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.
Post Reply
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

#61

Post by Audie » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:50 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
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:
No, that you havent a clue whatvI said.

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

#62

Post by Jac3510 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:15 pm

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.
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: 10034
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 648 times
Been liked: 665 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#63

Post by Kurieuo » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:21 pm

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.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

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

#64

Post by Kenny » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:32 pm

Kurieuo wrote: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
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

#65

Post by Audie » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:35 pm

Jac3510 wrote: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.

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

#66

Post by Jac3510 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:40 pm

Audie wrote: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.
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.

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

#67

Post by Audie » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:42 pm

Kurieuo wrote: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
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

#68

Post by Audie » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:45 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
Audie wrote: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.
Last edited by Audie on Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

#69

Post by Jac3510 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:48 pm

Or more likely a choice to misrepresent the CA ;)
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.

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

#70

Post by Audie » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:56 pm

Jac3510 wrote: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.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 648 times
Been liked: 665 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#71

Post by Kurieuo » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:14 pm

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.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

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

#72

Post by Jac3510 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:18 pm

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?
These users liked this post by Jac3510:
Kurieuo (Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:22 pm)
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: 10034
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 648 times
Been liked: 665 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#73

Post by Kurieuo » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:32 pm

Audie wrote:
Jac3510 wrote: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.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8639
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: 413 times
Been liked: 649 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#74

Post by Philip » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:32 pm

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
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4964
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

#75

Post by abelcainsbrother » Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:39 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
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.
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.

Post Reply