A Question To Believers And Non-Believers

[Sacrificial Ram]

As counter point to Minnesota's question about what arguement do you find most compelling, ..

What arguement from 'The other side' do you find LEAST compelling?

[Sacrificial Ram]

There are many arguements I can not compelling.. but the one that I find the LEAST compelling of all is


"If you don't believe, you are going to burn in hell forever"

[salvationfound]

The least compelling argument for me against atheism is the question of
evil.

he he he I got your attention now haven't I since I know many people find
the problem of evil the biggest thing against Christianity.

[Sacrificial Ram]

The least compelling argument for me against atheism is the question of
evil.

he he he I got your attention now haven't I since I know many people find
the problem of evil the biggest thing against Christianity.
Please explain further..

[salvationfound]

Sorry I think my post was a little more sarcastic than it needed to be. The
point is this thread was asking what we personally feel is the least
compelling argument. If I answer will you just accept it as my personal
opinion or will you try and convince of how my logic is wrong? I don't want
this to turn into a debate since that's not what this thread is suppose to do
only just describe our personal feelings.
So I will tell you if you say you'll accept my answer as my own personal
opinion and not try to turn it into a debate on how my reasoning is wrong.

[TrinityKicker]

The argument I find most compelling in favor of atheism is one I came up with on my own. I don't know why I've never heard it before. When I thought of it, I was so terrified that I refused to think about it for weeks. Of couse, I'm not going to share it with anyone. I consider it too personal to post.

I don't find any argument in favor of atheism to be worse than most other's I've come across.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Multiple Universe as an explanation to why we have a "just right" universe for life is one of the least compelling arguments.

I also find atheist arguments weak when it comes to issues of morality. If right and wrong are relative, then who can say what is truly right and wrong.

[Jayrok]

perhaps pascal's wager. Just being a theist doesn't mean you believe and worship the "right" God. Perhaps christianity is wrong and Krishna is the way to go?

That, and the idea that God would have his creation suffer an eternity of torment in some place called hell for simply not believing in the new testament.

[btboy500]

The problem of evil.

[Jordan]

The argument I find most compelling in favor of atheism is one I came up with on my own. I don't know why I've never heard it before. When I thought of it, I was so terrified that I refused to think about it for weeks. Of couse, I'm not going to share it with anyone. I consider it too personal to post.


Why did you have to say that? Now I'm going to be wondering for days what this argument was and why it scared you so much.

[Lizard]

For me the argument that God can not be proven using naturalistic methods.

:duh: God is supernatural. This is exactly what you would expect. :doh:

[Rationalist]

Multiple Universe as an explanation to why we have a "just right" universe for life is one of the least compelling arguments.The truth here is that we don't know whether the universe actually is "just right" for life at all. The notion of "just right" implies that the constants of the universe could be otherwise. But there is no evidence for this. This may be the only way the universe could be.

I also find atheist arguments weak when it comes to issues of morality. If right and wrong are relative, then who can say what is truly right and wrong.Third wave philosophers and socio-evoluntionary biologists don't believe that morals are socially or culturally relative, and that what is right and wrong is a natural and inevitable outcome of evolutionary contingencies, and not in any sense arbitrary.

In otherwords, the moral status of murder, theft, and betrayal is as inevitable and natural as predators, herbivores, and parasites. They are both inevitable given the way evolution works.

[Rationalist]

:duh: God is supernatural. This is exactly what you would expect. :doh:
So are Unicorns, Leprechauns, and Fairies.

[btboy500]

Third wave philosophers and socio-evoluntionary biologists don't believe that morals are socially or culturally relative, and that what is right and wrong is a natural and inevitable outcome of evolutionary contingencies, and not in any sense arbitrary.

In otherwords, the moral status of murder, theft, and betrayal is as inevitable and natural as predators, herbivores, and parasites. They are both inevitable given the way evolution works.


Is this not trying to derive moral prescriptions from scientific descriptions?

[Rationalist]

As counter point to Minnesota's question about what arguement do you find most compelling, ..

What arguement from 'The other side' do you find LEAST compelling?
Atheism:

Most Compelling: God's "plan" just doesn't make much sense.

Least Compelling: Christian "X" once did something bad, therefore God doesn't exist.

Theism:

Most Compelling: Wouldn't it be great if the universe cared about us poor pathetic humans.

