Why is atheism untenable? [Spirituality & Religion]

The anthropic principle tries to argue that the Universe must be exactly as it is because we exist the way we do in this Universe, which exists with its presently observed properties.

But that’s a logivcal fallacy... and a simple one at that! The Universe did, in fact, allow us to come into existence, but there are many other possibilities for how we could have arisen other than the pathway that gave rise to us.

We can state that an imaginary Universe, where the laws of physics render the existence of observers an impossibility, can be ruled out as representing our reality... all well and good. But you cannot state that the Universe must have unfolded exactly the way it did. You cannot demand that the Universe mandates our existence. And you cannot demand that the Universe was compelled to give rise to us exactly as we are.

@newjaninev2 Don't worry you can deny all your have written tomorrow. You do it all the time anyways. Atheists are nothing if not dishonest. Well that and foolish. Their philosophy is nonsense based on nonsense. The fact is in your imaginary universe with changing laws and principles doesn't exist. The laws of physics remain constant as do the laws of chemistry. To even think they somehow changed in the past is pure nonsense. Now you are really grasping at straws to eliminate the evidence of an Intelligent Creator putting the universe together with all its laws and principles and putting all the life forms together with the ability to adapt to changing times, climates and environments. You see the effect of a brilliant creation and scramble trying explain away the evidence and in so doing you wind up with an ever more fanciful tale of changing universes and multiple universes and life arriving on comets tails. Pure an utter nonsense. Only an idiotic atheist could dream up.

The point is though the universe did give rise to us exactly as we are. The chances against are so enormous as to make it impossible except by design@newjaninev2

@Speedyman the chances that I am who I am, given that my mother had several thousand eggs available, and my father supplied several million spermatozoa, and they engaged in coitus many times (I assume), any one of which could have rendered my mother unavailable to host me, and that they themselves were the latest extant result of an unbroken chain of successful replications going back 3.5 billion years... given all that, how arrogant, how mind-blowingly arrogant, would I need to be to think all that was simply to produce [i]me[/i]?

Given that they were a fertile and fecund couple engaging in reproductive behaviour (I assume), then there was a good chance that they would produce a child - and all but zero chance that they would produce [i]me[/i]

I am very much a child of my parents, because I know no other way to be - no not for a moment have I succumbed to the arrogance and hubris necessary to think that it was all meant to produce [i]me[/i]

Humanity in general - and you in particular - needs to extract its head from its arse and swallow a dose of reality.

@newjaninev2 Not even close in comparison. Too funny that you would even compare it.

@hippyjoe1955 your comment seems long on fear and short on detail

@newjaninev2 Can't post too busy laughing at your foolishness. Seriously the odds of an egg and a sperm getting together are pretty good. it is almost like things were designed to happen that way. Too bad the same can not be said of abiogenesis. Neither designed to happen or even have a way to make it happen. Utter failure as a theory.

@hippyjoe1955 lol! As always, you opt for duplicity over substance. Why are you pretending that I was talking about the odds of conception, when in fact I was talking about the odds of [i]me personally[/i] (as I am now) being conceived.

That’s the part (the part you are trying to ignore) which reveals the stunning arrogance, self-centred hubris, and intellectual poverty, of creationist ’reasoning’.

Like Douglas Adams' falling whale, creationists assume that everything exists for them, and in making that basic error, they get the situation completely backwards... and they do so simply because they seem unable to get over themselves

@newjaninev2 Since abiogenesis simply can not happen...... The rest of your nonsense is just ..... nonsense.

@hippyjoe1955 so there’s no life on Earth?

That’s a bold claim! 😂

(and nothing to do with what I posted)

@newjaninev2 If you think it got here by abiogenesis then you are delusional. The chemistry doesn't even work let alone create life.

@hippyjoe1955 perhaps you’d like to supply some detail around that bold claim... or are you content with wishful thinking and self-serving fictions?

@hippyjoe1955 😂 lol

@newjaninev2 When you learn some chemistry get back to me.

@hippyjoe1955 So... nothing, huh?

@newjaninev2 Not until you learn some chemistry. Talking to you about chemistry is teaching rhetoric to a chicken. Just not in your wheelhouse.