Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[rexbeccarox]

See. That is how you answer a question. Now, you try it. Where is this evidence of god?

While by no means exhaustive, All of the list below has been discussed anywhere from decades to millennium. Collectively they form the basis of the rational belief in the existence of God. While you can debate any or all of them, you cannot dismiss them as inconsequential to the question: does God exist.

The Kalam Cosmological argument

Not evidence (arguments are not evidence); first you have to prove the premise that everything must have a creator.

The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

See above.

The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties

Again, see above.

The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning

... (see above)

The Ontological Argument

... (really?)

Origins of life

Uh... please elaborate?

Irreducible complexity in biology

This has not been established...

Psychological propensity to believe in God

Seriously? You consider this evidence? How so?

Human consciousness

Define consciousness.

Miracles

What miracles?

[Edwardo Piet]

The Kalam Cosmological argument
The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
The Ontological Argument

Argumentation is not evidence. It can provide validity but not soundness.

Origins of life

Evolution, not God.

Irreducible complexity in biology

Doesn't exist.

Psychological propensity to believe in God
Human consciousness

These are irrelevant. It's not evidence of God's existence.

Miracles

Begs the question because there's just as much of a lack of evidence for miracles as there is for God.

[Whateverist]

See. That is how you answer a question. Now, you try it. Where is this evidence of god?

While by no means exhaustive, All of the list below has been discussed anywhere from decades to millennium. Collectively they form the basis of the rational belief in the existence of God. While you can debate any or all of them, you cannot dismiss them as inconsequential to the question: does God exist.

The Kalam Cosmological argument
The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
The Ontological Argument
Origins of life
Irreducible complexity in biology
Psychological propensity to believe in God
Human consciousness
Miracles

Is it your contention that these arguments should be persuasive in all cases?  Or do you acknowledge that the wish to believe such things is also required?

[Edwardo Piet]

Ha, Becca ninja'd me.

[SteveII]

This is not the place to argue these again. Do you think that these logical arguments have been defeated? There have been literally thousands of books written the these subjects. Your one line answers do nothing to change the fact that all these arguments illustrate that the notion of God is, at the very least, rational.

Regarding the second half of the list: evidence of design is not evidence? If you see a painting hanging on the wall, is that not evidence of a painter?

Wouldn't a miracle be the best evidence of all?

[rexbeccarox]

Holy fuck.

[SteveII]

While by no means exhaustive, All of the list below has been discussed anywhere from decades to millennium. Collectively they form the basis of the rational belief in the existence of God. While you can debate any or all of them, you cannot dismiss them as inconsequential to the question: does God exist.

The Kalam Cosmological argument
The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
The Ontological Argument
Origins of life
Irreducible complexity in biology
Psychological propensity to believe in God
Human consciousness
Miracles

Is it your contention that these arguments should be persuasive in all cases?  Or do you acknowledge that the wish to believe such things is also required?

My contention is that this list makes belief in God reasonable and rational. Once you have moved belief in God to rational, you can investigate various theologies and see which one (if any) makes sense of the data and experiences we have.

[Edwardo Piet]

This is not the place to argue these again. Do you think that these logical arguments have been defeated?

What part of "arguments are not evidence" do you not understand?

There have been literally thousands of books written the these subjects.

Argument from authority huh?

Your one line answers do nothing to change the fact that all these arguments illustrate that the notion of God is, at the very least, rational.

But they don't illustrate that. Arguments are not evidence.

Regarding the second half of the list: evidence of design is not evidence? If you see a painting hanging on the wall, is that not evidence of a painter?

Have you not heard of evolution? Oh fuck it I'm not arguing against this ID bullshit.

Wouldn't a miracle be the best evidence of all?

It begs the question because the miracles lack evidence as much as the God they're supposed to prove.

Done with you.

[Angrboda]

While by no means exhaustive, All of the list below has been discussed anywhere from decades to millennium. Collectively they form the basis of the rational belief in the existence of God. While you can debate any or all of them, you cannot dismiss them as inconsequential to the question: does God exist.

The Kalam Cosmological argument
The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
The Ontological Argument
Origins of life
Irreducible complexity in biology
Psychological propensity to believe in God
Human consciousness
Miracles

While you can debate them, all of these arguments tend to be unpersuasive to the non-believer, while more persuasive to those who already believe. Ignoring Antony Flew, few people are converted on the strength of these arguments alone. The common thread being that those who find these arguments persuasive already have a propensity for belief. Belief is the common ingredient, not the argument.

[Crossless2.0]

This is not the place to argue these again. Do you think that these logical arguments have been defeated?

Do you think their premises have been established as true? 

Regarding the second half of the list: evidence of design is not evidence?

When the design in question can be explained by well understood non-teleological natural processes, then the claim that the design is really the result of an intelligent agent ("God" if you wish) is arbitrary and requires evidence of its own.  Aside from your silly apples/oranges analogy of "If you see a painting hanging on the wall, is that not evidence of a painter? " what actual evidence do you have? I mean besides those logical arguments whose premises you haven't established as true?

Wouldn't a miracle be the best evidence of all?

Evidence of what exactly? That there might be freakishly rare, unexplained anomalies in nature? That the Lord Krishna has sent a sign? That hucksters can dupe people? That there is a god who happens to conform with what some followers of the Abrahamic faiths believe? That invisible imps are fucking with us? A "miracle" -- if one could be established to one's satisfaction as having happened -- starts a line of questioning that by no means necessarily stops at the doorstep of your faith.