Least Compelling: "I was once an atheist/evolutionist/etc like you once, but then I wasn't."

[stevencarrwork]

As counter point to Minnesota's question about what arguement do you find most compelling, ..

What arguement from 'The other side' do you find LEAST compelling?

It would be more interesting for me to give an argument from this side.

Christian X did something bad, so Christianity is wrong.

In fact, I'm not even sure it is an argument.

Are we restricted to mentioning things which actually make a little bit of sense?

[Gilgaron]

As counter point to Minnesota's question about what arguement do you find most compelling, ..

What arguement from 'The other side' do you find LEAST compelling?
The least compelling theistic argument is easily Pascal's Wager, off the top of my head.

[lee_merrill]

What is least compelling to me is when non-theists start making sweeping blanket assertions, that would require omniscience! Like they are ... God.

I guess that's not exactly an argument, but I do feel like tearing me hair when that happens. Theists do this too, tho...

Blessings,
Lee

[steamer]

The least compelling argument is the one from "testimony". "I got a good parking spot at the mall cuz god was watching out for me." "She died after we prayed for her and we knew it was god's will." "I had this feeling that god wanted me to stop posting on TWEB"

[Sacrificial Ram]

Sorry I think my post was a little more sarcastic than it needed to be. The
point is this thread was asking what we personally feel is the least
compelling argument. If I answer will you just accept it as my personal
opinion or will you try and convince of how my logic is wrong? I don't want
this to turn into a debate since that's not what this thread is suppose to do
only just describe our personal feelings.
So I will tell you if you say you'll accept my answer as my own personal
opinion and not try to turn it into a debate on how my reasoning is wrong.
No.. that isn't really the point of this thread. There is enough fireworks elsewhere for that kind of activitiy..

[Sacrificial Ram]

It would be more interesting for me to give an argument from this side.

Christian X did something bad, so Christianity is wrong.

In fact, I'm not even sure it is an argument.

Are we restricted to mentioning things which actually make a little bit of sense?
I personally agree with you there.. I find that a very lame arguement itself.. even lamer than the 'X did that, so s(he) wasn't a "True Christian"

[Sacrificial Ram]

The problem of evil.
What is the claim by the atheists about evil that you find 'uncompelling'?

You are the second person to mention it. It is the problem of the perception of evil existing, or is it an arguement that atheists make about evil?? Could you please elaborate.

[stevencarrwork]

The least compelling argument made by a real Christian was when I was asked to prove I had a mother.

Here is the least compelling argument that was never made.

1) God does not want to compel people to believe
2) If there were compelling arguments, then people would be compelled to believe
3) So God has seen to it that all Christian arguments are not very compelling
4) Therefore there must be a God.

I don't find that very compelling.

But it is spooky that Christian arguments are so bad that nobody is forced by the power of logic to believe in God.

[TrinityKicker]

Atheism:

Most Compelling: God's "plan" just doesn't make much sense.

Least Compelling: Christian "X" once did something bad, therefore God doesn't exist.

Theism:

Most Compelling: Wouldn't it be great if the universe cared about us poor pathetic humans.

Least Compelling: "I was once an atheist/evolutionist/etc like you once, but then I wasn't."
It's funny. Both you 'Most Compelling' arguments are irrational. The one for atheism, God's plan JUST doesn't make sense, is a statement of faith. The one for Theism, it would be great, is an emotional appeal.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Atheist

least compelling - "God" is evil

most compelling - Human evolution

Theist

least compelling - "look around you, how could this all just be an accident"

most compelling - Christianity

[EvoUK]

I was going to say that the argument from design was the least compelling. However, having read through the thread;

"If you don't believe god exists and loves you, then you're going to burn in hell for all eternity"

Has to be the worst argument ever made. I mean- it's just ludicrous!

"You'd best believe in unicorns or they'll urinate on your roses"

[EvoUK]

most compelling - Christianity

Aaw, how quaint!

[FirstSunday33ad]

Aaw, how quaint!

Quaint??? :huh:

How so? :shrug:

[btboy500]

What is the claim by the atheists about evil that you find 'uncompelling'?

You are the second person to mention it. It is the problem of the perception of evil existing, or is it an arguement that atheists make about evil?? Could you please elaborate.


