No atheist has come up for a satisfactory answer of why the world exists in the first place if there isn't a God. Secondly no atheist has successfully proved that the resurrection Jesus Christ hasn't happened.
19 comments
No atheist has come up for a satisfactory answer of why the world exists in the first place if there isn't a God.
So God existed before the world did? Because that kind of disproves him (the world is everything that exists).
Secondly no atheist has successfully proved that the resurrection Jesus Christ hasn't happened.
I just don't see resurrections happening everyday and the medical community has ruled them out. Burden of proof, bitch!
No theist has successfully presented a falsifiable Theory Of God, so I guess we're even. As for the cause of the Universe, we've got back-of-the-envelope sketches. I'm pretty sure that's a bit more than they've got.
"why the world exists"
Why not?
"No theist has come up for a satisfactory answer of why God exists in the first place if there wasn't anything before him. Secondly no theist has successfully proved that the resurrection Jesus Christ has happened. "
My way makes more sense.
Edit: Beaten by a month. D'oh.
1. Just because we yet can't irrefutably claim to know why some things are, doesn't mean we have to stop at that and resort to "goddidit". Instead, we are figuring those things out.
2. Nobody on this Earth has succesfully proved that the resurrection has happened. Checkmate at that. Your move.
Both the statement "/No atheist has come up for a satisfactory answer of why the world exists in the first place if there isn't a God. Secondly no atheist has successfully proved that the resurrection Jesus Christ hasn't happened./" and "/No fundie has come up for a satisfactory answer of why God exists in the first place.
Secondly no fundie has successfully proved that the resurrection Jesus Christ has happened./" are technically true. Thus, I view it wiser to take the middle ground with agnosticism. However, since there is not proof either for or against a spiritual being (however unlikely), both atheism and theism are technically valid. Theories are considered as possible until disproven, and neither has been scientifically invalidated. My statement does not encompass the truth of holy books, but simply the possible existence of spiritual being(s).
"No atheist has come up for a satisfactory answer of why the world exists in the first place if there isn't a God."
His Noodlyness the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you dare question this, then your own Creationist concepts are completely annihilated, and therefore have no right to be equally accepted. [/Russell's Teapot] RAmen.
Next question.
"Secondly no atheist has successfully proved that the resurrection Jesus Christ hasn't happened."
The 'Turin Shroud' was proven to be nothing more than a medieval fake. Also, if a book says that a certain man existed, then according to another book (by a Christian author, no less), if I enter the cupboard where I keep my clothes, I'd emerge out the other side into another world where I'd meet a talking lion. Because a book says so.
Next question II.
[/smartarse]
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.