Question for atheists?

*facepalm*

"if a position has to be explained forever, then it's not a position at all."

I am not sure that I understand what you mean by that. I do not necessarily think that one has to go back forever in explaining things. Scientists have some idea about what happened a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. If we could find out about what happened just before that we may not need to go any further back.

"Since these two infinities were created and cannot be fully explained by science, then the creator can be none other but God."

Just because science is not fully capable of explaining something that does not necessarily mean that there can be no possible reason behind it other than a god, let alone some particular god. (I am guessing from your use of a capital G that you are referring to a particular god.)

"Evolutionists believe bees and plants evolved at different times."

Not really. plants were around a long time before bees, but did not rely on insects for pollination at first. Insects came along later and evolved along with plants, with bees and some flowers eventually becoming dependent on each other. They certainly evolved at the same time for part of their evolution.

"atheists like to play and act like these finds don't exist."

I would need more specific details of the claims you are talking about to be able to comment.

"Since God created humans, and humans discovered logic, that means logic, and all other things known, and yet to be known, that can be used for good, are a product of God."

But you have yet to establish that there even is a god, let alone that he created humans or logic.

"Theists predates atheists, so the burden of proof fall on you guys!"

How do you know that theists predate atheists? Trying to place the burden of proof on theists means that we would have to be able to determine the characteristics of an entity in which we do not believe in order to disprove it. I cannot define what your god is for you, so I do not know what it is I am supposed to be disproving.

"If science is top truth, that means everything originates from something else." This is mere assertion. You have no argument to show that the claim follows from the premise. See "bare assertion" fallacy.

"Since these two infinities were created and cannot be fully explained by science, then the creator can be none other but God." I do not accept that these are either "infinite" or "created." Again, you need an argument, not mere assertion.

The forth paragraph is a long argument from incredulity fallacy. Ignorance does not support any claim. Even if you were correct about the lack of scientific explanation for these things (you are not), that would not justify the claim "God did it."

The fifth paragraph is another set of bare assertions.

5 fallacies does not make your claims logical. There is nothing here to refute.

Please tell me you're not serious.

1) Nobody has ever claimed "science is top truth", whatever that even means. Ascribing to an another person a position which he does not hold is called the straw-man fallacy.

2) Yes, theists do claim everything began with God, but they also cannot support that with anything other than merely asserting what they seek to demonstrate. Asserting what you seek to prove is the weakest form of argument, a bare assertion.

3) That you don't like an infinite chain of causation is not a well-founded argument against it. If you want to show it isn't a valid possibility, you must show that it cannot have happened. It does not suffice to say that you don't like the idea.

4) There are adequate explanations for the evolution of symbiotic relationships, for instance:

- Douglas, Angela E. (2010), The symbiotic habit, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 4, ISBN 978-0-691-11341-8

- Wernegreen, J.J. (2004), "Endosymbiosis: lessons in conflict resolution", PLoS Biology 2 (3): e68, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020068, PMC 368163, PMID 15024418

You know, I'm getting to the point in your question where you argue that the existence of logic argues for a god. That's it, you can't be serious.

What exactly is the question? All I see is a wall of text with one biased, unsubstantiated opinion after another. Statements like "No savvy archeologist would dare attempt to explain symbiotic relationships, because there is no evidence in science to explain them adequately." are absurd on many different levels. For one thing it would a biologist, not an archaeologist who would explain symbiotic relationships and, from an evolutionary perspective, would have no trouble doing so. Statements like "theist already knows God willed all into existence" are completely meaningless. They are opinions that can't be substantiated.

Bottom line is that you have not presented a single 'logical fact'. It's all pretentious, self-righteous BS.

"If science is top truth, that means everything originates from something else."

If by "top truth" you mean "the search for logical answers to valid questions about how the universe works", then I agree with your premise...you don't quite make that clear.

"Since these two infinities were created and cannot be fully explained by science, then the creator can be none other but God."

You should read about quantum mechanics. Also, "has not been fully explained" does not equal "cannot be fully explained".

"Evolutionists believe bees and plants evolved at different times."

Plants can also pollinate by wind and other bugs, so I'm not sure where you're going with this...

"They are afraid to make evidence that supports the theist public, and atheists like to play and act like these finds don't exist. But theists know better."

Name one thing that scientists have covered up that theists know with absolute certainty (not believe, know).

"Since God created humans..."

empirical evidence or gtfo

"...and all other things known, and yet to be known, that can be used for good..."

What about things that can be used for evil? Your god created the universe, EXCEPT for things that can be used for evil? What about things that can be used to suit either purpose? And again, you give no empirical evidence.

1) God is not a solution to the first cause problem. You can't explain why god should not have the same need for a cause. Declaring it's true doesn't make it so.

2) Infinity is a mathematical concept. It is not unexplained by science, nor is it evidence for god.

3) Symbiosis is very understood and proved. By the way, not all flowers require bees.

4) The argument assumes the conclusion. It's a tautology.

5) You obviously don't understand the word "logic."

I see lots of faulty reasoning. You seem to be under the black and white notion that the only answers are: Evolution or God. There are many theories out there. Some people believe in evolution and god at the same time. Some people believe in many gods.

Secondly, "If a position has to be explained forever, then it's not a position at all." That's a claim, not a de facto certainty. Who created god? Perhaps the singularity at the beginning of the universe was the beginning of all things. If god, a theoretical being of infinite complexity, needs no creator, then why does the universe?

i'm still confused about my beliefs but how can you 'logically' say God created humans out of nothing? i mean are you just going to simply ignore all the evidence of evolution? that's something i don't get...

keep in my mind, i'm not a philosopher or claim to be an expert or even an amateur in this topic. having said that, you say there are some things that science can't explain? i'm sure there are some things science couldn't explain 1000 years ago, 100 years ago even 10 years ago. how do you know that these things won't be explained by science some time in the future?

First off, science is not truth, it's a method of discovering truth.

Your entire "question" is the Cosmological Argument mixed with an argument from ignorance.

There are two ways to debunk your crap.

1) What created your creator? You can't just make rules then break them yourself.

2) Quantum Mechanics can be the uncaused cause.

EDIT

"Theists predates atheists, so the burden of proof fall on you guys!"

That is blatantly not true.

I can answer this with a very simple atheistic argument:" If it is not necessary for god to have been created and thus always existed, then why is it necessary for everything else to have had a creator? Why does the universe or matter or humans need a creator, when god does not?"

Do you see the logical fallacy here? You assume god does not need a creator but assume everything else does.