Actually, Atheists, you DO have the Burden of Proof

Atheists all of the time be telling me that THEY don’t have to think, reason, or answer questions. They insist that THEY do not have the burden of proof.

However, my atheist friends, You DO have the burden of proof.

You are the one making the ridiculous claims.

YOU are claiming the universe made itself, life made itself, information can write itself with no author, and that the laws of physics and chemistry which cause an increase in ENTROPY actually cause an increase in COMPLEXITY and INFORMATION. That’s beyond absurd, so you have the burden of proof. You have to argue against ALL of established scientific laws.

That’s a big burden of proof.

You are claiming to be a self, one unified, self aware mind, capable of logic and reason and discerning between good and evil- yet none of those things CAN be true if atheism were true, so you are making a ridiculous claim and you have the burden of proof. You have to argue against ALL know laws of logic.

That’s a big burden of proof.

And I am asserting that you already know that God exists. You have already acknowledged much of a Biblical worldview and rejected much of an atheistic worldview. Which means, you have to argue against your own religious professions of faith.

That’s a big burden of proof.

Or you can stop trying to defend the impossible, stop trying to avoid thinking about your own worldview, and just ask more good questions. I sincerely believe that you are not stupid enough to be an atheist. You need to believe that too.
Let me know if you have questions. I’m here to help. And remember #JesusLovesYou

This entry was posted in atheism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Actually, Atheists, you DO have the Burden of Proof

  1. essiep says:

    Atheists don’t claim the universe ‘made itself’.what’s a straw man fallacy. You can’t, win all seriousness, asking people to prove the non-existence of things? There is an infinity of beliefs that don’t exist.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Atheism claims the universe had no creator. Thus, there is no one outside of the universe to make the universe. Science tells us that the universe is not eternal in the past, but came into being. Logic tells us that nothing comes into being without a cause, so something had to cause it- but the only thing that exists (according to atheism) is the universe). Thus, atheism is forced into the stupid position of saying the universe made itself. And by rejecting this idea, you are recognizing that atheism is too stupid to be believed. You are not an atheist, you are not stupid enough.
      Let that comfort you.
      And now, accept the fact that you are an agnostic and start asking good questions until you come to see that the God of the Bible is not only real, but he loves you and made a way to pay for your sins. And thanks for your comments.


      • essiep says:

        Your reasoning does not follow. The conclusion has no logical links with the steps you have laid out.
        Atheism does not say ‘the universe made itself’. It says there is no god. It does not explain the beginning of the universe. Nobody knows what came before, if anything, the big bang. Nobody, including religious thinkers knows.
        It is the ‘god of the bible’ that is too stupid to be believed. Your case would be stronger if that bible were not so full of contradictions and other whimsical nonsense.
        If there is a god, he wouldn’t love followers of such a stupid book.


      • The fact that you can’t follow the logic doesn’t mean it isn’t sound. But I don’t think you are as stupid as you are pretending. I think you know my argument is sound, and you agree with it, and I offer for evidence your own comment:
        1. You make a blanket assertion with no support: “Your reasoning does not follow.” But if this were true you would be able to dissect part of it to show why, and you cannot, so you don’t bother to try.
        2. You once again reject a tenet of orthodox atheism because, while it is obvious that Big Bang cosmology is the atheists’ only alternative to declaring a rejection of the laws of physics, it does teach the universe came from nothing, but you are not dumb enough to believe that, so you pretend Atheism/Big Bang says otherwise: “Atheism does not say ‘the universe made itself’.” It does, but “Atheists” are not all stupid enough to believe their creation myth.
        3. You quickly fall into childish name calling, also devoid of reason or argument: “It is the ‘god of the bible’ that is too stupid to be believed.”
        4. You also fall back on the childish, empty internet meme of “The Bible is so full of contradictions”- none of which you can name, nor have you looked into. It is a part of the blind faith of internet atheism.
        5. You fall even further into ad hominem. Obviously by ” followers of such a stupid book” you are intending to call followers of the Bible stupid as well. THIS is your reply to my argument.
        So what follows?

        The logic of my argument is so clear that you have realized that it must be true. Confronted with this fact, you have an emotional reaction and dodge the argument itself and fall into emotional replies of appealing to ignorance and base name calling. You are like a child which has been caught in a lie. You double down to protect the lie, expressing how you FEEL (as no facts support your lie). But it is not me you are lying to. I already know the truth.

        There is a God, and he loves you, even when you act like this. Which is good, because we all do this now and then. For all have sinned… but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. (Romans 6:23)
        thanks for your comments and questions.


      • essiep says:

        No. 4:
        No.5: I have not attacked followers as stupid, it’s the book as clearly stated in my comment. You are misrepresenting my comments. I write one thing, but you read something I didn’t say- what’s the point?


      • Oh no, a list of alleged bible contradictions. I had no idea that such a list existed. Whatever shall I do?
        Maybe a little of this:
        And this:
        and soma this:
        and a whole LOT of this:
        and if you prefer reading somasoma this:
        and you really need to stop by and check out a whole lot of this:

        The VAST majority of alleged Bible contradictions are built on the ignorance of the reader- taking things out of context, ignoring the fact that some language is metaphorical, and often just shameful logical fallacies on the part of the skeptic, etc. Sometimes they are based on an understandable ignorance of the culture, language, geography, etc of the time and place in which the specific book takes place. Like, if you don’t know where the Mountains are, and where the Samaritans live, and the cultural clash between the Samaritans and Jews, and thus the developed normal routes, etc, then seeing that Jesus and his disciples traveled north to get somewhere south of where they were would SEEM like an error written by someone who didn’t know the land, but in fact is based on the author being MORE familiar with the terrain that we are today. So, some of them take a little homework to understand.

