Logical Proof of Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

All you have done here is essentially plagiarise William Paley's Design Argument, which has been deconstructed so many times that it is boring to go over again.Re you Bible (torah) info, which gives away your particular bias, I have a question about this: To begin with, the Bible is the only book in the history of mankind to make the claim that part of it was given by the Creator in front of an entire nation (of 600,000 families, totaling a few million people). The Bible claims that there were 600,000 MEN on foot:Exodus 12:37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.It is very unlikely that none of the 600,000 men were related, so does the Bible inform us somewhere else that there were 600 000 families?

Saw this gem as well... Again this is inaccurate. The Divine (why do you always use a capital letter?) transmission was not witnessed by millions, only Moses was given the info, the millions were specifically instructed to stay well clear of the mountain when God was present:Exodus 19:12 Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, 'Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. Exodus 19:23 Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, 'Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.' " And you claim to know about logic!The thing is, there isn't a single logical argument in the entire article.I take it this website is a free posting site with no editor?

{Got to "hide" this one too. We need to address the arguments rather than critique the writing quality. In general, a violation of forum rule 10:

quote:

---

Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

---

Be nice Brian. You're getting close to what I've been 24 hour suspending people for.Needless to say, no replies to this message, either the "hidden" part or the moderator comments. If you really feel the need, you can take it to Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1. Remember, that's a report a message topic, not a debate topic.Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Hide" content, added my comments.

Yes, but you aren't delusional enough to tell someone who is vastly more qualified than you are on a particular subject that you know far more than they do. I shouldn't continually be surprised by the gullibility of some people, but I just think that before people make claims about something they clearly know nothing about they should research the subject first and not take anyone's word for anything.It just short circuited something in my head that someone was harping on about logic whilst writing an article that had no logic in it!No wonder so many evangelicals make fortunes, they are preaching to brain dead morons.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note - In part because of this message, Brian got a 24 hour suspension.

Hi Percy,Can I ask why you decided to promote this topic?In post 2 you informed the member that:We have a few requirements for posts that introduce a new topic. Relevant rules from the Forum Guidelines:

3. When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.

​

6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

Please edit your Message 1 so that it is in compliance with the Forum Guidelines, then post a note to this thread when you're done and I'll take another look.Your first point that suggests an OP should contain no more than a few points seems to exclude this topic from promotion as it contains NO points at all for discussion!Then you say Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. Can you point out where the member has done this in the OP?The author of the OP hasn't introduced anything, we do not even know what it is he wishes to discuss.So, why was it promoted?Edited by Brian, : spelling

I didn't send an obnoxious email.Here is the email I sent you: Hi, I am writing to ask if you have any intention of discussing the issues raised by the article that you linked ot on EvCforum.net.

​

Your article has been thouroughly disected and shown to have some very grave errors in it.

​

I think it is only fair that you are aware of this so that you can defend the issues that you have raised in your article.

​

I hope you aren't another 'drive-by' poster who wastes people time.Where is there anything obnoxious in my email?I enquired whether or not you intended on responding for 2 reasons.1. Were we wasting our time replying to your OP?2. Your article has been shown to have many grave errors in it and you deserve a chance to defend those 'alleged' errors.There is nothing personal about you at all in my email.However, your email response was completely unwarranted. I am trying to initiate a debate for God sake.You posted a bare link, against forum rules, it was promoted for some unkown reason, I mailed you to instigate a debate. THIS is a debate forum, you started a thread on this website and have no intention of debating it on THIS website.This is nothing but spam. Well you wouldn't. Since you really do not even have a basic grasp of what philosophy is how can we expect you to know what logic is.

