps"

I'm going to declare myself the winner of this debate since everything I said in line with logic, atheists have lost the debate, its over

 

[original]

I hardly call this a debate.

I asked you for evidence, and in turn you ask me? That doesn't make sense.

Then you go on to make numerable assumptions, up to and including "it's over".

 

[shaman_]

I'm going to declare myself the winner of this debate since everything I said in line with logic, atheists have lost the debate, its over

:roflmao:



troll

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.