        But if you know anyone stupid enough to see those lists and just accept them all, hook line and sinker, like some gullible internet fish, feel bad for them. I mean, even if you accept SOME of them as legit, anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to figure out why most of them are embarrassingly invalid.
        If you think there is anything on those lists which are really, TRULY valid contradictions of substance, then by all means pick the ones you feel are the most obvious and the most substantial and let’s discuss them. I’ll be happy to help you out. But I believe you can figure the majority out on your own with no help from me.


      • Sam says:

        Atheism doesn’t really claim that the universe has no creator. It is just a movement that claims all the suggestions we are presented with by theists about a creator don’t seem all that logical. I am an atheist and I am open to the idea of a creator, I just need a lot more evidence.

        Plus, I am still struggling to understand how a God simply always being there is common sense and does not need any more questioning. That is the most baffling belief of all, surely?


      • Greetings Sam! First off, if you are open to the idea of a creator, then you are not an atheist. You are an agnostic. (At least, the way I always use those words, and I try to explain why I use them that way in this playlist:
        To understand the tenets of orthodox atheism, check out this helpful video in our Answering Atheism series:
        And let me assure you, the evidence is out there, provided you are capable of being persuaded by reason and logic. Its been said that evidence only becomes evidence when someone accepts that it shows something to be true. I have seen people online argue that it cannot be proven that THEY exist. Once a person can’t be convinced that HE exists, I find it pointless to try to convince him of anything else.
        But I would say, based on your comment and question that you are a reasonable person searching for the truth. This is good! This is what science is based on, and what the Bible encourages.

        So look at the post you are replying to- the universe needs a cause. Only the God of the Bible fits the bill.
        Life needs a designer and DNA needs an author. Only God can be that designer.
        You know there is god and evil, but that can’t be unless the God of the Bible exists.
        What more do you need? If the entire universe and every living cell can’t convince you that God exists, and even your own experiences, then maybe you aren’t really looking for “more evidence.” Something to think about.

        As for the eternality of God, check out this video where in I explain that God is necessary:
        Where as other religions have some eternal timeline where in their gods came into being, the Bible shows us a God who MADE time. So, don’t think about it like He has an infinite time of existing, but try to think of it as God existing OUTSIDE of time. What does that mean? Well, try and define our time, and you’ll see that we eventually run into things we can’t understand without leaving home. We don’t know what time or gravity are, even though we experience them constantly. SO how do we explain how God exists outside of them both? We come up with incomplete word pictures and realize that we can write an 8 sideways, but we will never fit infinity into our heads.

        Once you realize that God did not exist in an infinite past on our timeline before he created the earth, and you see that God is metaphysically necessary, then His “Always being there” is a lot more sensical. If God did not exist, then nothing else would either. As evidence I give you logic, reason, and the entire universe. I hope its enough.

        But let me know if you have more questions. I am here to help. And again, thanks for your questions and comments.


      • Sam says:

        ‘So look at the post you are replying to- the universe needs a cause. Only the God of the Bible fits the bill.
        Life needs a designer and DNA needs an author. Only God can be that designer.
        You know there is god and evil, but that can’t be unless the God of the Bible exists.
        What more do you need? If the entire universe and every living cell can’t convince you that God exists, and even your own experiences, then maybe you aren’t really looking for “more evidence.” Something to think about.

        I am just troubled by being given answers from an old book. Of course a book can be written that explains our nature. I could write a book explaining that I know of a God and that this God has to exist because the universe needs a creator. I could also state that he is too intelligent to comprehend and is outside of time and space, meaning he has to exist but we cannot see him. That this nature is clearly evidence of this God, you know, because nature couldn’t exist without him.

        But I see this as a flaw in the human mind. DNA may not need a creator, we just aren’t intelligent to comprehend this and assume a creator is needed. Especially when I have to resort to learning about Christianity from people that have also been taught about it from other people. If the actual author isn’t there to teach me or is unable to, I simply cannot be bothered to give it any time. Trust me, it gives you much more free time when you don’t have to speak for an entire religion and let it speak for itself!


      • Greetings again Sam,
        I don’t know why the age of a book should bother you. Would a NEW book carry more truth than an old one? Very well, then let us remember that the Bible was new when it was first written. You simply didn’t get there soon enough.
        And surely you can’t object to getting information out of a book? A book is merely the memory or mind of an author. That it is committed to paper means you can examine it as much and as often as you like, unlike a conversation on a train on a weekday afternoon.
        I would encourage you to think not of the paper or its age, but of the ideas it carries. They match anything which can be used to examine it- whether that is science, philosophy, logic, or any form of historical inquiry, including those of architecture or geography. The Bible is the anvil which has broken a thousand hammers. It has been attacked in every way for 2,000 years, and yet makes converts out of the most hostile unbelievers- from the Apostle Paul to CS Lewis to Lee Stroble… our best apologists have always started out as men DETERMINED to prove Christianity false, but wise enough to follow the truth wherever it lead. And at least one which Jesus personally knocked off of a horse and scolded.
        You say “DNA may not need a creator, we just aren’t intelligent to comprehend this and assume a creator is needed.” But this flies in the face of everything we know of genetics, biology, mathematics, statistical probability, chemistry, and physics. To claim something as complex and information rich as the simplest living cell and the DNA which codes for it could come together by chance with no guidance is to deny everything we know about the relevant sciences. What then DO you know? To me that is not an argument so much as a dislike of the inevitable result of asking.
        The actual author IS here and is capable of teaching- he wrote a whole series of books just to do so. But if he cannot teach you, it may be BECAUSE you cannot be bothered. Matthew 13:58 says “And he (Jesus) did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.” God doesn’t derive power from out faith, like some odd comic book god, but His actions are a form of love. Can you love someone who rejects your love, who had no time for you? You can, but only from afar, and not nearly as much or as well or as deeply or as intimately as you could if they would let you love them and love you back. I would encourage you to listen and let him speak to you.
        But I would especially encourage you not to fall into the common lazy agnostic carelessness. If what I am telling you is true, then you can KNOW God personally, be adopted into his family as his child, have your sins forgiven and be given eternal life. You can know your origin, purpose, and destiny, as well as have a foundation for truth, logic and objective morals. But if I am telling you the truth, and you reject it and cannot be bothered, then you are allowing laziness or contentment or whatever else chain you to your sins, which will drag you into hell for all eternity. There is more at stake here than what team you root for. If I am telling you the truth, then you COULD have eternal life and be a child of God, but if I am telling you the truth but you just can’t be bothered… if you die tonight you wake up in hell tomorrow. If that doesn’t encourage you to take the pursuit seriously, I have nothing else to offer you. Maybe someone else can do better.
        And in reply to your last comment, I don’t need to speak for Christianity as if it needs me to be shown true. I do this, not to defend the church, but to light the path for people like you. Maybe you have said to yourself, “If Christianity was true, then someone would be able to explain it, defend it, and answer by skeptical doubts and questions.” I do this because, if you have said that, then you deserve to be answered by someone who wants you to know the truth, for the truth will set you free. I do this because the entire church should be made of people who can and will do this.
        I am here to help.


