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

You're right. Teach me to make posts first thing in the morning Still, the rest of the post should stand. I'll edit the no-caffeine mistakes. Thanks for pointing it out.

Hmmmm. It seems that you are the one lacking points of substance.Rahvin and co are doing an excellent job of debunking your particular brand of nonsense so I will largely leave them to it.However you really should learn to differentiate between what you are capable of believing and what is 'logically' possible.Your whole argument has been refuted as far as I can see. It is my guess that you are unused to the sort of level of debate you will be faced with here and will descend into personal insults or just vanish as quickly as you appeared.If you do continue I would really like to see you attempt to address Message 9 and Message 59. Good luck.........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Good post Rahvin.ypostelnik had his theories shot down and blown away from the first response, yet he plowed ahead as though he had won every dispute. This would not be so bad except that people like him are in the majority. They refuse to face up to valid arguments that blow their pet beliefs in the weeds, then ignore the facts, claim victory, and work to establish laws to force everyone to live by their false beliefs.Under King Bush and Emperor Cheney, (just in case, with more than a little sarcasm), the religious right has gained more power and authority. However, as people begin to realize what a total disaster King Bush has been, (yes, even some religious zealots are realizing this) some of the country has been figuring things out and maybe the religious right is loosing some of its power base. We can only hope.In the meantime, as I posted in another thread, how can we deal with these people? I just don’t know.

Well, that is what tradition says.What evidence do you have that tradition is correct? If you can't provide any external and verifiable evidence for that tradition, it really isn't very useful as evidence.So, for evidence that 'Atheism is not logically sound', you use a whole bunch of logical fallacies, and then for support, you reference a 2700 year old piece of writing for which there is no outside verification for.Yes, that is really and truly convincing, to those people who have already made up their mind, and refuse to look at the evidence objectively that is.

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...'.

I wish to bring this up once more and see if we can make some progress as a result of this thread. ypostelnik came in throwing his BS all over the place and was soundly trounced. He ignored all the facts, probably did not chase down one single link, probably did not look at the videos (rat, who posted those), but is still personally convinced his position is correct.We all know that there are many people of this nature, enough to badly distort the paths we take in our political lives. As ypostelnik has shown, they cannot be debated as they will not listen. The more wrong they are, the louder they scream, and tighter they close their brains to reason.Why do the brains of otherwise obviously intelligent people simply turn to mush when it comes to religion? (Well, not all are intelligent, but you get the point.)How can we deal with these people?

I offered to debate you. Instead most of you offered insults and nothing of substance. You claim to have made points but none that address any of the reasons for the existence of a Divine being laid out in the first column (just pot shots and posts shouting "it's been refuted," all the while refuting nothing but showing a profound misunderstanding of the arguments made and of religion itself."Then I provide a follow up column on evolution (as you missed the point of the 1 st column entirely, I believe purposely so, so I wrote one that deals with your issues - as I never discussed evolution in the first one). At that point you proceeded to show that you know nothing about evolutionary theory.Here are the points:You're not "pointing out" tenets of evolutionary theory, you're changing them. Darwin was extremely clear on what transitional fossils are. But we don't need Darwin for that. On the most basic level, if you want to document transition, you need fossils that document clear gradual change.You've failed to deal with that. In fact, you're avoiding it with typical absurd definitions of transition that are illogical and would have shocked Darwin. Amphibious type species do not show transition. That's simple logic that you keep running away from time and time again.Most evolutionists wrongly deny that evolution demands that life evolved from non-life. Congratulations on at least not being one of those. Still the transition from non-life to life is a scientific impossibility that needs to have happened millions of times according to evolutionary theory.Comparing the viruses that attach to cellular life to RNA or DNA structures, even in their first forms, is completely unattainable. It's also extremely disingenuous.Trillions of coincidences is being generous. Enumerate all aspects of evolutionary theory's explanation of the development of man and add to that all ingredients necessary to sustain life.Does anyone have a reply that's on point? I won't hold my breath.For those who have the gall to say that I'm illogical or that my points were refuted, I ask you to provide one succinct and clear point that isn't just spin. Your utter ignorance of the theory you hold so dear, your ignorance of the difference between scientific theory (in general) and fact and so forth, never mind Brian's "inconsistencies" that a third grader can explain him the meaning of (guess that's what happens when you grasp at straws).Either debate normally and to the point, if you have any, or I'll just copy a debate that I had where they did.

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?

{Earlier version of message 72. Content "hidden". - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

{Earlier version of message 72. Content "hidden". - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Hello ypostelnik,No, I don’t think you did come here to debate, just to state your opinions. As I may be wrong, lets try this.In message 42 of this thread I wrote about the difference between theory of evolution and Abiogenesis. I made the point that the two are separate. I cannot prove that no reputable scientists claims they are, but I am quite certain that is the case. (It is difficult to prove the negative) As you think they are, then I ask you to provide that evidence.I asked you to respond to my explanation in two posts and you ignored me.I then followed up and gave an example of evolution in progress before your very eyes. There are new species of cats and dogs that did not exist fifty years ago. That indeed fits the theory of evolution. It proves it. Animals can change characteristics over time. Again, that is all the theory of evolution says. It does not say that you can start with a pile of bacteria and 3 billion years later you have a sentient being.And BTW: I read the post here:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/yomin-postelnik-debates-with-atheists/You did the same thing there you have done here. Your responders wrote back and justified their position and gave your verifiable information. You keep repeating your opinion and provide no evidence what so ever to support your position. Your opinion is not evidence. Please be certain you understand that last statement. Your opinion is not evidence.I asked you to comment on abiogenisis and my evidence of evolution in fact. You ignored the questions. Here is your chance again. Please respond to those two points.

{Duplicate message. Content "hidden" - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Here is a transitional:

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)Species Name:
Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8),
Homo erectus (3, 4, 7),
Homo erectus ergaster (25)Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)See original source for notes:Source: Default 404 | Museum of Science, Boston

---

This fellow has both ape-like and human-like traits, and both paleontologists and creationists have trouble coming up with a classification upon which all in their respective fields can agree.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's all very nice YP, but do you have any answers to my questions in message 57?