Atleast regarding the logical version, I've yet to see atheists show the logical inconsistency of evil and an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God. Also, Alvin Plantinga refuted J.L. Mackie's version with the free will defense. Another thing I find problematic is I don't believe that atheistic worldviews allow for objective evil to exist.

[btboy500]

most compelling - Christianity

Aaw, how quaint!


It's called the Christological argument, where one tries to prove(or substantiate) the existence of God by proving(or substantiating) the Resurrection of Jesus. Because Jesus consistently affirmed theism, it's like a bottom-up approach. Personally, I'd start with using cosmological evidence for the existence of God, then using historical evidence for the Resurrection, but the CA kills two birds with one stone.

[FirstSunday33ad]

It's called the Christological argument, where one tries to prove(or substantiate) the existence of God by proving(or substantiating) the Resurrection of Jesus. Because Jesus consistently affirmed theism, it's like a bottom-up approach. Personally, I'd start with using cosmological evidence for the existence of God, then using historical evidence for the Resurrection, but the CA kills two birds with one stone.

Actually in my instance its more like the "everything about humanity says this crazy idea should have died in the cradle, unless it actually happened as they say it did, in which case that makes it true and therefore means God must really exist as presented by the Bible" arguement.

But I split hairs.

[shunyadragon]

As counter point to Minnesota's question about what arguement do you find most compelling, ..

What arguement from 'The other side' do you find LEAST compelling?
There are several LEAST compelling arguments.

The worst are Craig's proofs for the existence of God and justification for Christianity. Kalam's argument is really, really bad.

[btboy500]

Actually in my instance its more like the "everything about humanity says this crazy idea should have died in the cradle, unless it actually happened as they say it did, in which case that makes it true and therefore means God must really exist as presented by the Bible" arguement.


A la "The Impossible Faith". Same thing :smile:.


There are several LEAST compelling arguments.

The worst are Craig's proofs for the existence of God and justification for Christianity. Kalam's argument is really, really bad.


How so?

[A Beautiful Truth]

The truth here is that we don't know whether the universe actually is "just right" for life at all. The notion of "just right" implies that the constants of the universe could be otherwise. But there is no evidence for this. This may be the only way the universe could be.

Why is there even a universe? Something outside of matter, energy, space, and time caused it. The answer is already outside of nature as we know it aka supernatural.

Third wave philosophers and socio-evoluntionary biologists don't believe that morals are socially or culturally relative, and that what is right and wrong is a natural and inevitable outcome of evolutionary contingencies, and not in any sense arbitrary.

In otherwords, the moral status of murder, theft, and betrayal is as inevitable and natural as predators, herbivores, and parasites. They are both inevitable given the way evolution works.

Inevitable, and not wrong or right? If there is such a thing as right or wrong, by what standard is one to judge? The educated elite? What do you say of Peter Singer? Right or wrong, according to the standard of evolutionary contingencies?

[A Beautiful Truth]

For me the argument that God can not be proven using naturalistic methods.

God is supernatural. This is exactly what you would expect.

So are Unicorns, Leprechauns, and Fairies.

I would agree with Faramir on all but the resurrection. I think naturalistic methods lead us to believe the resurrection is historical. With the resurrection, the supernatural inspiration of the faith of the Jews is confirmed.

edited to add: Looking back over the thread, I see First Sunday also mentioned this argument.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Why is there even a universe? Something outside of matter, energy, space, and time caused it. The answer is already outside of nature as we know it aka supernatural.



Inevitable, and not wrong or right? If there is such a thing as right or wrong, by what standard is one to judge? The educated elite? What do you say of Peter Singer? Right or wrong, according to the standard of evolutionary contingencies?
If there is a god, why is there a god? And, just beause something is outside the bounds of this universe doesn't mean that the answer is outside of nature. It is just we do not understand the nature of it yet.

[EvoUK]

I would agree with Faramir on all but the resurrection. I think naturalistic methods lead us to believe the resurrection is historical.

No historical document is taken at face value. And if we have up to four accounts of the same events (birth, resurrection, "sermon on the mount", etc.) and they differ in many details, we have every reason to be suspect of the historicity of the events, without ever looking at the question if there are supernatural things in it or not.

The ressurection has more evidence for it than most other miracles, but it just goes to show how little evidence just about every "miracle" has. The evidential support for Jesus's existence is thin enough; evidence for his resurrection is, in my opinion, absolutely insufficient. It is only the "best evidentially supported" miracle only by comparison to trivially obvious fabrications.