      • Science does not tell us that “the universe is not eternal in the past, but came into being.”

        Firstly, the question of whether time is past-finite or past-infinite is an open one in cosmology. It has not yet been answered, despite the claims of some apologists to the contrary. There are some good reasons for thinking that time might be past-finite. There are other good reasons to think that it might not be.

        More importantly, whether or not the universe is temporally past-finite, there was never a time in which the universe did not exist. Even if time had a first, initial moment, the universe existed in that moment. There were no moments prior to the first in which the universe didn’t exist. The idea that time could possibly “come into being” is entirely incoherent.

        Unfortunately for you, whether or not a God exists, whether or not time is past-finite, if time is a part of the physical universe (as has been held by philosophy and Classical Theology dating at least as far back as St. Augustine) then there was never a time in which the physical universe did not exist, and it is therefore nonsense to claim that the universe “came into being.”


      • Greetings Boxing Pythagoras! Cool name. It could be a top secret weapon or a song by They Might Be Giants.
        To start with, I agree that “Science does not tell us…” Science can’t talk. But scientists seem to be in fairly uniform agreement that the universe cannot be eternal in the past. Reason 1. Big Bang is the silly religion of the day. Its dumb and wrong, but if you accept it as most as-seen-on-tv scientists do, then you believe the the universe is not eternal in the past, but came into being. But (reason 2) also, one of the most easily observed of scientific laws is entropy- the gradual decay of matter and using up of useful energy. The universe is winding down, which means it was wound up in the past. Since the universe is headed toward a heat death- however far away- but has not reached it, then the past cannot be eternal. So, in a sense, science PROVES that the universe is finite in the past, even if it doesn’t say so. With the laws of physics as they are, an eternal past would have meant the universe had time to grow cold and die an infinite time ago. But it has not.

        And if by “there was never a time in which the universe did not exist” you are merely referring to the time which is part of our universe, then, obviously you must be correct. But we have to think of a metatime- a time above time where in God exists. The first moment is the first frame in the film of our universe (remember film?) but God is the projector who starts the film running. We call God’s “time” eternity. How it relates to our experience of time, we can’t say, but its a useful word picture which we don’t have a lot of alternative for when we try to talk about it. God’s existence is like an author to his story. He isn’t in our timeline. He may not have a line at all.

        But however we choose to talk about God’s experience of time or eternity, you’ve made a simple mistake in this argument. You say “there was never a time in which the physical universe did not exist, and it is therefore nonsense to claim that the universe “came into being.” And this is of course because you are thinking about the time which is PART of our universe. But when we say the universe “came into being,” we don’t mean that time existed before time existed. We simply mean that there was a first moment, just as a film has a first frame. There cannot be an infinite number of frames in a movie before the scene you are watching, so there logically must have been a first frame. But how we inside the story in the film talk about the projectionist turning on the film projector… that’s another matter entirely.

        Thanks for your questions and comments.


      • JD Bigs says:

        Where did God come from if He created the universe? If this logic applies, we’re right back where we started. Also, we never claimed the universe arose from nothing, we just say it wasn’t created by a deity.


      • Greetings JD! And excellent and a classic question. Also, one which has been answered well and many times, including a few times by ME! Check it out here:
        And I think you will notice that the argument is not only logically sound, but is thoroughly illustrated with pictures of cats, making it irrefutable.
        Or maybe I mean adorable? Are those synonyms?
        thanks for your comments and questions!


  2. Arkenaten says:

    And from what exactly do you derive the knowledge that your god is the creator deity in question?


    • I still want to know why you bother coming here, reading my posts, and asking questions like this.
      For serious, Doug. I REALLY want to know.


      • Arkenaten says:

        I fairly sure I have read or heard most arguments in defense of Christianity, all of which are fallacious and simply nonsense. Yet, every now and then I come across a blog like yours which reveals a new level of seemingly blind credulity that I had previously not encountered, and sometimes I even say Wow!

        Did you bother looking up Jonny Scaramanga by the way or are you just a wee bit scared to discover there are real people who have been through what you preach, survived, walked away and are now trying to expose the foolish nonsense you are indoctrinated with and put people such as you ”out of business” as it were?


      • It’s amazing. You have this ability to put forth a collection of personal insults in a manner which makes the reader wonder if you KNOW that you have done so. If you are doing it on purpose, then I must say I am impressed with your skill. It’s like troll black belt. If you DON’T know that you are doing it… you must be a real hoot at parties. And in desperate need of some kind of medication.
        So, the reason that you read my blog and ask me questions is because you ALREADY KNOW ALL of the arguments in favor of Christianity- ALL OF THEM- and already know why they are wrong, but then you find my blog and I am… if I can read between the haze here… SO AMAZINGLY STUPID that you are somehow compelled to stop by and see if you can get me to answer a question. Am I understanding you right? You are claiming that I am the intellectual equivalent of a train wreck or circus freak? You’re just STUNNED by my idiocy, and that keeps you coming back?

