Greetings,I commence open challenge to anyone

[Grehoman Ebenezer]

Also with the cosmological argument, even if we both agreed there needs to be a divine creator, there's still a chasm between "divine creator" and "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life". I don't know what the point of arguing that even is.

logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.I think I know what your asking,How does the cosmological argument support the existence of God?
In his "The Fundamental Question of Metaphysics," Martin Heidegger asks the primary question in philosophy, which is: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? The question may seem abstract at first, but the essential issues Heidegger raises are ones that we all will wrestle with at some point. Why are we here and where has everything that we know come from? 

It should first be pointed out that the atheist and the theist both believe in the eternal. As succinctly pointed out by the great theologian Jonathan Edwards, you must go back to something that is eternal because, as Edwards put it, 

• Something exists

• You don't get something from nothing

• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist

The atheist claims that the eternal 'something' is the natural universe; whereas the theist says an eternal Creator brought everything we know into existence. The question then becomes, which possibility is supported by the best evidence? 

Scientists are unequivocal in their response that the universe we know and live in is not eternal. Every intellectually honest drop of evidence points to the fact that the universe – at some point in the past – exploded out of nothing into what we know today. 

Anything that has a beginning (such as our universe) cannot be eternal and therefore must have a cause beyond and/or behind it. The Scottish skeptic David Hume admitted as much when he wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause." This truth can be put into the following series of logical statements: 

• Everything that begins to exist must have a cause

• The universe began to exist

• Therefore, the universe had a cause
Because there are only two, eternal 'somethings' that are possible – the universe and a Creator – and one of them has been ruled out by all the evidence we have, a reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the cause for why we have something rather than nothing at all. This line of argumentation is often called the cosmological argument for the existence of God. 
However, critics have tried to attack this argument in two general, philosophical ways. The first has been through asking the question, "If everything needs a cause, then who caused God?" The British skeptic, Bertrand Russell (influenced by philosopher J. S. Mill), tried to argue against the cosmological argument in just such a fashion. However, both Russell and Mill commit two errors when they attempt to undo the cosmological argument. First, they commit the logical error of a category mistake – you cannot cause the uncaused or create the uncreated. Second, the cosmological argument does not say that everything needs a cause, but only those things that have a beginning. God, who has no beginning and is uncaused, needs no cause. 

The second attack on the cosmological argument has come from atheistic scientists who have proposed other possible causes for our universe. The two main options put forth are the multi-verse (multiple universes) hypothesis and the quantum mechanics theory that purports things can arise and come into existence without a cause. 

However, both alternatives fail when studied closely. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has scientifically proven that that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called "multiverse" composed of many universes, the multiverse must have had an absolute beginning. In other words, it also requires a cause. 

As for the quantum mechanics proposal, it is simply not true that things begin to exist from nothing in a quantum mechanics environment. Anything arising results from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, which is not "nothing" by definition. Instead, it comes from energy that is locked in the vacuum, which is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws having a physical structure. No evidence suggests that things come into being from nothing in quantum mechanics. 

Both the multiverse and quantum mechanics arguments are examples of what in philosophy is called "drowning the fish." You can use all the water in the oceans in an attempt to drown the fish, but in the end, it will still be there affirming its existence and presence. 

In the end, the cosmological argument for God stands intact. The reason we have something rather than nothing is because, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (). Rather than being defeated by modern science (as is the eternal universe claim), the opening line of the Bible is supported by science. Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaeffer says, "A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis."

Dr. John Lennox sums up the overall matter of the cosmological argument well when he writes: "There are not many options – essentially just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second."

[Iroscato]

As far as argument from design goes, I've heard that people say the universe must be created because everything is so complex. Except that when somethign is designed intelligently, it's generally as simple and efficient as possible. In fact many inventions are just more simple and efficient versions of things we already use. So why would complexity be an indication of intelligent design?

The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.So you said why would complexity be an indication of an intelligent design,simple,because the more complex something,the more knowledge is required in order to make the,thing/object,for example we human's are complex but yet simple,we don't make a noise when we move.The word teleology comes from telos, which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so, where we see things obviously intended for a purpose, we can assume that those things were made for a reason. In other words, a design implies a designer. We instinctively make these connections all the time. The difference between the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore is obvious—one is designed, one is not. The Grand Canyon was clearly formed by non-rational, natural processes, whereas Mount Rushmore was clearly created by an intelligent being—a designer. When we are walking on a beach and find a wristwatch, we do not assume that time and random chance produced the watch from blowing sand. Why? Because it has the clear marks of design—it has a purpose, it conveys information, it is specifically complex, etc. In no scientific field is design considered to be spontaneous; it always implies a designer, and the greater the design, the greater the designer. Thus, taking the assumptions of science, the universe would require a designer beyond itself (i.e., a supernatural designer).

The teleological argument applies this principle to the whole universe. If designs imply a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was designed. Clearly, every life form in Earth's history has been highly complex. A single strand of DNA equates to one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The human brain has approximately 10 billion gigabytes of capacity. Besides living things here on Earth, the whole universe seems designed for life. Literally hundreds of conditions are required for life on Earth—everything from the mass density of the universe down to earthquake activity must be fine-tuned in order for life to survive. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination. The odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we are simply an accident. In fact, top atheist/philosopher Antony Flew's recent conversion to theism was based largely on this argument.

