It was the most beautifully written and convincing argument I have never read.

There are many ontological arguments and they can be used to prove anything only in your fanciful imagination because you have no idea what any of them are. Aquinas actually argued against Anslem's ontological argument, but I'm not sure what this has to do with his argument from first cause.

As long as you continue to dismiss arguments for the reason of when they were written, you are making a logical fallacy because you are attacking something other than the argument. It's kind of like how an ad hominem is attacking the person rather than the argument, you're attack the age of when it was created rather than the argument. Feel free to look the argument up for yourself the moment you feel like learning something about philosophy instead of making up what you think it says. I have brought up both Craig and Aquinas and I said that I preferred Aquinas' arguments because they aren't based on the premise that the universe had a beginning. I can not figure out why you have blindly assumed that WLC based his arguments off of Aquinas, but obviously you would rather make stuff up and commit logical fallacies that to look it up. Making typos has nothing to do with logical reasoning. It stands that the fact that you lack the mental capability to understand that argument does not mean he is assuming the conclusions are true. You just got annoyed at me for showing you that it has a cause, then immediately claim that I am assuming it has a cause. The reason why I repeated it was so that you'd be able to follow the train of thought, but apparently you can't. You have not shown how it is possible for space and time to be the cause of other space and time or how it is possible for there to be an actual infinite regress. Even then, you'd still have to deal with Aquinas' argument from contingency, but I'll let you make that one up since you enjoy doing that so much.

Right, one of the most profound questions in the history of philosophy is a stupid question. You're really starting to get pitiful. I wouldn't have told you to take a logic class if I hadn't already taken one. The point of taking a class is to learn, so learning little is nothing of which to be proud. Everyone who makes a claim, religious or not, has the burden of proof to back up their claim. If you refuse to back up your claim because you think someone else hasn't, then that just means your both making baseless assertions. Many religious people do believe the theory of evolution, but whether or not they are willing to look at evidence for other positions had nothing to do the fact that you need to back up your claims. I am amazed that you are correct about something. That is another great example of how mixing and matching conclusions with premises leads to invalid arguments. There is only one conclusion that logically necessarily follows from a syllogism, and anything else is nonsense. In much the same way, when you mix and match the conclusion of Craig's arguments with team jamotide, you create an invalid argument.

You were misunderstanding faith and I was clarifying it for you. If you show that this being necessarily has a number of attributes that correspond to our idea of God, then it makes sense to refer to it as such. Oh, right, you ruled out the possibility of God a priori. He wasn't talking about God being caused by quantum fluctuations...

+1 for being the one to agree with something in this thread (albeit abstractly) LOL

Still not time to rewrite the whole nature of the soul thing but I'll redo the following bit as it's easier:

If you define pixies with the nature of God then they are no longer pixies (by the definition of being 'mischievous and playful sprites'). So, with or without the chocolate, why does it make it impossible?
I could just as easily define 'unicorn' with the qualities of the Moon and tell you that there's a unicorn orbiting the Earth - wouldn't make the existence of moons or unicorns any different.
Pixies, especially redefined pixies, are not a logical argument against the existence of God. Yes, you do. We've already covered in this thread that the Bible may contain an allegorical account of early history. Genesis is always the first book quoted by atheists who think that all they need to do to disprove the whole compendium is take a literal view of an English translation. (I'm not one of those who wants to take everything in the Bible literally - I've already shown that God speaks to us in metaphors that we can understand - see the parables of Jesus)
The 'serpent' in the Garden of Eden was perhaps not a literal 'snake' but more likely the whispering of temptation. It's a lesson about not giving into temptation and disobeying God.
The flood may well have been a local event - the 'whole world' to Noah was a valley. I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case (in defense of Creationists - nothing is impossible for God) but I don't mind agreeing with the science here that shows a worldwide flood as unlikely. These things can be exaggerated over a couple of thousand years before being written down in the time of Moses.
The other books of the Bible are usually only quoted by atheists from the POV of a single sentence, taken out of context here or there.
How about something from the New Testament?
Yeah, just to clarify here: The multiple worlds theory and the existence of all possible things isn't about quantum mechanics specifically.
It just states that if there are an infinite number of worlds, or if there is only one of an infinite number of possible worlds, then some things will exist in all of them (or in the one of many). God, by His nature, couldn't be one of the things that only sometimes exists. So if it's possible for Him to exist, then He does. (longer and clearer version earlier in thread).

