Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[SteveII]

Thank you for a reasonable discussion. 

Putting God in the pool of explanatory options is not presupposing anything. You are free to debate the premises all you want. If you want to see them properly formatted and discussed with quotes from Dawkins etc., you can see several of them here .

Yes it is because you haven't established that god exists yet, that is what your premises are supposed to prove. Kalam doesn't prove god it builds an argument around the assumption that god already exists and assumes his capabilities. You can not make an argument for god being a cause for anything until you establish that he actually exists.

Your missing the 20 paragraphs of argumentation that comes AFTER you establish that the universe had a cause. God is not just stated. Each factor is examined as to what could be the cause and not create an infinite regression. You can debate the conclusions all you want--you can't claim that the conclusion is simply "therefore God". The other arguments are similarly structured.

[Mr.wizard]

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."

Sorry, the gaps have gotten wider and wider over the past 50 years or so. Since we looked back to the beginning of the universe and looked into the cell.

The current evidence shows that these "gaps" are defects in naturalistic theories. However, that is not the important  point. Design is inferred by examining the subject and is not simply an appeal based on ignorance.

There are no actual gaps, so I am not sure how you are measuring the size of these gaps. As we learn more about the universe, the origins of life, and the evolution of life, it leads to new lines of inquiry, that is how we learn. Your approach is if you don't know something, just plug god in and your done, if we had followed this approach we would still be living in caves.

[Mr.wizard]

Yes it is because you haven't established that god exists yet, that is what your premises are supposed to prove. Kalam doesn't prove god it builds an argument around the assumption that god already exists and assumes his capabilities. You can not make an argument for god being a cause for anything until you establish that he actually exists.

Your missing the 20 paragraphs of argumentation that comes AFTER you establish that the universe had a cause. God is not just stated. Each factor is examined as to what could be the cause and not create an infinite regression. You can debate the conclusions all you want--you can't claim that the conclusion is simply "therefore God". The other arguments are similarly structured.

Im not posting the entire Kalam argument, but its easily refuted. It doesn't matter if it establishes a first cause, because they still would have to prove that god is that cause and you cant establish that god causes anything until you prove he exists first!!!! Which is why its a presuppostional argument, god must be assumed to exist first before he can be established as the cause.

[SteveII]

Any absence of evidence of evolution is not evidence of absence of evolution. And what about all the evidence that isn't absent, that does exist? The evidence for evolution is growing, and the fact scientists don't always find evidence all the time just shows that they're making the effort to look for evidence.

Why not try looking for evidence of God? Oh wait, pointless exercise.

I'm not debating evolution. The fact remains there are huge leaps one must make to go from what we know (notice I don't say theorize) to a completely naturalistic explanation all things. Nice condescension.

[Edwardo Piet]

The God of the Gaps is stupid, that's the point.

[SteveII]

Sorry, the gaps have gotten wider and wider over the past 50 years or so. Since we looked back to the beginning of the universe and looked into the cell.

The current evidence shows that these "gaps" are defects in naturalistic theories. However, that is not the important  point. Design is inferred by examining the subject and is not simply an appeal based on ignorance.

What would we be examining the subject looking for?  AFAICT it's just an appeal to ignorance.

Inferring design on something is not an appeal to ignorance. If we found a piece of art we infer an artist. If we find a turtle on a fence post we infer that something put him there. If we find 3.1 billion base pairs in a DNA strand that self-replicates, heals, manages the cell's energy factory, and work together with other cells to form systems that communicate, we infer a designer.

[KevinM1]

No we don't.

[SteveII]

Your missing the 20 paragraphs of argumentation that comes AFTER you establish that the universe had a cause. God is not just stated. Each factor is examined as to what could be the cause and not create an infinite regression. You can debate the conclusions all you want--you can't claim that the conclusion is simply "therefore God". The other arguments are similarly structured.

Im not posting the entire Kalam argument, but its easily refuted. It doesn't matter if it establishes a first cause, because they still would have to prove that god is that cause and you cant establish that god causes anything until you prove he exists first!!!! Which is why its a presuppostional argument, god must be assumed to exist first before he can be established as the cause.

Now you've lost me. If the universe has a cause, then the argument turns to what are plausible causes. An immaterial, timeless. personal cause of sufficient power to create the entirety of the universe. You can read the arguments and disagree with the conclusions by offering alternatives. What you can't do is say God was presupposed.

[SteveII]

No we don't.

Thanks for adding to the discussion!

[Mr.wizard]

Im not posting the entire Kalam argument, but its easily refuted. It doesn't matter if it establishes a first cause, because they still would have to prove that god is that cause and you cant establish that god causes anything until you prove he exists first!!!! Which is why its a presuppostional argument, god must be assumed to exist first before he can be established as the cause.

Now you've lost me. If the universe has a cause, then the argument turns to what are plausible causes. An immaterial, timeless. personal cause of sufficient power to create the entirety of the universe. You can read the arguments and disagree with the conclusions by offering alternatives. What you can't do is say God was presupposed.

Wow man, you really can't be this dense? You haven't proven god exists how could you possibly say that its a plausible explanation, I could take your argument and plug in magic alligator or universe creating turtle as the first cause, they both have the power to create the universe why are they less probable than the magic god that you made up.