Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

[Audie]

Sure, many do this and many do that, including those who try to play "cosmo" without a clue
about it, talk science / evidence / proof with nary a clue. And that is not exagerated.

Evidence Audie doesn't know what the cosmological argument is. I may as well say that evolution is wrong because monkeys are still around.

No, that you havent a clue whatvI said.

[Jac3510]

If you think the cosmological argument has anything to do with science or proof then you don't know what the cosmological argument is. And while I'll grant that there are people that attempt to use the argument and talk about science and proof in their discussions, those people don't know what the argument is or how to use it. So to suggest that there is something wrong with the CA because of their mishandling of it is just to attack a straw man. And if you understand that people who talk science when doing the CA are abusing the CA, then there's no reason to bring them up when discussing the strengths/weaknesses of the CA as it relates to the question of God's existence.

[Kurieuo]

Cosmological arguments are troublesome for those who don't believe in God. You just don't like them Audie because its like a stone in your Atheistic shoe you can't get rid of.

[Kenny]

Cosmological arguments are troublesome for those who don't believe in God. You just don't like them Audie because its like a stone in your Atheistic shoe you can't get rid of.

My problem with the Cosmological argument, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
 
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. The argument proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. The argument then proclaims God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover.
 
Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which he will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!
 
These arguments will only work on those who presuppose the existence of God because they are the only ones who will allow you to apply rules to the opposing argument without applying them to your own.

Ken

[Audie]

If you think the cosmological argument has anything to do with science or proof then you don't know what the cosmological argument is. And while I'll grant that there are people that attempt to use the argument and talk about science and proof in their discussions, those people don't know what the argument is or how to use it. So to suggest that there is something wrong with the CA because of their mishandling of it is just to attack a straw man. And if you understand that people who talk science when doing the CA are abusing the CA, then there's no reason to bring them up when discussing the strengths/weaknesses of the CA as it relates to the question of God's existence.

I dont think that it has anything to do with science. You come up with the oddest things.

[Jac3510]

I dont think that it has anything to do with science. You come up with the oddest things.

Perhaps

. . . including those who try to play "cosmo" without a clue about it, talk science . . .

And perhaps you are extremely unclear at times.

[Audie]

Cosmological arguments are troublesome for those who don't believe in God. You just don't like them Audie because its like a stone in your Atheistic shoe you can't get rid of.

I've noticed that creationists have no arguments to make against anything in science
unless they misrepresent or just make outright false statements.

You might want to steer clear of those waters. While it is the natural habitat of
some of our posters, the yacers, gappers, floodies and 6 day poofters in particular,
it really ill suits you.

Just sayin', and all that rot.

[Audie]

I dont think that it has anything to do with science. You come up with the oddest things.

Perhaps

. . . including those who try to play "cosmo" without a clue about it, talk science . . .

And perhaps you are extremely unclear at times.

Ah so, a choice to misrepresent what I said, which you still show no sign of understanding.

Choice because you didnt ask but went straight for taking it as something that looked stupid, so you could grab for a cheap put down.

[Jac3510]

Or more likely a choice to misrepresent the CA

[Audie]

Or more likely a choice to misrepresent the CA

Ah so, now the "i am rubber" play. How diabolical.

See above.

I have said nothing to misrepresent it. I dont need to. It has flaws enough all on its own;
look where it has led you, if you cant see any others.


Try to restrict your comments to things that you dont need to misrepresent, and you, like ab if he could manage the same, would not present
your "faith" in such shady light. Not that I care, you yeccers and gappers can hold it up to as much
derision as you like.

[Kurieuo]

You guys are just upset that the universe points to a beginning. I'd happily listen to what your "science" has to say about such matters Audie.

[Jac3510]

Quod gratis asseritur and such things. I don't take seriously the critiques of a person who refuses to engage in the subject and then, in passing criticism, brings up "science/evidence," which are totally unrelated. I take less seriously the criticism of people who claim that the "logic honed by centuries " may be "impeccable" and reduce such to merely being "clever." Those who deny reason deny any epistemological right to discuss anything in a rational manner, for all argument is necessarily rooted in logic and reason.

