This is supposed to be a thesis? In what subject, and at what sort of institution? Because it reads like an outline of any generic apologist website.

This is just the Cosmological Argument, which is self-contradictory. It says everything has a cause, and immediately commits special pleading to explain why a god wouldn't.

Case in point.

You seem to be using 'atheist' to mean 'scientist,' which is wrong, but I will use the latter word from here where I think it's appropriate. Your statement is false, because your own apologetics indicate how theistic positions have evolved. Religion didn't originally contain logical contortions to deal with contradictions, it merely asserted. Unlike science, however, theistic claims evolve to avoid falsification, whereas scientific claims are falsified constantly, with theories being updated to better describe the world based on currently available information.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Pretty basic mistake there. Atheists also don't necessarily accept scientific consensus, nor are they necessarily aware of it. You seem to be conflating science and atheism into a straw-man.

False. Evolutionary theory is foundational to biological science.

Your emphasis of the word theory tells me your equivocating the colloquial and scientific uses of the term, where the former is a guess, and the latter is a model of how something works, made up of many mutually-dependent hypotheses.

Ugh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

These are terms coined by apologists and have no application in science.

False all around. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

It's not necessarily a belief.

There are no teachings. Hitler was Christian.

Neither does religion.

No, it does not.

The universe as we know it had a beginning (known as the big bang). As far as we know, however, what makes up the universe is eternal. The big bang is merely a change in the organization of things, possibly as a result of the entropic death of a previous universe. However, there are a multitude of theories regarding this the most likely so far is the "Many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Logic does not state anything. Logic is a method of relating facts to eachother in truthful ways. Indeed, this is simply a bald assertion. It may not be possible to know how the big bang began, just as you must admit that you do not know where your god comes from. In this respect they are equal save for the evidence that there was a big bang where none exists for the source of your particular god, which is only one of many supposed gods.

Again, logic does not say anything unless you compose a statement that makes it so. The notion of causality comes from the physical theory of the arrow of time: a video of a cup falling off of a table and breaking makes sense in physics, while a cup forming itself from pieces of ceramic and floating back onto a table does not.

The ultimate question in science is "Where did everything come from?" If you add a god to the equation, everything would necessarily include god. So we must ask where this god came from. In order to even begin to answer this, we must know what this god thing is. You have given no definition for this god, so we must assume the null solution.

Perhaps it will be more clear why this doesn't work without a definition this way. You've constructed a multiple term argument with undefined and therefore equivalent variables and set about relating them via their identity:

a=1a+2a+3a+4a

The only possible way you can relate these is if the relation is null or, in terms of the equation, zero. Without a definition, you can't be said to be talking about anything at all. Definitions of gods vary. State the intrinsic properties of this one, then prove them.

For example:

1. God is

1a. defined as something.

1b. that which created everything that exists.

2. Anything that is something is a member of the identity "everything."

3. If an existant thing cannot exist before its creation, then god does not exist.

4. If an existant thing can exist before its creation, then nothing needs to be created because everything exists without being created.

5. Not everything exists.

6. An existant thing cannot exist before its creation. (From 4 and 5)

7. God does not exist. (From 3 and 6)

Everything has a cause except for the thing I'm saying doesn't have one. That's your argument. And now you're referring to a specific religion, as you said you would not. I don't see how you could have kept that promise, anyway, since it's really the only way these ideas are transmitted.

Slight distinction between not believing in a god and making a positive claim that there isn't one. Without evidence specifically for something, the justifiable position is that it probably is not so.

You use the term 'facts' loosely, as well. Religious claims are never concrete or substantiated, so whether they change or not isn't terribly important. This was famously lampooned in the question of angels dancing on the point of a needle.

It's not what you can believe, it's what you can substantiate. If the substance of an argument changes, it affects the validity of an argument. Religious arguments have no substance, so it's purely a word game.

BZZZZT, WRONG. Look it up at a non-apologetics site for once. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with cosmology.

Those are all different fields (cosmology, evolutionary theory, abiogenesis). Referring to them as "evolution" is completely, utterly wrong.

I withdraw my statement about the use of the term, as I see it's sometimes used legitimately. However, it is used differently by apologists to portray a straw-man of evolutionary theory that doesn't contradict Special Creation, while being able to acknowledge the undeniable facts of selection, inheritance and mutation. This mainly concerns "young earth creationists," since their timeline wouldn't allow life to evolve to this point.

