Arguments for God's Existence

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Empiric evidence and reason - those are the criteria of science.

Reason can inform morality, as such, science is a better guide than cultural attitudes.

Reason tells us that mass murder, along with the long-term suffering from the use of nuclear weapons - and, indeed, WMDs - is morally wrong.

Kindest regards,

James

so this is why atheist can sell so many books, it is very easy to make a stupid argument, and new atheist will buy the argument and the book

again science and reason can tell you that some stuff causes long term suffering, but they don't tell you that you shouldn't do that stuff. this is not even a controversial fact.

but thanks for the feedback know that I know that you are not willing to grant even uncontroversial facts, I now understand that it was very innocent form my part when I expected you to grant more controversial statements (like premises in the KCA)

I play chess.

Whilst analyzing various candidate moves in a position, I can come to the conclusion which of the possible resultant positions is the optimum.

I can choose the best outcome.

No "moral" component involved.

Similarly, anyone can consider the outcomes of various actions, and decide which is the better one.

All you need is the ability to reason based on certain criteria.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

As LEROY is clearly incompetent at forwarding Arguments for God's Existence, I will do what I considered doing in the first post - namely, list all of the fuckers.


Deductive:
Design inference, that empirical quantities in the universe establish the existence of god.
Ontological argument (i.e. the KCA and many others)
Teleological argument/Intelligent Design
Argument from Beauty
Argument from Reason
Argument from Consciousness
Aquinas' Aristotelian Ontological argument
Evolutionary argument against naturalism
Argument from natural law / natural law
Argument from Improbability of Universe/Life/Dials etc
Argument from Desire

Inductive:
Argument from Belief in God
Arguments from Probability
Arguments from Cause
Argument from Order
Argument from Morality
Argument from Contingency
Argument from Degree
Argument from Love
Theodicy

Historical:
Argument from Miracles
Appeal to History
Argument from Truth/Prophecy
Argument from Religious Experience / Revelation
Pascal's Wager
Rational Warrant
Fideism
Proof of the Truthful (Seddiqin)
Trademark argument

 

[MarsCydonia]

please do it.

after you realize that I never said that claim, please apologize.

You don't get to demand apologies off other people after the shitty way you've behaved in this thread.

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I wrote - dozens of pages of misrepresentation, a dozen or so attempts - so stroll on hypocrite.

It isn't nice to point and laugh at reading-challenged people but in the case of Leroy, I think we can make an exception due to his over-inflated hubris.

Should I copy-paste my comment about causes being prior matter or energy? That was fucking credible wasn't it?
The conclusion was "therefore the universe does not require a cause" but Leroy using his brainless logic rejected it still absent logical reasons pages later (he never did produce any counter-argument for it)

Now, how in the hell could Leroy draw the conclusion that I said he made a claim about prior matter or energy there?
Is it the "my comment about causes being prior matter or energy" part?
Is it the "Leroy using his brainless logic rejected it still absent logical reasons pages later"?

The answer is probably "where Leroy draws everything else, his ________".
As I said, "an impressively spectacular failure of reading comprehension and evidence that he has the memory of a goldfish in so few words. Congratulations Leroy!"

And it wasn't a claim. It was a logic exercise (which I expected Leroy to fail. He did not disappoint).

Deductive:
Design inference, that empirical quantities in the universe establish the existence of god.
Ontological argument (i.e. the KCA and many others)
Teleological argument/Intelligent Design
Argument from Beauty
Argument from Reason
Argument from Consciousness
Aquinas' Aristotelian Ontological argument
Evolutionary argument against naturalism
Argument from natural law / natural law
Argument from Improbability of Universe/Life/Dials etc
Argument from Desire

Inductive:
Argument from Belief in God
Arguments from Probability
Arguments from Cause
Argument from Order
Argument from Morality
Argument from Contingency
Argument from Degree
Argument from Love
Theodicy

Historical:
Argument from Miracles
Appeal to History
Argument from Truth/Prophecy
Argument from Religious Experience / Revelation
Pascal's Wager
Rational Warrant
Fideism
Proof of the Truthful (Seddiqin)
Trademark argument

Is this list from anywhere in particular? Because I do not see the KCA being an ontological argument as I usually know them (as the classical Anselm of Canterbury version or the modal version of Platinga).

 

[leroy]

please do it.

after you realize that I never said that claim, please apologize.