Ah, but I'm just being "clever." As are you, with your personal attacks and poor attempts to dismiss something you don't understand. Maybe someday you'll take reason seriously enough to actually engage on these important issues. I'll take YEC and even Gappism if the alternative is to have my kite in the sewer of disinterest in rationality and related self-refuting claims. If that is where your worldview leads, come talk to me again when you have something interesting to say. That, or perhaps we can get along by discussing matters totally unrelated to rationality -- perhaps you like sports or music. I'm something of a movie fan. Do you like comic book films? I'm in the minority in that I prefer DCEU films to Marvel. I very much enjoyed Batman v Superman and thought that Affleck was the best bigscreen Batman. Looking very forward to Wonder Woman. You?

[Kurieuo]

Or more likely a choice to misrepresent the CA

Ah so, now the "i am rubber" play. How diabolical.

See above.

I have said nothing to misrepresent it. I dont need to. It has flaws enough all on its own;
look where it has led you, if you cant see any others.


Try to restrict your comments to things that you dont need to misrepresent, and you, like ab if he could manage the same, would not present
your "faith" in such shady light. Not that I care, you yeccers and gappers can hold it up to as much
derision as you like.

Look at how defensive you're getting Audie. Clearly when you said, "the "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad," you were meaning it was pretty bad for you and others like yourself who don't believe in God. I identify by your defensiveness that it is more the case you are not quite sure how to respond to such arguments.

It's like a thorn you'd prefer to not have to deal with in any logical fashion. Which is possibly why you also let your prejudice and diatribe also often spill out against philosophy, that field pursuing knowledge via logic and reason. Science without logic and reason isn't really science at all.

[Philip]

One thing is certain: There is only ONE kind of logic. There is not Western logic and then Eastern logic that works entirely differently. And there is no unlimited number of possibilities of CHARACTERISTICS that the origin(s) of all things had.

WHATEVER came first was ETERNAL! Unfathomably intelligent. Unimaginably powerful. And energy cannot be eternal. And blind things don't acquire and harness energy or anything else intelligently - and on a scale we can scarcely imagine. So, ANY possible originating elements had to have these key attributes, no matter how far-fetched one might suppose their identity to be, or their wildly theorized processes and potential, they ultimately had to check those boxes. Refute these, if you disagree. Do it with science, philosophy, whatever argument that refutes the necessary attributes/capabilities of what came first, per the three bolded characteristics, because each was entirely necessary. And for every theorized first things, they still had to inhabit these attributed collectively. Take away any one of them, the universe we see doesn't exist!

[abelcainsbrother]

No one has been able to dispute the "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument.
It is actually backed by empirical evidence IF people actual l KNOW what "empirical evidence" means ( not what THEY think it means).
Empirical evidence is evidence based one observation and experimentation:

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

.

We do OBSERVE that all things that come into being have a cause, that all things that "move" ( and by that we mean any movement, including changing states) are moved by an outside force.
Experiments prove the above.

Ergo the premise that all things that come into being, the move from state to state, do so via an "outside force" is proved to be accurate via empirical evidence.

I think that those who dismiss this as "God of the gaps" need to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are things that come into being that have no uncaused cause if they are going to reject it.Let them demonstrate things coming into being without an uncaused cause. This means standing there and demonstrating things coming into existence without an uncaused cause. Think about it,the moment they touch matter in anyway totally disproves them because they then become the cause.We have evidence to show that things that come into being have a cause and also things that come into existence are willed into existence.It is they who reject it who have no evidence and these people ignore infinite regression and live in their own made up reality - LA LA LAND.We can shut these people up and make them look silly by demanding evidence like they do us.I have seen propaganda science TV shows that shows matter popping into existence all on its own and then that matter forming itself into things all on its own.

I don't have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one form or another; and that nothing actually came into being, and I don't think you have empirical evidence that God has always existed and God brought everything else into being.

Ken

You're ignoring evidence again and as I've explained atheists/agnostics/skeptics do not take evidence seriously. You ignore evidence and then claim we have no empirical evidence when the Big Bang Theory is the most studied theory in science and it says the universe had a beginning just like Genesis 1:1 tells us. So the evidence points to the God of the bible especially since other holy books of other religions are wrong. But you ignore evidence just like you do when it comes to your atheism and knowing whether or not it is the correct choice to live by,this is why you can dismiss evidence for God.