₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
You do. If you must successfully counter my argument you must produce evidence of these civilisations from 100,000 years ago. The date was not randomly selected by the way. I selected it specifically because writing didn't exist then.

So let me start like this - do you think or believe ours is the first human civilization on Earth?

It is predicated on recognising it is a watch and knowing that watchmakers exist.

Also very much on recognizing its technical nature, the put-together-parts, the functionality and the purpose it delivers - all of which are present in things like a brain and which no sane person will attribute to either chance or any process absent mindful intent.

Have you stopped to consider why an intelligent maker would choose such unintelligent schemas for biological systems? Look at the vagus nerve in giraffes.

Unlike most religionists, I do not think our creators or their designs are / were perfect.

MaxInDHouse:
With the way people are hating, fighting and killing both their own people and others can you name a modern day society or organization where members have vowed never to raise weapons against anyone again?
That is what makes Jesus' message current forever!🙂

Wasn't he the one that said he's come to make people fight Mathew 10
34“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
“ ‘a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Well Switzerland, japan and many other nations have enshrined in the Constitution laws against wars since you'd love to know

erad:
Why atheism is not a religion

No higher power:...

It is a person who did not go to school who is saying that if not he should have known that with a simple dictionary religion is defined as

re·li·gion
ri-ˈli-jən
commitment or devotion to a way of life or belief.

Nothing more, nothing less

DeepSight:
So let me start like this - do you think or believe ours is the first human civilization on Earth?

What do you mean by ours?

Also very much on recognizing its technical nature, the put-together-parts, the functionality and the purpose it delivers - all of which are present in things like a brain and which no sane person will attribute to either chance or any process absent mindful intent.

I do attribute the emergence of the brain to a non intentional process. People who attribute it to intelligence are like the puddle analogy, simplistic reasoning assuming that their circumstances were engineered specifically for their benefit when instead the circumstances engineered their benefit.

Unlike most religionists, I do not think our creators or their designs are / were perfect.

I choose the solution that doesn't use complexity to try to explain complexity when our universe indicates otherwise. In this universe, complex things are made from simpler things.

erad:
Once you started throwing around terms you don't understand, arguing with you became pointless.

See, because you can't argue, you have now resorted to personal attacks and claiming that I am just throwing terms which with a simple Google search you could confirm and reply.

But because you have nothing and cannot argue is why you resort to attacking me personally.

Yet, you thought you were logical.

Anyway, Atheism is built on Invalid arguments

And, Socrates has already told us what you are doing which is "when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser

Vifx:
Well Switzerland, japan and many other nations have enshrined in the Constitution laws against wars since you'd love to know.

So there is no weapon carrier moving from one place to another in the name of SECURITY OPERATIVE in those places?🙂

Vifx:
Because the “people only knew mustard seeds” argument doesn’t really rescue it. Jesus could have simply said “a very small seed” without making a universal claim about all seeds. Lamba🤣
You can't treat problematic passages as literal when defending them and metaphorical when they're challenged.
The real question isn't whether ancient people had limited knowledge. Of course they did. The question is whether a supposedly omniscient divine revelation should contain the same knowledge limitations as the people receiving it. That's where the you have a problem.

If you're a teacher or you have a knowledge about education, you'll understand that you use what people know to teach them what they don't know. A very small seed can mean anything from melon seeds to bean seeds. It does not explain what Jesus wants them to know. The mustard seed was small enough to drive home the concept of faith has He taught it.

Jesus was not teaching a class in Botany. The subject was Faith.

Lailla ilallah Muhammad rosulullah S.A.W ❤️

Dtruthspeaker:
You were the one stated that
The first step of science and all is observation and testing and conclusion follows, therefore your agreement that even you have not found anything which creates itself or is capable of creating itself, is already the first proof.

And the second proof is that if you dispute that everything must NOT be created by another thing, THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF lies on you to prove the Truth of your belief, for you are the one who is now claiming something else which requires Valid Proof.

