Evidence: The Gathering

[Esquilax]

So, for the past couple of months, I've been listening to skeptics saying, "Show me the evidence, show me the evidence" again and again as if by repetition, they can somehow ward off seeing the existence of God, the existence of Jesus and the resurrection.

Yeah, it's actually pretty gross when you begin every single thread you make by impugning the character and motivation of everyone who might disagree with you in advance. If your arguments are as good as you think they are, why resort to poisoning the well like this?

Philosophical Arguments
Throughout history, many efforts have been made to prove or disprove the existence of God, and most of these efforts have been discarded. However, there are number of philosophical arguments which have withstood the tests of time and of criticism. The believer only needs one of these arguments to be true while the skeptic must refute all of them thoroughly; if any one of them remains intact after scrutiny, then the existence of God has been proven.

I'm going to bounce through all of these real quick, since this stuff's kinda my wheelhouse. However, I'll object right away to your "if you can't prove all of these wrong, then god exists," framing, because that is a shifting of the burden of proof. Anyway, here we go:

The Argument from Change

The biggest problem here is that it doesn't actually argue for the thing it purports to argue for: "Everything that changes needs an outside force to act upon it," does not lead to god, because "outside force," does not necessarily have to be god. In fact, every single outside force that is listed as an example in the article you linked to is not god, so it's not like you didn't already know that. You're arguing, at best, for a huge set of potential outside forces, and then declaring by fiat that the only one it could be is god.

The other problem, even if we accept the argument as written, is that it's a composition fallacy: "This observation is true within the universe, therefore it's true of the universe as a whole." Well, no, because the causality that effects change is itself a part of the universe, and does not necessarily apply beyond it. The basis that frames this argument is not necessarily true, may in fact be false, and the argument offers no justification for picking one over the other. It just assumes that whatever state of existence needs to be true for the argument is so.

This is something that has "withstood criticism," has it?

The Argument from Efficient Causality

This is basically just Kalam again, but it also happily contains its own refutation right there in its premises: "Everything needs a cause to exist, and all causes are things themselves. Therefore, you need an uncaused cause to begin causing things." If the argument is proposing as its conclusion a thing that has no cause, then the premise that everything needs a cause is untrue, and the argument has destroyed itself. The argument as formulated cannot lead to the conclusion it presents, therefore it is flawed.

Additionally, there's the same fallacy of composition as the first argument: "Things within the universe require this specific kind of causation, therefore everything everywhere does."

The Argument from Time and Contingency

This argument is so flawed that it's actually hard for me to formulate a concise response to it. Briefly though: the second premise has absolutely no justification and does not follow. The fifth premise, which the rest of the argument hangs from, begins with an "if" that it never seeks to answer, it just assumes that yes, the universe did have a beginning, when in fact modern cosmology does not ascribe to this. The sixth premise "from nothing, nothing comes," is factually incorrect at the quantum level, and the final premise is an absolutely unjustified assertion that a "necessary being" would have to be god, which is simply untrue. Further, you're a Catholic, Randy, and so you're stapling on a whole lot of other attributes to this god that also aren't present in this argument. You get nowhere with this one.

The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

Ugh, there are still so many of these things.

Ha ha, this one sounds like Deepak fucking Chopra, and you still thought this was cogent, Randy? Jeez.

Anyway, put simply, the conclusion does not follow: "We rank things on a scale, therefore something at the perfect end of the scale must exist, therefore god." Come on, seriously?

The Design Argument

Are you serious?

Okay, so... I don't even know why I need to respond to such a lazily formulated argument, but apparently I do, so: The "intelligent design/random chance" thing is a false dichotomy which the writer does not even attempt to justify by eliminating all other possibilities, and the third premise of the argument is nothing more than "It's not chance," based on absolutely nothing. I don't know why I should have to point out that "nuh uh!" is not an argument, nor why you think an argument that erects a false dichotomy and then simply demands that one of the prongs isn't correct is in any way cogent, but here we are.

Furthermore, the writer attempts to shift the burden of proof by saying we need an alternative to design, as if his god is the baseline assumption, which it isn't, and he also asserts that chance is not a sufficient alternative, based on nothing at all.

Why is this something I have to do for you, Randy? You're smarter than this, algae is smarter than this.

The Kalam Argument

We've discussed this before: there is no evidence that the universe began to exist, and modern science does not lean in that direction, and so it's not a premise that can be seriously countenanced yet. More study needs to occur, but until that happens, Kalam simply is not viable.

The Argument from Contingency

Again, here's an argument that doesn't get to god, and yet has god shoehorned lazily into its conclusion by fiat.

More specifically, premise five isn't necessarily true: in multiverse models, what it takes to create our universe could indeed exist within space and time, for one. For another, the conclusion as written does not lead to god: "There must exist something timeless and spaceless," isn't even a coherent concept, but even if it was, it wouldn't need to be your specific christian god. Hell, any other religion could use that as confirmation of their god, if you're going to set the bar that low. If an argument can be used for every god, then it's useless for use with any particular god.

The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole

*Sigh* Or, alternately, one could logically conclude that each individual element of the universe would interact with every other element in some way (assuming one accepts that "no reaction," can itself be listed as a way to interact) and that it's impossible for two elements to interact without one of those things happening, meaning that they would not need to be designed as individual parts of a pre-planned whole in order to interact, period. The base premise of this argument ("the entire universe acts as one big whole") is never argued, merely asserted, and the alternative makes perfect sense on its own.

The Argument from Miracles

I do not take the assertion that miracles happen seriously without corresponding evidence, and the argument provides none.

And no, a Youtube video is not evidence of a supernatural claim.

Oh, and incidentally? The last part of the argument? "The only adequate cause of miracles is god,"? Interesting how they didn't see fit to justify or demonstrate that little tidbit.

The Argument from Consciousness

Again, the design/chance argument is a false dichotomy, and is in fact demonstrably untrue because evolution does not work via blind chance, and it is responsible for the minds that apprehend the universe. So, the argument is wrong already, but premise three is the same "it isn't chance," fiat command that one prong of the false dichotomy isn't true that we saw before. If you wouldn't accept an argument from me where, say, "It isn't god," or "Randy is wrong," is one of the premises, unsupported, then you cannot accept this premise here.

The Argument from Truth

Premise two is factually incorrect: "Truth" is a conceptual label that we place upon accurate observations about reality, nothing more. The idea that truth resides in the mind is technically true, in that respect, but by the same token truth does not need to exist, nor is the idea that it persists beyond our own existence ever justified in this argument. Without that, there's no need for the eternal mind related in the last premise: the basis of the argument is, yet again, unjustified and unnecessary.

The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

The idea that "no effect can be greater than its cause," is bullshit, and to prove that I present landslides, in which one small pebble can move and cause a huge deluge of rocks and destruction. I also present nuclear bombs, where the cause is the pushing of a button, and the effect is the destruction of a city. Effects, larger than causes.

Moreover, I don't buy into this idea that there's no way a human could come up with an infinite being without that thing actually existing, because "person that can do anything," is not a weird concept. Besides, not all things we conceptualize are real or based in things outside of us: Invisibility as a concept exists, and yet nothing is invisible. Even things that aren't visible to the naked eye are still visible with the correct equipment. This argument is simply wrong.

The Ontological Argument

The Moral Argument

You can't simply demand that objective moral obligations exist and expect me to take you seriously. "Because I said so!" is not valid argumentation.

The Argument from Conscience

The framing here is ridiculous, that one is bound absolutely to follow their conscience, or that it is morally good to do so: some people's consciences allow for them to murder other people. Should they follow their consciences alone even when that option is open to them? No sane person would answer yes, and thus the premise that nobody believes it to be good to disobey your conscience is falsified.

Argument over.

The Argument from Desire

So... where is the demonstration of premise two, exactly?

Oh, right right: "Because I said so."

The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

...

The Argument from Religious Experience

Premise two is useless, because "I don't think so many people could be wrong about their experiences with the divine," doesn't mean anything. So what if you don't think they could be wrong? Can you demonstrate that they aren't?

"Because I said so," again? Really?

The Common Consent Argument

"The argumentum ad populum fallacy."

Pascal's Wager (not technically an argument for God existence)

You also stand to lose the same amount if you don't believe in Fleechy, the atheist god who sends all theists to the same eternal hell that you believe your god sends people to, to be ironic. Sure, there's no evidence for Fleechy, but since Pascal's Wager concerns itself with your potential losses and gains, rather than evidence, then Fleechy should equally be a part of the Wager, right?

Okay, I'm done. Gotta congratulate you, Randy: never before have I read a theist resource that has written so much, while saying so little.