Help with a debate with an athiest

  • Thread starter Thread starter NolePaul2009
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NolePaul2009

Guest
Hi All,

Im having a debate with an athiest and need help with some things…

After I hit him with the logic of the complex nature of science, human body, DNA, etc…he comes back with…

""This is simply a logical fallacy. Sorry. You are painting the bullseye around the arrow and saying “See! It hit the bullseye!” You are laboring under the preconceived notion that the world was intended. I could say “What are the odds the grains of sand in that sand dune were arranged in that particular order! They must have been individually placed! Because every different arrangement is extremely improbable, one simply has to have occurred. There is noting special about the arrangement, you just assume it to be.”’

How do I reply to him. This is a debate on a facebook group discussion…

The discussion is here

The part of the discussion Im in are on pages 4 and 5…
 
Don’t waste your time.

You won’t be able to “prove” anything to an athiest in an online forum, facebook, etc, but you can only spell out what you believe and why. Then pray for them.
 
NolePaul2009 said:
Hi All,

Im having a debate with an athiest and need help with some things…

After I hit him with the logic of the complex nature of science, human body, DNA, etc…he comes back with…

""This is simply a logical fallacy. Sorry. You are painting the bullseye around the arrow and saying “See! It hit the bullseye!” You are laboring under the preconceived notion that the world was intended. I could say “What are the odds the grains of sand in that sand dune were arranged in that particular order! They must have been individually placed! Because every different arrangement is extremely improbable, one simply has to have occurred. There is noting special about the arrangement, you just assume it to be.”’

How do I reply to him. This is a debate on a facebook group discussion…

The discussion is here

The part of the discussion Im in are on pages 4 and 5…
Click to expand...
William Lane Craig uses the analogy to 100 marx men on a firing squad. The argument that he is using is basically that because every situation is highly improbably we shouldn’t be surprised that we see a highly improbable outcome. However, if you group all possible organizations of matter which do not permit life and all those which do permit life you’ll see that the odds of no life are somewhere around 98% while the odds of life are only about 2%. Taking this into account you can draw an analogy to the universe spawning life and a firing squad with 100 marks men where everyone one of the 100 marks men misses their targets.
 
Newbie2 said:
Don’t waste your time.

You won’t be able to “prove” anything to an athiest in an online forum, facebook, etc, but you can only spell out what you believe and why. Then pray for them.
Click to expand...
Yes and Amen! The Almighty God doesn’t need us to prove His existence. He wants us to demonstrate His love for mankind. You’re not being received, wipe your feet and leave.
 
NolePaul2009 said:
Hi All,

Im having a debate with an athiest and need help with some things…

After I hit him with the logic of the complex nature of science, human body, DNA, etc…he comes back with…

""This is simply a logical fallacy. Sorry. You are painting the bullseye around the arrow and saying “See! It hit the bullseye!” You are laboring under the preconceived notion that the world was intended. I could say “What are the odds the grains of sand in that sand dune were arranged in that particular order! They must have been individually placed! Because every different arrangement is extremely improbable, one simply has to have occurred. There is noting special about the arrangement, you just assume it to be.”’

How do I reply to him. This is a debate on a facebook group discussion…

The discussion is here

The part of the discussion Im in are on pages 4 and 5…
Click to expand...
Have your antagonist explain how there is a relationship or proper analogy to be drawn from the obviously random assembly of the grains of sand in a sand dune vis-a-vis the extremely well ordered and incredibly complex arrangements of highly varied parts in living organisms that depend upon a specialized set of environmental conditions that will support them. It would seem that his assumptions are the one’s that need to be questioned in this area of the debate.

P.S. Good luck…most atheists are difficult to convince because they demand hard scientific proof for everything even though science is an inadequate tool for proving the existence of God. You will also find that atheists are very quick to accept all kinds of highly speculative “theories” concerning the origins of the universe even though every one of the their pet theories merely beg the question concerning our origin.
 
My method is to simply tell an atheist to “Look around. Do you truly believe that creation does not have a Creator?”

