Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#46

Post by Jac3510 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:59 pm

Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.
The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.
But you've never addressed it, despite having been invited to numerous times . . .
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8475
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 404 times
Been liked: 644 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#47

Post by Philip » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:17 pm

The uncaused cause is no problem, I guess, for people who at least belief that SOMETHING had to have been eternal, and that it had the ability (however blindly) to eventually consolidate into immense sophistication, and to harness (or stumble across/lie in the pathway of) untold power that propelled it. But that first something eternal HAD to exist, and the energy had to either come from it, or itself had to have been eternally existing. But there could have never been a point where at least some entity or thing didn't first exist. I would think most atheists recognize that there ultimately HAD to be at least something that pre-existed everything else - whatever they call it and however they theorize about the range of possibilities as to its identity and abilities. OR they somehow believe that things don't need a source and can either create themselves, or somehow pop into existence uncaused, or can exist eternally. There are no other PARAMETERS for the possibilities for what the actual reality was, and those parameters are fixed, whether the truth happened to lie within atheism, theism, Christianity, or whatever other belief or religion.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9203
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 347 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#48

Post by PaulSacramento » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:34 am

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.
These users liked this post by PaulSacramento:
Philip (Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:29 am)

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#49

Post by Audie » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:02 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.
The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.
Yeah, I don't think it is bad, but have found it difficult explaining this logical argument to kids. That tells me it is unclear, and certainly the argument isn't clear to all (i.e., Atheists).

I've found better mileage with examples. We're their Mum and Dad, we have our Mum and Dad, they had their ancestors and on and on. But it didn't go on forever, did it? They're quick to jump to God as the starter. (good kids ;)) Though my son asked once what about God? (heretic! :P)

But, what I press them towards isn't an uncaused cause, but rather that something has always had to have existed without ever having a start itself. Otherwise there would be no one and nothing.

Whether one believes somehow that's a universe ensemble (which is quite clear to me is rather contingent), or better postulated as an intelligent powerful being (aka God) -- well we know people have different preferences.
Clearly the preference here is to choose to believe in god, and in such philosophical comstructions as can be made to support that belief.

I've read the cosmo arguments through, and I have read the counter arguments, elsewhere dismissed under the fanciful statement that "nobody has been able to dispute" it.

I dont think the cosmos start with valid premises. As presented here by some, it is riddled with
half truths and nonsense, leading to some into rather hilarious absurdities, for all the pomp with which they are delivered.

Cosmo is for preachin' to the choir.

Most convincing? For me, it would be my own (sadly, ex-) father in law,
a man of sterling character and intellect, a man who lives his faith.
These users liked this post by Audie:
Kurieuo (Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:06 pm)

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#50

Post by Audie » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:04 am

Jac3510 wrote:
Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.
The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.
But you've never addressed it, despite having been invited to numerous times . . .

Let me know if you ever get your kite out of the sewer and I will then think there could be
some chance of a sensible discussion.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#51

Post by Jac3510 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:47 pm

I'm not interested in discussing it with you, Audie. I've no reason to think that anybody so quick to engage in blatant logical fallacies isn't going to blatantly engage in logically fallacies to avoid the conclusions of the argument. So the offer to discuss the matter, at least with me, is off the table. Perhaps Byblos or Paul would engage with you on it. My point wasn't then, nor is it now, that I'd like to discuss it with you. My point is that it is absurd for you to say it's "pretty bad" even as you have a long history of declining to discuss the matter when the opportunity has been presented over and over again. In other words, incredulity is no substitute for assessment.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10003
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 644 times
Been liked: 662 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#52

Post by Kurieuo » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:44 pm

Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.
The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.
Yeah, I don't think it is bad, but have found it difficult explaining this logical argument to kids. That tells me it is unclear, and certainly the argument isn't clear to all (i.e., Atheists).

I've found better mileage with examples. We're their Mum and Dad, we have our Mum and Dad, they had their ancestors and on and on. But it didn't go on forever, did it? They're quick to jump to God as the starter. (good kids ;)) Though my son asked once what about God? (heretic! :P)

But, what I press them towards isn't an uncaused cause, but rather that something has always had to have existed without ever having a start itself. Otherwise there would be no one and nothing.

Whether one believes somehow that's a universe ensemble (which is quite clear to me is rather contingent), or better postulated as an intelligent powerful being (aka God) -- well we know people have different preferences.
Clearly the preference here is to choose to believe in god, and in such philosophical comstructions as can be made to support that belief.

