New Apologetics Book, 25 Reasons to be Christian.

[brewer]

Mods. Ok, I just went through the rules. So, am I allowed to discuss chapter by chapter the various arguments/evidences/reasons for God's existence?

Could you tell us your purpose here, I mean other than to sell us on religion?

I'm fairly certain that what you consider 'evidence' we've heard before and rejected.

[SaintPeter]

Ok. I am tentatively putting just 3 chapters of the foundational case for the existence of God. I hope this is allowed. Now, as people ask/debate about specific topics, since I am the book author, I will elaborate in more detail about them. Hope that's fine. The 3 primary arguments are (1) the Kalam cosmological argument (2) the contingency-necessity argument (3) the fine tuning argument. Other Christian apologists have mentioned these, and I develop them below.

Administrator Notice
It is not.

• Posting an abundance of content you've pre-written for purposes other than forum use (i.e. essays, blog posts, etc.)
  

Boru

[SaintPeter]

Well, Brewer, to have conservations/debates/discussions, especially on the Atheism vs Theism issue, but also perhaps other moral/political issues in time.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

See your PM.

Boru

Yes, sir!

Sorry. See your PM, please.

Boru

[Angrboda]

Ok. I am tentatively putting just 3 chapters of the foundational case for the existence of God. I hope this is allowed. Now, as people ask/debate about specific topics, since I am the book author, I will elaborate in more detail about them. Hope that's fine. The 3 primary arguments are (1) the Kalam cosmological argument (2) the contingency-necessity argument (3) the fine tuning argument. Other Christian apologists have mentioned these, and I develop them below.

"Part I: Reasons to believe in One Creator God, the Father Almighty:
Demonstrations of God's Existence from Logic, Science and Morality:
Reason 1: Kalam Cosmological Demonstration: First Principles show a First Cause of the Universe:
Reason 1.1 Summary of the Kalam – A Reason to believe taken from the Beginning of the Universe
Reason 1.2 Synopsis of the Kalam – What begins to exist has a Cause and the Universe began to exist
Reason 1.3 Corollaries of the Kalam - Proves an Almighty, Eternal, Omnipresent, Personal Creator of the Universe exists outside time and space who brought the Universe into existence ex nihilo
Reason 2: St. Thomas' Contingency Demonstration: why a Necessarily Existent Being must exist at the end of the chain of contingent beings.
Reason 2.1 The distinction between Contingency and Necessity explained, and the explanation for why contingent beings (dependent on prior beings) must terminate in a Necessary Being proved.
Reason 2.2 The Argument from Contingency explained in 4 simple steps showing God’s Existence
Reason 2.3 Summary of the Argument and a Mathematical Form of the Contingency Argument
Reason 3: The Fine-Tuning Argument: Empirical Evidence for a Supremely Wise, Supremely Good, Divine Creator or Intelligent Designer of the Entire Universe:
Reason 3.1 Quotes from Popular Scientists describing the Empirical Fact of Fine-Tuning:
Reason 3.2 Fine Tuning Argument stated and proved: Evidence of Design in the Universe.
Reason 3.3 Fine Tuning proving Intelligent Design proved by an analogy: Concluding Thoughts

1. Spamming is not allowed. Spamming includes, but is not limited to:
   

• Creating multiple threads with the same or similar thread subject in a short space of time.Repeatedly posting responses to existing threads that are unrelated to the current discussion(s) in the thread.
  
• Repeatedly posting links, copy/pasted content, or scripture verses, unless they are relevant to the thread and have the member's own comments added to them.
  
• Posting an abundance of content you've pre-written for purposes other than forum use (i.e. essays, blog posts, etc.)
  

[zebo-the-fat]

I hope you are able to provide some testable and falsifiable evidence for your god, and show how he/she/it is different from Thor, Odin, Neptune or the tooth fairy. (hint, stories in an old book of fables isn't proof)

[brewer]

@SaintPeter I've heard all of those before, they are arguments and frankly not that convincing.

Nobody can argue a god into existence, anymore than they can argue a rock into existence. At best your arguing that your faith is valid because.......

Please provide me with concrete evidence (not abstractions) and I'll be willing to consider it.

[SaintPeter]

Sigh. Ok. We'll go from there. Now, as to how the True God, the Lord Jehovah, is different from many false gods is this God revealed Himself to be One Almighty God, Eternal and Transcendent. The many false pagan gods were not like this and they all believed gods could be multiple, divided, not almighty, not transcendent, not outside time etc. Next, the Kalam Cosmological argument, which Dr. Craig generally starts with, and I agree is a good argument, proves precisely such a God as the monotheistic God defended by just 3 of the world's 10 or so religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It thus excludes polytheistic gods and polytheistic religions and all those that have not been consistently monotheistic in maintaining the Truth of One Almighty Creator God.

Now, the Kalam is well known: (1) What begins to exist has a cause. (2) But, the Universe began to exist. (3) Thus, there exists a Cause of the Universe that existed outside time and space before the Universe came to being. (4) Next, we can deduce even further Properties of this First Cause, namely that it is (1) Almighty or Omnipotent, because only an Almighty Power can create something out of nothing, let alone whole universes out of nothing. (2) Eternal and Transcendent, i.e. existing outside time and space. And that will do for now.

Note that the properties we deduce are completely in accord with what the Lord Jehovah, the One True God, revealed to the Patriarch Abraham, the founding father of monotheism. They thus answer your second point and show we can in fact exclude various polytheistic false gods from being the True Creator God that the Kalam proves.

[SaintPeter]

Saying "nobody can argue God into existence" (not that we think we do) is like saying "no one can argue the Big Bang Theory into existence".

It's not we that argue something into existence. Rather, we give reasons why a particular theory or worldview is in accordance with the Truth.

[brewer]

Saying "nobody can argue God into existence" (not that we think we do) is like saying "no one can argue the Big Bang Theory into existence".

It's not we that argue something into existence. Rather, we give reasons why a particular theory or worldview is in accordance with the Truth.

There is concrete evidence for that theory. Your argument is a false equivalence fallacy.

Your reasons are only a validation/justification for faith, an abstraction. And in case you don't understand 'truth' is subjective.