In addition to demonstrating God's existence, the teleological argument exposes shortcomings in the theory of evolution. The  movement in science applies information theory to life systems and shows that chance cannot even begin to explain life’s complexity. In fact, even single-celled bacteria are so complex that, without all of their parts working together at the same time, they would have no survival potential. That means those parts could not have developed by chance. Darwin recognized that this might be a problem someday just by looking at the human eye. Little did he know that even single-celled creatures have too much complexity to explain without a creator!

A quick google of one paragraph of this rambling arsefungus reveals it is total copypasta. Unless you're here to give Randy a run for his money, kindly do not waste people's time.

[Grehoman Ebenezer]

The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.So you said why would complexity be an indication of an intelligent design,simple,because the more complex something,the more knowledge is required in order to make the,thing/object,for example we human's are complex but yet simple,we don't make a noise when we move.The word teleology comes from telos, which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so, where we see things obviously intended for a purpose, we can assume that those things were made for a reason. In other words, a design implies a designer. We instinctively make these connections all the time. The difference between the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore is obvious—one is designed, one is not. The Grand Canyon was clearly formed by non-rational, natural processes, whereas Mount Rushmore was clearly created by an intelligent being—a designer. When we are walking on a beach and find a wristwatch, we do not assume that time and random chance produced the watch from blowing sand. Why? Because it has the clear marks of design—it has a purpose, it conveys information, it is specifically complex, etc. In no scientific field is design considered to be spontaneous; it always implies a designer, and the greater the design, the greater the designer. Thus, taking the assumptions of science, the universe would require a designer beyond itself (i.e., a supernatural designer).

The teleological argument applies this principle to the whole universe. If designs imply a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was designed. Clearly, every life form in Earth's history has been highly complex. A single strand of DNA equates to one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The human brain has approximately 10 billion gigabytes of capacity. Besides living things here on Earth, the whole universe seems designed for life. Literally hundreds of conditions are required for life on Earth—everything from the mass density of the universe down to earthquake activity must be fine-tuned in order for life to survive. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination. The odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we are simply an accident. In fact, top atheist/philosopher Antony Flew's recent conversion to theism was based largely on this argument.

In addition to demonstrating God's existence, the teleological argument exposes shortcomings in the theory of evolution. The  movement in science applies information theory to life systems and shows that chance cannot even begin to explain life’s complexity. In fact, even single-celled bacteria are so complex that, without all of their parts working together at the same time, they would have no survival potential. That means those parts could not have developed by chance. Darwin recognized that this might be a problem someday just by looking at the human eye. Little did he know that even single-celled creatures have too much complexity to explain without a creator!

A quick google of one paragraph of this rambling arsefungus reveals it is total copypasta. Unless you're here to give Randy a run for his money, kindly do not waste people's time.

 
Well you can't expect me to remember everything and beside's am not fool to waste all my time typing,if ignorant atheist's are just going ignore it,am looking for honest atheists who want's to listen and is looking for truth's about God,so that's why I use the internet,some atheist's try to change the subject all the time.

---

[Simon Moon]

Well you can't expect me to remember everything and beside's am not fool to waste all my time typing,if ignorant atheist's are just going ignore it,am looking for honest atheists who want's to listen and is looking for truth's,so that's why I use the internet,some atheist's try to change the subject all the time.

Why not?

I can remember every refutation for all your fallacious arguments.

[JesusHChrist]

Interesting how the English skill level waxes and wanes with the amount of plagiarism involved.

Sonny, I don't think Jesus likes a plagiarist. Certainly a hell-bound worthy offense!

Repent, before it is too late!

[Grehoman Ebenezer]

Well you can't expect me to remember everything and beside's am not fool to waste all my time typing,if ignorant atheist's are just going ignore it,am looking for honest atheists who want's to listen and is looking for truth's,so that's why I use the internet,some atheist's try to change the subject all the time.

Why not?

I can remember every refutation for all your fallacious arguments.

Just because,you can doesn't mean that I can,humans are different,changing the subject is what your attempting.

[drfuzzy]

"Well you can't expect me to remember everything and beside's am not fool to waste all my time typing,if ignorant atheist's are just going ignore it,am looking for honest atheists who want's to listen and is looking for truth's,so that's why I use the internet,some atheist's try to change the subject all the time."

Just in case you aren't aware of skills taught in high school:  copy and paste from any source without citation is plagiarism.  It also happens to be illegal in almost any country.   If you are going to copy and paste, at LEAST tell us who wrote it and where you got it.

Looking for truth on the internet?  With preachers roaming around on the internet, and conspiracy theorists, and cult leaders, and pedophiles and . . .   

[Exian]

This ones priceless. Not only is it a strawman, but it's a bit too wordy for a Christian's liking. Lets see if we can reduce it some: Magic. There we go. Now pay me money so you don't go to hell.

Also, are you aware that Dr. House there is an atheist? Or was that your point?

[JesusHChrist]

Also, are you aware that Dr. House there is an atheist? Or was that your point?

Irony is a bitch.

[Cyberman]

So is Hugh Laurie, the guy playing him. An atheist, that is; not a bitch.