Arguments for God's Existence

[thenexttodie]

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

Do you think that if God exists, he would ever have to do the same thing? Analyze a position or state and then form an optimum plan of action? Or do you think of God as a being who is incapable or unneeding of analyze as result of having a complete knowledge of the future?

Do you play chess online? I used to play chess on a few different places online but now I am mostly at chess.com. I will send you a pm expressing the enthusiasm <I have for us to play chess sometime.

 

[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

Do you think that if God exists, he would ever have to do the same thing? Analyze a position or state and then form an optimum plan of action? Or do you think of God as a being who is incapable or unneeding of analyze as result of having a complete knowledge of the future?

Do you play chess online? I used to play chess on a few different places online but now I am mostly at chess.com. I will send you a pm expressing the enthusiasm <I have for us to play chess sometime.

As the Christian god is supposed to be perfect, the bible depicts him as omniscient, etc, hence he knows everything - despite the fact that he appears to make errors as if he didn't know the future. Which goes to show that any biblical claims as to God's capabilities are made-up, rather than divinely-inspired.

As regards chess, I used to play online at freechess.org but my current laptop doesn't support it, so I no longer play online.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

As the Christian god is supposed to be perfect, the bible depicts him as omniscient, etc, hence he knows everything - despite the fact that he appears to make errors as if he didn't know the future. Which goes to show that any biblical claims as to God's capabilities are made-up, rather than divinely-inspired.

Are you saying that for instance, all of the failed prophecies in Bible are there because the people who you think wrote the Bible kept forgetting that God was supposed to have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future? LOL Really?

"Dang it Josiah, we did it again! We accidently wrote another 3 chapters about a failed prophecy"

"Why does it matter?"

"You fool! We are supposed to convince Dragan Glas that God has exhaustive foreknowledge about the future!"

"Uh, oh, ok. Should we change the story then?"

"No, Josiah, we don't have time! There is only 300 years now before Jesus is born!"

 

[thenexttodie]

As regards chess, I used to play online at freechess.org but my current laptop doesn't support it, so I no longer play online.

Kindest regards,

James

Well would you like to try to play at chess.com? You should play.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Is this list from anywhere in particular?

Off the top of my head.

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).

You are wholly right and that's my mistake. I meant Cosmological Argument, but somehow managed to put the KCA under a different heading instead. Good catch! Properly, though, it still is an ontological argument in form, but it's not usually classified as such.

 

[Sparhafoc]

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181329#p181329

The old adage of Creationists and quote functions!

 

[Sparhafoc]

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)

Once again.... fap fap fap FAP FAP!

OHHHH!

LEROY dry-humping honest people's legs.

 

[Sparhafoc]

As the Christian god is supposed to be perfect, the bible depicts him as omniscient, etc, hence he knows everything - despite the fact that he appears to make errors as if he didn't know the future. Which goes to show that any biblical claims as to God's capabilities are made-up, rather than divinely-inspired.

Are you saying that for instance, all of the failed prophecies in Bible are there because the people who you think wrote the Bible kept forgetting that God was supposed to have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future? LOL Really?

Wha....?

Try again and this time aim for more content less sneer because what you said is barely legible.

 

[Sparhafoc]

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

You need to stop getting your knowledge of physics from WLC and start listening to physicists.

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"

Hilariously, you are speaking out of your rectum in every step of the paragraph.

1) At least 4 previous arguments you flapped about in, I took positions aligned with Carroll while you took positions aligned with WLC, but you pretended you were knowledgeable and ultimately that was your argument as to why I was wrong, meanwhile I simply pointed out a genuine problem with your claim that you failed to respond to.

2) In this video above, Carroll explicitly points out exactly what I said as the basis for my C response - no one knows - that includes you by the way.

Funny how you hear what you want to hear, isn't it LEROY? Same as with your endless refusal to acknowledge what people on this forum say.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The problem with this premise (main premise of KCA) is that it is FALSE.

There is almost no explanation or justification given for this premise in Dr Craig's presentation.

But there is a bigger problem with it that it's not even false.

...

He said he was astonished that I refused to accept the fact that things need causes to happen.

Now, if LEROY was honest, then he'd acknowledge that I've said all the above before.

As LEROY has not a jot of honesty in his existence - in fact, honesty must annihilate on contact with him - LEROY will pretend that what I said is something else, pretend that what Carroll said is something else, that what WLC said is something else, and that what LEROY said was right, right, always right, right all along, right by default.

Arguing with a fundamentalist narcissist is like excavating the Cretaceous with your forehead.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's like a creationist version of David McDogma, isn't it?

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's like a creationist version of David McDogma, isn't it?

I always found it perplexing that he wasn't a theist. I imagine that came about purely by luck - he certainly didn't reason his way out of theism... or anything else.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Aye.

 

[leroy]

The problem with this premise (main premise of KCA) is that it is FALSE.

There is almost no explanation or justification given for this premise in Dr Craig's presentation.

But there is a bigger problem with it that it's not even false.

...

He said he was astonished that I refused to accept the fact that things need causes to happen.

Now, if LEROY was honest, then he'd acknowledge that I've said all the above before.

As LEROY has not a jot of honesty in his existence - in fact, honesty must annihilate on contact with him - LEROY will pretend that what I said is something else, pretend that what Carroll said is something else, that what WLC said is something else, and that what LEROY said was right, right, always right, right all along, right by default.

Arguing with a fundamentalist narcissist is like excavating the Cretaceous with your forehead.

That is because you in your mind have a different understanding of the meaning of the words cause, uncaused, nothing etc.



I agree using your straw man understanding of the term cause, WLC don't justified his premise.


using this terms as I defined them 2 or 3 days ago, premise 1 is justified by the fact that events without a cause are logically incoherent, to say that something that doesn't exist caused an effect is absurd. As a BONUS, we also have the fact that every single observation that has been made shows that events are caused by something and that it would remain inexplicable why only some events, and not all events can be caused by nothing.

let me repeat my main argument for premise 1

to say that "something that doesn't exist (and has never existed)" caused an effect is absurd

and Yes "C" requires justification, "C" implies that you are affirming that the idea is coherent, otherwise premise 1 would be true or at least credible.

 

[leroy]

2) In this video above, Carroll explicitly points out exactly what I said as the basis for my C response - no one knows - that includes you by the way.

.

there is a difference between

a) We don't know, but I would say that the evidence points towards an eternal universe , because of X,Y and Z (being X,Y,Z arguments or justifications for such an statement )

b) and I don't know, I wont tell you what evidence would convince me that the premises are credible,I will offer no justification for my skepticism, and I will reject by default any premise that doesn't define the words according to my own personal preferences

"a" represents SC and "b" represents you.

 

[Sparhafoc]

2) In this video above, Carroll explicitly points out exactly what I said as the basis for my C response - no one knows - that includes you by the way.

.

there is a difference between

a) We don't know, but I would say that the evidence points towards an eternal universe , because of X,Y and Z (being X,Y,Z arguments or justifications for such an statement )

b) and I don't know, I wont tell you what evidence would convince me that the premises are credible,I will offer no justification for my skepticism, and I will reject by default any premise that doesn't define the words according to my own personal preferences

"a" represents SC and "b" represents you.

There is no honest difference between 'I don't know' and 'I don't know'.

The only valid difference with respect to this thread is 'I don't know' and 'I will bullshit everyone that I know just because I want to declare my belief in god justified'.

C represents me, and it represents Sean Carroll - as I told you, as I spent 25 pages educating you, and as you still don't get because you are intellectually challenged.

The rest are your typical LIES where you ignore thousands of words written by me which you simply dismissed at the time, and so consequently believe you can pretend don't exist now. You are a liar, LEROY.

How very LEROY. 25 pages to finally get LEROY to admit he was talking out of his arse, but rather than hold up his hand and admit his repeated ad nauseum error, LEROY simply manufactures another LIE to get people chasing their tails.

If you are too thick to read, then you shouldn't be engaging with people who write their ideas down. If you want to be taken seriously, read what people write. Perhaps then you might garner a glimmer of a clue. Protip - try pages 4-20

 

[Sparhafoc]

Go on LEROY - assert in a single post, with no clutter and misdirection, that I presented ZERO justification for taking position C.

GO ON. WRITE IT DOWN so I can show you a liar again.

I won't just show you a liar - I will show how you repeatedly ignored my position, constantly telling me what I was allowed to say rather than addressing what I did say.

You rely on people to not be bothered to go back through the morass you created to show you are talking out of your arse... but you still stupidly don't get the fact that I will go back and cite posts showing your bullshit, and I will take great pleasure in doing it because people like you are not interested in honest discourse and consequently deserve to be shown up.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Cue 85 more pages of LEROY arguing about whether I could read WLC webpage and reply in 12 minutes, because the distraction is vastly more important to LEROY than any honest interest in interaction.

Page 2. Prediction in essence confirmed. It's just that LEROY gets bored of any particular diversion and concocts new ones on the fly.

The list of diversions here LEROY's manufactured to get out of engaging honestly is truly impressive. Impressive enough to warrant a thread of its own. I will enjoy doing that when I've got some time. Bad ideas exist to be destroyed, and LEROY exists to pretend they're neither bad nor have been destroyed.

 

[leroy]

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

can you provide an example?

 

[leroy]

Cue 85 more pages of LEROY arguing about whether I could read WLC webpage and reply in 12 minutes, because the distraction is vastly more important to LEROY than any honest interest in interaction.

Page 2. Prediction in essence confirmed. It's just that LEROY gets bored of any particular diversion and concocts new ones on the fly.

The list of diversions here LEROY's manufactured to get out of engaging honestly is truly impressive. Impressive enough to warrant a thread of its own. I will enjoy doing that when I've got some time. Bad ideas exist to be destroyed, and LEROY exists to pretend they're neither bad nor have been destroyed.

the main reason I know that you didn't read the article is not because it is unlikely to find someone that can read so many word s and answer with a reply in 12 minutes


the main reason I know that you didn't read it is because your you reply had absolutely nothing to do with the KCA


your reply

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

Sense? Really?

So it's sensible to posit that a being lives outside of time and space, who has the power to create universes with magical words, and did so with a special purpose in mind here, to create humans and tell them what they could or could not do, and wants to be in a relationship with them?

So this sense also includes making a space of at least 3.58×1080 m3, and then plopping down his special creation - the point of all this universe - on a small planet in an otherwise unremarkable solar system, with a livable area for his special purpose of just 24,642,757 square miles.

And this makes sense?

It makes no more sense than any other creation myth. Humans who didn't know about much at all, tried to imagine ways in which complicated things happened, and posited super human like characters to do the shaking and moving. No sense is involved, just story-telling, imagination, and ignorance.

It makes nonsense, I will give you that.

even if every single word where true, that wouldn't do anything to refute the idea that the universe had a cause. None of your original objections have anything to do on whether if the universe had a cause or not