So far AtheistNightmare completely dismisses natural explanations regarding the origin and adaptation of life on Earth.  Fine.  Good.  Excellent.  Now let's move on to why anyone should accept "Intelligent Design" and let AtheistNightmare stop attacking evolution and start defending his own creation beliefs.  PS, citing Bible verses does not constitute evidence.

   I'll delve into my arguments and into others here.

   Lamberth's teleonomic/atelic argument notes that science finds no divine intent behind natural causation. To superadd God would contradict instead of complementing science. To insist further on that intent pleads for the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with ambiguity about His very existence per John Hick's epistemic argument that He doesn't want to override our free wills.

   No , no, such intent!

  Laacking that intent, He lacks referents as that Grand Miracle Monger, Creator and so forth and thus cannot exist.

  Lamberth's argument f rom pareidolia notes that people see teleolgy-divine agency-intent and design when only teleonomy- causalism-mechanism  and patterns exist as people  see the pareidolia of Marian apparitions. Scientists are investigating how and why peope see patterns and patterns as designs.

  Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes that theism is as superstitious as full animism or polytheism. No, no category mistake lies here as the point means that it's an ignoratio elenchi to make that claim ,because no intent lies behind it anymore than the other two.

  Lamberth's Malebranche Reductio notes that Nicholas Malebranche unwittingly makes a reduction to absurdity of theism when he maintains that God is the real actor behind our hitting the eight ball  as I put it. No, He's no actor period.

  How could we refine these arguments?

Debate Feb 23rd, 2012 Oxford. Very British debate. Haven't listened to it all but somewhere all the way Dawkins says he is not entirely sure there is no god.

Watch this video; Penn Jillette talks about atheism and politics for 19 minutes on Big Think.  (I love Big Think!  It's like TED and FORA.tv.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE

I was reading some arguments and I found a rather interesting discussion involving free will. Free will is usually used as a dodge for Christians to explain why the world is so fucked up, now they also say that God is incapable of doing evil due to the nature of their god. Now I disagree about their gods nature, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are correct. This leads to some problems in regards to free will, as it is two aspects. Aside from the question of how free will is gained, IE what we had beforehand since free will is really just the ability to make choices there is a problem that free will provides. If your god is incapable of comitting an evil act due to nature then your god can't really be said to have free will, so how could a creator provide a trait that they themselves lack. Or to put it another way, if man is made in the image of your god then why would your god give man things that god him/her/itself does not possess? But it also leads to a bigger problem. A beings nature determines what it does, if it is my nature to, say only eat pancakes then my eating pancakes isn't really a matter of choice, it's my nature. I might not think that pancakes are superior to other foodstuffs, I might not even be able to make such an assertion, just having my nature that I will eat pancakes and pancakes alone.

Archaeological evidence proving the accuracy of the Bible.

1.The book of Luke and the book of Acts writer (Luke): named 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Islands without any historical error. Also the evidence of the ancient burial site in Jerusalem, revealed crucified victims that still had the 7inch nail driven on the victims feet. There was also evidence that similar spikes had been put between the two bones of each lower arm.

2. Jesus Christ: confirmed by non Christian historians and writers of ancient times, all wrote about Jesus Christ in history.
a. Tacitus, Roman historian and Chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian
b. Pliny the younger, governor of Bithynia
c. E. Lucian, Greek writer
d. Phlegon, pagan historian
e. Suetonius
f. justice of Tiberius
g. philo
h. Seneca
i. Petronius Arbiter
j. pliny the elder
k. Thallus, Samaritan historian
l. Mara Bar Serapion
m. Flavious Josephus, Jewish General and historian .

3. Jesus Christ: confirmed by ancient Christian leaders, historians and writers of ancient times, all wrote about Jesus Christ in history.
a. Polycarp
b. Ignatius
c. Irenaeus
d. Clement
e. Papias
f. Origen

4. Jericho walls: and how they did come falling down by Dr. Bryant Wood

5. Ossuary of James,: son of Joseph, brother of Jesus

6. The dead sea scrolls : conforming the accuracy of today’s bible.

7. The Cyrus cylinder and the book of Daniel.

8. The Ebla tablets (2500 BC) :and the biblical story of creation In Genesis.

9. Pontius Pilate Stone confirming the biblical Roman Governor Pilate.

10.

As von Mises argues in http://mises.org/books/ultimate.pdf

"Natural theology saw the characteristic mark of deity in freedom from the limitations of the human mind and the human will. Deity is omniscient and almighty. But in elaborating these ideas the philosophers failed to see that a concept of deity that implies an acting God, that is, a God behaving in the way man behaves in acting, is self-contradictory. Man acts because he is dissatisfied with the state of affairs as it prevails in the absence of his intervention. Man acts because he lacks the power to render conditions fully satisfactory and must resort to appropriate means in order to render them less unsatisfactory. But for an almighty supreme being there cannot be any dissatisfaction with the prevailing state of affairs. The Almighty does not act, because there is no state of affairs that he cannot render fully satisfactory without any action, i.e., without resorting to any means. For Him there is no such thing as a distinction between ends and means. It is anthropomorphism to ascribe action to God. Starting from the limitations of his human nature, man's discursive reasoning can never circumscribe and define the essence of omnipotence."

Thus, if God exists, he cannot be an omnipotent person.

Either

This is a three minute video compilation about what various theists think about atheists.  You better be strapped in:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnWwlZCsSw&feature=player_embedded

Why are you here on this website?

If you are trying to discover yourself, kudos, but this post is not necessarily for you. Search, ask and research until you are satisfied or bored...

This post is a theist attack on atheism:

If the atheist view and/or your personal view on the "purpose of life" is essentially survival or defined (anything else), then why choose to spend time on something like this website that is not necessary for your survival or personal gain? <-- you could be more focused and get rich like zuckerberg!

If the atheist view and/or your personal view on the "purpose of life" is undefined, then why continue to live? <-- if you're contemplating suicide, don't do it!

Is part of your purpose in life simply to discredit theism?

The questions are loaded. If you respond, then they served their purpose. If you read it and don't respond, they still served their purpose. If the topic is deleted, they still served their purpose.

The gospel promises, on the word of god himself, that if you pray, your prayers will be answered and if you believe, you will be saved. Belief and prayer are the fundamental requirement for a response from god. God promised they would work if performed in good faith. We fulfilled these requirements and as a result, we know that god doesn’t exist because after all we did to believe, to meet his requirements, to do exactly as the gospels demand, there was no response.

The gospels explain that man is weak, he cannot, of himself, do good or find god. One can only find god through god, through prayer. Therefore since our prayers and belief were honest and heartfelt, the fault must lie with the system.

The god of the gospels does not fulfill his promises (particularly concerning prayer and healing the sick) and if he doesn’t fulfill his promises he cannot be god, he cannot exist.