You're simply poisoning the well. Look up chromosome 2.

You can take Hitler's word on being a Christian or not. It's of little importance. I don't even know where to begin with the rest of what you're saying. It's so riddled with straw-man arguments.

The word 'answer' to me is an important one, and I don't lend it to just anything.

 "In contrast to atheism, a belief in God is rational because it is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant"

Just to get the definitions out of the way, we'll start with your invisible friend God. You're stating that it's rational to believe in something unmeasurable by any means available. K. That could actually make for a fun thesis. You might want to address that first.

Second, logic does not state anything. It's a process. Saying "logic says ..." doesn't actually mean anyting. Logic does not imply causality, only relationships between statements.

II A. As more empirical evidence becomes available, an empiricist will change his/her mind. That's sort of the point of empiricism. Sticking with something in the face of evidence would be ... well, something other than empiricism.

II A 1. Evolution doesn't explain the universe, you're right. Not sure where you got that one. It's a really good theory for the development of species, though. Lots of evidence to back it up and stuff.

II A 2. Evolution is a pretty well documented process. If you're looking for examples, it won't be difficult to find them. You give examples in "microevolution".

II B 1. Not sure what this even means. Evolution doesn't dictate whether species become more or less complex. The second part of your statement is more interesting, in that life does seem to be the opposite of entropy. That's neat, but it doesn't mean that it's rational to believe in an invisible friend.

II B 2. It's possible that you're confused here. The process you describe is simply more likely than any other that has been presented. The beauty of science is that if you come up with something better, biologists will be all ears. Belief in an invisible friend named God is not an alternative theory.

III - this whole section is weak. If you're going to make an argument here, at least follow some of those who have come before you and argue against atheism itself. Bring your A game, not this Hitler stuff. Just because "atheism doesn't answer ... questions" doesn't mean that believing in an invisible friend named God is rational. That's a logical jump. If Hitler actually was an atheist, how did he follow the "teachings of atheism" (of which there are none)? Honestly, from a rational perspective, you seem to be babbling. Your sections are unconnected to your thesis and don't strengthen it very well.

Frankly if you're writing this for a religious school, I'd say keep it like this.

I don't think you made a claim that can't be countered, but then again I don't really know of a proof for the existence of god that can't be.

i agree its special but id like you to be a little more specific. Im not in anyway twisting anything. my causality argument is logical, and if you want to disagree with it without proof for why its wrong than your going to have to admit your illogical. and i think i win the rationality award if you don't mind being illogical.

I wasn't aware that i was including any theist groups. i realize some weak chirsitans try to blend evolution and God but I am focusing on atheists. if some theists belive some of the same theories as atheists i can't really help that but I am focusing on atheists.

hey now, calm down. i just didn't explain that clearly. I do know what evolution is all about. I admitt i use certain terms to broadly but this is why im practicing now. im trying to get out of the habit of linking evolution and the big bang although if you belive in one you usually belive the other. and likewise, don't take anything i say as insulting, just true.

it is accepted as fact but I can't imagine why. almost everything about it is a guess. science requires testing. you look at something, hypothesize how it works then test your hypothesis to see if its correct. they can do nothing but hypothesize about evolution. not to mention explain how the very gradual growth produces such complex systems that can only work after its finished evolving. I'd hate to be part of the millions that must have died waiting for my heart to fully evolve. i belive this is called irreducible complexity.

have you actually looked at those fossils yourself. have you seen what they put together and calim to have a transitional fossil. its not like this happens rarely. anti=evolutionists have just gotten tired of showing how the fossils or bones were falsified. when the first big "transitional" fossil was found, all the science books began claiming that the missing link was found. 20 years later scientists proved that the jaw was put on wrong and it was just a man. yes thats just one example but i shows how unreliable the "reconstruction" is. they take extra bone fragments, slap it on a fish and say look! we discovered the missing link. Im sorry, but those fossils prove nothing. and i promise i won't write anything off becasue it is biased. i was simly mointing out that anyone could put that on wikipedia, and that anyone was atheist.

ummm not quite. without a God there are no morals. theres no such thing as human morals as you can see by the vastly differnt cultures and customs. if morals exist at all there must be some moral absolute. the Christians's answer is God. the atheists have no answer. so as i said Christinaity does answer all our questions.