[HRG_new]

Why is there even a universe? Something outside of matter, energy, space, and time caused it. The answer is already outside of nature as we know it aka supernatural.

Why do you think there had to be a cause for the universe ?

[EvoUK]

Why do you think there had to be a cause for the universe ?

Because such thinking is very "human". We are but relatively simple design/pattern-seeking creatures.

[shunyadragon]

A la "The Impossible Faith". Same thing :smile:.Unfortunately several religions and churches fulfill the requirements of 'The Impossible Faith'. In particular the Baha'i Faith. and the history and miracles of the faith are better documented by outside independent sources than Christianity.



How so?They are circular arguments dependent on the presupposition of the belief in God and the inerrancy of the Bible as demonstrated in previous threads on the subject.

[A Beautiful Truth]

If there is a god, why is there a god?

The universe is natural and requires a "why". Since God is outside of our natural bounds, how can "why" even be understood with our natural limitations?

And, just beause something is outside the bounds of this universe doesn't mean that the answer is outside of nature. It is just we do not understand the nature of it yet.

It is outside of any nature that we can ever comprehend while bound to this space-time. Anything outside of this universe is outside the natural bounds we know, or ever can know, naturally. We know there is something outside of the universe, but while we are bound to this universe, we can never physically know what that "something" is. The atheist and the theist meet here. But I think the theist has a better footing :wink:.

[dizzle]

I moved this thread here as it seemed much more geared to a less confrontational, conversational style than apologetics, and this will keep it that way.

[A Beautiful Truth]

No historical document is taken at face value. And if we have up to four accounts of the same events (birth, resurrection, "sermon on the mount", etc.) and they differ in many details, we have every reason to be suspect of the historicity of the events, without ever looking at the question if there are supernatural things in it or not.

I believe these common objections have been answered well in Christian literature.

The ressurection has more evidence for it than most other miracles, but it just goes to show how little evidence just about every "miracle" has.

The only Biblical miracle I know that can even be verified is the resurrection. But, then again, that is the only one required to believe the others.

The evidential support for Jesus's existence is thin enough; evidence for his resurrection is, in my opinion, absolutely insufficient. It is only the "best evidentially supported" miracle only by comparison to trivially obvious fabrications.

Why? Even without the Christian writings, we know from history that Jesus was a Jewish teacher, people believed he did miracles, some people believed he was the messiah, that He was crucified, and his believers believed he was still alive.

The evidence for His existence is not "thin" by any means. Having applied this ultra critical criteron to him, you would have to be fair and apply it to other historical figures. You would find great objection by your friends in the History department.

I think if the same standard was used to other history, you would not say the evidence was "thin." That belief is a recent one based on predjudice, I believe.

We are not suppose to be predjudice when it comes to the facts, certainly you believe this, no? The same standard I expect from myself, to be honest with the facts, is what I would expect from the atheist as well.

I, as a Christian, admit that you, as an evolutionist, have a good argument for evolution. Do I say it is "thin" just because I am suppose to be opposed to the idea, or should I remain honest and say you have good case? Please examine your own predjudice. I demand honesty from myself and I encourage you in that as well. You saying evidence for Christ's very exsitance as an historical person is "thin" leads me to believe you have been misinformed or are prejudiced. I hope it is merely the former and a little more investigation would help. If it is the latter, I hope you will be honest where the evidence leads--even to a position you don't like, though just that He was an actual historical figure does not bother most people in the world.

I've been there, done that when it comes to honestly accepting views that had been contrary to previous beliefs. You are actually one person who helped me see the good argument for biological evolution. You were very nice to patiently take me through as you did.

I am not afraid of the facts, where the facts may lead. I hold facts above emotion. I would hope the same for both my Christian and atheist friends.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Why do you think there had to be a cause for the universe ?

Because the universe is not eternal.

[shunyadragon]

The ressurection has more evidence for it than most other miracles, but it just goes to show how little evidence just about every "miracle" has. The evidential support for Jesus's existence is thin enough; evidence for his resurrection is, in my opinion, absolutely insufficient. It is only the "best evidentially supported" miracle only by comparison to trivially obvious fabrications.
The miracle of the execution of the Bab, among others, in the history of the Baha'i Faith is probably the best documented religious miracle related to the founder of a religion. It is witnessed by foreign (Russian authorities) and recorded by Moslem authorities, the enemies of the faith. This includes the dust storm and darkness that followed that blocked the sun and a terrible earthquake. In fact the records of witnesses other than those of the early believers are the best we have today.