I want an entire holy book to be based upon the premises of 'The floor is lava'. I want to see a messiah whose defining ability is walking on furniture.

What? No, it's not very relevant.

Why are you looking at me like that?

The universe exists therefore God exists. A universe requires a universe Creator.

There are only two possibilities:

1. The big bang theory requires you to believe that once there was nothing - no time, no matter. And to believe that from this "nothing" came forth "everything". How do you create something from nothing?
This theory also contradicts the law of conservation of energy - energy can not be created or destroyed.

2. The only other possibility is that there is a Creator - an omniscient omnipotent being who exists outside of time and matter.

Well, at least you made one correct statement - conservation of energy is a law of nature.

I don't think it necessarily does. Well time, yes, it does speculates about time, but it doesn't mention state of the universe (or whatever equivalent) before Big Bang. Because it can't. Because scientific theories tend to come from hard evidence, and there's none for that particular bit of our history.

I'm sorry, but this just irks me, the argument that universe could not come from nothing or just exist ever since infinity has exactly the same amount of logic that God could not come from nothing or just exist ever since infinity. 'God' is not the answer. In fact, he/she/it is just another question.

Even assuming the premise that the universe was created by an external 'creator' of some description, then it's still a massive jump to assume that that creator watches us all, loves us, and gets cross when we spank one off.

What if, for argument's sake, the expanding universe is one big, slowly dissipating cloud of God-fart? Our divine creator may in fact be waving His arm around trying to waft us away...

I attacked all at the same time, I don't see how one diminishes the other.

I know what it says, you claim it says something else without backing it up. All you blow are lots of words which resemble hot air.

Obviously you haven't read any of it, Aquinas clearly talks about beginnings. Maybe you don't understand what he means by motion? I am pretty sure now you are just talking out of your ass, because this stuff is easily confimed. So, that would explain why you make no sense.

I didn't mean anything about typos, your spelling skills are your smallest problem.

Oh I can follow it, but I can also see the flaws. I told them to you, you ar eincapable of understanding.

I can't show that, just like you can't show that there must be timeless beings. This is all I need, I am not the one claiming to know the supernatural, that is you religious folk.

It may have been a good question in the dar...I mean middle ages where they didn't know that there is no nothing. Why do you dismiss modern times? From reading you it seems like you still live in the 1300s.

That is not even a logical snappy comeback.

Ye sit everyone is just making baseless assertions about what is outside the universe, glad you realise that, that was my goal.

Exactly, just as invalid as yours. You are starting to get atheism.

No, I just laughed about what you said, that faith requires ignoring reality.

Is it better than "ruling in" things a priori? I think not.


Then by what? Oh right it was always there, yes no assumptions at all. So what was he saying, quantum fluctuations and gods...what?

No.

There never was any nothing anywhere. You have said why.

Really? You can't think of any other possibilities? wow...do you guys think about this stuff? At least you are more concise than Seyong, who keeps repeating this stuff,but with loads of BS around it.

It doesn't, it is merely a little helping image for our religious friends.

Exactly, yet religious people seems to have no problem dismissing them as impossible.

Shame, we have arrived at pick and chose, this is why it is more fun to argue with really religious people, you call them fundamentalists. I did expect more from you.

I am am puzzled however that you think I can't find crazy stuff in the new testament? And what do you mean out of context? These are short verses directly from their god. There is no way to misinterpret them.

How about Matthew 5:38-48? Don't fight back? Do whatever your enemies want? Does any christian take this seriously? Does that mean they all go to this lake of fire, which I am sure you will claim is just a metaphor for forgiveness or whatever.


You don't the the leap between those two sentences?

So there's an answer I'm aware of for people who have a problem with infinite regression of the Universe. To wit:

1. We know that, while gravity is a weak force, that every piece of matter in the universe is attracted to every other piece of matter in the universe.
2. We know that, right now, the universe is expanding (still) from the big bang.
3. There's still a whole heck of a lot of stuff--including dark matter or whatever makes up most of the universe's mass--in the direction of the big bang.
3. We can deduce from the known and measurable effects of gravity that the expansion of the universe is slowing. One day it will stop.
4. Then presumably, we'll all start to hurtle back towards the center of the universe.
5. And at some point, so far in the future as to be immeasurable, the dull and cooled husks of a trillion, trillion stars will all come crashing back together again, making the biggest black hole ever observed seem like a little hiccup of matter.
6. This incredibly dense creation of matter will agglomerate together with such ferocity that eventually every single piece of matter in the universe will have passed beyond the event horizon of the largest black hole that can possibly exist. We have no idea what happens to matter when it's in a black hole, except that by anyone's mathematical models, it gets weird.
7. It is possible to hypothesize from this (although I do not believe that anyone has even constructed a convincing mathematical model that may suggest it) that we could, under that kind of density of matter, find that a singularity event occurs with a titanic bang, flinging all of that matter back outwards again...

