Answers given in a debate with an agnostic, claiming to be an atheist:
Personally, as an atheist, I just admit that I don't know for sure exactly how we came in to existence.
I'm not claiming to know Gods existence is not true. I'm just not investing any belief that it is true.
Try to assert that we should accept an answer that it is a God that makes us able to without proving it, is to assert that we should accept a made up answer.
* Thinks that origins is an issue about proving things, and not what makes most sense.
We simply don't know. Trying to assert we do know, without proof, is simply illogical.
The whole irreducible complexity argument has been debunked. Even if I did admit that we have irreducible complexity, that does nothing to prove how and why we have that. You still need to prove a God claim if you want to be reasonable in your belief.
* Claims to know that IC has been debunked, and even IF its proven true, he neglects the fact that nature, and evolution in special, cannot produce irreducible complex things, and the only alternative is a conscious intelligent creator.
Abiogenesis is an unproven science. So, just because we can't prove for certain, does not make it rational to make up a solution like God. It may be that abiogenesis is impossible. I'm not claiming it is definitely true. It is the direction we are going to investigate how we came to be currently though
* Once again, does not admit that there are only two possibilities, either a creator, or none, and feels granted to claim that ignorance is justified.
How do you know that it can't happen naturally? argument from ignorance fallacy.
* Naturalism of the gaps fallacy
How do you know God is even possible? Seems like a much larger claim to say that an endlessly complex being exists than to claim that a basic lifeform could come in to existence from nonlife materials that we do have evidence of.
* Doesnt know that God is not complex.
There is no evidence cells have a creator. You're proving my point for me now. You're just too biased in your position to get that.
* Thats called blame shifting. Accusing the counterpart of what he is guilty of.
I don't know what evidence it would take for me to believe a creator (or God) made us. But if there is a God, I'm sure it would know what it would take to provide such evidence. And it has not bothered to do so.
* According to the Bible, he is just lying. Romans 1.21: 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
You seem to really be stuck in this assumption that I think God in fact does not exist. Which is false. God may exist. It may have created us. I just don't see any point in investing any belief in such a proposition. Rather, I find it more reasonable to admit that I don't know. So I can more honestly investigate what the truth actually is.
* It just isn't God. He excludes God a priori, but is open for any alternative that does not include him.
Furthermore, I find it a more worthwhile use of my time to invest belief in things that do have evidence of existence. As they are more practical for me to deal with the reality I find myself stuck in.
As we know the materials that it takes for the building blocks of life to come together do in fact exist. We have nothing to go off of for believing a God exists though. It's not like we've ever seen something like that.
You've decided to be closed minded and unreasonable. Just can't quite face how you're wrong, huh?
With what we know of the big bang, asserting that there must be a creator behind it makes me think of how the Greeks believed Zeus made lighting happen. We didn't have an explanation for something, but desperately wanted to know how it worked. So we made up an answer. It seemed too amazing to be by accident. So, we attributed the answer to God. Trying to explain the big bang the same way is the same. Exact. Thing.
We're both ignorant of answers beyond our current understanding. The difference is, I'm willing to admit it, while you want to claim you know things we can't possibly know yet. You can spend your life living a lie if you want. It's your life.
How do you know that absolutely nothing cant do something? You should check out Lawrence Krauss's book A Universe from Nothing. There actually is some scientific support behind the whole something from nothing idea. I don't think Krauss fully proved something can come from nothing. But he did provide some actual evidence to argue his position. You're claiming to know that it can't without any means to prove your position whatsoever.
* So here he makes actually an exclusion of his ignorance, and believes there is reason to believe that nothing has causal powers. He just betraied his claimed position and opened up to show his bias.