I hope everyone is impressed that Leroy managed combined both an impressively spectacular failure of reading comprehension and evidence that he has the memory of a goldfish in so few words. Congratulations Leroy!

So, let's Leroy's response to my comment:

Leroy's brainless mind is always amusing :lol:

let me try 1 last time

Promise?
Of course not, Leroy would break it at the first opportunity

to say that some event was caused by nothing is absurd or at least very implausible

therefore to say that all events are caused by something, becomes necessarily true or at least plausible.

Correction: "Leroy says that some events are causeless is absurd or at the least very implausible".

1. The bait-and-switch of "caused by nothing" and "causeless".

2.Interestingly, Leroy also says that "existing" in 0 space and for 0 second is "perfectly logical or at the very least plausible". So Leroy isn't a great judge of what is absurd and implausible.

3. And let's not forget this bit from Leroy:

granted, not everything requires a cause

4. And let's not forget this bit from myself earlier (possible by Leroy's claim of interchangeability of "causeless" and "from nothing":

So, because of the "interchangeability of cause and nothing", the support for the premise becomes:
"Things come from something"
because
"Things have to come from something"
[sarcasm]Brilliant! I'm convinced! Can't wait for Leroy to run from this one[/sarcasm].

Which leads to:
5. Which "nothing" are we talking about here? Nothing (1') or nothing (1)? :lol:
Leroy may say that it is absurd that nothing (1') can cause things but if I say the idea of a nothing (1') is absurd and therefore irrelevant to the argument, I do not expect Leroy to demonstrate there ever was a nothing (1').

So reasons to reject's Leroy's word on his undemonsrated assertion? Well, those were a quick 5.
Reasons to accept Leroy's word on his undemonstrated: still a huge effing 0.

therefore premise 1 in the KCA becomes necessarily true or at least plausible

therefore accepting premise 1 becomes credible, (given that its rejection is absurd or at least very implausible)

therefore C is no longer a valid answer.

:facepalm:
Leroy, if had anything other than a brainless mind, would realize that he has just demonstrated Why C is the only valid answer, his "arguments" for premise 1 are far cry from necessarily true. If the premise 1 is credible, it isn't because of any moronically thing Leroy wrote.

As for credible? We've been over this a thousand times with Leroy.
"It's at least plausible that rainbows are unicorn farts" does not make it true.
When things believed as plausible are asserted as knowledge is how you get people like Leroy.

Should I copy-paste my comment about causes being prior matter or energy? That was fucking credible wasn't it?
The conclusion was "therefore the universe does not require a cause" but Leroy using his brainless logic rejected it still absent logical reasons pages later (he never did produce any counter-argument for it)

The time to accept premises as true is when they're demonstrated to be true, not when they're demonstrated to be credible.

then let us know if you agree with my points or not.

Can't Leroy guess?

And now for the rebuttal:

0 space and for 0 second ≠ nothing.

Absolutely magnificient, isn't it? Who knew theists would consider something so empty and meaningless to be a rebuttal?
I guess I could have ignored it as irrelevant but I just had to laugh.

But wait! There's more laughing to come with this meaningless assertion of a response, thanks to:

semantically speaking Craig (and I) mean something different from what hackenslash Sparhafoc Mars...mean when using terms like cause, uncaused, nothing etc.

So (and I, Leroy) and Craig mean the same thing when using terms, like "nothing"? I already pointed this out for your entertainment but let's do so again!

What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing.

It (the big bang) is literally the beginning of space and time.

literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo

Space and time begin at the initial cosmological singularity, before which literally nothing exists

And yet...

0 space and for 0 second ≠ nothing.

Having shot of his foot and leg a while ago, Leroy seems intent on finishing his thigh. Leroy could research the argument and come back once he understands it but then, how would we reach 50 pages of Leroy repeating the same bullshit? :lol:

so this is why atheist can sell so many books, it is very easy to make a stupid argument, and new atheist will buy the argument and the book.

again science and reason can tell you that some stuff causes long term suffering, but they don't tell you that you shouldn't do that stuff. this is not even a controversial fact.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thanks for your comments but you are suppose to show that I ever said that that I believe in events prior matter or energy, so ether show a comment where I ever made that claim, or apologize for misrepresenting my view.

Should I copy-paste my comment about causes being prior matter or energy

and pelase stop taking WLC quotes out of context. If you hate when creationists quote Darwin our of context (the quote on the evolution of the eye where Darwin supposedly admitted that evolution is absurd for example) why are you using the same dishonest tactic.

