[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]And there's your problem: as part of the argument you made, you assume that time always exists in the 'infinite number of moments' bit.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]So for an infinite amount of time?Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]So for how long has God existed?Funky_Llama

This is of course necessary because if there is an infinite regress into the past then we should not be here right now because in order for any moment to arrive, the moment before that must arrive, and since for any moment to arrive there must be an infinite amount of moments which must be traversed, we should not be here right now, but that is absurd.

This is one point that I have never seen a creationist like yourself elaborate upon. Even if you throw the Judeo-Christian God out of the window and stick to a God that simply put the universe into motion, the chances of a God like being existing are still 50/50. Termite551

not really, the chances of God existing as the unmoved mover are a lot closer to 1/1 than 50/50. Here is a very simple proof of that statement

1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Really nothing more than a reaffirmation of the first principle of metaphysics, being never comes from nonbeing, unless you believe in Magic. and we all know that atheism and magic dont exactly make best of friends now do they? :P

2: The material and temporal world began to exist. This is of course necessary because if there is an infinite regress into the past then we should not be here right now because in order for any moment to arrive, the moment before that must arrive, and since for any moment to arrive there must be an infinite amount of moments which must be traversed, we should not be here right now, but that is absurd

Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause. This cause, being the cause of all spacetime must be itself immaterial and timeless. But we know with a fair bit of certainty that there are only 2 objects which can possibly exist timelessly and immaterially, and they are abstract objects (like numbers) and disembodied minds. Since abstract objects do not cause anything, the cause must be a disembodied mind

so right, the odds of the "unmoved mover" existing are pretty darn close to 1/1

How could even pure Atheism, which is based on science the occasional leaps of faith, be more faith based than Christianity, which is based PURELY on faith?

Termite551

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there isMetalGear_Ninty

Aren't you a little worried that in the defence of Christianity you are arguing that being wrong isn't so bad after all? :?Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
HardQuor

---edit---
spalling.

The basis of atheism is a lack of belief entirely. If one is an agnostic atheist, they don't actually "believe" anything... and most atheists are agnostic.

Some atheists criticize fundamentalist Christians for trying to mix their beliefs with science and claiming that their beliefs are "true" in the sense of scientific proof and not just true based on faith.foxhound_fox

and from whence cometh the responsibility to not mix religious dogma with scientific processes?

To Atheists:

Is there some sort of moral obligation to hold to beliefs which are demonstrably true or properly basic?

See, the only way I could see Atheists having grounds to criticize Christians who hold to Theism out of blind faith is if we as humans had some sort of responsibility, a moral obligation if you will, to hold to beliefs which are demonstrably true or are properly basic.

To those of you who think that we have a responsibility to hold true beliefs, where does that responsibility come from?