Atheism has Proof, Evidence, Facts, Validity and Truth that it's Accurate, True and Correct.

wow Pro did not really answer my question?Did you not see my arguments? I gave 5 arguments, you only touched on 1. 2 were by Theodore Drange, 1 of my mathematical calculation on Drange’s argument, 1 was based on the meaninglessness of the word “God”. Are you just trolling?prove your claim about Theism is improbable.Didn’t you see the mathematical proof above where I said that?All you’re doing is committing the fallacy of proof by assertion. I gave you good evidence & all you keep doing is keep repeating it.Con then gives arguments for the existence of God to try & refute argument 1. However in the light of argument 2, I can dismiss it all by simply saying since “God” is meaningless your arguments can’t be evidence of “God” anymore than it’s evidence of anything else meaningless such as a “Plopei”. The term hasn’t been defined & is meaningless to try & prove it without a meaningful definition. The universe had a start - what caused it?no atheist has proven there belief to be accurate & correctSince time began with the universe, the universe needed no casue as a cause comes from before an event. No time = no before. If the universe had a cause this doesn’t mean it has to be God.How do you explain the high degree of design & order in the universe if there is no God?This is actually good evidence FOR atheism. “Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us.... a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size & enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. That’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size & age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely & sparingly, & that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) & by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal (constituting stars & black holes on which no life can ever live). Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one." Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god.... It also does no good to say such a random accidental universe is improbable, because the convenient existence of a marvelously “super-omni” god is just as improbable... Thus, we’re forced to choose between which lucky accident it was, & the evidence confirms the one & not the other." -Richard Carrierprovide a deductive argument that supplies the fixed reason one OUGHT to avoid logical fallacies?Really? A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. If you have the demonstrated flaw, then your conclusion can’t be trusted.Archaeological and the Bible.Archaeology is now becoming at odds with the BibleMatthew Sturgis said “During the years since WWII it has become harder & harder to escape this sense of doubt. The expected discoveries of specific biblical artifacts & buildings were simply not being made...Discrepancies between the biblical account & the ever increasing archaeological record become more noticeable & harder to ignore...The very term biblical archaeology has become tainted, & is now rejected by many academics... If the Bible is consulted at all, it is approached with varying degrees of skepticism. The onus of proof has shifted: the text [of the Bible] is now considered historically unreliable until proven otherwise.” [1]Lack of archaeology has raised questions about the town of Nazareth [2]. There’s no evidence it was ever a town at the time of Jesus. There's no archaeological evidence that Jews were enslaved in Egypt or millions of people wandered the desert, not one piece. Archaeology has also shown that King David as well as Solomon’s kingdom was nowhere near where the bible claims they did [3].Con committed what’s known as a spiderman fallacy. Which is“A recently coined logical fallacy. It follows that archaeologists 1,000 years from now unearth a collection of Spiderman comics. From the background art, they can tell it takes place in New York City. NYC is an actual place, as confirmed by archaeology. However, this does not mean that Spiderman existed.”[4]1.ProphecyThere's several ways a prophecy can be fulfilled Retrodiction. It can be written to fulfill or changed after the event happened. Vagueness. Wording it in such a way that it can be interpreted anyway people want. Such as Nostradomus' prophecies. Inevitability. it can say something will defiantly happen, such as the fall of a city. Nothing lasts forever, the city will hit the dirt someday. If it has not, it’s just said it will happen someday. Self-fulfillment. A person can act to fulfill prophecy. Furthermore the bible does have failed prophecy. Ezekiel 26:14 says Tyre will never be rebuilt again & Nebuchadnezzar didn’t completely destroy Tyre. Ezekiel 29:8-12 also says Egypt will be a desolate wasteland & none will walk through it. Egypt has never been a desolate wasteland.2.David & Jesus’ DeathFalls under retrodiction. It’s also circular, assuming the accounts of the bible are correct.3.Daniel prophecyMike G from An American Atheist answered this very well.“There is so much to say here,.. First, Daniel was almost certainly not the author of this book nor was it written 500 years before the time of Jesus. It was probably written about a century & a half before Jesus was born...this book really does make clear prophecies & actually gets a ton of things wrong, as most scholars without a severely evangelical axe to grind will admit. Third, the year counting is ironically just a reinterpretation of Jeremiah 25 because it didn’t happen as it was prophesied (oops! I thought no prophecy ever failed). So, they lengthened the timeframe to mean weeks of years, instead of just weeks... Fourth, even doing that it still doesn’t correspond to Jesus. Rather, it seems to correspond to the Maccabean revolt (around 160 B.C.) & restoration of Israel on a timeline following that, which didn’t even happen. I could say more about Daniel & about this passage, but I think it should be clear the author of these questions either has no idea what he’s talking about or he’s using some incredibly dubious assumptions to make all this work.” [5]4-6 are answered thorough number 1.7.Vast number of manuscriptsTo quote Bart Ehrman“At one time or another, you may have heard someone claim that the New Testament can be trusted because it is the best attested book from the ancient world, that because there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than of any other boo,.... Given what we have seen in this chapter, it should be clear why this line of reasoning is faulty. It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, & none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes-altogether many thousands of mistakes.Moreover even if scholars have...succeeded in reconstructing the New Testament, this, in itself, has no bearing on the truthfulness of the message. It simply means that we can be reasonably certain of what the New Testament authors actually said .... Whether or not any of these ancient authors said anything that was true is another question, one we cannot answer simply by appealing to the number of surviving manuscripts that preserve their writings”Con ignored just about everything I said and still said atheism as no proof. That's a proof by assertion fallacy. Extend arguments from R2. Out of Space.