So, if you are unable to supply any valid proof in support of your claim,(of which already, it is clear that you have no such proof), then it means that the only valid standing proof and Truth,both in science (observation) and Law of logic, is the theory of “No thing creates itself”.

And that is why we Christians are the Winners of this argument for there is no valid argument against God, The Creator

No shift of post and the fallacy of red herring which is what the statement in red is. So, Invalid Argument.

Atheism is built on Invalid arguments.

And unfortunately for you guys, there is no Valid argument against the Truth".

To begin with, we're not atheists.

You see how you use to watch your kids or little siblings playing Mama and Papa game, cooking, even building little houses with all seriousness.

That's how we view the world, dissecting and analysing it and putting everything straight.

More like an umpire.

That's what we do at UWAKIN. Just type UWAKIN on your Facebook.

Back to our issue:

Your argument collapses at the exact point where you claim it becomes a “proof.”

You say science begins with observation. Correct. So let us actually observe what you have established.

“I have never observed a thing creating itself” does not logically become “therefore everything that exists was created by another thing.”

That is an inductive observation being promoted into a universal metaphysical law without sufficient justification.

You have observed that things within our experience have causes. You have not observed the origin of the universe being created by God.

And here is the crucial distinction you keep avoiding:

I do not have to prove that the universe was not created in order to point out that you have not proved that it was created.

You made the positive claim:

“Everything must be created by another thing.”

Therefore, the burden of demonstrating that universal premise belongs to you.

Saying, “You cannot prove me wrong, therefore I am right,” is not logic. That is an argument from ignorance.

If I say, “There is an invisible dragon in my house,” and you cannot prove there isn't one, have I therefore provided proof of the dragon?

Obviously not.

Now your argument becomes even more interesting.

You say “No thing creates itself.”

Fine. I agree. But notice what that actually gives you:

Self-creation is not an explanation.

It does not give you:

“Therefore God created the universe.”

There is an enormous logical gap between those two statements.

And your own theology exposes the problem.

If something can exist without being created, you cannot claim that everything requires a creator.

You therefore say God is uncreated.

Fine. Then you have conceded the fundamental possibility that something can exist without being created.

Your argument is no longer:

“Everything needs a creator.”

It becomes:

“Everything except God needs a creator.”

But now you owe us an argument for why God gets the exemption and the universe, or reality itself, does not.

You cannot simply define God as “the uncreated Creator” and then present that definition as evidence that God exists.

That is not discovery. It is definition.

And finally, you keep saying, “There is no valid argument against God.”

That does not prove God.

The inability to disprove a proposition is not evidence that the proposition is true.

Science does not currently establish either:

“God exists.”

or

“God does not exist.”

So claiming that Christians are “the winners” because nobody has disproved God is simply declaring victory because the opponent has not accepted your premise.

You have successfully argued that self-creation is incoherent. You have not successfully argued that the universe was created by a conscious being, that the being is God, or that the God is the Christian God.

Those are four different propositions, and you have provided evidence for only the first.

So no, atheism has not been defeated. You have simply taken an unanswered question about ultimate reality and inserted your preferred answer into the gap.

“We don't know” is intellectually honest.
“Therefore God” is an additional argument.

And an additional argument still requires proof.

jesusjnr2020:
I have already said it times without number here, that the science is in itself a proof of the Creator's existence, because science is about unravelling the hidden knowledge of the creation in order to replicate it or use it to provide solutions regarding the creation.

Therefore without the Creator, science itself wouldn't exist, because without the Creator there wouldn't be any creation for science to explore or learn from.

Therefore science itself is actually a pointer to the Creator, hence why the biggest brains or the greatest scientists in history do not just believe in the existence of the Creator but actually believe in Him, because of how fascinating His creation is, which they find themselves privileged to explore and learn a lot from.

God bless.

That's true! But what do you think of cases when Science seems to be at loggerheads with the bible such as the rabbit chewing the cud or the earth being round?

jesusjnr2020:
I have already said it times without number here, that the science is in itself a proof of the Creator's existence, because science is about unravelling the hidden knowledge of the creation in order to replicate it or use it to provide solutions regarding the creation.