please keep in mind were being rational about this. i didn't say my God is the only thing without a cause. i said only something eternal can be without a cause. my God is eternal, so is logic and love. they don't need a casue, logically. so don't twist my argument, you must either try to argue that the universe is eternal or that your illogical becasue any theory you have about the universe self creating is illogical based on the law of causality. and i don't remember saying i won't pick a specific religion but if i did i retrat that staement. my God is the only one that fits all the requirements. of course it makes sense that He does since He's the only real one but we'll worry about that some other time.

yes its admitedly a religious school but that in no way effects the grade. they ignore our personal arguments and grade souly on the way we argue, so whether they agree with me or not does not make my job easier. i wish i had 50 pages to write, we have to do it in 20, thats not to make it easier for us, its to teach us to write consisely. we'd all love to have no page limit. don't worry about what kind of degrees you do or don't have, you've got me beat becasue im still in high school. However, don't discrimanate based on my age, I promise you that nothing here goes over my head or level of understanding. i many have to do a little reaserch when these gus bring up certain arguments and experiments and what not but i am quite prepared to stand up for my beliefs. thank you for the help though!

my experientially relevent heading will have to do with pragmatism. I think i have a good argument for theism being a better belief to base a nation off of than atheism. the romans knew this well, i read a good deal of the fall and decline of the Roman empire. (my favorite empire by the way) most of their leaders were atheists but they knew new the cultural effects of atheism and desided to promote theism. they didn't care what gods they used they just wanted there people believing in something becasue they knew it would improve the culture. as for which backround im stronger in, either one works becasue im competely even in my understanding of all areas, im pretty well rounded which is useful since i can understand the philosophical and scientific areas equally. i agree though that evolution is very broad and involves a bit of bias but i think its important to bring up that the most popular and generally accepted theory is fatally flawed.

i think there is proof that atheism is dangerous especially bringing in the issues of morality and pourpose and anytihng else but i do at least see where your coming from. once again thanks for your help! you actually gave me some advice other than just making fun of my God. i appreciate it.

thanks for your concern but I'll be ok. despite what you guys say, were not all brainwashed. God actually tells us to think for ourselves, to study and learn all that we can. its actually sinful to live ignorantly. seriously think God would tell us to learn all the facts if all the facts lead away from him? i find it intersting that i could use your quote with some minor edidting. "Threads like this are so very depressing.  To see a young mind like yours poisoned with all of that evolutionist nonsense and misinformation is just plain sad."

   "ALL IS ONE", the religious don't get it .... ??? Suspend language, meditate !

I haven't advertised myself lately so:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/science/9731

   Jordan, "you sound pantheistic now"

--------------------------------------------

  Well the word GOD is the problem, the P stuff is an encouraging improvement over dogma God religions ..... 

id fully agree, theism and science should and do go hand in hand

How sad that you think this.

I'm glad you're glad.  Does Thor exist ?  Possibly.

I guess if you can say... There is no Thor.. then I can say.. there is no god.

I'd like that generalization super-sized.  Is it the talking snakes, the unicorns, the dragons, the satyrs, the dead coming back to life, the survival in a whale for several days, the big boat that collected 5-20 million pairs (or is it 7) species from all over the world (and continents that no one even knew existed) or "there were giants in the land in those days" that you think is the most reasonable ?  An no, that wasn't Harry Potter.

I'd draw a cartoon of Muhammad but you know how batshit crazy the religious can be if you just let them follow their ideology to the letter.

Would you like a list of all the things that the bible says we are supposed to punish w/ death by stoning ?

I hope you've never worked on Sunday or...disobeyed your parents for starters.. 

You were actually trying to be serious w/ that one, right ?

Rhetoric.

Then you've wrecked your inductive argument. The terminus to the infinite regress could be any arbitrary point. There could be a hundred billion cause and effect statements preceding the formation of the universe, none of which are answered by the arbitrariness of speculative ad hocs relating to a deliberate agent.

Look up reification, cos that's what you're doing.

Bifurcation.

Straw-man of cosmology, and begging the question by calling it "created."

Which you arbitrarily define and violate with special pleading.

LOL.

The bus you take to school... it's somewhat... short?