Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of?

[masterofpuppets]

So, this is a question I must ask.

Why can't the Big Bang be the first cause/prime mover?

For my money, the big bang cannot be the first ever cause of all time because you must explain how conditions could ever have reached such a compressed condition as well as what finally triggered its expansion.  Multiverses are the only alternative, unless you prefer supernatural origin stories.

While it is true that immediately after the Big Bang, the Universe was in an ultra-dense state, we cannot actually confirm that the Universe was in such a state before the Big Bang. Neither can we confirm that the Big Bang was, in actuality, triggered by something. All we know is that the Big Bang happened. It doesn't follow that the Big Bang necessarily requires a cause. Cause and effect are temporal phenomena, and time as we know it only began to exist at the Big Bang.

[RoadRunner79]

The argument in a better form, states that everything that begins to exist, has a cause...the argument does not say that everything requires a cause; only that which begins to exist. 

That's true enough, but that formulation at least appears to beg the question. The qualifier "begins to exist" already implies something that didn't begin to exist, which is the conclusion of the argument, i.e. there must be something that did not begin to exist. Also it doesn't establish that the thing that didn't begin to exist has any causal power. I'm not saying those are fatal flaws, but it is enough ambiguity to justifies skepticism. Personally, I think the 1W of Aquinas avoids both these problems since it relies on an already established continuum between potential and actual existence - taken from Aristotle's Metaphysics Zeta. I suppose the notion of "beginning to exist" could be derived from Aristotle although I haven't looked into that possibility.

While they may be related in the scope of investigation, I think that these two arguments are answering different questions.   The KCA certainly allows for, but doesn't come to the conclusion, that the cause of the universe is the prime mover of Aquinas's arguments.  I don't know if I have heard of an argument that does. And likewise, I think that the KCA addresses things which the 1W does not.   The Kalam and it's extended arguments infer certain attributes which do match the description of one who has claimed to be the cause of the universe.  Where as I see the 1W as arguing against an infinite regress in the causal chain.  

As to those who question causal sufficiency... I am amazed that people who believe in science actually question this.   I don't know if it is considered properly basic, or if there are arguments for it. But I have never felt the need to question it, or seen any make the case that I should.   And without reason, I don't take those who do (usually only in special circumstances; I might add) very seriously.

[Whateverist]

For my money, the big bang cannot be the first ever cause of all time because you must explain how conditions could ever have reached such a compressed condition as well as what finally triggered its expansion.  Multiverses are the only alternative, unless you prefer supernatural origin stories.

While it is true that immediately after the Big Bang, the Universe was in an ultra-dense state, we cannot actually confirm that the Universe was in such a state before the Big Bang. Neither can we confirm that the Big Bang was, in actuality, triggered by something. All we know is that the Big Bang happened. It doesn't follow that the Big Bang necessarily requires a cause. Cause and effect are temporal phenomena, and time as we know it only began to exist at the Big Bang.

So we've been told but I question that.  Time within the phenomena associated with this bang only begins to exist as such at that moment.  But we have as little reason to believe that these phenomena are all that there are as we do to believe there are many such events.  That veil is very hard to peal back.  In the mean time an assumption on either side is just that, an assumption.

[SuperSentient]

I'm only dealing with your first paragraph here. The main problem with the uncaused causer and all allied arguments is that they all posit a being which violates a rule they say is universal. The uncaused causer goes, all things are created>therefore they must have a creator>go far back enough and you will find a thing that has no creator>god exists QED.

As you can see, clause three violates clause one, either god had a creator (which leads to the turtle problem) or it is not necessary for everything to have a creator (thus negating the chain as proof for god). Every argument along that strain in the monotheistic theologies has that fatal flaw.

They determine this creator independent of any assumption regarding God's existence. God is eternal according to theists but the universe is not, but its creator must be eternal (since it is timeless and cannot have infinite chain of causes).

[Fred Hampton]

I have heard ZERO average theist arguments, let alone any convincing ones.  And of the debates I have seen, heard, atheists are undefeated v theists, and it's not even fair.

[masterofpuppets]

I have heard ZERO average theist arguments, let alone any convincing ones.  And of the debates I have seen, heard, atheists are undefeated v theists, and it's not even fair.

Unfortunately the most popular result for searching "Does God exist debate" on YouTube is the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens, in which Hitchens lost miserably. Not because WLC presented good arguments, but because he at least presented arguments. Hitchens succumbed to question evading during cross-examination, and asked pointless questions. Perhaps he was having a bad day, because Hitchens normally destroys theists without even needing to think.

This is the debate I am referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8&t=5209s

[Fred Hampton]

I have heard ZERO average theist arguments, let alone any convincing ones.  And of the debates I have seen, heard, atheists are undefeated v theists, and it's not even fair.

Unfortunately the most popular result for searching "Does God exist debate" on YouTube is the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens, in which Hitchens lost miserably. Not because WLC presented good arguments, but because he at least presented arguments. Hitchens succumbed to question evading during cross-examination, and asked pointless questions. Perhaps he was having a bad day, because Hitchens normally destroys theists without even needing to think.

This is the debate I am referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8&t=5209s

I may have seen this one, i will check.  But was it judged/scored by an independent panel? (p.s., WLC couldn't win a debate with a turtle, let alone Hitch.)

[masterofpuppets]

Unfortunately the most popular result for searching "Does God exist debate" on YouTube is the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens, in which Hitchens lost miserably. Not because WLC presented good arguments, but because he at least presented arguments. Hitchens succumbed to question evading during cross-examination, and asked pointless questions. Perhaps he was having a bad day, because Hitchens normally destroys theists without even needing to think.

This is the debate I am referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8&t=5209s

I may have seen this one, i will check.  But was it judged/scored by an independent panel?  (p.s., WLC couldn't win a debate with a turtle, let alone Hitch.)

Actually I just watched it again, and I actually think Hitchens did make some commendable points and destroyed many of WLC's arguments, although he still evaded questions too often.

[Fred Hampton]

I may have seen this one, i will check.  But was it judged/scored by an independent panel?  (p.s., WLC couldn't win a debate with a turtle, let alone Hitch.)

Actually I just watched it again, and I actually think Hitchens did make some commendable points and destroyed many of WLC's arguments, although he still evaded questions too often.

I'm surprised the atheists get up there with any of those fools, quite frankly.  There's prlly a quick,easy, buck to be made for 'em on the 'batin' circuit.  But you could bring the Pope up there and he'd get destroyed too--and that's why the Pope never debates atheists. BAD PR! OMG, can you imagine, say, that immature fool Dalai Lama debating Hitch?! OMG, they'd have to bring out a stretcher!

Which reminds me: How much $ does it take to bribe the Tibetan Boss? (ans: TOP "DALAI"!)

[masterofpuppets]

Actually I just watched it again, and I actually think Hitchens did make some commendable points and destroyed many of WLC's arguments, although he still evaded questions too often.

I'm surprised the atheists get up there with any of those fools, quite frankly.  There's prlly a quick,easy, buck to be made for 'em on the 'batin' circuit.  But you could bring the Pope up there and he'd get destroyed too--and that's why the Pope never debates atheists.  BAD PR!   OMG, can you imagine, say, that immature fool Dalai Lama debating Hitch?!  OMG, they'd have to bring out a stretcher!

Which reminds me:  How much $ does it take to bribe the Tibetan Boss?   (ans:  TOP "DALAI"!)  

This is why you won't find a debate between Richard Dawkins and WLC. He has himself stated that he doesn't want to debate WLC because he sees no point arguing with presuppositional nonsense. Matt Dillahunty v. Sye Ten Bruggencate is probably the best (worst) example out there.