WLC is talking about the big bang theory in the context of an atheist perspective.

A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1#ixzz4pGY5j02R

so what he is saying is that if you grant the standard big bang model and if you are an atheist who believes that there is nothing that transcends the physical world, then you are suppose to believe that the universe came from nothing.

WLC is not talking about his personal views, he is talking about the implications of the big bang theory (if you are an atheist)


if you make an other comment that deals with semantics and has no relevance to whether if the KCA is a good argument or not, I will ignore it.

 

[leroy]

I play chess.

Whilst analyzing various candidate moves in a position, I can come to the conclusion which of the possible resultant positions is the optimum.

I can choose the best outcome.

No "moral" component involved.

Similarly, anyone can consider the outcomes of various actions, and decide which is the better one.

All you need is the ability to reason based on certain criteria.

Kindest regards,

James

aja, and how do you know what the best outcome is ? how do you know that you are suppose to check mate your opponent? reason doesn't tell you that you are suppose to compute your opponents king


there is a transcendent source (the rules of the game) that dictates the metrics on whether if 1 move is better than the other.


reason can tell you what the consequences would be if you move your knight, but it doesn't tell you if the consequences are good or bad.


science is morally neutral, or morally indifferent, this is uncontroversially true, feel free to accept this fact and move on, or to pretend to disagree.


Lk is wrong, and his claim was falsified by WLC,

 

[MarsCydonia]

thanks for your comments but you are suppose to show that I ever said that that I believe in events prior matter or energy, so ether show a comment where I ever made that claim, or apologize for misrepresenting my view.

Wow, did Leroy take the time to read and forgot instantaneously? Or is yet another spectacular failure of reading comprehension? Well no matter, I can simply copy-paste a previous comment for Leroy to instantly forget or misread, yet again. How long can we do this? Infinitely?

Should I copy-paste my comment about causes being prior matter or energy? That was fucking credible wasn't it?
The conclusion was "therefore the universe does not require a cause" but Leroy using his brainless logic rejected it still absent logical reasons pages later (he never did produce any counter-argument for it)

Now, how in the hell could Leroy draw the conclusion that I said he made a claim about prior matter or energy there?
Is it the "my comment about causes being prior matter or energy" part?
Is it the "Leroy using his brainless logic rejected it still absent logical reasons pages later"?

The answer is probably "where Leroy draws everything else, his ________".
As I said, "an impressively spectacular failure of reading comprehension and evidence that he has the memory of a goldfish in so few words. Congratulations Leroy!"

And it wasn't a claim. It was a logic exercise (which I expected Leroy to fail. He did not disappoint).

and pelase stop taking WLC quotes out of context. If you hate when creationists quote Darwin our of context (the quote on the evolution of the eye where Darwin supposedly admitted that evolution is absurd for example) why are you using the same dishonest tactic.

WLC is talking about the big bang theory in the context of an atheist perspective.

:lol:
I'd say "Leroy shoud research and show he understands the KCA" but that clearly has yet to happen 30 pages of comments in, I doubt it will ever happen in the next 30.

But in short: William Lane Craig isn't, so they're not taken out of context (especially since I provided little context, I simply let the words speak for themselves).

so what he is saying is that if you grant the standard big bang model and if you are an atheist who believes that there is nothing that transcends the physical world, then you are suppose to believe that the universe came from nothing.

WLC is not talking about his personal views, he is talking about the implications of the big bang theory (if you are an atheist

:lol:
Doesn't Leroy realize those quotes came directly from Craig's "support" of the premises?
I'm not surprised that Leroy fails spectacularly at understanding Craig's KCA but it's like he never even read the links he copy-paste in his comments...

William Lane Craig is full of shit when he asserts that "you are suppose to believe that the universe came from nothing" when you're an atheist but that doesn't change what William Lane Craig is himself saying about the KCA which you still fail to understand.

Let's see if I can dumb down Craig for Leroy, a lot down :lol:
"Before god created the universe, there was literally nothing, no space, no time, nothing". Is that dumbed down enough for you Leroy?

if you make an other comment that deals with semantics and has no relevance to whether if the KCA is a good argument or not, I will ignore it.

Oh I'm sure I'll make plenty of comments where I deal with the KCA and where Leroy will be too dumb to understand and/or too much of a coward to answer.

But when Leroy comments, I will probably be entertained then point out and laugh at the stupidy and cowardice.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I do not see the KCA being an ontological argument as I usually know them (as the classical Anselm of Canterbury version or the modal version of Platinga).

It's an ontological argument because, at bottom, it deals with existence. This is ontological in the broader technical sense as opposed to arguments that are formulated specifically to be ontological, such as Anselm or Plantinga.

 

[MarsCydonia]

It's an ontological argument because, at bottom, it deals with existence. This is ontological in the broader technical sense as opposed to arguments that are formulated specifically to be ontological, such as Anselm or Plantinga.

I understand this, perhaps what I should have said, to be more precise, is that I do not see apologists and counter-apologists usually class the KCA as an ontological argument (as when you hear "ontological" coming from the mouth of an apologist, he usually follows that with Anselm/Platinga). Hence why I wondered where this list come from / why the arguments are listed this way.

Then again, apologist argument cladistics is not an actual thing :lol: but it could be interesting.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I play chess.

Whilst analyzing various candidate moves in a position, I can come to the conclusion which of the possible resultant positions is the optimum.

I can choose the best outcome.

No "moral" component involved.

Similarly, anyone can consider the outcomes of various actions, and decide which is the better one.

All you need is the ability to reason based on certain criteria.

Kindest regards,

James

aja, and how do you know what the best outcome is ? how do you know that you are suppose to check mate your opponent? reason doesn't tell you that you are suppose to compute your opponents king

there is a transcendent source (the rules of the game) that dictates the metrics on whether if 1 move is better than the other.

reason can tell you what the consequences would be if you move your knight, but it doesn't tell you if the consequences are good or bad.

The rules of the game are not a "transcendent source" - they are man-made.

Just like morality - it's relative because it depends on the culture from which it arises.

science is morally neutral, or morally indifferent, this is uncontroversially true, feel free to accept this fact and move on, or to pretend to disagree.

It depends on how you view this.

Although one may argue that "science" as a process is morally neutral and/or indifferent, you must remember that there's more to it than that.

Firstly, science is pursued by scientists who cannot be called "morally neutral/indifferent", despite what some might claim.

Secondly, the fruits of science - technology - raises its own ethical considerations.

For these reasons, "science" cannot be called morally neutral or indifferent. The idea that it is in popular culture is due to the idea of the "mad scientist", as epitomized by Frankenstein, who pursues his goal of creating life regardless of the ethical implications.

Lk is wrong, and his claim was falsified by WLC,

Krauss showed that the basis for Craig's morality ("Divine Command") is arbitrary, as is shown in this summary:


Craig argues that the massacre of the Canaanite children resulted in their going to heaven.

This ignores the fact that, in the OT, when Yahweh's enemies were destroyed - that's what happened to them, They didn't have a life-after-death. His attempts to put a Christianized spin on the OT doesn't work.

=======================

As as an aside, here are a couple of other clips that refer to my earlier points about Craig not being a true philosopher....

Craig's Bad Faith

This means Craig is not interested in truth, only in what he wants to believe.

Here, Carroll addresses Craig's misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the physics of the early universe;



Craig is using what was believed 2500 years ago through classical physics - not what's known today from modern physics - to argue his version of the KCA.

And a incredulous stare is not a rebuttal.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

note that Mars was unable to show any comment where I affirmed that there was a cause prior to space and time

MarsCydonia wrote:
Should I copy-paste my comment about causes being prior matter or energy? That was fucking credible wasn't it?
The conclusion was "therefore the universe does not require a cause" but Leroy using his brainless logic rejected it still absent logical reasons pages later (he never did produce any counter-argument for it)

Now, how in the hell could Leroy draw the conclusion that I said he made a claim about prior matter or energy there?
Is it the "my comment about causes being prior matter or energy" part?
Is it the "Leroy using his brainless logic rejected it still absent logical reasons pages later"?

The answer is probably "where Leroy draws everything else, his ________".
As I said, "an impressively spectacular failure of reading comprehension and evidence that he has the memory of a goldfish in so few words. Congratulations Leroy!"

And it wasn't a claim. It was a logic exercise (which I expected Leroy to fail. He did not disappoint

 

[MarsCydonia]

note that Mars was unable to show any comment where I affirmed that there was a cause prior to space and time

Note that Leroy still failed spectacularly at reading comprehension.