Therefore without the Creator, science itself wouldn't exist, because without the Creator there wouldn't be any creation for science to explore or learn from.

Therefore science itself is actually a pointer to the Creator, hence why the biggest brains or the greatest scientists in history do not just believe in the existence of the Creator but actually believe in Him, because of how fascinating His creation is, which they find themselves privileged to explore and learn a lot from.

God bless.

The real scientists, the ones who transformed the world with their discoveries are mostly people of faith.
Deep scientific work will only lead one to God. No way around it

LordReed:
What do you mean by ours?

This present civilization under present recorded history of max ten thousand years or so.

I do attribute the emergence of the brain to a non intentional process. People who attribute it to intelligence are like the puddle analogy, simplistic reasoning assuming that their circumstances were engineered specifically for their benefit when instead the circumstances engineered their benefit.

I dont think it makes any sense to attribute the development of the brain or the eye to an unguided process. For me, people who do simply have not thought about the matter sufficiently or even do not understand the complexity of these organs.

Richard Dawkins himself tried to explain the evolution of the eye and in spite of my admiration for him, he ended up sounding daft. At least he admitted it was difficult to think of in evolutionary terms.

I choose the solution that doesn't use complexity to try to explain complexity when our universe indicates otherwise. In this universe, complex things are made from simpler things.

That is an assumption. The things humans make are rarely as complex as humans for example.
Is a Barbie Doll as complex as a human who made it?
That alone torpedoes your premise.

Please note that I do not discountenance evolution. I simply say that there are other factors at play.

FxMasterz:
If you're a teacher or you have a knowledge about education, you'll understand that you use what people know to teach them what they don't know. A very small seed can mean anything from melon seeds to bean seeds. It does not explain what Jesus wants them to know. The mustard seed was small enough to drive home the concept of faith has He taught it.

Jesus was not teaching a class in Botany. The subject was Faith.

Except the message was supposed to be for their ears only but for all humans in time so yeah
A tri-omni being can definitely come up with a more creative way to pass down it's message to make it stay not just relevant to the people being spoken to but to all

Dtruthspeaker:
See, because you can't argue, you have now resorted to personal attacks and claiming that I am just throwing terms which with a simple Google search you could confirm and reply.

But because you have nothing and cannot argue is why you resort to attacking me personally.

Yet, you thought you were logical.

Anyway, Atheism is built on Invalid arguments

And, Socrates has already told us what you are doing which is "when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser

Lol... Ok!

erad:
One of the tricky things about the creator theory that most religious people will never accept is that it is a never-ending loop.

If you insist the world and how it works is so beautiful and intricate and therefore must have been created by a creator... You also have to be willing to welcome the idea that that creator didn't just appear one day and must have been created by another creator... And that creator by another creator... At what point does the loop end?

In philosophy, it is well understood that the ultimate cause must be a self-existent factor which is uncaused, which is.

MaxInDHouse:
So there is no weapon carrier moving from one place to another in the name of SECURITY OPERATIVE in those places?🙂

Conveniently side stepping the whole premise of our exchange....
Mathew 10:
34
Or you just can't made a defense for Jesus advocating and promising violence right 🤣

DeepSight:
In philosophy, it is well understood that the ultimate cause must be a self-existent factor which is uncaused, which is.

The question now is, at what point do you get to the ultimate cause and how do you prove it?

erad:
The question now is, at what point do you get to the ultimate cause and how do you prove it?

The red is probably impossible and beyond humans to dscuss as we cannot comprehend infinity or eternity but the blue can be logically inferred, but not physically scientifcally proven because it is beyond physical science.

DeepSight:
The red is probably impossible and beyond humans to dscuss as we cannot comprehend infinity or eternity but the blue can be logically inferred, but not physically scientifcally proven because it is beyond physical science.

Thank you!