Atheists p!ss me off, because they claim to know that there is no God, yet their whole argument is based on the lack of proof. How ironic.

Most intellectuals seem to jump to agnosticism, instead of “active agnosticism”… so they just stop inciting an important seed of doubt in others and truly searching for the Spirit, since they “know” that it can’t be proved either way. Therefore, active agnostics are about as legit as you can get when it comes to doubting the Creator… because they’re actually asking questions.
 
I heartily agree that it is an immence possibility against learning an atheist much about the existance of God.
But, the simplest come back is that he is correct.

We each (atheists and believers alike) have to have pre-conceived beliefs to come to any LOGICAL, conclusions, but, it is also logical that I have to believe something AND someone, I just choose to believe witnesses and not those who doubt the witnesses’ credibility.
 
You might want to mention that every philosophical/logical argument against the existence of God fails by some fault within the logic and that they are frequently self contradictory. There are, however, a number of philosophical/logical arguments in favor of the existence of God that are logically sound. Together they make a persuasive case for the existence of God, but they do not provide absolute proof. That is why there is the need for faith. That faith is, however, less of a leap than the leap of faith required of the atheist since no logical argument stands in favor of that position.

Tacelli & Kreeft go into all of this in detail in The Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

I hope this helps.
 
Pax said:
Together they make a persuasive case for the existence of God, but they do not provide absolute proof. That is why there is the need for faith. That faith is, however, less of a leap than the leap of faith required of the atheist since no logical argument stands in favor of that position.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Ive decided to back out of that debate. Im through with those closed minded people. If any of you want at them go for it, but Im done with those debates…
 
NolePaul2009 said:
Ive decided to back out of that debate. Im through with those closed minded people. If any of you want at them go for it, but Im done with those debates…
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration. We had some vigorous exchanges on this forum with an atheist that went by the forum name of A. I burned out on it after awhile, but the exchanges were generally of a friendly nature. We simply made no progress during the discussions, but perhaps some seeds were planted.

God bless.
 
NolePaul2009 said:
Hi All,

Im having a debate with an athiest and need help with some things…

After I hit him with the logic of the complex nature of science, human body, DNA, etc…he comes back with…

""This is simply a logical fallacy. Sorry. You are painting the bullseye around the arrow and saying “See! It hit the bullseye!” You are laboring under the preconceived notion that the world was intended. I could say “What are the odds the grains of sand in that sand dune were arranged in that particular order! They must have been individually placed! Because every different arrangement is extremely improbable, one simply has to have occurred. There is noting special about the arrangement, you just assume it to be.”’

How do I reply to him. This is a debate on a facebook group discussion…

The discussion is here

The part of the discussion Im in are on pages 4 and 5…
Click to expand...
I don’t know. Its really not that hard to debate an atheist. How is the argument given by the athiest an answer to what you said? The fact is, the athiest will have to admit that the universe works under a series of physical laws, the most obvious one to discuss is the law of gravity. Ask them how a law can be made with a law maker. And how can it be enforced without an overall authority? How can order come from infinite chaos without both infinite power and intelligence to cause that order. And how can life exist without meaning and if there is no ultimate end, how can anything have meaning.
 
Yes… mention how there are “four main forces” that we learn about in science class.

We learn the how.

But do we ever learn the why? Will we EVER learn the why with science?

There is a Force.

May It be with you.

P.S. - If you ever talk to an atheist, tell him to “Look around. Do you truly believe that creation has no Creator?” Ask how to prove how he knows there is no God. Tell him that it’s awfully ironic that he claims to know something based on FAITH/BELIEF alone.

You can only pray that he’ll keep his eyes open.

I really do love the movie Avatar for the reason that they use the phrase, 'I see you" to say they understand their peers on a spiritual level.

I SEE YOU!
 
Interesting that he used a sand dune metaphor. A sand dune is a pretty good model of what entropy does. It tends to move nature from states of specialization to states of uniformity. If the universe was allowed to fully decay, it would eventually be nothing more than space filled with equi-distant atoms, sort of like a giant cosmic sand dune. You might ask this fellow how specialization occured when we know that nature is entropic.
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top