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

[Pat Mustard]

No offence to the Christians (myself included) in this forum, but what is on display here most days does not qualify. To be fair, the environment makes it extremely difficult to be civil and loving all the time. 

Let's all ignore that christians largely created the atmosphere in the first place.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Ok. Okay.  
There is no God so this universe must have pop up as per magic.  
Oh, wait a minute.  
Magic is created by a magician isn't it?  
Let me ask Giacomino the elf who is this magician.  

Giacomino.........who is the magician?


Hmm,......LOGIC son....think and use LOGIC.......and you will know......

What is magic?

[Nonpareil]

So, this is a question I must ask.

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

Because.

[Little Rik]

Ok. Okay.  
There is no God so this universe must have pop up as per magic.  
Oh, wait a minute.  
Magic is created by a magician isn't it?  
Let me ask Giacomino the elf who is this magician.  

Giacomino.........who is the magician?


Hmm,......LOGIC son....think and use LOGIC.......and you will know......

What is magic?

Well, Giacomino the elf told me that magic according to scholars is in a way the opposite of science but he reckon that is rather all about what the human consciousness can not understand.
Take the magicians Mathilda.
They pull rabbits out the hats.  
The public can not understand how so many rabbits were inside the hat so for the public all this is
in a way unreal  but unreal is not because the rabbits are real and the magician is real too.
The universe is also real but because atheists think that there is no creator behind this creation then
it all become magic (not understood ) but again behind the magic there is always a magician so whichever way you put it a creator must be there.
Call it God or anything else but a creator is there.  

[Pat Mustard]

Certainly not any of the first mover arguments.  The problem being that the immediate question, is then what caused the first mover?  Reformulating everything that exists must have a cause as everything that begins to exist must have a cause does not help as it begs the question by creating the category of things which have always existed occupied only by the thing to be proved, thus assuming god in its proof of god.  Furthermore,  even if the first mover arguments managed to prove a first mover, that would not prove the existence of a being anything like the one theists like to imagine as God.  Such a being might not not even be sentient let alone all powerful, interested in people, or still existing in order to either have always existed or to be a first mover.

I can say that the first mover had no cause (never began to exist). This argument doesn't assume god at all and doesn't beg the question. Part of the KCA is to deduce characteristics by logical analysis of the properties of this cause, so the argument demonstrates this first cause is uncaused, personal creator, beginningless (eternal), timeless, spaceless, changeless (immutable), immaterial, and powerful. 

There is also a problem with the premise that everything that begins to exist must have a cause.  That is that with the possible exception of subatomic particals, we've never seen matter or energy come into existence, we've only seen matter and energy change form.  A baby for example begins to exist as anot organized collection of matter, but the baby is formed of preexisting matter, so too everything else we see.  So we have no reason to assume that the existence of matter or energy requires a cause only the current form matter and energy.

This is true and is a working objection, matter and energy would have began to exist in the beginning of the universe, so to say that whatever comes into existence requires some external cause of some kind is to say a lot. We don't even know if the universe began to exist, which is why I sometimes hesitate to talk about the big bang as the beginning of all existence. 

The teliological argument is better only in that it at least attempts to use empirical evidence, and does not attempt to define god into existence.  However, as people readily see the difference between designed objects made by people, and some animals like birds or beavers and natural objects like trees for the simple reason that they do not appear designed greatly undercuts the premise.  That evolution describes how a tree might have evolved is a further, but not necessary blow to the teliological argument. Essentially it is an argument from ignorance, and a showing of ignorance does not overcome that essential hurdle.

Its basis is faulty, but I wouldn't say that concluding design from observation is inherently ignorant as opposed to random natural processes. It is just another explanation. It may be simpler to state that life is designed as opposed to explaining random natural processes, but accepting an explanation over another simply because it is more complicated to explain would be a fallacy. Also, design need not be from God, in fact, that may be a farfechted conclusion even if we are to suppose that certain features of the universe are designed.

Anecdotal stories are the closest thing there is to proof of god.  But they fall far short of what would be required to demonstrate god by any definition of god espoused by theists.

You mean the argument from miracles?

---

IMO, the most convincing arguments, or rather, least unconvincing, have come from deists who don't claim specific knowledge of any specific God. If God were, or is real, I don't believe ANY human could possibly know the first thing about Him/Her/It/....or whatever.

Deists generally don't believe they stand to gain a goddamned thing as result of their beliefs, so, I view their 'arguments' as slightly more compelling than the average theist's; if for no other reason, then the fact that there typically isn't any raw need, fear, warm fuzzies, or wishful think attached. 'Cause let's face it: You've just gotta consider motivation.

Particularly, in absence of indisputable FACTS.

Are you saying that the identity (as a deist or religious person) of the person impacts the strength of their arguments or that the deist god (as different as it may be from all the other religions) is more supported by what we know than the religious gods?

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.

---

"Its easier to accept permanent death and live as a non-believer, but its hard to believe in the existence of spiritual plane of reality and move in that direction. I will try to live hoping that there is God". (the average vibes I got from talking to several believers from different religions").

I think that's a good life's motivation if believers don't attempt to "rape" others peoples minds with their religion's doctrine and instead live by those standards themselves.

"'Tis easier to hope for jam tomorrow than to fight for your share of today's bread"; the mantra of every single religion I've read of.

[RoadRunner79]

---

I can say that the first mover had no cause (never began to exist). This argument doesn't assume god at all and doesn't beg the question. Part of the KCA is to deduce characteristics by logical analysis of the properties of this cause, so the argument demonstrates this first cause is uncaused, personal creator, beginningless (eternal), timeless, spaceless, changeless (immutable), immaterial, and powerful. 
This is true and is a working objection, matter and energy would have began to exist in the beginning of the universe, so to say that whatever comes into existence requires some external cause of some kind is to say a lot. We don't even know if the universe began to exist, which is why I sometimes hesitate to talk about the big bang as the beginning of all existence. 
Its basis is faulty, but I wouldn't say that concluding design from observation is inherently ignorant as opposed to random natural processes. It is just another explanation. It may be simpler to state that life is designed as opposed to explaining random natural processes, but accepting an explanation over another simply because it is more complicated to explain would be a fallacy. Also, design need not be from God, in fact, that may be a farfechted conclusion even if we are to suppose that certain features of the universe are designed.
You mean the argument from miracles?

---

Are you saying that the identity (as a deist or religious person) of the person impacts the strength of their arguments or that the deist god (as different as it may be from all the other religions) is more supported by what we know than the religious gods?

---

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.

Do you have problems with Newtons first law of motion as well?
The argument in a better form, states that everything that begins to exist, has a cause.   It is not violating a rule as you infer. (note: I didn't go back in the thread, so I'm not commenting on anything specific to the conversation or what may have been presented to you.)

 I actually find it interesting, that even when presented with this argument, that there are a good many, who seem to remove or not hear the "begins to exist" part in there attempted refutation.  Much like the specification of an object in motion in Newton's theory, there is an important reason why "begins to exist" is in this formulation. 

And you are correct, that the argument does not say that everything requires a cause; only that which begins to exist.  And this alone doesn't point to God.  There are other parts of the argument however, which infer from the available evidence the what qualities would be sufficient of that cause.

[Whateverist]

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

The big bang was an event not a thing but you point is well taken. The physical universe is constantly changing states which means that it is still actualizing potentials. The defining feature of the prime mover is that it is fully actualized and without any remaining potential.

[Cyberman]

Then it has no power to do anything. Which is precisely what we observe.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.