Why I'm not an Atheist

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hey Suntan Luigi. You know what that's called? In scientific research, we refer to that as a "*****-slap". Seriously, dude, vet your goddamn sources. This is strike one. At strike three, that is, the third time you come up with sources which are understood to be complete horse****, I'm going to assume that you aren't simply stupid, but lying on purpose.

 

[infiniteV115]

Which of these do you dispute?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

God is the uncaused cause since He is not bound by any of the laws or rules of our world.

The 2nd, actually. Define 'began to exist', cause generally it is believed that there was no time before the big bang (ie no 'before the big bang'). And I don't know how something can 'begin' if time itself does not exist.

 

[Teran]

I don't understand why you don't just lock the thread if you want everyone to stop talking so much....

Another deep philosophical question for Pangloss to delve to the root of!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Another deep philosophical question for Pangloss to delve to the root of!

I wonder if we can report a super mod for trolling...

 

[kataklysm336]

The cosmological argument isn't bad

it just isn't complete.

It doesn't explain why this uncaused cause has to be God

or why this cause happens to be loving and have a will, and even moreso things like the Trinity.

it's not that strong of an argument by itself.

So the argument isn't bad, just incomplete, invalid, and weak? If that doesn't make a bad argument I'd love to know what does.

 

[Teran]

I wonder if we can report a super mod for trolling...

Absolutely, of course you can.

 

[GwJ]

So the argument isn't bad, just incomplete, invalid, and weak? If that doesn't make a bad argument I'd love to know what does.

No. Basically, the Kalam argument spawns unjustified CONCLUSIONS, but the argument itself has some logical merit.

 

[kataklysm336]

No. Basically, the Kalam argument spawns unjustified CONCLUSIONS, but the argument itself has some logical merit.

This statement is a little vague. What do you mean it spawns unjustified conclusions? Do you mean that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises? In which case it is invalid. Which means it is a bad argument.

 

[GwJ]

By that, I mean people take the argument and turn it into a god-proof argument. So, the argument itself isn't as bad as you make it seem it is, but the way it's used is bad.

 

[kataklysm336]

By that, I mean people take the argument and turn it into a god-proof argument. So, the argument itself isn't as bad as you make it seem it is, but the way it's used is bad.

People turn it into a "god-proof" argument? How? The conclusion is "therefore God exists and created the universe". It already is an argument for god. And a completely invalid one. Not to mention, even if we grant that it is valid, it wouldn't be sound because the premises assume so much. I don't understand how that makes a good argument.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Yeah but seriously, it's God.

Obviously.

 

[john!]

I don't understand why you don't just lock the thread if you want everyone to stop talking so much....

he secretly likes it.

btw i hope you guys appreciate me now

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

he secretly likes it.

btw i hope you guys appreciate me now

Yes, and the fact that only one of you two is in the debate hall is rather depressing.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Besides, Craig usually puts 4 or 5 other arguments alongside it anyway, which kinda shows it's not that strong of an argument by itself.

And how many of these suggestive or probability arguments does it take for God to be proven?

Answer: Zero, because they don't conclusively say anything.

My favorite argument of his is when he says we can just feel God in our hearts. :D

 

[Corigames]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6M...cFOrnNAICBobv4wzWvx7c8JC2JxFUfT5LAo=#t=10m20s
...or when he says that he doesn't care what the evidence, reality, etc say and goes, foremost, with what the Bible teaches. That's what makes me think he's an objective, rational thinker.

Also, if this person is now lo longer replying, it's not my place to either. Hate this thread, just had to clear that up. Resume. I'll go back to lurking.

 

[GwJ]

People turn it into a "god-proof" argument? How? The conclusion is "therefore God exists and created the universe". It already is an argument for god. And a completely invalid one. Not to mention, even if we grant that it is valid, it wouldn't be sound because the premises assume so much. I don't understand how that makes a good argument.

It is not inherently a god-proof. It's a proof that SOMETHING had to be a cause; that's it. It doesn't elaborate on what it is or its nature.

 

[Theftz22]

I can't decide which side is more incompetently represented in this debate.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I can't decide which side is more incompetently represented in this debate.

The side you're on obviously.

.___.

 

[Teran]

Remember if your insults aren't veiled you will be infracted!

 

[Dre89]

It is not inherently a god-proof. It's a proof that SOMETHING had to be a cause; that's it. It doesn't elaborate on what it is or its nature.

This is pretty much correct.

The biggest problem is that it doesn't explain why God is afforded the property of being uncaused whilst physical things cannot. To explain that, God would have to completely different properties to physical things. That's possible, until you start giving God things like the Trinity, which are no less random or contingent than physical properties.