        I’m really trying to understand what it is you think and what possible motivation you can have for reading what I write (or what a dozen other Christian bloggers write) when you ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING WE COULD POSSIBLY SAY in favor of Christianity, and ALREADY KNOW WHY IT IS WRONG- and then still engage us in conversation even though you have also stated that you don’t care if anyone deconverts or not.

        Can you at least understand why I am baffled? YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME on my blog and others- and have seemingly for years. But you already think you know it all, and you don’t care if we are ever convinced to think as you do. Yet, here you are. Merely because I am so stunningly stupid? And of course, were that true, you would be pointing out to me the flaws in my arguments instead of constantly trying to change the subject, would you not?

        Sorry man, but this still makes NO SENSE AT ALL to me. Just tell me this to start with. DO YOU KNOW why you are here? Do you know why you come to my blog and read my posts and leave comments and questions? Do you? When you ask yourself why you do this, and why its worth the time to do this instead of whatever else you COULD be doing… what do you tell yourself? And do you believe you?


      • Arkenaten says:

        In actual fact the number of comments I leave on your blog, which is considerably less than the comments you yourself leave, would suggest that I am more of a ”drive-by” commenter than one who purposely loiters around your blog.
        I would love to make you feel so special about what you write, but unfortunately this is just not the case.

        I have mentioned before that in the main any interaction I have with Christian bloggers is mainly for the benefit of those who may read along – the lurkers, if you like – who may not be quite up to speed with the nonsense you and others of a similar ilk like to peddle.
        Thus, by exposing the lies you write regarding evolution, atheism etc from your YEC perspective those who may not realize the level of deceit you promote are, one hopes, just little bit enlightened.
        And of course I enjoy blogging and have an interest in religion.

        That you still have not mentioned if you’ve bothered to read Jonny Scaramanga’s story suggests you haven’t or are feeling decidedly uneasy to reveal that you have.

        As for taking medication: Someone who attempts to stress so many things using capitals must truly believe they are actually making important points.
        Sorry to be the one to inform you, but … you’re not.


      • Here’s the thing Ark- I know you have a blog. I don’t read it. I know there are a thousand blogs online where Bible hating atheists spew their nonsense and ignorance, wrapped in multiple layers of arrogance and profanity, often in the name of science (when it is the farthest thing from it) and I do not read ANY of those blogs. It would never occur to me to follow a bunch of them and try over and over to engage them in conversation about their faith, because I get far more than my fair share of stupid content, lies and logical fallacies in the towel section of everything I put out there. Reading their crap would only make me dumber and sad for the human race. If the lurkers on those sites have a pair of brain cells to rub together, they can come here and ask me anything they want. But I would never do what you do. And I do not understand why you think you do it.

        Oh, and as for Jonny Scaramanga- I’m not wasting my time reading the immature, whining of some Brit millennial babyman who cries about suffering through a Christian education. He’s probably never known suffering worse than a bad pedicure. Like I said, if I want to read some immature git whining without brain cells, I have plenty of that in the comments on my own blog. There is plenty stupid in the world without me having to go out and look for it. Thanks anyway.

        You say “I have mentioned before that in the main any interaction I have with Christian bloggers is mainly for the benefit of those who may read along – the lurkers, if you like – who may not be quite up to speed with the nonsense you and others of a similar ilk like to peddle.” And yet, you have also said you don’t care what people believe or if you inspire anyone to deconvert. So what is this anti-ministry you have to people you don’t care about whose end result doesn’t matter to you?
        This is why I keep asking you to explain it, because this does not make any sense. It cannot be true. Out of the goodness of your heart, you come here to help the poor simpletons who might be ignorant enough to be persuaded by me, but not because you care what they think or if they end up agreeing with you? Its absurd. I don’t think even you believe that.

        And you certainly can’t think you have “Exposed the lies I teach about evolution, atheism, etc.” when you have clearly done nothing of the sort. I mean, you have BARELY even tried, let alone have you ACTUALLY debunked a single concept put forth in any article or video I have produced. That is obviously not your motivation, and I do not believe you are so delusional to think you have made a habit of proving me to be wrong.

        Are you?

        The consensus among Christian bloggers seems to be fairly universal when it comes to you- you ask questions almost always unrelated to the topic at hand, you demand evidence and arguments, and when you get any, you change the subject without any acknowledgement. You never build a case on evidence or reason, but simply make outlandish assertions for which you never offer any evidence, argument, or even external source which would agree with you. Most of your comments, like the one I am replying to here, is arrogant, mean-spirited, disrespectful ad hominem which does as much to call into question the Christian blogger’s emotional state as any ideas put forth. Probably more so pound for pound. When these things are pointed out, you fall QUICKLY into childish, angry name calling and rant about the person you are debating until we decide to ignore you or block you, etc. And then you rant about that as if you have proven some point against us by being so rude we stop wasting out time with you, like a child who thinks he can claim to have won the argument because he was spanked and put in the corner.

        Can you really be so blind as to believe that you DEBUNK ANYONE? Because I do not think that has ever been the case, and again, from my experience here, you have done almost nothing to even try. I find it hard to believe that you even think you have unless you really are some kind of actual, clinical insane.

        So I remain deeply curious why you come here and to places like this and begin so many dialogues unless you are looking to be persuaded that Christianity is true, and you can finally accept it and have your sins forgiven and be adopted by God into his family. Because, if you are looking for the truth, I’m sure we are all glad to help. But if what you say is really the honest truth, then what motivation do I have to ever respond to you again? You say you already know EVERY argument Christianity has put forth in 2000 years, and you come here only to help the poor fools who may listen to me, so why I ask you should I ever bother replying to you again? If all you say is true, then why should I not simply block you from ever commenting again, or merely delete each and everything you have to say? From your own point of view I mean. I’m curious if you would even try to persuade me to do otherwise.