And note that Leroy still has yet to answer all the criticism that has been directed at him for the past 30 pages so Leroy complaining that a fantasy of his was not answered his not only delusional, it's also hypocritical :lol:

 

[leroy]

The rules of the game are not a "transcendent source" - they are man-made.

and in this context humans are a transcendent source, because they exist outside and independently of the game

Just like morality - it's relative because it depends on the culture from which it arises.

well then in that view, human opinion (not science) would be the moral guide. I would disagree with that view, but at least it is a coherent view.


it is wrong and naïve to say that science is a moral guide.


sure you can use science, reason, history, economics, and any other things as tools that would help you determine the consequences of an action, but none of them can tell you which consequences are good and which consequences are bad, none of them are moral guides, at best they are useful tools.

 

[MarsCydonia]

and in this context humans are a transcendent source, because they exist outside and independently of the game

"Leroy's transcendent"
I think I'll call this "pulling a Leroy" :lol:

 

[leroy]

Craig is using what was believed 2500 years ago through classical physics - not what's known today from modern physics - to argue his version of the KCA.

And a incredulous stare is not a rebuttal.

Kindest regards,

James

well is there any specific point related to the KCA that you think was not answered correctly by WLC?


And sure I am willing to grant that Sean Carol made a very good debate and he made many valid points (same is true with WLC) there is a big difference between the arguments presented SC and the pseudo arguments presented by LK (and atheist from this forum)

at least SC adopts a position and defends it, he didn't simply answered "C"

 

[leroy]

and in this context humans are a transcendent source, because they exist outside and independently of the game

"Leroy's transcendent"
I think I'll call this "pulling a Leroy" :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


once again the only criticism that I received form an atheist is that I probably didn't use the best word I could have used (even though I explained what I meant)

 

[MarsCydonia]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

once again the only criticism that I received form an atheist is that I probably didn't use the best word I could have used (even though I explained what I meant)

It wasn't criticism, it was another laugh at a "Leroy's meaning of a word which actually means something different". It happens so often that it should have its own expression.

And I do think it's important to point out that when Leroy uses "transcendent" he does not mean "transcendent". Really, imagine if we actullay treated what Leroy writes as if he actually used words correctly? He'd accuse us of strawmaning him, "I did not mean transcended when I wrote transcendent, you're making a strawman" :lol:

 

[Deleted member 619]

Then again, apologist argument cladistics is not an actual thing.

There's something very much like it, namely a taxonomy of logical fallacies, which amounts to the same thing.


http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The rules of the game are not a "transcendent source" - they are man-made.

and in this context humans are a transcendent source, because they exist outside and independently of the game

Just to clarify, transcendent means above or beyond normal human experience.

As such, your use of the term is incoherent.

Just like morality - it's relative because it depends on the culture from which it arises.

well then in that view, human opinion (not science) would be the moral guide. I would disagree with that view, but at least it is a coherent view.

it is wrong and naïve to say that science is a moral guide.

sure you can use science, reason, history, economics, and any other things as tools that would help you determine the consequences of an action, but none of them can tell you which consequences are good and which consequences are bad, none of them are moral guides, at best they are useful tools.

As I said, if you take science out of the context of those who practice it - scientists, who are moral agents - then you might claim that science is morally neutral/indifferent, however I don't view science in this way.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

at least SC adopts a position and defends it, he didn't simply answered "C"

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Craig is using what was believed 2500 years ago through classical physics - not what's known today from modern physics - to argue his version of the KCA.

And a incredulous stare is not a rebuttal.

Kindest regards,

James

well is there any specific point related to the KCA that you think was not answered correctly by WLC?

Every point relating to the KCA, which Carroll addressed, was not answered by Craig in a coherent manner.

And sure I am willing to grant that Sean Carol made a very good debate and he made many valid points (same is true with WLC) there is a big difference between the arguments presented SC and the pseudo arguments presented by LK (and atheist from this forum)

Carroll presented valid points related to the physics involved, Craig did not.

Krauss' arguments against Craig's "Divine Command" notion were perfectly valid - it's just that Craig (and you) don't seem to be able to recognize them as such.

I suggest you watch all three debates/discussions between them to get a better grasp of why Krauss won.

at least SC adopts a position and defends it, he didn't simply answered "C"

Actually, if you listened to what he said, he adopted "C".

Kindest regards,

James