This is another reason why I know your grasp of philosophy is very poor because even first year high school students recognise William Paley's Argument from Design.Your example is just the same as many other who simply replace designed and constructed items with other designed and constructed items, then come up with a faulty conclusion. It is NOT YOUR argument, it belongs to William Paley. WTF are you on about? Not at that particular moment I didn't, but you have probably been hammered senseless and shown so many times where your faulty logic is letting your arguments down that there would be no point. But if you want to get on the philosophical merry-go-round I am happy to. But it is.The quality of someone's research can be found in the finer details of a piece of writing, after all if you misquote a source then perhaps you can misquote another source. If someone's research is sloppy on the so-called smaller issues, then why trust them on the bigger ones?Anyway, do you admit that the Bible does not claim what you say it does, namely, and I will quote from your article:To begin with, the Bible is the only book in the history of mankind to make the claim that part of it was given by the Creator in front of an entire nation ( of 600,000 families, totaling a few million people). Does the Bible claim what you say it does?Edited by Brian, : Can't spell Paleys's

Please tell me where I have misrepresented the Bible.

But evolution’s not a fact. It’s a theory. And it’s one that mandates that life started from non-life, which is unattainable.How many PRATTs can a guy squeeze in to one discussion?

I am asking you simple questions, why are you avoiding answering them? Shouldn't you be happy then that someone is correcting you when you misrepresent the Bible? I'd happily chat about the Bible day and night if you wish, but you will need to be a bit more up to speed on it. This seems to contradict what I know about the Book of Exodus, which being an atheist I cannot have anywhere near the same knowledge of the Tanakh as you have.Here's where my problem is, you say that the people heard the commands spoken Divinely, not by Moses, yet the Bible states that:Exodus 20:18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die." I have looked and looked for what you claim, and cannot see it. Would you kindly give chapter and verse where God speaks directly to the Israelites? I have no problem with the 600,000 men, but you said 600,000 families, all I am after is conformation from you that you have made a mistake here, then we can move on.

The entire nation of islam is convinced that Gabriel transmitted the Qur'an to Muhammad.But, since you like logic, you must know that seveal million Hebrews living in Egypt and travelling the Sinai desert for 40 years cannot possibly be invisible, so what evidence do you have from outside of the Bible that there were several million Hebrews in Egypt in the first place who could have 'heard' this transmission?

Hi YP,Just spotted a little contradiction in your article that you may wish to edit out.In the first paragraph under the heading 'Bible' you claim: To begin with, the Bible is the only book in the history of mankind to make the claim that part of it was given by the Creator in front of an entire nation (of 600,000 families, totaling a few million people). Then in the final sentence of paragraph two, you claim:Simply put, a book that claims to have been Divinely given to millions cannot take hold on a widespread level if it is not true. You need to edit one of the sentences. Probably best to edit paragraph two into something like 'a book that claims that part of it...'.

What you seem unaware of is that your title is incorrect.Do you realise that your arguments are NOT related to the discipline of logic?ALL of your claims are arguments from incredulity, this is a simple fact.Can you at least acknowledge that your arguments are NOT logical in the philosophical sense?

I don't think you are wrong.Postelnik has posted this garbage all over the Net and has been soundly spanked countless times.It seems that his tactic is 'driveby'.He posts at a site, sees that he is out of his depth and then moves on to another site as if nothing had happened.

Site One Comment 190546 Oh man; so many words that can be reduced down to 'the argument from personal incredulity' Site Two Postelnik fancies himself a master of logic (if not proper punctuation or English), and yet doesn't seem to notice that his entire, long-winded blather amounts to one spectacular logical fallacy, namely, the argument from incredulity , with a heaping side dish of straw men. Site Three The third one is just an argument from incredulity, it’s too beautiful, to preciese. What is it that drives someone like this to think that they have actually produced something that anyone is going to take seriously?Does Postelnik actually think that anyone is going to look at his article and go ”wow, this guy has really got something, let’s see the atheists explain these away!’Why is this guy posting this link around the Net after he has been shown so many times what the problems are with his arguments?Does he think that there’s going to be a discussion forum where no one is aware of the argument from incredulity?Finally, why does someone who has been shown so many times the error in his thinking continue to use the same arguments?If this is what belieiving in God does to your brain, then thank goodness I don’t believe.I’m thinking of showing this article to my Philosophy students tomorrow, just to see how many errors they can find in it.