      • Arkenaten says:

        Crikey that was a long rant. Did I tickle a nerve?


      • But it was clear, was it not? So why are you not answering honest questions with honest answers? Please do. I am ever so curious.


  3. nationofnope says:

    You know, it is highly unlikely, that there will be any cosmologists or astrophysicist ruminating this post. I’m guessing they weren’t your target audience. Here, you are making a specious agreement and displaying, for all the world to see, a completely fallacious argument.

    The burden of proof lies solely with the claimant. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. It’s what the word means! The end. Over and out. That’s all folks. To subscribe anything else to the word is either hypocrisy or deceit.

    In an attempt to, how did you put it, oh yes, “I know you are but what am I”, you conflate two diametrically opposite conclusions to the question of origins implying that the two are meritorious. They are not. The claim that god did it is a conclusion that has no probative value. A dead end. A terminus to inquiry. As a layperson I have only a rudimentary understanding of the topic but I know the process is exacting. The current understanding of the question of origins is not a claim of surety but are reasoned conclusions based solely on a process called science.


    • Its cute that you like to use big words. I used to do that a lot back in high school.
      But I have to make this quick because I have a science lecture to give to some preschoolers in an hour (And I’m not even making that up).
      1. cosmologists and astrophysicist ALWAYS ruminate my posts! They are the only people I allow to subscribe.
      2. You call my argument “fallacious” but offer no reasons WHY it is, and thus I do not believe you really think it is. I think this is emotional name calling.
      3. You say “Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. It’s what the word means!” But I do not believe this. I reject it. Which means, you have the burden of proof and must prove it to me.
      4. I don’t think you will even try.
      5. It won’t matter if you do, because I have already addressed this many times in posts and videos like the ones you will find here:
      6. That you think the claim that God made the universe is a “terminus to inquiry” only shows how little you know about Creation science, or science in general which was founded by Christian creationists, and which can only exist in a Christian worldview.
      7. It also shows how little you know about the MANY ways evolution/big bang have LITERALLY Stopped the progress of science because of the dogma of those fool ideas.
      8. If you think Big Bang or evolution are based on science, then you are in good company, but sadly, a company of fools.
      8. Check out the truth here:
      9. And have a nice day. I’m off to preschool to talk science with people who don’t put on airs by using big words. They don’t know any.


      • nationofnope says:

        Dude, you just don’t get it. Your lack of curiosity and willingness to repeatedly ignore the science in favor of Ouija board philosophy and proscribed reality. If you cared one whit about what makes us human you might consider that it’s possible your methodology for acquiring knowledge might be limiting and or flawed. You are constantly being schooled on simple subjects your average high schooler knows and you blithely wrap yourself in your proscribed cloak of knowledge while repeating the same biblical nonsense. Your world view can be summoned up in two words. “As if”. No big words needed.


      • “Dude, you just don’t get it.”
        Oh. Don’t I? Here I thought I got it. How very disappointing to be shown the error of my ways in this manner. What with me thinking all this time that I got it.
        I always considered myself a person who gets it. “Whatever else goes wrong,” I would tell myself in dark times, “at least I am a person who GETS IT.”
        But I have been living a lie.
        I shall not sleep well tonight.
        Since I shall be spending a sleepless night, I may as well educate you on the proper way to “Take me down a peg.” I mean, asserting the fact that I “Just don’t get it” aside, the reply above, and many of your others if I may be so bold, have been horrible failures in this aspect. But don’t worry. I shall explain how it is done so that you can properly show the world here in the comments section just what an idiot I am.
        Let’s start with what not to do:
        Your comment above, while certainly poetic in nature, doesn’t actually say much. I mean, it is sincerely well written in terms of flow and word choice. Where as most other dissenters would say, “This guy is an idiot,” you have chosen to say, “you blithely wrap yourself in your proscribed cloak of knowledge.” It flows like honey butter and almost demands to be said with a snooty British accent at an otherwise civil tea party. So, in all sincerity, well written. But, when all is said and done, you’re just saying, “This guy is an idiot.” SUBSTANCE must be the foundation. Otherwise the poetry is thrown away like fresh cilantro on a McRib.

        Right off the bat, you started with a phrase SO banal that its used on sitcoms in the mouths of irritable girlfriends and ex-wives for the sole purpose of communicating, “You are an idiot” to the man being addressed. It cheapens the poetry which follows. If you are going to write poetry, don’t start with a throw away line from a forgotten episode of Seinfeld.
        “Your lack of curiosity and willingness to repeatedly ignore the science” This is almost just grocery listing. For one thing, the lack of curiosity line merely leaves me confused. When and how did I show a lack of curiosity? You offer no explanation, and so I am left to wonder if its ME you are thinking of with this comment. Are you somehow mixing me up with a different good looking, brilliant and witty author of internet prose? You follow a terrible opening line with making me wonder if you are addressing the wrong person. Where I should be doubting MY brain power, I am doubting yours.
        And naturally you accuse me of “ignoring the science” but once again “The science” is such an ambiguous term here that, even if it were true, I would have to blindly guess as to what you mean. THE SCIENCE? My argument relies on science, and you have offered no science in contrast to my position. How can it be said that I am ignoring science when I am making scientific arguments? Once again, this leaves me wondering if you either didn’t read the post you are responding under, or if maybe you just meant this comment for someone else.

        This next phrase, “in favor of Ouija board philosophy and proscribed reality.” I must say I am torn. On one side, it is poetic and interesting. It drips with sarcasm and snide dismissiveness (which I am sure was intended) and I can almost FEEL you looking down your nose at me. But then, Ouija boards are very much at odds with Christian doctrine. I could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you know both Christianity and the occult well enough to know this, but as you have put yourself on the side of the internet atheist trolls who take your position, and because your other comments have been full of far more attitude than arguments or facts, I am left to wonder if you are making an informed jab or if you, like so many before you, and so ignorant of the worldview you are attempting to criticize that you don’t know it from the furthest opposite? So while you once again attempted to explain to me how stupid I am, you have left me wondering how stupid you are.

