Thank you. Do I have any other explanation? Of course not. Neither do I accept your explanation - obviously, we have absolutely no clue about what was here before the universe. In fact, the entire concept of 'before', 'cause' and 'beginning' might have been completely meaningless and not comprehensible by our logic. Which, by the way, is exactly what you're saying, except you insist that this illogical link must have been god, who you admit yourself is illogical - which is a baseless assumption, no matter how much you try to justify it. When your cause becomes illogical, it can be absolutely anything, because it defies logic and our understanding (or lack of, to be more precise) of the universe.

Just because our brains are incapable of any other explanation than 'An all-powerful being did it!' doesn't mean there's not any other explanation - it just means we don't know better.

No. it not being dependant on the universe does not mean it is not dependant on anything else.

But why? Because you have empirical evidence that someone designed watches.Please think through your bad analogies.

No it isn't, that is in fact the exact opposite of reasonable.

But we don't know 1 and 2 are true.

No, not in the very least, again exactly the opposite, there are many other causes that would be more likely other than your magic fairy.

There are those who think critically about what they believe, and those who don't. It certainly can't be said that those who do will all come to the conclusion that there is no God.

If you "argue" with someone and they give answers that don't satisfy you, what it really comes down to is that whatever they are believing in works for them, given their world view. A thing doesn't have to make sense to everyone for it to be considered valid. I love discussions like these, but I'm definitely not taking the approach that I am right and someone who believes something different is wrong.

And I think that's a big part of it - unfortunately, there are too many people who want to insist that their beliefs be thrust upon everyone else, whether that's religion, or parenting, or use of condoms, or "video games are bad" or "how much tv is too much?". Just about anything, really.

And why do you believe this? Do you know that Jesus is but one example of the Dying-And-Rising-God? The whole Jesus story is a re-enactment of very old rituals and myths that have been told by numerous people across the world before? Almost every detail has roots in pagan tradtions - a mix of sun god, crops god and the sacrifice of the king in hard times.

Do you know that around that time Jesus wasn't the only "Messiah" that travelled around the lands? He surely was the most successful - getting his "becoming a god" ritual and all.

Do you know that it is very possible that Jesus survived the crucifixation? See:
Someone who had a look at the original greek gospels or Jesus Christ did not Die on the Cross – A Cardiologist’s Perspective (Islamic site)

Someone very early in this thread made a comparison to people who would believe in Darth Vader after seeing Star Wars. You could dispell this belief by showing them a Making Of or Behind the Scenes.

Now guess what - you can take a look at some BTS of Christian/Judaic origins. You can study older cultures, find cross-references, influences, motifs and motivations. You can study how the stories were transformed through history. How they spread. You can take a look at why the Christian religion spread that successfully around the globe (Hint: Not because it was very convincing in the intellectual sense).

As I mentioned before, I studied history many years ago and I took a deep interest in cults, beliefs and religions from around the world. Where they came from, how they evolved, mixed and mingled throughout history. Problem is, when you have a good look at the "Making of", it becomes impossible to believe the story - for me believing in the Abrahamic god (with or without Jesus) is almost as crazy as believing in Darth Vader.

Maybe I should add that I'm NOT an atheist. I was brought up in an family that I would call agnostic bordering on atheism. I called myself atheist as a teen and was an "absolute believer" in science.
But some experiences and events in my life made it impossible to keep that attitude. Things that are not (yet?) explainable by science happened (and happen) in my life. You could say I didn't believe in gods but they believed in me ;-). This was of course the main reason for my interest in religions and beliefs.

And to be honest, I find the Christian/Abrahamic religions to be among the least appealing even if I could believe them.

A cause can not be dependent for its existence on something that it caused to exist. I think that's as straightforward as the law of noncontradiction, so if you have an objection to it, let me know. The cause of matter needs to exist before matter can exist, so the cause can't be material. Again, this is pretty straightforward. This cause doesn't have a will because the universe does not, but because that is the only logical possibility.

"As the cause of space and time, this cause must an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. The only two things that fit that description are abstract objects, like numbers, or an intelligent mind. Abstract objects can't cause anything, therefore this cause is a personal, transcendent mind.

How else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then cause could never exist without its effect. If the cause were permanently present, then the effect would be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a person agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any antecedent determining conditions. Thus, is is not just the transcendent cause of the universe, but also its personal creator." - William Lane Craig All of our evidence indicates that we live in a logical universe and all of science is possible because of that. You're more welcome to try to make an argument for a cause that is illogical, accidental or arbitrary. Until you do, I see no reason to think that it is possible. I don't consider logic to be arbitrary and I see no reason to think that an illogical cause could even exist or have causal power, let alone give rise to a universe that has logic in it. Again, I see no reason to think that causality behaves any different than how we have universally experienced it. If you think we live in an illogical universe where physical laws and causality are optional, then feel free to disregard my conclusions, but I think that is far more absurd than to think there is a logical cause.

You have reasserted that we have absolutely no clue about what was here, but then you don't show what is wrong with my logic. I never stated that God is illogical. If God were illogical, then I wouldn't bother trying to give logical arguments for its existence. I don't think a illogical cause could exist, let alone have any causal power. If the universe has a cause, then there existed something that had the power to cause it. We can have discussions about what this cause would logically be like, but I see no reason to deny that straightforward explanation.

That's what's wrong with your logic. Absolute lack of any empyrical evidence, scientific method, peer-review. Are you going to provide any of that? Fine, then I'm going to accept what you're saying. Until then? It's logic of you and a party of christian philosophers saying that God is the only answer. Can you see why I'm not persuaded?

And no, I'm not going to argue your logic. I'm not going to dig trough philosophy with you and write posts dissecting every word. I don't have to - you have no way of proving what you're saying.

Soooo an all-powerful, ethernal being does not completely defy our logic and our knowledge of the universe?

Of course you don't, you have your beliefs about your place in our logical determined universe, as caused by the purely rational creator.

Last time we exchanged posts I had pretty much concluded you were too inflexible in accepting you may be wrong in your beliefs about causality and determinism and you're confirming it once more.

I recall the way you responded earlier, always trying to find phrases to state that you may be wrong, but it's actually logically impossibly that you're wrong.

I just find it cute that you believe in an immaterial will, 100% independent of anything in the universe. But you draw the line at it possibly, maybe, being illogical.

Your ontological argument is a form of reductio ad absurdum. You basically go through arguments until concluding that it is absurd for the universe to have simply popped up without a cause, or that it is absurd for the universe to itself be the eternal, timeless, causeless and immaterial primo motor.

Your insistence on a logical god is a matter of belief following directly from this refusal to accept that your existence may be incomprehensible, ergo that your existence is absurd.

Is it really so difficult to accept that existence may be meaningless? Show me your faith is strong enough, prove me wrong in my assumptions about you. Say it: "I accept that existence may be meaningless, but choose to believe otherwise, and believe there is evidence to support my belief."

Why do you insist on needing proof and logic to determine if God exists? Since all was caused by Him, aren't you demanding proof from Him?

Note that the logical arguments I've given for God's existence are for a theistic God and not specifically for the Christian God. The argument that this God has the identity of the Christian God is a different argument, but I think it is true because the resurrection of Jesus tests the best on explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, ad hoc-ness, accord with accepted beliefs, and superiority to rival hypotheses. 1.) Look at lists of claimed similarities circulating around the Internet that don't cite their sources.
2.) Look at what Egyptologists or ancient historians, such Plutarch have written about Horus.
3.) See that what is written about Horus is radically different than what is written about Jesus.
4.) Scratch your head as to why anyone would unquestioningly believes those lists of similarities.
5.) Repeat for the next supposed "Dying-And-Rising-God".
6.) Weep for the current generation that has not be adequately taught to check their sources. It's true that Jesus wasn't the only person who claimed to be the Messiah, but he was the only person who validated his claim. When someone is beaten and severely whipped and has a crown of thorns thrust onto their head, which causes more severe bleeding, they tend not to last the standard length of a crucifixion. Breathing is difficult for people who are crucified because they need to push upward to relieve tension in the chest, so it becomes very obvious when they stop doing that, their body convulses, and they of asphyxiation. The sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. So when spear punctured his lungs and heart and this fluid and blood come out, he's dead.

