Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[tavarish]

Tavarish i appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my points. ok lets get underway. KCA:again you have misconstrued the kca. it does NOT say everything has a cause and the first cause is GOD. This is y your objections miss the target.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cosmol...gument.htm

Cosmological Argument - The Three Premises
According to Craig, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is built upon the following three premises:

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

Let's take a wild guess what you posit that first cause to be. I'm betting it isn't the cookie monster. This argument has been around since the late 70s in its current form (thanks to William Lane Craig).

VALIDITY OF KCA: deduction is widely used and generally trustworthy logic, an example is. 1. animals are made of cells. 2. a dog is an animal. 3. thus a dog is made of cells. the kca follows from this logic and is a logically valid conclusion. yes iam aware that in some cases deduction is spurious but to challenge the kca, you clearly must show that it is spurious.

The KCA first relies on assumption, then builds upon that assumption with logically fallacious statements.

It's something akin to:

1. The average family has 2.5 children.
2. The Smiths are an average family.
3. Therefore, the Smiths must have 2 or 3 children.

or:

1. All birds have beaks.
2. Octopuses have beaks.
3. Therefore an octopus is a bird.


It's simply a deductive fallacy.

I'll explain WHY:

1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence. <-Existence being a tricky word here, i'll elaborate further.

2. The universe began to exist.<- Not necessarily. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. You'll note existence in this form means "entity composed of an association of particles", and does not imply that non-existence is an absolute void of existence, rather a lack of associated particles. I existed as a result of my birth, but I am an entity and comprised of numerous particles, which were not created, and can't be destroyed.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. <- Non-sequitur. The word "existence" is used in two varied senses, and the conclusion is factually false.

I posit this:

1. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
2. The universe (as we intepret it) is comprised of energy.
3. The universe (as we intepret it) cannot be created or destroyed.

kca doesnt need to define GOD because it doesnt doesnt make reference to GOD. IT is used as an argument for GOD.

The kalam cosmological argument doesn't need to define God because it is only an argument for God's existence, but makes no reference to him.

Does that make any fucking sense to you?

I want to make an argument for the tooth fairy, but I don't have to define anything, just make an argument that assumes she exists,forgetting the fact that I'm latching on attributes to something that I haven't demonstrated to actually exist.

the big bang too is used as an argument for GOD.

Wrong. The Big Bang Theory is meant to give an explanation of the origins of time and matter within our universe. If you can use it for a God argument, I'd like to see the evidence that necessarily makes him responsible for it. No what-ifs and could-bes, I'm talking about something concrete (not necessarily empirical,but something that at least withstands logical fallacy) and reasonable.

BUT one would never say that the it must first define GOD.

I would. In order to make the argument valid,you would have to FIRST define God, THEN apply this argument to him. What good is making an argument for an entity with attributes you can't specify or give a credible account for?

THE KCA simply reasons that the universe must have a cause in keeping with the causal principle, because it had a beginning, that is there was a first moment of its existence. there was a moment when no space, no vacuum, no time no matter no energy existed hence the universe, which is simply the sum of these phenomena had a starting point.

---

1. How do you know this?

2. How do you know energy isn't eternal?

ID: TAVARISH you say that ID fails because replication and enviromental stressors account for the emergence of specificall complex structures pretty conclusively. my question where is the concrete evidence IN NATURE not in a computer model that accounts for specified complexity? when i asked for evidence you linked me to a paper studying a genetic algorithm, i expected some real evidence from nature.

Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift In the Lab
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...50&tid=350

It really is apparent that you don't have a working understanding of the concept.

i am compelled to conclude that the absence of examples of upward evolution from nature drives evolutionists to resort computer simulations.

Does this make evolution any less valid?

so as long as simulations are accepted as support for evolution as a skeptic i can rest assured that no concrete evidence for the monkey-man type of evolution has been found.

I'll take it you've never been to a natural history museum? Ever hear of the fossil record - you know, the bones God put in the ground to test our faith?

the exaggerated faith shown to computer simulations by evolutionists is noteworthy since they frequently cant even predict next weeks weather accurately.

Evolutionists are meteorologists? WTF?

also simulations need to be testdd in the real world to verify their validity so far simulations that claim to provide insight into evolution r massively oversimplified caricatures of the real world.

---

So here's how I posit your understanding of evolutionary science:

1. Scientists come up with the theory of evolution.
2. They all agree to uphold it no matter what. Obvious agenda.
3. After they can't find evidence, they make inaccurate computer models and take it as gospel.
4. ???
5. Profit.

GENETIC SIMILARITY: TAVARISH, genetic similarity between organisms can be used to support both ID/creation science, so its a tie.

Yup, who gives a shit what side actual evidence supports. It can be used to support the Invisible Pink Unicorn as well,is it a 3-way tie in that case?

also note if there were not strong genetic similarities between us and other organisms we could only eat other humans. for the reason that if every other organism was fundamentally different genetically hence biochemically, there would be no way for us to digest them because their amino acids, sugars etc would be different from the ones in our bodies.

1. How to do you know this information is correct?
2. What relevance does this have to anything we're discussing?
3. We share similarities with all living things on Earth, does that mean we can eat everything?

ok. here is a link showing how genes r challenging the evolutionary tree of life.

---

Dang it i cant posts any links until i have 10 posts.

Fiddlesticks.