This is, of course, just as much conjecture as the belief of a supreme being, but one of these arguments starts with confirmed and known scientific observations and logically chains cause and effect from there, and the other starts with the belief in something that lies outside all known science and then builds a model of reality around it.

I'm not saying that the above steps are true, but I think anyone who's arguing for the belief of a supreme creator should be able to acknowledge that a rationalist who doesn't believe in a god can be understood for finding this to be a believable series of events.

I thought the universe was accelerating? I'm pretty sure that was the latest find (that dark energy or whatever theory was beating gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe (I know it's wikipedia - feel free to correct the science)

That's why I was saying before about the entropic decay of our universe suggesting it's not going to end in a Big Crunch after all (which would've solved the infinite regression problem). I'm not suggesting that atheists are irrational, I know they have made logical conclusions based on what they believe to be enough evidence or are skeptical about anything without sufficient proof. I'm merely saying that they're ignoring their spiritual side with grave consequences for after they die. They will, of course, laugh at this. I can't help that.

See, and to me there is no reason to believe in any of them more than in any of the others or any which will be made up in the future.

What context, I am reading Mathew in the New Testament, there is no context. It is just random things one should and shouldn't do to not land in hellfire. And yeah, it is mentioned quite a bit.

Plus most of the stuff is ridiculous, most of it no christian I ever saw believes or regards.
6:1 to 6 "Don't be righteous in front of other, don't pray in public. "
I wish!
6:22 to 24 " If the lamps of your body, the eyes are unhealthy, you will be full of darkness.
Sorry blind people."
6:25 to 34 "Don't worry about food, don't worry about clothes, don't worry about the body (except eyesight I guess) don't worry about tomorrow. "
wtf
There is tons of this stuff.
There is nothing there to indicate that these are metaphores or part of some parabel. I check it in 5 popular versions.

I am reading all english versions next to each other, the differences are minor. Are you saying you read the original hebrew and base your way to heaven on that? And unless you can read that there is no way to avoid hellfire?

I am actually happy you said that, many pick and chose christians will make you believe there is no hell, it is all a metaphor or whatever.

*sigh* I really should learn to pray for guidance before I post, but I go off half-cock with a half explanation.
The context in the part you referred to was "an eye for an eye" - this from the old testament.
It was meant to teach them that the punishment should fit the crime (as best as could be done with human justice) but they had taken it to a new level of revenge.
Jesus was telling them to be forgiving, not to seek revenge. Well, 'most Christians I know' isn't an argument against Christ but against the Christians.
To take those in order:
1) We shouldn't say "Look at me, I'm righteous, I'm better than others"
2) He's obviously not being literal if you look at the context - you only have to read 2 verses back and perhaps the next 2
He's talking about looking through greedy eyes, seeing the world and its 'treasure' above God.
3) 'Worry' is the key word here. He's not saying "don't worry, you don't need to eat" , He's saying "Trust in God and you have nothing to worry about."
I struggle with that last one - I'm a worrier. I need to try harder there, thanks for bringing it to my attention :)

You've shown yourself to be intelligent - just read it in context and stop doing what most atheists do and quoting small parts and dismissing them. wisdom? You need a signpost to tell you something is a metaphor? Ok, don't let the door hit you on the way out (just in case - that was intended both as a metaphor and a joke - I'm enjoying our discussion and don't actually want you to leave)
Edit: Just noticed your location as Germany - so English is a 2nd language for you? (you write it well, just wondering if that's why you're missing the metaphor / context). No, you don't need to read Hebrew. You only need to refer to a scholar who does IF the English translations are in disagreement and/or don't make sense. The context is usually enough to understand it. I only mention needing to reference the Hebrew/Greek for the times that atheists jump on the specific English nuances of a particular word. This is, sadly, a popular modern belief - 'we don't have to care too much, we'll all be saved anyway' (except Hitler of course ;) ) But that's not how it looks in context. We have free will to accept the gift of eternal life, or reject it.