        “If you cared one whit about what makes us human you might consider that it’s possible your methodology for acquiring knowledge might be limiting and or flawed.” This appeal to my emotional motivation breaks in like an 80’s guitar solo, which frankly is a bit jarring on account of the previous sections almost exclusive reliance on intellectually focused insults. You go from curiosity and science to CARING. Not only do you meander from CARING over to “methodology for acquiring knowledge” (which after that start feels forced) but this entire sentence is a blind guess on my internal motivation or desires even worse than the opening bit about “curiosity”. Once again, even if you were right, you couldn’t possibly know that, which makes this no better than an emotional ad hominem founded on arm chair philosophy. Instead of leaving me questioning my grasp of scientific facts or basic logic, I am left with the impression that you are using me as an outlet for your anger toward some other person- former teacher maybe? Father figure? Because the attacks you are leveling at me are not things you COULD know about me even if they mattered to the discussion at hand. If seems like you are trying to make ME into a straw man for you to bat around. I’m left with the impression that you are emotionally unstable and have daddy issues.

        “You are constantly being schooled on simple subjects your average high schooler knows” This is entirely false, and of course you know that, otherwise you would at least allude to some such interactions. Were it CONSTANT as you say, then the examples would be everywhere and the only question is where to start. You have opted not to start at all, which tells both of us that you know better. You are a child caught in a lie, having expected that if you talked fast enough I would not catch the lie, but once again, I have. this weak attempt at name calling has only made you look foolish.

        “you blithely wrap yourself in your proscribed cloak of knowledge”– I love this line so much that I am left to wonder if you stole it from another author. Something from the Harry Potter series maybe?

        “while repeating the same biblical nonsense.” That it doesn’t make sense to YOU does not make it nonsense. Were it really nonsense, you would be making concise and solid arguments against my position, but thus far you have failed to do so. You have barely even tried. Are you aware that you have not tried, or have you convinced yourself that these over-decorated name calling comments are arguments? Do you even know what an argument is?

        “Your world view can be summoned up in two words. “As if”. No big words needed.” Sigh. You end as you began- with cheap dialog stolen from some made for TV live action Disney sitcom aimed at gradeschool kids. In terms of writing or speaking, the audience remembers two things better than anything else: How you start and how you end, and in both cases you set the bar impeccably low. If I had been scanning as quickly as you hoped I would, I should have decided, based on the open and close, that you are some juvenile twit who watched too much tv and didn’t even read the post to which you are commenting. “As if” is not only cringingly old school, but has the dignity of saying the opposite of what you mean and then (pausing for effect) shouting “NOT!”

        But let’s sum up the actual content of this comment:
        1. You say I am an idiot who rejects science- aka “Science denier.”
        2. You essentially lump all religions into one big pile and dismiss them all with the same wave because… science?
        3. You feel you can not only question my intelligence, but my emotional state and motivation.

        #1 makes YOU look like an idiot because it is baseless name calling which COULD have been supported, were there any support to be given. Because you fail to support this anti-science claim, you make yourself no better than Bill Nye, science clown, running around claiming (in the place of evidence) that people who reject his position are anti science, science deniers and should be jailed. Or Dawkins suggestion that people reject evolution because they are “Wicked.” When you abandon argument for name calling so fast, and especially in places where in it should have been easy to make a case FROM SCIENCE, it makes you look like an idiot who is incapable of such arguments. The reader is forced to ask, “If his position CAN be defended, then why did he choose NOT to defend it? Is he too ignorant?”
        #2 is no better than #1 but in a different subject matter. It reeks of too much time on the internet learning what Christianity is and what the Bible teaches from dirty youtube vloggers who have never read an entire book, let alone enough of the bible to know it from the Quran. The phrase “biblical nonsense” seems like an immature cheap shot intended merely to evoke an emotional response, but which inadvertently shows how ignorant you are.
        #3- this is probably your weakest point. I am making philosophical arguments based on observational science, and instead of addressing either philosophy or science you have stooped to name calling which is OBVIOUSLY speculation at best, and again carries no more than childish name calling, but draws attention to the fact that even your personal attacks against me are not based on anything you actually know. It reeks of emotional desperation, as though you are angry that you CANNOT defend your position, but you are too immature to follow the logic where it leads and instead have diverted your efforts into emotional attacks because you stubbornly insist on defending a position you have already recognized as the wrong one.

        So how SHOULD you have done this? Very simply, make a case.
        I made a series of connected statements intending to support a conclusion. You could either provide evidence that my FACTS are in fact incorrect, or you could show how I have used logical fallacies in place of proper logic and thus reached false conclusions. While you have ASSERTED the idea that I have used false facts or logical fallacies, that’s all you have done- blanket assertions with no support.
        Once you make such an assertion you immediately have the burden of proof and need to support your claims, other wise it is merely ad hominem. You can’t just say “You don’t understand” or “You don’t get it.” You then have to explain WHAT I don’t get and what it OUGHT to get. Otherwise you are literally putting yourself up as an authority whose word I am to take over my own knowledge or other prior learning, or other sources of information. Claiming you are such an authority on ANY subject, let alone on philosophy, science AND religion, is quite a claim and one you have done nothing to support beyond merely asserting it.
        Start with a foundation of SUBSTANCE. Let the name calling and poetry decorate a well built argument, not try to take its place. I expect you to try better in the future.

        And if you rip off JK Rowling, make sure you site your sources.

        Liked by 1 person

      • nationofnope says:

        I’m sorry, there’s an echo in here. What were you saying?


      • I was saying, even though you seem to have nothing of substance to say, and your opening and closing lines were weekday-live action-Disney sitcom-for-kids bad, you have a lot of potential to be a great writer.
        But I suggest you first have something worth saying.

