Because if no natural process creates new matter, then some process beyond nature (supernatural) would have to have created the original matter of the universe that evolutionary theory uses as its building blocks.

You might want to amend that to “no known process” or “no understood process”. You might want to also consider the weird but natural phenomenon in particle physics whereby particles pop out of nowhere within a vaccuum. Strange but true.

inability to explain the origin of matter

Does nothing to support any supernatural explanation. If there is a “god” or something “supernatural” out there, where did it come from. It’s cheating to say, “Well, ya see, this supernatural stuff was just there,” while denying that same logic to those who say, “Well, nature and its products has simply always been.”

But the counterpoint to the argument that there is no scientific proof that God exists is this: scientifically prove that God does NOT exist.

Theists like to trot this out but it is not an equivalent argument. In fact, it is not an argument at all, it is mere assertion with no basis in anything other than wishful thinking.

Will you apply the same “counterpoint” to the argument that “there is no invisible pink unicorn”, “there is no flying spaghetti monster,” “there is no invisible, indetectable, all powerful dragon living in my garage”? They are just as real as any other supernatural being.

No, atheism is the belief in the absence of a divine being.

Atheism is an absence of belief in any god. Some atheists make a positive statement that there is no god or that they believe there is no god but that is not essential to atheism.

Indecision regarding the existence of god is not the same as agnosticism. Indecision is simply indecision, not an assertion or committment to any position or belief.

Agnosticism is the philosophical term invented by Huxley for the concept that it is not possible to know or determine ultimate truths (especially regarding the existence of god). Some commentators have noted that Huxley desperately wanted to be able to declare his lack of belief but was equally desperate to avoid societal approbation.

Taken on its own terms, agnosticism is a position that either believers or atheists can hold. One can say that it is impossible to know a thing while still maintaining a belief about it.

Some have argued rather convincingly that agnosticism is actually a form of atheism because an agnostic does not have a belief in god but, instead, believes he can’t know. One who cannot believe in god therefor does not believ and is, by default, an atheist.

One of the known natural laws is that natural processes never create matter. Matter is changed, and moved about, by natural processes. It’s broken down into atomic components and reformed into other substances in many natural processes. But no natural process creates matter where none has existed before.

Therefore, even if you accept evolutionary theory regarding the origin of life by recombination of inanimate matter into living matter, it logically requires a supernatural force at its beginning. Because if no natural process creates new matter, then some process beyond nature (supernatural) would have to have created the original matter of the universe that evolutionary theory uses as its building blocks. To deny the existence of the supernatural is to leave one with a serious gap…the inability to explain the origin of matter.

One can argue that there is no scientific proof that God exists. Though I can argue that there are things in nature which logically require a supernatural origin. But the counterpoint to the argument that there is no scientific proof that God exists is this: scientifically prove that God does NOT exist.

> Geeze, Alabamachick, nobody “believes” in atheism. Atheism is the absence of belief.

No, atheism is the belief in the absence of a divine being. Belief that something is false is still a belief. A belief is simply an individual decision to regard something as true. The absence of belief is indecision, which is agnosticism. And atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic is undecided on whether a god exists or not.

Re: txatheist

> There is a difference between this question and the one where a mother should be warning her child of an oncoming car. The car is real. We have all witnessed someone getting hit by a car or heard of it happening. There is not one instance of someone burning in hell.

How do you know there has not been any instance of someone burning in hell? You can legitimately say (if we exclude near-death experience claims), that you’ve never encountered anyone who went to hell and came back to report on it. But that does not inherently disprove it. Nobody’s ever been to the center of the earth and come back to report on it, exluding Jules Verne. Yet, most people accept that the center of the earth is there, and the general descriptions of it in science textbooks, based on the authority of the scientists who write them. I’ve never been to hell, nor spoken to anyone who has. Yet I accept that it exists, based on the authority of the Bible’s writing about it. And while an atheist wouldn’t accept the divinity of Christ, as someone who does, I consider myself to be basing my beliefs upon the eyewitness account of an omniscient deity. Therefore, it is still my responsibility to warn people of a danger which I accept to be true.

Can science measure the car? Sure. It can observe it and experiment upon it. Can science measure hell? No. Science is limited to the natural realm and the measurement of things within its reach. The fact that science cannot measure something does not inherently indicate that it doesn’t exist, however. The supernatural by definition exists outside of the realm of nature, and therefore outside the realm of science. You certainly have the right to choose to believe that only what science can measure exists. But that doesn’t inherently make it so. And leaves you with a problem anytime something science has no explanation for occurs.

> Step back for a minute and ask yourself if you are special enough to have the absolute true way to god? To me it’s pure arrogance to think you are correct and all the other religions that have ever existed are not correct. I’d suggest studying xianity compared to Mithraism. You may discover xianity is just a borrowed idea from earlier religions.

It’s no more arrogant for me to state that all other religions that have ever existed are not correct than it is for you to state that all religions including mine are not correct, by stating that there is no god. It’s not a matter of me thinking that I’m someone special. I wasn’t the one that originated the idea, any more than you’re the one that originated atheism. I do believe that Jesus Christ was someone special, and He stated not only that God existed, but that He was the only way to God. I choose to believe Him, and everything in my personal experience supports my continuation of that belief. You have various authorities, I am sure, upon which you base your own belief in a lack of any divine being. I’m not obligated to accept those any more than you are to accept mine; but recognize that me calling you wrong and you calling me wrong are both expressions of belief. One of us must be right, and one wrong, since we have opposing positions. The two positions cannot both be right. But the only *scientific* proof of which is which will come after death. At which point it will be too late for either of us to change beliefs.

As for earlier religions, Christianity was the fulfilment of promises made to the Jews of a blessing to come through the line of Abraham. And, further back than that, the fulfillment of the promise of the seed of Adam from Genesis, which brings the God of Judaism and Christianity back to the root of human existence. This is not a point on which I expect us to reach agreement, however, because your perspective views religion as a man-made creation whose start is whatever point it appeared in human writings/teachings. My perspective views Judaism and later Christianity as God-made creations, details of which were put into written form in the Bible by human hands at later points of history. Therefore, from my perspective all other religions except Judaism are later rather than earlier religions, and such elements as are common between the Judeo-Christian view and other religions are simply bits of known truth that still remain amidst the errors.

Why do you think the Blasphemy Challenge is stupid? It has served a very healthy purpose by giving people subject to religious intolerance and oppression an opportunity to speak out and to observe others responding to similar oppression. It is an exercise in joyous hope for the future, if nothing else.

And how do you know that what you think is god speaking to you is really that, rather than evidence of something else, perhaps something unhealthy?