Let's be honest

[The Grand Nudger]

Neither of those two things lead to personal interventiary dieties, or gods of any kind, really. So when you say that you think it's a "logical" conclusion of those two things, you mean something other than regular old logic.

[Astreja]

How do you see contradictions between science and a God?

Until we have actual testable physical evidence for a god-like being, a god is an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis. This puts it in violation of the scientific method.

[emjay]

In your opinion, is it '[going] meta' to point out that it doesn't answer the fundamental question it purports to answer, not to me anyway, ie why something not nothing? ...because it itself is something not nothing? From my POV then, all it does is offer an unfalsifiable leap of faith, that may provide a sense of meaning if that's what you're after, but given my view also that I've seen nothing to suggest God's intervention in the world we see, and indeed you seem to allude to similar views yourself with what you've often said about 'divine hiddenness', then the most I could take from that is deism. It's possible, that's all I can give it, but the most it could ever mean to me was deism.

IMHO your notion that the arguments do not demonstrate what they set out to demonstrate is a fair point and not "going meta". To me theism is a logical conclusion within the existential stance that reality has an intelligible order and also that human reason is effective. If someone else does not share both those stances then there is no common ground for discussing the 5 Ways. And that is where things tend to go sideways. On set of athiests will argue that reality does not have an intelligible order (usually making reference to quantum phenomena) And another set will challenge the implicit foundationalism of Scholastic philosophy, with radical skepticism...the kind that ends with brains in vats. That is what usually happens.

I doubt there's much new to say beyond what we've already discussed in that other thread on it, so if it's okay with you I'll leave it here for now; I'm just not really in the right frame of mind for a back and forth right now.

[Kingpin]

I disagree that it's a false claim because it's how the choice is framed and the differing levels of explanation.  Suppose I showed you a picture of a Model T and said the choices to explain it's existence are the laws of internal combustion/mechanical engineering or Henry Ford, please choose.  Or why is the water boiling?  You describe heat transference, excitement of atoms, etc.  I answer that because I'm making pasta.  They don't conflict, they are differing levels of explanation and are complimentary.

Easy questions.  Ford isn't even a factual explanation among the set of human innovators associated with ice.  Water doesn't boil because you're trying to make pasta.

But why did you ask, do these things seem ambiguous to you?  Do you think ice works because henry ford existed or water boils because you want noodles....?  Are these additional things, along with biology, that you draw the line on?

My point was the differing levels of explanation.  If you don't like the Henry Ford analogy, take Frank Whittle as the inventor/creator of the jet engine.  The point is Whittle does NOT compete with the laws and engineering steps to create the jet engine.  Both explain the existence. I would saw that the jet engine DOES require a person/mind to USE the laws to make it work. That's what inventing is. Using the world we have, the knowledge we've acquired to invent something new. Requires a mind.  One explains HOW/WHAT is happening, the other is WHY, but both satisfy the question regarding a jet engine.  

Same with water boiling.  Someone walks in to your kitchen and see a pot on the stove bubbling and asks you, "Why is the water boiling?"  Do you respond with a scientific answer like heat induction and water molecule excitement?  No.  It's boiling because I'm making pasta for dinner.  But that explanation is not contradictory to the scientific explanation to the question.  They are both correct.  I'm not drawing any lines in the sand, just that I see a lot of naturalist/materialist say that modern science has removed the need for God to explain anything and I disagree because of this differing level of explanation, one from agency.

[Kingpin]

How do you see contradictions between science and a God?

Until we have actual testable physical evidence for a god-like being, a god is an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis.  This puts it in violation of the scientific method.

If God created matter, thus by definition is immaterial.  How can immaterial be tested with scientific method?  It cannot.  I believe you can extrapolate and deduce some logical inferences that point to a "super"natural mind/being.

[Deesse23]

Some very well respected scientists are believers ....

Are those scientists theists because or in spite of thier scientific findings?

[no one]

This god that believers speak of, really has piss poor management skills. It's had forever, and still manages to fuck up everything.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Some very well respected scientists are believers ....

Are those scientists theists because or in spite of thier scientific findings?  

Good thing science does not rely on the beliefs of scientists, And their beliefs are just that beliefs.

[Deesse23]

Lastly, if the Cosmo/Teleo argument point to a prime mover as the most plausible cause, the mover must also be personal.  Why?  To create something is a choice, it's rational to believe the prime mover is personal.

Bombs create craters. Do bombs have choices? Maybe a universe-creating-bomb exploded. Or a universe creating pixie, whose nature is to create universes, created ours and ceased to exist in the process (thats why we cant find traces of it).
The lesson i am trying to get across: When something PRODUCES something else, how do you know this certain something had to be a someONE again? See, once you leave that smuggled in, and loaded, word "create" out, its like letting all the air out of your (proverbial) balloon
*pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft*

We also have good reason to believe, based on available data and evidence, that at some time in the past history of our universe time and space (timespace) broke down, making any of your philosophical arguments moot. Augustine maybe was hip a thousand years ago, but we have progressed a thousand years since then.

Philosophy is a nice thing, but in a lack of relation to available data and evidence, its no more (or less) than navel gazing. At least it should be updated according to the latest available data.

[brewer]

OK, reaching out to my agnostic/atheist friends.  I'm very curious, genuinely interested, are there are "arguments" that theists have provided for proof of a God's existence (not even the Christian God), that you found compelling?  Or caused you to pause and perhaps say, there might be A God out there?

I found that when it's all broken down in most debates, an agnostic/atheist boils down to moral arguments/judgments against God, which in and of themselves does not disprove there being a God per se.  Just that they refuse to accept a God they find reprehensible.

My positions tend to be more evidence based. Give me something concrete to hang my hat on and I'll consider it. What I usually hear are abstractions.

I can't recall a compelling abstraction of the top of my head.