Okay, since I was more than a little mischievous when he dumped this load, I'll make it up by taking a proper look. I don't want to go over genkaus's response, what follows is based on my own take on the subject (I hope).
I would tend to agree. The world did not come into existence on its own. Once upon a time there was a vast yet tenuous molecular cloud of gas and dust. Then one day a (relatively) nearby star exploded, seeding the cloud with elements and causing it to compress. From that point on, gravity held sway, forming first the Sun and later the rest of the Solar System around it. There's your first cause right there.
Wait a pitton-cocking minute; now we're talking about the Universe? It was the world a minute ago. I do wish you people would make up your minds, such as they are. In any case, there's no reason to think that any supernatural agency had to have been involved here either, let alone an 'intelligent' one. It's the ultimate non-sequitur; no different from me saying "My big toe is itching. It cannot itch without an exterior cause, therefore there are tiny invisible ants from Dimension X crawling on my toe." Jumping to the least-plausible explanation is hardly a rational way to behave.
Next!
Evolution is the very opposite of a random process, thus the first premise of the argument loses its legs before it gets anywhere near the starting gate. Also, there's that non-sequitur again.
Next!
Really? I would have said that a better concept of a truly perfect being would be one that is able to have all the powers of a god without existing at all. A being that is non-existent yet all-powerful would indeed be an awesome character. So the fact that God can be conceived as a non-existant being is proof that it doesn't exist.
Next!
This one has already been responded to by genkaus re: the Euthryphro Dilemma etc, so I'll just take the opportunity to say a big hello to that non-sequitur on its third showing here. I'm disappointed; I know for a fact there are many more logical fallacies to choose from. Why do we keep seeing the same ones over and over again?
(February 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm)Zakir_250 Wrote: "The cosmological argument for God's existence goes like this: The world could not have come into existence on its own; so there must have been a "first cause" that brought it into being.
I would tend to agree. The world did not come into existence on its own. Once upon a time there was a vast yet tenuous molecular cloud of gas and dust. Then one day a (relatively) nearby star exploded, seeding the cloud with elements and causing it to compress. From that point on, gravity held sway, forming first the Sun and later the rest of the Solar System around it. There's your first cause right there.
(February 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm)Zakir_250 Wrote: This "first cause" is God. In other words, without some power enabling it to come into being and supporting it to exist, the universe could not have been. This Power is God.
Wait a pitton-cocking minute; now we're talking about the Universe? It was the world a minute ago. I do wish you people would make up your minds, such as they are. In any case, there's no reason to think that any supernatural agency had to have been involved here either, let alone an 'intelligent' one. It's the ultimate non-sequitur; no different from me saying "My big toe is itching. It cannot itch without an exterior cause, therefore there are tiny invisible ants from Dimension X crawling on my toe." Jumping to the least-plausible explanation is hardly a rational way to behave.
Next!
(February 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm)Zakir_250 Wrote: The teleological argument is as follows: The universe is an entity of complex design, which suggests that it could never be the end-product of random evolution because it shows the imprint of a "great designer". That Designer is God.
Evolution is the very opposite of a random process, thus the first premise of the argument loses its legs before it gets anywhere near the starting gate. Also, there's that non-sequitur again.
Next!
(February 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm)Zakir_250 Wrote: The ontological argument can be stated in this way: God is the greatest being imaginable. One of the aspects of perfection or greatness is existence. So God exists. That is to say, the fact that God can be conceived as a perfect being is proof that He exists.
Really? I would have said that a better concept of a truly perfect being would be one that is able to have all the powers of a god without existing at all. A being that is non-existent yet all-powerful would indeed be an awesome character. So the fact that God can be conceived as a non-existant being is proof that it doesn't exist.
Next!
(February 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm)Zakir_250 Wrote: And according to the moral law argument, there are objective moral values.
Objective moral values are valid, binding values that exist independently. That is to say, they do not depend on the acceptance or non-acceptance of a person or of a group of persons."
This one has already been responded to by genkaus re: the Euthryphro Dilemma etc, so I'll just take the opportunity to say a big hello to that non-sequitur on its third showing here. I'm disappointed; I know for a fact there are many more logical fallacies to choose from. Why do we keep seeing the same ones over and over again?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
