Quote:I am however saying that if you're using a cosmological argument as a support for another argument, you have to make that argument as well; I'm not concluding it's fallacious before you present your support for it, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't self-evidently true, and it's also quite controversial. Introducing a theory or argument over which there is or may be legitimate dispute as if it were accepted fact is simply not going to wash.
I am playing as it were before a tough crowd and virtually nothing I can say barring producing God before there very eyes is going to convince atheists there is a God. There is a reason 80% or more identify themselves as theists and it's not just because they were brought up that way. Its because the very lines of evidence I have submitted, we convienently live in a universe that supports our life, there is life and we are sentient. We can believe this occured without plan or intent and inspite of the charge of a false dichotomy, the fact is most atheists believe our existence is attributable to happenstance. There was no plan, no intent no design (according to atheists) that the universe, life and sentient life came into existence and in our daily experience if something isn't by design or plan then its by happenstance. What I don't get is this, you have been critical of my arguments since I first posted...but as yet I haven't seen you raise any criticism of the counter arguments in here though lord knows you could find as much fault with their counter arguments as you do mine. Or am I to believe all their counter arguments thus far have been sound and logical and only my arguments fallacious?
Quote:Yes, true, I was skipping ahead a bit because I participated in the "Let's say that science proves that God exists" thread where you appeared to be making the same argument that you are now. Since you've made it explicit, I have to ask, in the interest of fairness, are the things you said in that other thread still true and valid and fair representations of your beliefs about these questions? Are there any parts to that argument that you made there which you specifically want excluded from consideration, and why? Does the current argument you are making differ in any substantial respect such that we should treat the two arguments as separate, and if so, in what way?
I plan to present two more lines of evidence, the last one being the fine-tuning argument but I thought I'd lay down the foundation first, then make a closing argument.