I've read the cosmo arguments through, and I have read the counter arguments, elsewhere dismissed under the fanciful statement that "nobody has been able to dispute" it.
I think everyone's

I dont think the cosmos start with valid premises. As presented here by some, it is riddled with
half truths and nonsense, leading to some into rather hilarious absurdities, for all the pomp with which they are delivered.

Cosmo is for preachin' to the choir.
I think it's more the case that we're each our own judges, each possess our own natures, so some arguments work for some others don't. What it shows to me, isn't that the arguments are suspect, but that logic and reason is also largely subjective, since, at the end of the day, it comes down to an individual juror.

Who is right? That is the question. Any attempt to answer such with logical arguments are considered absolute rubbish by post-modern standards, of which many is society today now cling to in saying that's your truth but not mine (as though truth is merely relative opinion since no one can have it, and to claim you did is the height of arrogance). What is more important here are socially beneficial exchanges, so truth is promptly shown the door by such, and relegated as something that is destructive and causes division, is rather unforgiving and nasty.

Sorry, if I'm talking off on tangents here, you know me... just letting my thoughts run. You and I though, surely know different to such people, while you parade science as your badge, and me philosophy though more-so theology (which holds is often considered more a shameful badge to the other two ;)). We like truth, and think we have it, even if we strongly disagree. But, at least there's some epistemological foundation there right? We believe we can know truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Audie wrote:Most convincing? For me, it would be my own (sadly, ex-) father in law,
a man of sterling character and intellect, a man who lives his faith.
You've mentioned such several times, evidently are large impact upon your life. I wonder, if he ever discussed his beliefs, what he believed, why he believed in Christ? Did he ever offer up his reasons?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4944
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#53

Post by abelcainsbrother » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:12 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: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.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#54

Post by Kenny » Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:00 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote: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
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#55

Post by Audie » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:46 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.
The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.
Yeah, I don't think it is bad, but have found it difficult explaining this logical argument to kids. That tells me it is unclear, and certainly the argument isn't clear to all (i.e., Atheists).

I've found better mileage with examples. We're their Mum and Dad, we have our Mum and Dad, they had their ancestors and on and on. But it didn't go on forever, did it? They're quick to jump to God as the starter. (good kids ;)) Though my son asked once what about God? (heretic! :P)

But, what I press them towards isn't an uncaused cause, but rather that something has always had to have existed without ever having a start itself. Otherwise there would be no one and nothing.

Whether one believes somehow that's a universe ensemble (which is quite clear to me is rather contingent), or better postulated as an intelligent powerful being (aka God) -- well we know people have different preferences.
Clearly the preference here is to choose to believe in god, and in such philosophical comstructions as can be made to support that belief.

I've read the cosmo arguments through, and I have read the counter arguments, elsewhere dismissed under the fanciful statement that "nobody has been able to dispute" it.
I think everyone's

I dont think the cosmos start with valid premises. As presented here by some, it is riddled with
half truths and nonsense, leading to some into rather hilarious absurdities, for all the pomp with which they are delivered.

Cosmo is for preachin' to the choir.
I think it's more the case that we're each our own judges, each possess our own natures, so some arguments work for some others don't. What it shows to me, isn't that the arguments are suspect, but that logic and reason is also largely subjective, since, at the end of the day, it comes down to an individual juror.

Who is right? That is the question. Any attempt to answer such with logical arguments are considered absolute rubbish by post-modern standards, of which many is society today now cling to in saying that's your truth but not mine (as though truth is merely relative opinion since no one can have it, and to claim you did is the height of arrogance). What is more important here are socially beneficial exchanges, so truth is promptly shown the door by such, and relegated as something that is destructive and causes division, is rather unforgiving and nasty.

Sorry, if I'm talking off on tangents here, you know me... just letting my thoughts run. You and I though, surely know different to such people, while you parade science as your badge, and me philosophy though more-so theology (which holds is often considered more a shameful badge to the other two ;)). We like truth, and think we have it, even if we strongly disagree. But, at least there's some epistemological foundation there right? We believe we can know truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Audie wrote:Most convincing? For me, it would be my own (sadly, ex-) father in law,
a man of sterling character and intellect, a man who lives his faith.
You've mentioned such several times, evidently are large impact upon your life. I wonder, if he ever discussed his beliefs, what he believed, why he believed in Christ? Did he ever offer up his reasons?

Individual juror-wise, I think the nature of reality is far too subtle for the canopener of philosophy / logic / religious texts of hundreds of years ago to have any success with grand conclusions as those committed to those -predetermined- conclusions like to present.

Now, I dont doubt that jac, for one, could beat me at the game. It may be that the logic honed by centuries is impeccable. That is fine, I am not especially good at chess either. I can let who will, be clever.

Of course, there is the faulty premise issue, and the counter argumentbut again, its not my thing.


Such logic as cosmo is tho not just unconvincing, and worse than pointless for its practitioner,
or as a device to bring me into the fold.

At the expense of repitition, it is because I see jac, say, un-able to do any better than a gappist,
worse actually as he is without the excuse of poor education, and comes to even stupider conclusions.

Cosmo is an inept tool.

I see people using it the same way that low creationists will use
some unanswerable "why" question to try to defeat evolution.

It is revelatory of the paucity of their case, that they resort to such


You are correct about tangential, you didnt say much about any thoughts I actually expressed.


I wont detail them but I dont agree with most of what you said of me.

As for father in law, one of my great regrets is thinking I had all this
time. I barely got the to beginning of the depth there.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10003
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 644 times
Been liked: 662 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#56

Post by Kurieuo » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:59 am

Many lay non-Christians find the Cosmological argument persuasive. Take my brother in law. Probably the reason why people often say they believe some higher power or the like, but that's it. So I think it is a tad exaggerative to overplay it as a creationist spacitionist thing.

That said, first cause arguments aren't necessarily cosmological in nature. They are also quite diverse. I rather find the argument from contingency to be quite powerful, which is more like a layered approach rather than linear such as temporal causal cosmological type arguments.

In any case, you must wonder how an intellectual you'd respect must have come to ever hold belief in God, let alone be Christian. Evidently, there must be some good reasons, if you value his intellect. Perhaps you just have not come across them or given them the time of day.

Maybe one day... you'll have the time and consider such an investigative task as something worthwhile. y[-o<
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4944
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#57

Post by abelcainsbrother » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:29 pm

Kenny wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote: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
I think what you're saying is neither of us have proof. Proof and evidence are two different things but before we can even begin to follow the evidence we need to take evidence seriously and atheists/agnostics/skeptics don't, so they are easily mislead. We have evidence the Christian God created the universe based on all other holy books being wrong about our universe coming into existence which is what science says with the Big Bang Theory and the bible says,so right off the bat we can eliminate other religious holy books that are wrong. Then we can just tell you to demonstrate things come into being without an uncaused cause and it is evidence that it does not happen.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#58

Post by Kenny » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:24 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Kenny wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote: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
I think what you're saying is neither of us have proof. Proof and evidence are two different things
No; I meant exactly what I said. I am not talking about proof, I’m talking about empirical evidence. The person I was initially responding to made a claim about empirical evidence, and I am responding to his claim.

I stand by what I said; I don’t have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one state or another, and you don’t have empirical evidence that God has always existed and created everything that currently exists.


Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#59

Post by Audie » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:48 am

Kurieuo wrote:Many lay non-Christians find the Cosmological argument persuasive. Take my brother in law. Probably the reason why people often say they believe some higher power or the like, but that's it. So I think it is a tad exaggerative to overplay it as a creationist spacitionist thing.

That said, first cause arguments aren't necessarily cosmological in nature. They are also quite diverse. I rather find the argument from contingency to be quite powerful, which is more like a layered approach rather than linear such as temporal causal cosmological type arguments.

In any case, you must wonder how an intellectual you'd respect must have come to ever hold belief in God, let alone be Christian. Evidently, there must be some good reasons, if you value his intellect. Perhaps you just have not come across them or given them the time of day.

Maybe one day... you'll have the time and consider such an investigative task as something worthwhile. y[-o<

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.

I know people of very different cultural traditions whose intelligence and integrity I
respect. I dont respect the philosophy, science or intellect of those who embrace
idiocy like gappery or yec.

You asked about convincing approaches. Cosmo can be and is used with
great care and precision to lead into collossal stupidity. I dont think
punctuated creationism or whatever intermediate from god-poof 6kya
to god started it, based on cosmo can be considered significantly better
than gappery or good ol' yec. They all look like childish superstitions,
however cogently argued, cosmistically.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#60

Post by Jac3510 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:15 pm

Audie wrote: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. :shakehead:
These users liked this post by Jac3510:
neo-x (Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:35 am)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Post Reply