Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

I almost feel sorry for you if you honestly feel this way. If you are just debating the topic for sake of debate, a challenge to your mind, then that is fine, I do that all the time! But, if you truly feel that the life of cows is not equal to the life of man, than I’m afraid you have a serious issue with respect of life. C1A: “…you will finding a never ending cycle and the cycle must end because the universe had a beginning and the only thing that ends that cycle is a first uncaused cause.” Why must the cycle end? If there is a substance, we call energy, that exists and that substance cannot be created or destroyed, how can it be at all possible to end the cycle? The energy in the system would just exist, continuously, never ending in different forms and states but for infinity existing. SCIENCE Heisenberg principle and its implications is unfinished, like all of science! Science is the practice of “I don’t know, lets figure try to figure it out!” It does not answer every question, but it seeks to do so! That is what science is for!!!!! How come that is so difficult for theists to understand? Science is a never ending book, it’s a constant search for truth an endless barrage of questions, proofs, ignorance, knowledge…. It does not end and as long as the last scientist is breathing that quest for WTF is happening will always be asked. with “God did it!” is the worst mistake humanity can make in the pursuit for understanding. C1B - The Ontological Argument I flat out asked you why on #4, the logic that god exists because he must is circular. I neither ignored nor accepted as true this argument, and you never properly addressed it. Just for fun, it’s a bit of a play or semantic but, with that exact “logic” we can disprove god as well: Juan Manuel Correa: A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. It is possible that there is not a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. C1C - The Teleological Argument NO! The universe, even once we have a complete understanding (which we probably never will) will not be a simple as the example of what is in your room. I cannot accept this as an authentic point; it’s just too silly to even think that people think this way. I can research anything I want on earth; I can read how the blood pulses through my body that does not take away from the complexity of the query or its answer. I even addressed this faulty logic with the idea of calculus, no matter how good at it you are, there will always be problems that are complex! A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare As for Intelligent design I quote “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” George Bernard Shaw “The atheistic model cannot offer better alternative explanations for our order and design.” Atheists tend to rely on science, and I assume that is what angle you are using for this comment. So I will address this by again saying, just because we don’t know yet does not mean it is god that did it. That is, ONCE AGAIN a fallacy. C2 “This would mean there is no code of ethics that is universally valid” DIGN DING DING DING!!!! Yes exactly that is entirely true!!! It would be exactly a mix of the evolved moral basis that we all have (like my explanation on murder) as well as community and personal experience. The Mormons used to have polygamy, I personally find this to be immoral, but that also goes against my genetic moral imperative to to reproduce with as many people as possible to cause the most life. We all have different morals; there is not a single moral code that is universal for all, anywhere! I have to say this is the most logical statement you have made so far! C2A “…your moral standard without any logic behind it” once again you hit the nail on the head, it is MY moral standard, not yours, not my fathers, not gods. It is entirely MY OWN which means once again, I made the logic for it. I can explain my entire moral code to you logical if you like, but 8000 character wouldn’t be nearly enough. The point is that I did not need god for it! Morality is in part genetic, I gave an example. I even gave a textbook citation for you to read “Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved.” You contend that god gave us all morals, if that were so, as I said previously, then we would all have the same morals, which we do not. Re-trial: Why shouldn’t we as men be on equal foot as god? What logical argument does one have that make us unequal to god? Saying “the bible says so” is not a rational reason. The bible also gives rules for selling daughters, are you going to a trial for human trafficking with “the bible said I can do it!?” If we are unequal to god, then it is because god made us this way and I feel that that is immoral, here is my logic: 1. Equality is good 2. God makes man 3. Man is unequal to god 4. Man is not made good 5. God intentionally made us inferior a. -> that is immoral for someone who can do anything, including make us equal, but chose not to. Using your example, a group of sick cows in quarantine, sure that is fine! Nothing is wrong with that; I separate myself from the world when I am sick, that is logical! But that analogy does not compare at all with what god did. To take a field of cattle that may be sick and instead of heal them, treat their illness or at least limit any suffering that animal(s) has so that it can live out its life in as much peace as possible and die with dignity, we burn them all alive (as god did in Sodom and Gomorrah) that would be inhumane and immoral, you did not dispute this at all. Nice dodge by the way, you didn’t dispute that they were in fact the exact definition I presented of a national group, instead you rely again on the bible simply call thing them cities. This point has to go to me, the definition fits, that was not disputed with any rational other than “the bible says so.” I am sorry… In regards to mass murder: “Yes it was moral.” I feel sorry for you, and humanity. Excusing immorality and giving god a free ride to moral purity, in inexcusable. Why is atheism more reasonable than theism, we do not give anyone the label of perfection, certainly not someone that can commit mass murder. Con shows the following reasons for why theism is more reasonable: C1A - Whatever begins to exist has a cause But does not know that energy is not created, leaving us with the knowledge that his premise is an assumption. C1B - The Ontological Argument Con did not address my question regarding his retelling of this old argument. The argument has the fatal flaw of affirming god exists simple because it’s possible, with that logic I can also prove the Flying spaghetti monster and bigfoot. C1C - The Teleological Argument “…because you know calculus that a calculus problem is not complex.” A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. George Bernard Shaw C2) God is necessary for morality I have different morals that Con based on my own logic, thus I do not need god for morality. If I do not need god for my morality then this argument is false. C2A. Atheism has no basis I said clearly, morality is genetic as well as learned from the community and derived from personal experience. C2B. Theism has a basis A fallacious, immoral, lost in translation basis with holes in knowledge and understanding… “You don’t have to be brave or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is “I don’t know”.” Penn Jillette