The web site derides Christians for believing in magic, yet it embraces greater magic than anything found in the Bible – life just appearing out of nothing from non-life with no cause.
? Isn't that what god did? Why is that verboten when it comes to explaining the universe, but perfectly reasonable when explaining how god got here?
Next, their argument ignores the basic laws of causality – an effect must resemble its cause.
? I've never heard of that law before. Citation, please. In what way does water resemble hydrogen and oxygen? How does a tree resemble a nut or a fruit? In what way does an explosion resemble an explosive device? In what way do broken bloody teeth resemble brass knuckles?
How can an impersonal, meaningless, purposeless, amoral universe accidentally create beings who are full of personality and obsessed with meaning, purpose, and morality? It can’t.
Further, intelligence doesn’t arise from non-intelligence, which is why even Richard Dawkins (noted atheist) and Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) admit that intelligence had to engineer DNA and life on earth – they just say it was a superior alien race who seeded the earth,
eh, no. You'll have to supply a reference for Crick. But the Dawkins reference is from the movie Expelled, wherein the producers did some creative editing
to make it appear Dawkins said something he did not intend to or actually say. You, my little friend, have been lied to.http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394-lying-for-jesus
...Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. ...leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet... I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated.
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
ipse dixit. kindly show this is true.
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
angrily bristle at the notion of an unmade Creator?
angrily bristle? are you coming onto our front porch and calling us names? You should check that.
Your bullet points are mostly silly, and are unsubstantiated leaps, but I will point out a few problems.
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
There is a lot of fail contained in that one sentence. Define supernatural. Please explain how that is concluded from "he created time and space". Please explain how a god exists without time or space. Please explain how a god takes actions without time. etc...
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
does not follow.
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
nonsensical and does not follow. You presume time is a thing that could be created.
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
ipse dixit and circular. "he must be immaterial because he is immaterial".
• He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality).
does not follow. The two words are related and similar but do not oppose one another. Also, I rejected your preposterous "law of similars" already.
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
Given the suffering the world, that is highly unlikely.
The Judeo-Christian God perfectly fits this profile.
I would disagree, but even so, "Fits" is not good enough. The real test is whether or not it reflects reality. So, how do we check to see whether yhwh is in fact part of reality?
At this point, all 50 “proofs” on the web site become irrelevant –
No, no. Not at all. They are important because those points allegedly describe yhwh and the source is the bible. If those things are shown to not be real, then there are only a few conclusions. One possible conclusion is, there is no god as described in the bible. There may be other gods. But not yhwh.
... alongside the Spirit of God who inspired it.
How does one get the sipirit of god to sit along side you? How do you know whether you have succeeded? I tried for years and was never able to get it to work.
Arguments with those who possess a hardened skeptical spirit are to be avoided as 1 Timothy 6:20...
that is just preaching. It is obnoxious and not allowed here. Please see the links in my sig to the rules.