The cosmological argument
The cosmological argument
More sound reasoning...
Sorry, not so much interested in watching videos to start a debate.
Can you provide an argument for debate in your own words? If so, what is it?
Pro scientia et humanitate.
Sure, based on the evidence atheism is illogical and unsubstantiated. Predicated on the desire to believe 'existence' is the only justification needed to pursue uninhibited pleasure and self promotion.Quote by: HoleyCarbonGrid
The videos [ where Mr. Craig talks exclusively] essentially claim that anyone who doesn't believe what he believes is "inept" or just uneducated in in certain matters. The only thing illogical is this man's arrogance.
Atheism is just non-belief in a particular theology, you seem to suggest that if one is an atheist he must also bow to the big bang.
The logic of theism deals in the realm of anti-logic. It claims that lightning comes from Gods, and that bushes can talk. For a man to even suggest absolute knowledge is arrogant and nearly sickening.
I'm not sure this is much of anything to go on.
However, I can provide only my own background. I am an atheist. I ascribe to only two assumptions.
First, that the observable world is material, and that observations that I and others make about it are valid.
Second, that the simplest possible explanation is the most likely to be valid.
The second can be violated only in the presence of evidence which supports a more valid, albeit more complicated, claim.
I make no assumption about the nature or existence of God.
Atheism is - or at least, should be, in my opinion - the starting point of any rational person. Theism is then not necessarily wrong, but does require evidence which suggests it is true. I find such evidence to be lacking.
So please, how is my particular stance illogical?
Pro scientia et humanitate.
Your assumption that no evidence exist that can lead you to God, that is illogical. Morality exist. The biological machinery of our bodies exist. If we were to find remnants of some civilization on a planet far away by the machinery they left; logic would tell us there is life beyond ourselves. Yet you can't see the universe and the civilization on this planet in the same light. That is illogical. A car is evidence of a designer yet our far more intricately designed bodies are not? That is illogical.
Considering the immoralities of God, that is not an argument for his existence but rather against.Morality exist.
Explained through science and natural processes.The biological machinery of our bodies exist.
But we are not currently aware of any divine beings; we are aware of sentient earthly beings, thus a precedent exists for one example and doesn't exist for the other.If we were to find remnants of some civilization on a planet far away by the machinery they left; logic would tell us there is life beyond ourselves.
Why would it be when our bodies show no sign of design whatsoever?A car is evidence of a designer yet our far more intricately designed bodies are not?
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
What caused or where did the vacuum come from?
What caused or where did God come from? Welcome to the paradox of existence, finder. No answer is satisfactory. Something somewhere had to pop up from nothingness; and not just the nothingness connecting planets and galaxies and stars, but true nothingness, where even the quantum foam and space-time do not exist. Such nothingness we cannot perceive.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks