(December 10, 2015 at 10:50 am)Cato Wrote:(December 10, 2015 at 10:23 am)SteveII Wrote: If your magic alligator is immaterial, timeless, personal cause of sufficient power to create the entirety of the universe, then you can use the argument. Most people just use the word God.
Are you to have us believe that the creators of Bible stories made the cosmological argument and the most reasonable conclusion Based on all known facts is the content of the Bible? If so , you're being hilariously disingenuous. The best you could ever achieve with this approach is a deist' god, but that is still a conclusion troubled by argument from ignorance. "I don't know; therefore God". Again, you cannot get from here to Jehovah, you can't.
The reality is that the Bible is a compilation of stories passed down from ignorants. The cosmological argument and similar others are post hoc arguments that attempt to keep your favorite deity out of the unemployment line like all the others. It's absurd, yet you try to use the same that God is arrived at methodologically; history betrays you.
No the authors of the 66 books of the Bible did not base their belief in God on the cosmological argument. They based it on other things. You'll have to look into each one to see what exactly. The cosmological (and other) arguments give Christians a measure of confidence and logical defense from people who say stupid things like "compilation of stories passed down from ignorants". If arguments and evidence suggest there probably is a God, the next step is to examine if that God has interacted in some other way with man.