        And yeah, what is with that echo?
        I need to fix that. That is annoying.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. nationofnope says:

    Your comment on Mortality, ah yes, morality. The theists go to when they’re completely out of their element. We know exactly how and why our species, indeed all social animals, come by morality and it doesn’t come from primitivism expressed in holy books.

    “Why should anyone feel compelled to be subservient to a benevolent benefactor? Put another way, what kind of dick expects to be worshipped for doing what came naturally?” Nationofnope


    • And your reply to morality- ah, yes, Morality. Not survival instinct or herd instinct. Objective moral law, as opposed to fashion or feelings. The internet atheists always seem to get confused by these simple concepts no matter HOW MANY TIMES we explain it using crayons and hand puppets.
      Which I have actually done.
      But here I am explaining this VERY SIMPLE IDEA to yet ANOTHER internet atheist who thinks that name calling and sarcasm is a logical argument.
      [sign, roll my eyes]
      What you THINK you know is how survival instinct and herd instinct evolved into various behaviors and feelings which we believe to be “Moral.” But the failures of evolution aside, this is not the same thing.
      1. Those “morals” (by which you mean feelings or instincts or even social customs) are not OBJECTIVE. They did not exist, they came into being, and they can evolve into something completely different at any moment. They are no more TRUE or FALSE than our general (but not universal) love of the flavor of bacon. What YOU are talking about is not morality at all. If you understood the concepts, you would realize that you are making an argument AGAINST the existence of objective morals, which you are not actually stupid enough to believe yourself. You know cruelty is bad and kindness is good. ACTUALLY good, not merely because you FEEL better when you help than when you torture.
      2. Objective morals are the Moral LAW- the binding, absolute laws of right and wrong which most of the human race agrees, and all of us experience. It is the thing to which you appeal when you try to attack my argument as FALSE, as though truth is somehow BETTER than a lie. Of course it is, but not if atheism is true. Atheism is valueless. You cannot praise or condemn ANYTHING on atheism, which is why you already know that you are not stupid enough to be an atheist.
      3. Your lack of understanding of Christian theology only makes you look like an idiot. If I were you, I would stop making comments like this, go read some books written by people who have actually read and understood the Bible and whose brains are not muddled by porn and narcotics, and maybe spend more time asking good questions instead of showing off how much you don’t know. And maybe reading the actual Bible. Instead of angry internet troll’s blogs ABOUT it.
      Seriously, that would help.

      And if you think to ask good questions, let me know. I’m here to help too.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Great post!!! I’m going to use these points!

    I wanted to point out a typo though You put all know laws of logic instead of all known laws of logic

    Thanks for your work! Blessings! Nancy sell


  6. Yup says:

    For some reason I cannot respond to one of your responses, so I will just have to make a new comment. This is a response to your counterargument to JD Bigs. Begging the Question is a logical fallacy that involves already assuming the thing you’re trying to prove to be true, in the lead up to the conclusion of your argument. By labelling God as a “neccessary being” you are putting God’s existence into the definition of God – saying he has to exist. Therefore, you are begging the question. I could do the same with anything. For example, lets say I make a claim about a Wolf King, and the definition of the Wolf King is that he created all wolves. Well, wolves couldn’t have existed if he didn’t, so he is a necessary being, and he must exist. Furthermore, it is never stated why infinite regression is impossible. To clarify, I do not claim to know where the universe came from, but you do. You claim this start point to be God, in other words you claim that the start point is both sentient and aware. You also claim, I assume, that this start point is your specific religion’s start point. To recap, you asserted that infinite regression is impossible, and beyond that you are begging the question by claiming God as a necessary being. Thank you, and I look forward to a response.


    • Sup, Yup?
      I am not begging the question, but I understand why it sounds like that. On the surface, it does look like we are saying, “We define God as a being that MUST exist, so obviously a being which MUST exist must exist. Thus, God exists.”
      But the reason we define God as a being which MUST exist is not arbitrary, the way authors have tended to define elves as creatures with pointy ears. The necessity of God’s existence is derived, first from his self descriptions. The Bible tells us that God always has been and always will be. We are not forcing into Christianity something which the Bible does not already teach. The only other religion which claims an eternal God outside the Bible is Islam, and I’m not entirely sure about Islam (though it is clear they borrowed much of their ideas of God from the Bible, and the Koran even says so).
      Next we can argue back toward that by way of the universe- the universe is time, space, matter, and energy. Nothing can be eternal in the past by ways of consecutive days, and the laws of physics tell us the universe must have had a beginning, and so we know the universe must have come into being. But from nothing, nothing comes. Something must have CAUSED the universe if it began to exist. What properties must that cause have? Since we are trying to explain the universe, then the cause cannot be time, space, matter, and energy, for that is the thing we are attempting to explain. The cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, amazingly powerful, and highly intelligent (due to the complexity of the universe, the fundamental laws, the fine tuning, and the VAST amounts of information in every field and system, especially living things).
      So the universe must have been caused by God because nothing else we know or can imagine fits the description unless we describe God and arbitrarily say “But this is someone else.”

      An infinite past or regress is impossible because of what is called the impossibility of transversing the infinite. You cannot add up any number of things until you reach infinity. Nor can you start with infinity and count down until you reach zero. If the past was infinite, then before TODAY could happen, an infinite number of days would have to pass before today occurred. This is impossible. Thus, because today is here, we know the past was finite.
      Think of dominoes. Imagine a row of dominoes which contains infinity dominoes. Pick a domino. When will it fall? It will fall just after the one before it falls. When will that one fall? Just after the one before IT falls. Etc. How many dominos have to fall before the one you are looking at falls? An infinite number. How long will that take? Infinity seconds. So when will the domino you are looking at fall? Never. And it does not matter WHICH domino you choose. Move toward the beginning by a hundred million billion dominoes. When will THAT domino fall? Nothing has changed because you are still an infinite number of dominoes from the beginning, because there IS no beginning.
      Now imagine those dominoes are days, or centuries, or a billion years each. Today will never happen. Thus, the past MUST be finite.

