Top Ten Creationist Arguments Part 1 and 2

[cindylou]

Indeed, faith means you believe regardless of the evidence.

I could post a book here in this thread, but you are supposed to seek God. It's not supposed to be spoonfed to you. All you are supposed to accept is that the Christian faith is not unreasonable and that Christians are not idiots. At some point at the very very very end (not where you are at) you do..indeed...have to make a leap of faith. Not an unreasonable leap. If you have a certain perception you won't find it. Not that it is wrong but that's why you can't understand...

 

[calveless wonder]

sookie is so off the chain fine

she's got fucked up teeth

nice tits but she;s not smoking

 

[nimbus]

pretty sure you've never head a TOTW...


just sayin'

dude i'm pretty java had THE totw

 

[ledhead]

What? Do you want to provide counterpoints to the ontological argument?

I already did a thousand times...Where you been?

 

[bigpokey]

she's got fucked up teeth

nice tits but she;s not smoking

bro u stfu bout sook, that jaxd up grill is trashy sexy....

i wish she would down a big gulp full of ex-lax and dump all over me in a kiddie pool til i could swim in it

 

[samoth]

I already did a thousand times...Where you been?

Sorry, man. I haven't been very active here in some time. I'll keep an eye out for your poasts in the future.

 

[samoth]

This is how Craig brings it to Christianity; He makes these arguments:

There is a God that exits outside time/space
God fine tuned the universe for life
Morality depends on God
Jesus came back from the dead somehow by God (empty tomb, postmortem appearances can all be established) and they are independent reports of an empty tomb.

I never heard of him, so I looked him up; kinda surprised to see a modern-day logician/philospher as a priest or whatever.

Anyway, his argument is basically a re-hash of Descarte's in the Fifth Meditation; that is, a basic cosmological argument of the form

God is the being with all the perfections
But existance is perfection
So God possesses existance, i.e., God exists

which reduces to

The object which is omnipotent, omiscient, morally perfect, ...
and exists, exists.

which is an invalid inference that assumes what one is supposed to be proving, i.e., it begs the question.

Kant has work that purports that any cosmological argument is necessarily an ontological argument. Interestingly enough, this invokes empericism and turns into an argument among historians.

Likewise,, the Argument for Design (or Argument to Design, or Teleological Argument) requires an a priori assumption that for an ordered universe, the probability of God is greater than the probability of ~God.

Craig assumes the first premise of his argument as "intuitively obvious" (there exists a God, whatever begins to exist has a cause, the infinite cannot exist, etc.), which is probably why he's more a theologist than modern logician.

 

[cindylou]

He is a preist? I didn't know that. What people want to call him does not matter to me...I like him, and I like his voice..lol

You are right of course about what he assumes. Craig uses many types of cosmological arguments....one what he calls the kalam argument, another by Leibniz...everything that exists has an explanation..if the universe has an explanation, then that is God, the universe exits. It is possible God exists, it is up to each individual to accept if they accept that possibility or not.

I know Immanual Kant objected to the conclusion of cosmological arguments and yes, Craig argues that if there is a God he would make the universe. It is not likely that the universe would exist uncaused, it is more likely that God would exist uncaused. I'm surprised java didn't call out Craig's arguments by using Kant earlier...wasn't he Prussian?

That's not his only arguments though, he makes many arguments for the possibility of God's existence. Craig's best argument in my opinion is the moral argument.

Anyway, internet atheist evangelicals don't always attack the actual arguments the theist has..they attack a distorted version of them. Or they'll talk about all the horrible things people have done in the name of God, then pretend that automatically makes atheism true. Oh yeah, all Christians accept a young earth and reject evolution. Some of these atheists will believe ANYTHING as long as it means they don't have to believe in God...even that they themselves might not even exist. lol...which is fine it just makes me smile and smh. Maybe I as drunkylou should start an EF thread about how all atheists (not true but I'll pretend it is true) don't believe they exist just to be obnoxious...

I'm just sayin if I'm pretending to have meaning by pretending there is a God that is no different than the atheist pretending to assign meaning when in reality it all really does not matter anyway...we are all the same just assigning meaning in different areas. We are all just deluding ourselves. I respect atheists but for some it is just an easy way to seem intelligent.

 

[javaguru]

He is a preist? I didn't know that. What people want to call him does not matter to me...I like him, and I like his voice..lol

You are right of course about what he assumes. Craig uses many types of cosmological arguments....one what he calls the kalam argument, another by Leibniz...everything that exists has an explanation..if the universe has an explanation, then that is God, the universe exits. It is possible God exists, it is up to each individual to accept if they accept that possibility or not.

I know Immanual Kant objected to the conclusion of cosmological arguments and yes, Craig argues that if there is a God he would make the universe. It is not likely that the universe would exist uncaused, it is more likely that God would exist uncaused. I'm surprised java didn't call out Craig's arguments by using Kant earlier...wasn't he Prussian?

That's not his only arguments though, he makes many arguments for the possibility of God's existence. Craig's best argument in my opinion is the moral argument.

Anyway, internet atheist evangelicals don't always attack the actual arguments the theist has..they attack a distorted version of them. Or they'll talk about all the horrible things people have done in the name of God, then pretend that automatically makes atheism true. Oh yeah, all Christians accept a young earth and reject evolution. Some of these atheists will believe ANYTHING as long as it means they don't have to believe in God...even that they themselves might not even exist. lol...which is fine it just makes me smile and smh. Maybe I as drunkylou should start an EF thread about how all atheists (not true but I'll pretend it is true) don't believe they exist just to be obnoxious...

I'm just sayin if I'm pretending to have meaning by pretending there is a God that is no different than the atheist pretending to assign meaning when in reality it all really does not matter anyway...we are all the same just assigning meaning in different areas. We are all just deluding ourselves. I respect atheists but for some it is just an easy way to seem intelligent.

just replace "God" with "Leprechauns" or "Santa Clause" and you have the same argument which is just as valid.

 

[cindylou]

No it is not. What? How is that valid to: everything that exists has a cause? Or anything I typed in that post you quoted? You can prove that "Santa Clause" and "Leprechauns" don't exist. If Santa existed we would see lots of evidence around Christmas Eve. There would be factories at the North Pole..lots of little leprechaun bones and little villages or whatever. "Leprechanuns" and "Santa Clause" are supposed to be physical, material...things. The creator of the universe has to be immaterial, timeless, etc....but naturalists have a bias against something beyond nature...that keeps them from thinking that a nonphysical something outside time and space is that cause...I don't think saying that cause as god is begging the question either if we go further and define that nonphysical something as an eternal metaphysically necessary being that is the point or reason for moral value and the creator of everything.