Vifx:
Conveniently side stepping the whole premise of our exchange....
Mathew 10:34
Or you just can't made a defense for Jesus advocating and promising violence right 🤣

You should learn from his actions and that of his first century disciples that he was talking about what relatives and the countrymen of believers will do to them not the other way around.
If Jesus was advocating violence as you erroneously concluded then why is it that neither himself nor his disciples in the first century lift a sword against anyone?🙂
In Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, Israel, Eritrea and many other places the true disciples of modern day (Jehovah's Witnesses) are being attacked by their own people just as Jesus foretold. Matthew 10:34
So learn to use intelligence because it's his teachings that's making people from all the nations hate their own families despite the fact that we are the world's most peaceful organization! Matthew 24:9

MaxInDHouse:
You should learn from his actions and that of his first century disciples that he was talking about what relatives and the countrymen of believers will do to them not the other way around.
If Jesus was advocating violence as you erroneously concluded then why is it that neither himself nor his disciples in the first century lift a sword against anyone?🙂
In Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, Israel, Eritrea and many other places the true disciples of modern day (Jehovah's Witnesses) are being attacked by their own people just as Jesus foretold. Matthew 10:34
So learn to use intelligence because it's his teachings that's making people from all the nations hate their own families despite the fact that we are the world's most peaceful organization! Matthew 24:9

That still doesn’t answer my question. Matthew 10:34 says, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” You’re changing the subject from what Jesus actually said to what his followers later did or didn’t do.

I'm not claiming Jesus personally went around attacking people with a sword. Bro the question is whether he advocated or predicted violent division. And the immediate context actually makes the point: he says he came to set family members against one another and that a person’s enemies would be members of their own household (Matthew 10:35–36).

So capping that, his disciples didn’t use swords doesn’t refute the argument. A person can cause or predict conflict without personally committing physical violence.
And claim that Christians are the world’s most peaceful religion is just an assertion. It doesn't magically determine what Matthew 10:34 means. If you want to defend Jesus, deal with the actual text and its context rather than redefining the premise. 😏

DeepSight:
This present civilization under present recorded history of max ten thousand years or so.

Ok so what do you mean by civilisation.

I dont think it makes any sense to attribute the development of the brain or the eye to an unguided process. For me, people who do simply have not thought about the matter sufficiently or even do not understand the complexity of these organs.

Richard Dawkins himself tried to explain the evolution of the eye and in spite of my admiration for him, he ended up sounding daft. At least he admitted it was difficult to think of in evolutionary terms.

Perhaps you are the one who hasn't given it sufficient thought. I understood Dawkins attempt to explain it to a lay person so maybe it is something you need to study further.

That is an assumption. The things humans make are rarely as complex as humans for example.
Is a Barbie Doll as complex as a human who made it?
That alone torpedoes your premise.

Please note that I do not discountenance evolution. I simply say that there are other factors at play.

I said made from not made by. If you understand evolution then I don't see why you struggle with the fact that more complex biological processes evolved from simpler ones.

I just told you what he meant as one of his Witnesses! Act 1:8
So if you see people killing people know that such ones have nothing to do with Jesus who COMMANDED his disciples to:
[1] Love their neighbors as themselves! Mark 12:31

[2] Love their fellow believers just as he loved them. John 13:34-35

[3] Love and continue to pray for their enemies! Luke 6:27-28

So ask yourself: in what way did Jesus advocate violence if his disciples live by his teachings and commands?🙂

Vifx:
That still doesn’t answer my question. Matthew 10:34 says, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” You’re changing the subject from what Jesus actually said to what his followers later did or didn’t do. I'm not claiming Jesus personally went around attacking people with a sword. Bro the question is whether he advocated or predicted violent division. And the immediate context actually makes the point: he says he came to set family members against one another and that a person’s enemies would be members of their own household (Matthew 10:35–36). So capping that, his disciples didn’t use swords doesn’t refute the argument. A person can cause or predict conflict without personally committing physical violence.
And claim that Christians are the world’s most peaceful religion is just an assertion. It doesn't magically determine what Matthew 10:34 means. If you want to defend Jesus, deal with the actual text and its context rather than redefining the premise. 😏