      The same is true of causes. What caused your domino to fall? The one before it. Why did THAT one fall? Because the one before IT fell. But that cannot go forever into the past. There must be a first domino falling, and it must have been pushed over. The universe is a vast collection of cause and effect relationships, but all of those causes need a FIRST cause. That is God in his act of creation. But what caused GOD? Either there is a true FIRST cause- something that doesn’t need to BE caused, or there is an infinite regress of causes into the infinite past- but as we have seen with the dominoes, that is impossible. Thus, there must be a first cause- an un-caused cause. An unmoved mover. Someone to push over the first domino. That is God, and he is NECESSARY because there HAS TO BE a first, uncaused cause- a NECESSARY causer of effects. He is necessary because there must be a first, unmoved mover- the hand that pushes over the first domino.

      We define God as necessary, not only because He describes himself in those terms, but because He MUST be necessary, or nothing would exist. The argument is as solid as one can be and very old.
      I hope this helps.


      • JD Bigs says:

        Who says the first cause has to be intelligent or even sentient? And once again, you’re providing the logic that a being far more intelligent than any we know of existed for all eternity before the universe was creating, and without any explanation as to why. The first domino did not have to be knocked over by a deity. None of us know what existed before the universe. While the first domino was knocked over, it was probably by something much, much simpler than a being.


      • Greetings JD,
        The universe demands a brilliant designer. It’s the fine tuning of the universe- check out this great cartoon which sums it up:
        SO between the laws of physics and the information in every living cell, the universe DEMANDS an INTELLIGENT designer, not just some cosmic spark to ignite the bang. Literally everything we know about life, the universe, and everything tells us that this is so.

        While you admit not to know what existed before the universe, you think you can imagine a non-being which could cause the universe. What was this think like? It was not made of matter, as it was the cause of matter. It did not take up space, as there was none yet. Nor did it exist in time, as there was none of that either. So what timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful thing could create an amazingly fine tuned and information rich universe? And if it was not a being which CHOSE to do so, then how did it do so at all? Even a toaster needs someone to push down that little lever.

        You are simply avoiding the obvious conclusion. God is real, and He made the universe. You are not even counter arguing so much as dodging. I suggest you stop trying to avoid God and start trying to get to know him better.
        Start at John 3:16
        And thanks for your comments and questions.


      • Yup says:

        First you said: I am not begging the question, but I understand why it sounds like that. On the surface, it does look like we are saying, “We define God as a being that MUST exist, so obviously a being which MUST exist must exist. Thus, God exists.”

        Then you made that very argument you said you weren’t making, but in different terms by saying: We define God as necessary, not only because He describes himself in those terms, but because He MUST be necessary, or nothing would exist.

        If God is defined as a being that created everything, then you are in fact begging the question by saying “He MUST be necessary, or nothing would exist”. You did not at all refute my point that you are begging the question, but did the same thing in your clarification. Also, you said that infinite regression is impossible so therefore there must be a starting piece, God – and this starting piece has just existed because he is “necessary”. However, I could skip this entirely and say the universe has always existed, I guess, because it is necessary for that to be the case for it to be here. I do not believe in that last statement and actually make no claim about the origin of the universe, but that would just as easily be the same thing.

        How do you know the bible is accurate? Every religion says the same thing, and says it’s the word of God. The Bible makes the claim that all this stuff happened, but never backs it up. So you’re using the Bible as evidence from your beliefs, which are taken from the Bible. Why should I listen to the Bible and not the Quran, or Hinduism, or Zeus, or Odin.


      • Hello again Yup,
        I think you are missing a vital distinction. What you are accusing us of is saying, “We define Unicorns as real animals with one horn,” and so, if you check the definition, unicorns are real. Because we defined them that way.
        That is NOT what I am saying. When I say God MUST be necessary, it is because logic demands the existence of a necessary being- a first, uncaused cause, etc. And logically, it must be God. Also, He claims to be that first, uncaused cause. Thus, because His self description and logic insist that He IS necessary, we include that into His description. It is more akin to saying, “A unicorn is an animal with one horn, because if it didn’t have that one horn, it would not BE a unicorn. It would be a horse.” I hope you can see this distinction this time around. It is NOT a contradiction. It is a logical conclusion.

        Begging the question is when you put your conclusion into the assumptions to make your argument. I did not do that. I have not concluded that God made the universe, and then, using that as an assumption, argued that God made the universe. I honestly don’t see how you missed the point I made, and so if you want a better explanation than this, I suggest you read my LAST reply a little better and then ask me better questions.
        Also, you are ignoring everything I said about the nature of an infinite past and the universe, and… well, quite a bit actually. Just go back and read it again, Slower this time.

        I don’t yet have a “The Entire Bible” page up yet, but take a look at the New testament first and see if this doesn’t give you any answers:
        Or go visit someone a lot smarter than me- Ravi Zacharias:

        I wonder what you can mean by “The Bible makes the claim that all this stuff happened, but never backs it up.” What kind of Backing up can a historical account provide which is missing? It includes all kinds of specific details which only eye witnesses could include (See the Tim McGrew videos in the New Testament link above). And while I’m picking on that paragraph, you say “Every religion says the same thing,” but this is entirely false. Just as one example- what happens after we die? Make a list of the world’s major religions and see how they differ. Or, Who was Jesus? Not a uniformity of agreement there either. I suggest you do a lot more homework and less accusations if this is your level of understanding when it comes to religion. You, my friend, have much to learn. And do yourself a favor, and don’t learn it from the collection of high school drop out, pot smoking morons who are the internet atheist blogger jihad. Start here:
        and thanks again for your comments and questions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s