"This creates a catch-22 for Muslims. If Jesus actually predicted his violent and imminent death and God rescued him from such a death, he is a false prophet, since his predictions failed to come true. But this would contradict the Qur’an, which refers to Jesus as a true prophet (2:87, 136, 253; 3:45; 4:171; 5:75; 57:27; 61:6). The other option is that Jesus died a violent and imminent death as he had predicted. But this, too, would contradict the Qur’an, which asserts that he was rescued from death in the first century (4:157-58). Either way, the Qur’an is wrong." - Michael Licona Indeed, someone could look at the formation of Christianity, so I invite you to list your sources. I think in doing so we find that it would have been next to impossible Christianity to have survived its inception if Jesus has not risen from the dead.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.php I'm curious about what happened to you. Why is that?

Science is logical because it is based on logical presuppositions, but logic is a much broader category than science and it not limited by the restrictions of only being able to tell us about things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable. Furthermore, science not the only method of gaining knowledge because we can gain knowledge that is mathematical, semantic, historical, personal, procedural, strategic, or logical without needing to use the scientific method. To give an example of logical knowledge:

1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
3.) Therefore, Socrates was a mortal.

If you knew 1 and 2 were true, then you could gain the knowledge of 3 being true without doing any sort of scientific tests or peer-review because if 1 and 2 are true, then 3 is necessarily also true. Logic does not have bias, so there is no such thing as logic that I or other Christians use that is separate from the logic that non-believers use. When I said that you don't show what is wrong with my logic, I meant that you don't show how I have used logic incorrectly. If an argument has true premises and a valid form, then logic has been done correctly, and we should all believe the conclusion is true regardless of whether we like it. Again, science is not the only way to prove that something is true because logical, mathematical, or metaphysical proofs can also prove things to be true. Unless there is an inherent logical contradiction in something, which this beings has not been shown to have, then it does not defy logic. Our scientific knowledge is only concerning things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable, so it tells us nothing about whether or not such an immaterial being exists, and it is not possible for this being to defy our scientific knowledge.

Okay who introduced Aristotelian Deduction!? Whoever it was shame on you as you obviously aren't watching your Python and people who don't watch their Python aren't fit to converse with other people in any forum, or for that matter, be allowed to breath.

Yes, I do know what logic is and how does it work, thank you very much.

No, logic doesn't have a bias - you do. And no, I will not open up to you defeating me in a game of words, because that is what you're doing most of the time in this topic. I am absolutely certain that if we go back and forth around the quotations you have provided, I will find a problem with it and you will find an explanation for it, until we get completely sidetracked. I'm not going to do that.

First of all, god is illogical. It can't be explained by logical means. I'm sorry, but... Just the basic premise of 'Can God create a rock he can't lift?' can only be gotten around by bending words. And since God breaks the basic physical rules of our universe, using mathematics, physics, our understanding and knowledge of the universe and our logic to reach a conclusion of God does not answer anything. At all. It just opens more questions. How does God work? Where did he come from? And if these questions can't be answered, the explanation of God becomes completely pointless.

*ahem*

1)All normal cows have four legs.
2)Elsie has four legs.
3)Therefore Elsie is a normal cow.

Really?

Ahahah win.

An argument is valid if it has the property that if all the premises are true, the conclusion can't be false. Obviously, that is not the case for your argument, so even though the premises are true, the argument is invalid. For example:

1.) All actors are robots.
2.) Tom Cruise is an actor.
3.) Therefore, Tom Cruise is a robot.

This argument is valid because if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for conclusion to be false. In a world where 1 and 2 are true, then the premises guarantee the conclusion is true.

1.) All actors are robots.
2.) Tom Cruise is a robot.
3.) Therefore, Tom Cruise is a actor.

The above is an example of an invalid argument much like your argument with Elsie because Tom Cruise could have some other profession. This is why it is important for deductive arguments to have both true premises and a valid form.