Vifx:
Except the message was supposed to be for their ears only but for all humans in time so yeah
A tri-omni being can definitely come up with a more creative way to pass down it's message to make it stay not just relevant to the people being spoken to but to all

A teacher teaches the locals according to their current knowledge. When it gets to other lands, it can be localized. For other lands who don't know what mustard seed is, whatever they know to be the smallest of things would be used to bring them understanding. That's how teaching works. You don't use abstract things to impart concrete knowledge. You come to the level of your learners always. That's how it works even in schools. 2- 3 is not impossible but they told you it's impossible at the lower level of education. At the higher levels you'll now learn that 2 - 3 equals -1. Anyone who did education in school as a subject understands that learning still takes this same form till today.

When a teacher draws his scheme of work, there is a section for previous knowledge. The teacher builds on the foundation of the learners' previous knowledge to teach them new things. It is the way learning works. If Jesus was teaching Botany, then the situation becomes different. He's not teaching them about the smallest seed in the earth. He's teaching them about faith using what they know to be the smallest of things.

LordReed:
Ok so what do you mean by civilisation.

An evolved social construct of human co-dwelling and interaction with established norms, laws and notable intellectual advancement.

Perhaps you are the one who hasn't given it sufficient thought. I understood Dawkins attempt to explain it to a lay person so maybe it is something you need to study further.

His explanation sounded daft and unconvincing and even he himself did not sound convinced.
Infact it is better to say his attempt at an excuse rather than his explanation because he sounded so terribly furtive, obviously because he knew he was talking trash in that instance. He talked about skin becoming sensitive to light and this supposedly accounted for the evolution of the eye with its complexities and its backend interpretation of signals in the visual cortex of a brain.

I am sorry, its a laughable joke.

I said made from not made by. If you understand evolution then I don't see why you struggle with the fact that more complex biological processes evolved from simpler ones.

Well, I accept evolution to an extent. I simply dont accept that it accounts for certain things. As you know, I am not alone in believeing it can NEVER logically account for the evolution of sexual reproduction as an insurmountable chicken and egg conundrum would arise.

DeepSight:
An evolved social construct of human co-dwelling and interaction with established norms, laws and notable intellectual advancement.

No there was none at 100,000 years ago.

His explanation sounded daft and unconvincing and even he himself did not sound convinced.
Infact it is better to say his attempt at an excuse rather than his explanation because he sounded so terribly furtive, obviously because he knew he was talking trash in that instance. He talked about skin becoming sensitive to light and this supposedly accounted for the evolution of the eye with its complexities and its backend interpretation of signals in the visual cortex of a brain.

I am sorry, its a laughable joke.

Bro you should listen again, he didn't say skin.

Well, I accept evolution to an extent. I simply dont accept that it accounts for certain things. As you know, I am not alone in believeing it can NEVER logically account for the evolution of sexual reproduction as an insurmountable chicken and egg conundrum would arise.

It doesn't matter if you are alone or not, that is not a decider of what is a fact.

Yes the sexual dimorphism issue has not been solved but the chicken egg one has been sorted. Spoiler alert: it's the egg.

LordReed:
No there was none at 100,000 years ago.

You sound pretty confident almost as though you were there.
I am confident that you are wrong.

Bro you should listen again, he didn't say skin.

Alright, perhaps my memory is off, tell me what he said and lets see if its any better. Its not far from that. It was plain idiocy.
PS: Are you sure we are talking about the same speech? I think I refer to an extract from his book, "The God Delusion." Either that or "The Blind Watchmaker."

PS: I checked, he said "a patch" . . . how is this different from or better than "skin?"

It doesn't matter if you are alone or not, that is not a decider of what is a fact.

Yes the sexual dimorphism issue has not been solved

It never will be. Because of the below.

but the chicken egg one has been sorted. Spoiler alert: it's the egg.

You missed my meaning. I mean that the evolution of sexual reproduction presents a chicken and egg problem in an analogical sense - namely, we would have to ask which came first, the sperm or the egg, the penis or the vagina, the testicles or the womb - all of which are complimentary and how the evolution of one in one sex stimuated the evolution of the other in the other sex, never mind the fact that there would be no creature to speak off during the process of evolution without those organs being there ab initio. Its an unsolvable conundrum.

yeshuasfootstep:
To begin with, we're not atheists.

