Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[Edwardo Piet]

 Ignoring Antony Flew[...]

I used to ignore him too. Until I realized he wasn't a true Scotsman.

[Mr.wizard]

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

None of those you listed are evidence of god, to get god from any of those things you must presuppose it's existence.

[SteveII]

Evie-- thank you for your short glib answers.

Each argument contains premises built on evidence and observations. A conclusion can be drawn. It may not even be a certainty--perhaps just a preponderance of the evidence. Note the word evidence used several times.

Noting that there have been thousands of books on a subject is not an argument from authority. I was perhaps unclear in my meaning of my sentence. I was pointing out that unless you have read extensively on the subject and have some new insight previously not thought of, you saying so does not solve the debate.

I have heard of evolution. Have they figured out the origin of life and irreducible complexity yet? How about how/why consciousness exists.

What miracles lack evidence? Are you saying that there never what a miracle? How do you know that?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ SteveII:

Done with you.

Not in the mood to deal with this God of the gaps and question begging bullshit.

I already addressed what you're reiterating.

[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

None of those you listed are evidence of god, to get god from any of those things you must presuppose it's existence.

That is not true. I would only have to consider God in the pool of explanatory options. Then you examine each topic and see what the argument or evidence indicates as a more probably explanation. I am not saying they will be conclusive. I am saying that in most cases, the preponderance of the evidence at the very lease indicates that belief in God is rational. It is only the atheist who has limited the pool of explanatory options to one thing: naturalism.

[Mr.wizard]

Evie-- thank you for your short glib answers.

Each argument contains premises built on evidence and observations. A conclusion can be drawn. It may not even be a certainty--perhaps just a preponderance of the evidence. Note the word evidence used several times.

Noting that there have been thousands of books on a subject is not an argument from authority. I was perhaps unclear in my meaning of my sentence. I was pointing out that unless you have read extensively on the subject and have some new insight previously not thought of, you saying so does not solve the debate.

I have heard of evolution.  Have they figured out the origin of life and irreducible complexity yet? How about how/why consciousness exists.

What miracles lack evidence? Are you saying that there never what a miracle? How do you know that?

It doesn't matter if the premise is built on evidence or even if its true, if it doesn't lead to the conclusion then its irrelevant. That's like saying Premise 1: I'm holding a red pen, Premise 2: the pen contains red ink, Conclusion: God. Both premises are true and can be proven but they don't prove god. They must presuppose a god, they are trying to use their conclusion to prove their premises instead of the other way around.

[Mr.wizard]

None of those you listed are evidence of god, to get god from any of those things you must presuppose it's existence.

That is not true. I would only have to consider God in the pool of explanatory options. Then you examine each topic and see what the argument or evidence indicates as a more probably explanation. I am not saying they will be conclusive. I am saying that in most cases, the preponderance of the evidence at the very lease indicates that belief in God is rational. It is only the atheist who has limited the pool of explanatory options to one thing: naturalism.

No the logical approach is to follow the evidence, your making up the answers you want to choose from, how is that not presuppositional?

[SteveII]

@ SteveII:

Done with you.

Not in the mood to deal with this God of the gaps and question begging bullshit.

I already addressed what you're reiterating.

The old "god of the gaps" deflection to cover up the increasingly large gaps in the naturalist worldview. Damn science for uncovering the mind-boggling complexities of life, the origins of the universe, or the fine tuning. Don't you wish for the days before we knew of the big bang, the universe's constants, or when evolution was thought to be able to explain everything.

[Minimalist]

And in those times your bible was still primitive bullshit designed to scare goat herders.

[Edwardo Piet]

Actually the gaps are shrinking of course, because more and more fossils are being found.

But the strongest evidence comes from DNA anyway!

"Oh look, we've found a gap because science isn't perfect, let's stick God's nonexistent butt in there."