(November 25, 2012 at 3:17 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: l) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.
Wrong. You are ignoring any and all self-initiated motion.
(November 25, 2012 at 3:17 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: 2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.
Wrong. Its the same argument as the first one - just in different words.
(November 25, 2012 at 3:17 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: 3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.
Wrong again. Absence of necessary being does not imply "there would've been nothing at some point". Further, even if there is such a thing as a necessary being, it may not be intelligent or sentient - ergo, not necessarily god.
(November 25, 2012 at 3:17 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: 4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.
Wrong. See Marmoutiers' perfect island analogy as refutation of Anselm's argument
(November 25, 2012 at 3:17 am)journeyinghowie Wrote: 5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God
Wrong. Circular reasoning. You assume an intelligent purpose behind the design from the get-go. The hole in the ground is not perfectly designed for the shape of the puddle in it.
What amazes me the most is the sheer stupidity and ignorance of religitards like you. These arguments are not new - in fact, they've been around for hundreds of years. And they have been summarily refuted since the moment of their conception - something you can easily find out by a simple google search. And yet you continue to present them again and again as if it is some new and amazing wisdom.