You see how you use to watch your kids or little siblings playing Mama and Papa game, cooking, even building little houses with all seriousness.

That's how we view the world, dissecting and analysing it and putting everything straight.

More like an umpire.

That's what we do at UWAKIN. Just type UWAKIN on your Facebook.

Back to our issue:

Your argument collapses at the exact point where you claim it becomes a “proof.”

You say science begins with observation. Correct. So let us actually observe what you have established.

“I have never observed a thing creating itself” does not logically become “therefore everything that exists was created by another thing.”

That is an inductive observation being promoted into a universal metaphysical law without sufficient justification.

You have observed that things within our experience have causes. You have not observed the origin of the universe being created by God.

And here is the crucial distinction you keep avoiding:

I do not have to prove that the universe was not created in order to point out that you have not proved that it was created.

You made the positive claim:

“Everything must be created by another thing.”

Therefore, the burden of demonstrating that universal premise belongs to you.

Saying, “You cannot prove me wrong, therefore I am right,” is not logic. That is an argument from ignorance.

If I say, “There is an invisible dragon in my house,” and you cannot prove there isn't one, have I therefore provided proof of the dragon?

Obviously not.

Now your argument becomes even more interesting.

You say “No thing creates itself.”

Fine. I agree. But notice what that actually gives you:

Self-creation is not an explanation.

It does not give you:

“Therefore God created the universe.”

There is an enormous logical gap between those two statements.

And your own theology exposes the problem.

If something can exist without being created, you cannot claim that everything requires a creator.

You therefore say God is uncreated.

Fine. Then you have conceded the fundamental possibility that something can exist without being created.

Your argument is no longer:

“Everything needs a creator.”

It becomes:

“Everything except God needs a creator.”

But now you owe us an argument for why God gets the exemption and the universe, or reality itself, does not.

You cannot simply define God as “the uncreated Creator” and then present that definition as evidence that God exists.

That is not discovery. It is definition.

And finally, you keep saying, “There is no valid argument against God.”

That does not prove God.

The inability to disprove a proposition is not evidence that the proposition is true.

Science does not currently establish either:

“God exists.”

or

“God does not exist.”

So claiming that Christians are “the winners” because nobody has disproved God is simply declaring victory because the opponent has not accepted your premise.

You have successfully argued that self-creation is incoherent. You have not successfully argued that the universe was created by a conscious being, that the being is God, or that the God is the Christian God.

Those are four different propositions, and you have provided evidence for only the first.

So no, atheism has not been defeated. You have simply taken an unanswered question about ultimate reality and inserted your preferred answer into the gap.

“We don't know” is intellectually honest.
“Therefore God” is an additional argument.

And an additional argument still requires proof.

Most religionists do not realize that even if they successfully prove that a God exists, they still have a long way to go to show that it is the kind of God described by their particular religion.

yeshuasfootstep:
To begin with, we're not atheists.

You see how you use to watch your kids or little siblings playing Mama and Papa game, cooking, even building little houses with all seriousness.

That's how we view the world, dissecting and analysing it and putting everything straight.

More like an umpire..

That's what we do at UWAKIN. Just type UWAKIN on your Facebook.

I Don't care besides this is Fallacy of red herring/Off Point.

yeshuasfootstep:
Back to our issue:

Your argument collapses at the exact point where you claim it becomes a “proof.”

You say science begins with observation. Correct. So let us actually observe what you have established.

“I have never observed a thing creating itself” does not logically become “therefore everything that exists was created by another thing.”

That is an inductive observation being promoted into a universal metaphysical law without sufficient justification.

You have observed that things within our experience have causes. You have not observed the origin of the universe being created by God.

And here is the crucial distinction you keep avoiding:

I do not have to prove that the universe was not created in order to point out that you have not proved that it was created.

You made the positive claim:

“Everything must be created by another thing.”

Therefore, the burden of demonstrating that universal premise belongs to you.

Saying, “You cannot prove me wrong, therefore I am right,” is not logic. That is an argument from ignorance.

If I say, “There is an invisible dragon in my house,” and you cannot prove there isn't one, have I therefore provided proof of the dragon?

Obviously not.

Now your argument becomes even more interesting.

You say “No thing creates itself.”

Fine. I agree. But notice what that actually gives you:

XXXXX. XXXX
Self-creation is not an explanation.

It does not give you:

“Therefore God created the universe.”

There is an enormous logical gap between those two statements.

And your own theology exposes the problem.

If something can exist without being created, you cannot claim that everything requires a creator.

You therefore say God is uncreated.

Fine. Then you have conceded the fundamental possibility that something can exist without being created.

Your argument is no longer:

“Everything needs a creator.”

It becomes:

“Everything except God needs a creator.”

[b]But now you owe us an argument for why God gets the exemption and the universe, or reality itself, does not.

You cannot simply define God as “the uncreated Creator” and then present that definition as evidence that God exists.

That is not discovery. It is definition.

And finally, you keep saying, “There is no valid argument against God.”

That does not prove God.

The inability to disprove a proposition is not evidence that the proposition is true.

Science does not currently establish either:

“God exists.”

or

“God does not exist.”

So claiming that Christians are “the winners” because nobody has disproved God is simply declaring victory because the opponent has not accepted your premise.

You have successfully argued that self-creation is incoherent. You have not successfully argued that the universe was created by a conscious being, that the being is God, or that the God is the Christian God.

Those are four different propositions, and you have provided evidence for only the first.

So no, atheism has not been defeated. You have simply taken an unanswered question about ultimate reality and inserted your preferred answer into the gap.

“We don't know” is intellectually honest.
“Therefore God” is an additional argument.

And an additional argument still requires proof[/b].

Now you are trying to play for reargument, distortion and confusion as you pretend to forget that that you were the one stated that
The first step of science and all. And that you confessed that "you agree".

So, it is laughable that you would go against your own confession and admission and now turn around and claim that “you have never observed a thing creating itself".

Since you agreed with me, then there is nothing more to prove.

And everything after the XXXX in red is
1) a reargument
2) FALLACIES OF RED HERRING/OFF POINT
3) DEPARTURE FROM POST.
4) FALLACY OF REVERSAL OF BURDEN OF PROOF.

And if you want to dispute that everything must NOT be created by another thing and all that THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF lies on you to prove the Truth of your belief, for you are the one who is now claiming something else which requires Valid Proof. And so your attempt to reverse the burden of proof backfires to you.

And you have no such proof, so then it means that the only valid standing proof and Truth, both in science (observation) and Law of logic, is the theory of “No thing creates itself”.
And no where did i say "You cannot prove me wrong, therefore I am right". Rather, following your inability to provide a valid counter, i simply recited the the Law of logic and Truth which states "There is no valid argument against the Truth" therefore, we Christians have won.

So, unless you provide a valid counter, we Christians remain winners and this argument is res judicata and you cannot reargue (relitigate) it.

DeepSight:
Most religionists do not realize that even if they successfully prove that a God exists, they still have a long way to go to show that it is the kind of God described by their particular religion.

How do you mean we can't prove that He is the very God described in the Bible?

erad:
One of the tricky things about the creator theory that most religious people will never accept is that it is a never-ending loop.

If you insist the world and how it works is so beautiful and intricate and therefore must have been created by a creator... You also have to be willing to welcome the idea that that creator didn't just appear one day and must have been created by another creator... And that creator by another creator... At what point does the loop end?

This is a fallacious argument. The Fallacy of false dilemma and that is why such a thinking is wrong, rubbish and unacceptable.

So, basically you atheists have no valid argument to make against it.

In case you don't know the meaning of fallacy

fallacy
/ˈfaləsi/
A fallacy is a false idea, or erroneous reasoning that makes an argument logically unsound and untrue.