So that’s a no then, you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence that anything exists beyond natural phenomena, thought so. At least you now know what the word include means, so the day hasn’t been a total waste for you.
How about demonstrating something approaching objective evidence for your deity?
I think we know the answer to that one as well, quick try and find another gap to hide it in, I’m sure you’ll fool us eventually.
So we have danced around with a whole load of irrational religious apologetics and quite a bit of religious sophistry, and guess what the existence of life, the material universe, and natural phenomena are still objective facts. Still not one shred of objective evidence or any rational argument for any deity, or anything supernatural though.
God of the gaps again, nothing to see here folks, move on, nothing at all.
Then you clearly don’t understand Occam’s Razor, since I have made no such claim, nor have I made any unevidenced assumptions about the origins of the universe. We know natural phenomena exist, and it’s you as a theist who is adding an unevidenced deity, using inexplicable magic, which demonstrably violates Occam’s razor. This another fallacious attempt to reverse the burden of proof, all you have from the start are argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, insisting people disprove your unevidenced deity.
So what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? The burden of proof is entirely yours, since you are the one making the claim, not me. Atheism is not a claim, it is the lack or absence of belief, try again.
I mean claiming a dog can’t disbelieve in a deity zooms it to the top on its own, but simultaneously claiming it also can’t believe in a deity seems like a clincher. Not to decry the idiocy of yet another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy from @Sid, combining as it does a risible misunderstanding of Occam’s razor, I think @X0B35 may have beaten him to the punch here. Also he gets an extra point as a theist for being unable to spell deity properly, that’s the kind of rigour the award is meant to honour.
And what have scientists discovered thus far?
(Throat clearing sounds) Ahehham. Scientists have succeeded in observing one of the strangest predictions of quantum theory – the breakdown of causality.
In the macro world, causality is a fundamental property: if one thing happens, it causes another to follow it. For instance, if a tap is turned on, water flows out; or if a drum is struck, a sound is heard. If this, as the saying goes, then that.
On a quantum level, however, cause-and-effect breaks down.
“The weirdness of quantum mechanics means that events can happen without a set order,” says physicist Jacqui Romero, from the University of Queensland in Australia.
The real question is 'What do you mean by a ‘First Cause.’ And, are you aware that at the quantum level, cause and effect break down?
Even so. Let’s pretend there was a fist cause and you can demonstrate it. How did you rule out a natural first cause?
Okay, look, I freely admit I’m no expert on any of this. Hell, for that matter, I barely have a rudimentary understanding of it. A physicist I am NOT. That being said, it seems only natural to me that there had to be something that happened first to cause everything to happen. Thus, “First Cause.”… Duh… … However… For that “First Cause” to happen, it stands to reason there had to be something available or some event to take place to instigate that “First Cause”, right? I mean, after all, how could something happen with nothing around to make it happen? In which case, whatever caused our First Cause would be the Actual First Cause, thereby technically making our First Cause the Second First Cause.
Granted, the Actual First Cause merely instigated our Second First Cause and did not actually cause us. Therefore, I suppose our Second First Cause could still be considered our Actual First Cause since it was the cause that actually brought us into existence. Although, all things considered, it is entirely possible our First Cause might actually be anywhere between the First First Cause and Infinity First Cause, depending on what point we popped into existence on the Grand Cause Timeline. I understand that thinking about this can at first cause some headaches. No cause for alarm, though. For we can take comfort in knowing that regardless of how many First Causes caused our First Cause, it is OUR First Cause that actually brought us here to question what caused us.
Thanks TM for introducing an only slightly clanking note of clarity to this debate. As human history shows, nearly every group of Modern Hominids has its own particular “First Cause”, which would suggest your solution is the correct one. That those “First Causes” are often in opposition or have been stolen and made into a slightly different “First Cause”, or elevated from a minor 3rd or even 4th cause to a particular groups 'First Cause" also bears witness to your clarity of vision and rational thought.
History bears truth! All Hail the 4,235,672nd First Cause!
Well I can’t speak for other atheists of course, but I care that what I believe is true, and I care to try and believe only what is true, and of course I should rather my life has some meaning to me, as that is preferable to my life being devoid of any meaning to me, I just am not prepared to cling to unevidenced myths in order to find that meaning, as it would be meaningless to cling to a delusion.
@Calilasseia just explained he cares, as have I, now I know form past experience theists find the idea that atheists can find meaning in reality, without recourse to religious superstition alarming, and perhaps an obvious inference can be drawn from that, but nonetheless you have your answer.
Did you quote this for a reason, only I see no response?
Because this is the only life we’re given you moron. The “meaning” of this one and only life is to aspire to do the best you can with the time that you’re given, spend some meaningful time with your family and/or friends, and appreciate whatever you’ve been given in the years you have on this earth.
Do you really believe that bullshit that we’re all born “sinners”? Does this mean that our granddaughter Piper, who was stillborn, is burning in hell because she wasn’t baptized? She never got a chance to live, never took a single breath before she died in the womb.
Do you actually think this, because if you do, I feel sorry for you. That is really a fucked up thing to attribute to your loving god. This is why religion poisons everything.
Blind pitiless indifference… … Hmmmm… I kinda like that. It actually has a nice ring to it. I have to admit, you may have a point there, Sid. Too damn bad, though, that I’m so blindly cold-hearted that I don’t give a shit one way or the other. I mean, why should I care, since my life is so useless and without meaning? Now, if you’ll excuse me, please, I have to go throw big rocks at a litter of newborn kittens near my house.
(Edit to ask directions to nearest tall building.)