Magus55

They are in the Bible, just because you think some christians made up the whole NT to make it seem like all that happened doesn't mean you're right.

And do you have any proof that the aspotles didn't write the New Testament?

the_cave

This isn't the argument by design. The argument by design merely argues that there is some order in the cosmos, not that it is the best of all possible worlds. That's a different argument altogether. The fact of order impresses many people, both theistic and atheistic. It's just that many Christians can't imagine a reason for this order (which includes the laws of physics themselves) to exist, without an intelligent designer. Now an argument might be incorrect, due to some nonobvious error of reasoning, but this is different from being silly.

Even cosmologists reason that whatever the reason for the universe's existence, that reason itself cannot be temporal--that is, it is the reason for the existence of time, therefore it is not subject to it. Sounds like something eternal to me. Now as you have seen, some have pointed out, correctly, that what's often at stake in these discussions is the intelligence of the reason for the universe's existence. Personally, I think "First Cause" arguments are on the face of it correct--but this has little bearing on whether this cause had or has any intellgence, which has more to do with the kind of cosmological (i.e. "by design) arguments discussed above. Aristotle wasn't a Christian; yet he was the originator of First Cause arguments. He's taken quite seriously by many thinkers of all stripes, even if they disagree with him, so it seems to me again that there is a difference between a theory being wrong and being silly.

Indeed, these questions are well debated elsewhere on these boards, so I encourage you to do some digging. Enjoy!

Gooch's dad

Magus, rather than continuing to hijack this thread, I'm willing to start another one, if you are willing to stick with the subject and not run and hide when you can't back up your points. Deal?

And within the standards of historical analysis, yes, we can show that the gospels were not written by disciples who were eyewitnesses.

WinAce

Magus calls you all obnoxious on RaptureReady

And yes, nothing escapes the gaze of the all-seeing myself

Gooch's dad

Impressive, WinAce! And Magus55 is directly violating one of the rules of RaptureReady's TOS:

"No posting of arguments from other boards - We have plenty of quarrels here at Rapture Ready. We don't need import them from other message boards."

everlastingtongue

The first cause theory does sound reasonable to me. The silly part is when the Christians I’ve spoken to believe it proves the existence of their God and somehow validates the entire bible. Now that’s one big leap if you ask me. I’m perfectly willing to accept that there was a first cause, but I certainly don’t claim to know its exact details.

If you asked me where the universe came from I would say that I think the big bang theory is very probable. But this is not because I want it to be so, it is because I have read and seen evidence that supports it. I’m willing to accept that, at some future point, another theory might come about that disproves or alters the big bang theory and I will accept it if I find the facts support it. Just as it has done countless times in the past, our new discoveries alter what we believe. In short, I am using my brain and have an open mind – unlike the majority of Christians I’ve spoken to who claim to know exactly how the universe was created and are unwilling to look at any other possibility.

I do not have it within my ability to prove the big bang occurred, but I can give supporting evidence. The silly part is when theists think that they can prove God exists and hijack logical arguments to do so. You are right, perhaps the argument isn’t silly – its just the way it is so often used that is.

I have a good friend who is intelligent, educated and also happens to be a Christian. When I asked him where he thought the universe came from, he gave the best answer I have ever heard a theist utter: “how would I know?”

Jack the Bodiless

...Interesting. I have never visited RaptureReady before, and already my IP address is banned.

Magus55, I will remind you AGAIN that you have been specifically challenged to produce valid Biblical prophecies on the thread:

Magus55: take the Prophecy Challenge!

...and you have failed to do so.

THIS thread is for discussion of "Most common arguments for the existence of God". From what we've seen so far, one common reason is "extreme gullibility and utterly uncritical acceptance of bogus prophecy claims from Christian websites".

Jack the Bodiless

...Ah, I see Gooch's Dad has created a new thread in BC&A especially for you.

Again for Magus55--what prophecy?

Will you actually bother to respond this time? Or will you seek to preserve your faith by avoiding it?

If the latter: don't be surprised if you get jumped on when you next hijack a thread with bogus prophecy claims.

Philosoft

[Mod hat]
Merci, Jack. Does that mean we've seen the last of the Biblical criticism in this thread, gentlemen?
[/Mod hat]

Tercel

Lol. We have no evidence for it at all.
Not only that, but even some cursory thinking about what hypothetical observations would actually be required to give evidence shows that we likely never can have such evidence.

Of course: People who do not agree with your unevidenced and unfounded assumptions and assertions are unreasonable and illogical.

And of course you label your assumptions as "fact" and accuse me of having dubious motives...

Hmm you've actually got some semi-legitimate reasoning here, so I'll bother criticising it.
Firstly: What makes you think that God's mind is more complex than that of humans? Humans experience only a limited view of reality which has to be filtered through sensory inputs. That seems rather complex. God on the other hand is, presumably, simply directly aware of everything. That seems rather simpler by comparison.
Secondly: What makes you think consciousness is "complex"? We certainly do not experience it as complex. The thought processes that might go on in some of our convoluted minds are certainly complex, but we have fairly complex physical brains which can account for a lot of that. The actual feeling of "consciousness" itself presents itself to me as a single sensation of awareness. Is that necessarily complex? It does not appear so to me.
Why should God be anything more complex than a single universal awareness and will? I see no reason to think that this must be necessarily complex. As singular awareness/will cetainly presents itself to me as a more simple foundation for reality than does invoking some complex and sophisticated mathematical guiding principles on arbitrary amounts of matter or whatever other naturalistic explanation you care to give.

On the contrary, if an intelligent being is viewed as a fundamental simple system able to generate arbitrary levels of complexity at will then the creator is significantly simplier than the universe, and is a preferable hypothesis.

And it's back to the insults again...