Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[KevinM1]

No we don't.

Thanks for adding to the discussion!

You infer a designer because you cannot allow for naturally occurring complexity in your world view. Please do not speak for the rest of us. You infer a designer. We do not.

Moreover, your analogy sucks. We infer an artist or turtle placer because we can make a comparison. We know what art is, how it's constructed, and how it differs from things that are not art. We know that turtles cannot climb things. With life, we don't have that kind of comparison to make. We simply do not know if DNA is special or mundane, and to infer anything out of that ignorance is idiotic.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. There's no need to presuppose a designer. Complexity alone doesn't beget anything.

[Silver]

The fact remains there are huge leaps one must make to go from what we know

What we know for certain is that there is no evidence for god. Therefore, the leap toward the belief in god is quite the unreasonable one.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You can't just use catch-all claims like that. What you can say though is that they ignore other evidence that has firm academic support (such as Egypt was not as depicted in the Old Testament, and neither were Canaan cities).

I'm not the one making the claim. Do you understand the burden of proof? When Christians claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them. Proving a negative isn't necessary, Christianity isn't even worthy of refutation, and the same goes for other forms of theism.

There is no such thing as an invisible celestial deity who created everything.

In the Bible the God character was simply the series of men who ruled the dominant empire in the Middle Eastern area.  The word "god" was simply a user-friendly title for the guy.  

In a very real sense our rulers and governments are our gods today.  They still have the power of life and death over everyone.  They dispense benefits and misfortune.  They control us with countless laws.  They limit our access to knowledge and forbid us access to the tree of life (cloning, etc.).   A good writer could rewrite the Bible story-for-story using incidents and characters from our own time period.

[Edwardo Piet]

If we find a turtle on a fence post we infer that something put him there.

It's Beccs that put me there and it's a fence post in Tehran.

HELP. Very cold, injured, tired and hungry!

(But mostly horny).

[Whateverist]

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.

It is kind of cute that you are so concerned to establish that your belief in a god doesn't make you a total nut case.  It is neither reasonable nor rational to either believe in the existence or non-existence of gods.  No reasoning supports either position because it is poorly defined silly stuff for which no means exists to demonstrate either position. 

Why should anyone worry about such matters?

[Whateverist]

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.

Of course there are gaps in the naturalist worldview. To accept a natural worldview means living with an awareness of what you know and what you don't, not just dismissing what you don't know by assigning it to a god.

[Aractus]

Telling me in a post to get over myself all the while you could have actually addressed my post makes you look like a dickweed.

Judi, I did address your posts. If it wasn't to your satisfaction then stay on-topic please rather than complain that people ignored you. I read back through and saw no evidence of anyone ignoring your points.

If you think Christianity is a rational (but wrong) worldview, uninformed arguments are a distraction and waste of everyone's time at best. You would like to intelligently debate the points perhaps because you like the debate itself, have a genuine interest in the subject, and/or other reasons.

You nailed it.

Except that you neglected to give your definition of "wrong".

[SteveII]

Thanks for adding to the discussion!

You infer a designer because you cannot allow for naturally occurring complexity in your world view.  Please do not speak for the rest of us.  You infer a designer.  We do not.

Moreover, your analogy sucks.  We infer an artist or turtle placer because we can make a comparison.  We know what art is, how it's constructed, and how it differs from things that are not art.  We know that turtles cannot climb things.  With life, we don't have that kind of comparison to make.  We simply do not know if DNA is special or mundane, and to infer anything out of that ignorance is idiotic.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.  There's no need to presuppose a designer.  Complexity alone doesn't beget anything.

 It is absurd to say my worldview cannot allow for naturally occurring complexity. If science proves something, it must be accepted. It is the naturalistic worldview that is extremely limiting. 

How is the following an argument from ignorance?

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems. 
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts. 
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ... 

[i'm lazy. cut and pasted from the first website I found that listed it this way (I have no idea about the site itself). ]

[Cato]

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.

What factors are examined?We're blind to what came before the Big Bang. Stating that there cannot be an infinite causal chain is a lot different than claiming that chain is stopped at the moment our universe came into existence. There's absolutely no justification for this. You cannot claim as knowledge where this infinite causal chain broke, let alone know anything about this chain breaker. An uncause cause does not necessitate intelligence or the idea of God. There is absolutely no way you can get from this chain breaker argument to the lead character in your special book; it's impossible. God as portrayed in the Bible most certainly does not exist. You cannot argue this thing into existence, we know too much.

[SteveII]

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.

You're confused about the what the Kalam argument is.  The argument concludes a cause. The next step is, based on all the back and forth discussed in the premises, describe what attributes must this cause have. Important: nothing new was introduced. A description of the cause is logically developed from the premises. 

If your magic alligator is immaterial, timeless, personal cause of sufficient power to create the entirety of the universe, then you can use the argument. Most people just use the word God.