Questions that Revealed Atheists Weakness

The following questions are some the questions that revealed atheists weakness. Most Atheists cannot find reasonable explanation to some of my questions presented below.You could do well or try by providing answers or explanation to any of these questions and explanations. And you can put this in your mind that 'I am just reasonable thinker who don't believe in any organized religion'. 

(1) Is nature a creation, eternal to nature, or an accident within nature?

 I decided to agree that that nature is a creation.According to a post from deism.com, the atheist counter that it is either eternal, or accidental. Our final judge to this problem will eventually be up to science to settle since most of them have much faith in science.

Peter Murphy said  "To begin, let us look at nature as an ever changing and shifting painting. Science attempts to understand what the paint and canvass is composed of, the relationship of the individual paints, and the brushstrokes that are involved in the final product. But, what about the painter? If one admits that nature is similar to a painting, than it is not too far a leap to conclude that a painter exists, or at least existed at one time".

The atheist continually resorts to the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty) when dealing with somebody like me or even theists. The appeal here is to science as an authority which cannot be challenged. Unfortunately, this appeal is plagued by its own problems.

First of all, science makes no claims about God one way or another, so it is not the scientists who are for the most part claiming God does not exist on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but the scientific layman asserting it. If there is any you can link me or provide any evidence to show this assertion.

(2)Do science have permanent explanations/evidences for ALL things?

From my findings science is still in its infant stage. There is much about nature it simply does not know. There was still some of its theories there are were modified and liable to change in future if there are available accurate evidence and explanations. So why would Atheists leaned on a discipline which has its own limitations.I am sure you would agree with me that science has its own limitation.If you disagree with me then the first phase of evidence is your Chemistry texts. Check same theory postulated by different scientists and come out to tell me your findings. So what come of Atheists if science provide evidence and explanation the existence of a creator?

In the word of Peter Murphy "Science itself is somewhat bias as well. It suffers from nearsightedness; what it cannot observe directly or indirectly, it ignores. Things like memory may have a basis in biology, but is it safe to conclude that only biology is at work here? No one has ever seen an emotion, or a memory; yet they exist. So it is not far-fetched to conclude that there is more to nature than what we observe in our own limited corner of it. Science has only touched the tip of the scientific iceberg -- as such, science cannot be used to dismiss the idea that a God may exist. If one cannot truly understand a grain of sand, then one cannot understand the beach."

(3). Can Atheists prove that The Universe Creator does not exist with evidence?

 I doubt if any atheist can provide any evidence for non existence of a creator.The atheist demands that the religious people or the others like me to provide evidence for the existence of God. "They continually resort to logical fallacies of their own, for example, a common one is the Petitio principii (begging the question) fallacy; it goes something like this: there is no God because we find no evidence of God in nature. But is this true? No. We presently do not know enough about nature to make such a conclusion, eventually, the possibility that there is a God could be proven. The atheist has no evidence that the universe is eternal or accidental; they are assuming that scientific speculation somehow equals scientific fact. Obviously there is a great gap between speculation and fact to the rational mind.

We have the painting, but to dismiss that there is a painter is illogical, unless there is evidence that it is either an eternal painting or an accident. So far all science has offered is speculation based on drawing inferences from the available data [which is far from complete]; nevertheless, since the evidence is not complete, nor fully understood, sweeping generalizations by atheist on what exists and does not exist are groundless".

Atheists like to shift the burden of proof from themselves to their debating opponents; in short, the believer in God must prove God, but the atheist will not defend his position that the universe is either eternal or accidental. Often this tactic works, the believer will then try to make an argument for God, only to have the atheist demand that the believer first define God in some clear manner. Once the believer makes this mistake, he loses the debate. We are still in the process of understanding the painting, so trying to define the painter is doomed to failure; the believer must recognize this tactic and avoid it. Deists should feel free to openly state that there is absolutely no evidence against a Creator being, or a Creation, and that all skeptics have to offer is scientific speculation on very limited data. Deists believe there is something more; that is not unreasonable, it is very much human and rational. That "more" is God. Deists are willing to wait for the answer and are keeping an open mind on the matter; it is the atheists, who fear waiting. Simply put there is no evidence against God, nor is there evidence against a Creation [design]. The burden of proof does not lie on the open mind, but on the closed dogmatic mind which assumes that we already know all there is to know.

reference(s):

http://deism.com/atheism.htm