Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[athrock]

While by no means exhaustive, All of the list below has been discussed anywhere from decades to millennium. Collectively they form the basis of the rational belief in the existence of God. While you can debate any or all of them, you cannot dismiss them as inconsequential to the question: does God exist.

The Kalam Cosmological argument

Not evidence (arguments are not evidence); first you have to prove the premise that everything must have a creator.

The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

See above.

The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties

Again, see above.

The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning

... (see above)

The Ontological Argument

... (really?)

Here is an important definition:

"Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method."

Is there another kind of evidence which is based upon logic and reason? Sure. In an article on Evidence (law), Wikipedia describes it this way:

"Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that implies the existence of the main fact in question, but does not in itself prove it. The existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning. [emphasis added] The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints or DNA sample are examples of circumstantial evidence. The fact that a defendant had a motive to commit a crime is also circumstantial evidence. In an important sense, however, all evidence is merely circumstantial because no evidence can prove a fact in the absence of one or more inferences."

So, you may not LIKE the fact that arguments such as the Moral Argument are not empirical, but they are valid means to deduce the the existence of a supreme being "by a process of probable reasoning."

And that's why they have to be considered carefully and not treated dismissively.

---

This is not the place to argue these again. Do you think that these logical arguments have been defeated?

What part of "arguments are not evidence" do you not understand?

The part where you erroneously assert that "arguments are not evidence."

---

While by no means exhaustive, All of the list below has been discussed anywhere from decades to millennium. Collectively they form the basis of the rational belief in the existence of God. While you can debate any or all of them, you cannot dismiss them as inconsequential to the question: does God exist.

The Kalam Cosmological argument
The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
The Ontological Argument
Origins of life
Irreducible complexity in biology
Psychological propensity to believe in God
Human consciousness
Miracles

While you can debate them, all of these arguments tend to be unpersuasive to the non-believer, while more persuasive to those who already believe.  Ignoring Antony Flew, few people are converted on the strength of these arguments alone.  The common thread being that those who find these arguments persuasive already have a propensity for belief.  Belief is the common ingredient, not the argument.

Do we ignore Dr. Edward Feser, also? And I got his name from a Google search that took mere seconds. LOTS of atheists and agnostics begin the path to faith by an honest evaluation of the information that is available for consideration.

Among the reasons that freethinkers convert are the following factors (in no particular order):

• Reading good books
  
• Studying the historical record of the gospels
  
• Honest philosophical reasoning
  
• Experimentation with prayer and reading the Bible
  

(To be fair, I could list reasons people leave religion, too, but I'm simply pointing out that I think your assessment of the role of philosophical arguments underestimates their importance.)