The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[zebo-the-fat]

Well, yes, it does make us happy, even in this life, and eternally in the next. Thus, as Paschal said, even if we are wrong, and you Atheists right, we Christians lose nothing. We had happily married lives, which often made us far happier than those living in the prostitution that is fornication. We had children, and we loved them, while many Atheists, not believing any longer in God or in sin, aborted and killed their children, and thus had no one to take care of them in their old age. Even in this life, we lost nothing. But then Eternity begins, with Eternal Pleasure, or Eternal Pain, Eternal Happiness, or Eternal Misery etc.

Ok, do tell us, then, what exactly is Evolution and what does it claim: Evolutionists always claim we don't really understand their Theory, because when we state it for what it frankly is, it seems frankly absurd and ridiculous. That's because Macro-Evolution is indeed frankly absurd and ridiculous. Not Micro-Evolution, which every Creation Scientist and ID Theorist including Dr. Craig acknowledges to have taken place. And others like Dr. Denton etc, who are highly critical of Evolution. As his book "Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis" shows.

So, define Evolution for us in one or two sentences, especially as it pertains to Apes and Men.

Finally, the Kalam stands unrefuted. We need some clear counter-examples that something really come from nothing because of nothing before we can dump Premise 1 of the Kalam. The Universe's finite age shows it had a beginning. Those 2 premises alone, by themselves, are sufficient to reach the conclusion that the Universe is a Creature, i.e. that it had a Creator. And the rest logically follows, this Creator is Eternal, because it precedes time, is Omnipresent, because it precedes the creation of spatial locations etc, and it is indeed known that all of space-time had a Big Bang Beginning. As someone pointed out, Fr. Georges Lemaitre was indeed the first proponent of the Big Bang Theory - but today that Christian Theory has widespread acceptance in the Scientific Community. Tough for Atheists, maybe, but this is Science in Action enlightening humankind back on the ancient Way toward God.

Grace be with you all.

"So, define Evolution for us in one or two sentences, especially as it pertains to Apes and Men."
Both apes and men had a common ancestor, apes did not "turn into" men, I suggest you read some books on biology rather than the fairy stories you prefer

"We had happily married lives, which often made us far happier than those living in the prostitution that is fornication"
What makes you conflate atheism with prostitution??
I have been happily married to the same woman for 35 years, never (knowingly) even met a prostitute!

[Istvan]

The appeal of logical arguments for the existence of God has always escaped me. Essentially they're just ad hoc rationalizations. It's not like anyone, ever, has decided to profess religious belief simply because they were convinced by a syllogism anyway. And it's not like anyone has ever lost faith because they detected weaknesses in such arguments either.

To my way of thinking if God isn't a living, actual presence in your life, then no amount of rational theology is going to make a difference. 

Incidentally, I've long thought William Lane Craig is a charlatan. I know he's the only living philosopher that atheists can name, but he embarrasses me. I saw him debate poor Sam Harris on whether there could be a secular morality, and all Craig did was repeatedly deny that Harris had made his case ---strictly on the basis that Craig was there to argue against it. He didn't even bother to move the goalposts, his refutation was that lazy.

[arewethereyet]

I think that JJoseph, of the House of Random Capitalization, is here by invitation. Also think that neil plays into this trinity. Will be watching to see how things unfold.

[Foxaèr]

It has always been easy for theists to make the claim of god's existence without any corroborative evidence for stated being's existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Step one is a fallacy of composition. Step two is an unsupported assertion. Step three inherits these problems….and step 4 doesn’t follow from anything in steps one, two, or three.

The question isn’t whether or not this argument can be refuted. In fact, there’s only one successful argument for gods in all of theological history. The question is whether people argue themselves into theism in the first place, and…if they do, whether the quality of the arguments are critical to the phenomenon. You could probably come up with a credible argument for veganism if you tried…and that might give me a moment of pause before I take the next bite of steak. A moment long enough to really appreciate that next bite.

[neil]

I think that JJoseph, of the House of Random Capitalization, is here by invitation.  Also think that neil plays into this trinity.  Will be watching to see how things unfold.

Not sure what you mean by this - please explain.

I used to be on Debate Politics online forum, and before that I was on Defending The Truth online forum (exact same username). If you want to find out more about me, search for my posts on those forums & you'll find that my positions here on this forum match my positions on those other forums.

I used to be active on other forums as well, such as Ron Paul Forums and The Zeitgeist Movement online forums (no longer exists), but I had different usernames on those.

[Deesse23]

Here, we are speaking of Christianity-Atheism only, or Christianity vis a vis Atheism.

Are we, or is the troll just moving goalposts?
And Pascal would still be wrong. You would have found out why, if you read my original reply closely, which you obviously didnt, or pretend you didnt. which one was it?

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be extremely unwise to tie a cosmological argument to any specific brand of theism. For example, some Christian’s take a position on the Big Bang because they believe it supports their view of creation ex nihilo. It doesn’t…but let’s run with it. If it is on the force of this evidence that a Christian may believe, then would those Christian’s abandon Christianity for Hinduism or any of the many contemporary forms of paganism should the evidence for what caused the Big Bang lead to a cyclical universe?

To a great extent, that’s how the only successful argument gets there. By positing nothing about the nature of god or a list of its actions in the world. Each of those specific claims are vulnerabilities. Mortal ones, thus far. Did it create the universe? Unnecessary to the status of its existence. Out of nothing or something? Again, a sideline that adds nothing but additional avenues for defeat. Must things begin to exist, or begin to exist a certain way through explicit inference? Even more fundamental difficulties to argue on that one than the status of any whatsit in existence.

Does any of that really matter, though? Do believers actually consider these things when they…allegedly….rationalize their faiths? Or do “arguments for gods” serve the same social and cognitive purpose as cantrips, spells, and ritual incantation?

[Angrboda]

As Dr. Craig rightly remarks, Atheism is worse than Magic, because at least with Magic, you have the Magician and the Hat! But atheists take far greater leaps of faith to uphold their theory, and claim entire Universe can just pop into existence out of nothing. If that could happen, why not rabbits from hats?

The Emotional Non-Rational Atheist: Everything just magically created itself from nothing out of nothing by nothing.

The Calm, Logical Christian Theist: Since everything created has a Creator, and the Universe is shown to be created because it had a beginning, therefore the Universe had a Creator. This Truth of Christian Revelation is also, now in this 21st century at least, a Truth of Logical Reason confirmed by Empirical Science.

Grace be with you.

Dr. Craig has to contort physics into unconventional positions to accommodate his argument. When you have to change the laws of physics to make your argument, something is wrong.

[Angrboda]

Is there a course that the godiboi warriors take that teaches them how to completely misunderstand everything?

Why do all these major asshats all have the same exact inability to comprehend?

I suspect there is such a course, or courses, plural.