[Sacrificial Ram]

The universe is natural and requires a "why". Since God is outside of our natural bounds, how can "why" even be understood with our natural limitations?



It is outside of any nature that we can ever comprehend while bound to this space-time. Anything outside of this universe is outside the natural bounds we know, or ever can know, naturally. We know there is something outside of the universe, but while we are bound to this universe, we can never physically know what that "something" is. The atheist and the theist meet here. But I think the theist has a better footing :wink:.
Well, to me, that arguement is very non-compelling. It seems to be an avoidance of looking for an answer.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Because the universe is not eternal.
Well, not in it's current form.. but what evidence do we have that it is not 'eternal' in some form or other??

[A Beautiful Truth]

Well, to me, that arguement is very non-compelling. It seems to be an avoidance of looking for an answer.

It is a science fact that we cannot physically comprehend what is outside of our own space-time.

Well, not in it's current form.. but what evidence do we have that it is not 'eternal' in some form or other??

All matter, energy, space and time had a beginning. That is also science fact. Since our universe is compossed of matter, energy, space, and time, and those things had a beginning in the finite past, we may say that the universe is not eternal.

The universe (matter, energy, space, time) is finite. Something that is finite cannot be eternal. That would be a contradiction, no?

[HRG_new]

Because the universe is not eternal.

1) How can you claim that ? The universe exists for all time values which make sense. Asking for more is like asking what's going on at 100° Northern latitude.

2) We know from QM that there are acausal events. Why can't the existence of the universe be one ?

[HRG_new]

The only Biblical miracle I know that can even be verified is the resurrection. But, then again, that is the only one required to believe the others.

How do you verify an alleged events of which we only have religious tales, not historical documents ?


Why? Even without the Christian writings, we know from history that Jesus was a Jewish teacher, people believed he did miracles, some people believed he was the messiah, that He was crucified, and his believers believed he was still alive.

And the majority believed that he wasn't, else they would have converted. Miracle-makers were a dime a dozen in the 1st century.

The evidence for His existence is not "thin" by any means. Having applied this ultra critical criteron to him, you would have to be fair and apply it to other historical figures.

I don't believe Caesar, Dzinghis Khan, Buddha or Justinian have been resurrected either. IOW, I distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary claims.

You would find great objection by your friends in the History department.

Not at all. They regard any claim that natural laws have been violated as not genuine. That's why they do not believe Herodot's description of dog-headed Aithiopians, or the ascension of Romulus to the gods which is reported in Livius' Ab Urbe Condita.

I think if the same standard was used to other history, you would not say the evidence was "thin." That belief is a recent one based on predjudice, I believe.

The evidence for Jesus' existence as a Jewish preacher is substantial. It's the evidence for the extraordinary claims that the Gospels make about him which is quite thin and utterly unconvincing.

We are not suppose to be predjudice when it comes to the facts, certainly you believe this, no? The same standard I expect from myself, to be honest with the facts, is what I would expect from the atheist as well.

Sure. I do not believe that Elvis Presley has been resurrected either, despite the many reports that he has been seen alive.

To repeat: accepting the ordinary claims about Jesus (or any other historical figure) as genuine does not mean that the extraordinary claims have to be accepted as well.

[Sacrificial Ram]

It is a science fact that we cannot physically comprehend what is outside of our own space-time.



All matter, energy, space and time had a beginning. That is also science fact. Since our universe is compossed of matter, energy, space, and time, and those things had a beginning in the finite past, we may say that the universe is not eternal.

The universe (matter, energy, space, time) is finite. Something that is finite cannot be eternal. That would be a contradiction, no? Is it?? And how is that scientific fact tested?? Could you show me a peer reviewed scientific article on that? I can show some articles that speculate that it might be possible (long shot, but possible) to detect these other universes using gravity leaking from them to us.


In addition, the Ekpyrotic Universe theory universe model is a model that
shows that somethign that is finite can be 'eternal' also. While not neccesarily true, it does have some observational evidence to back it up.


Your declaration that it is a scientific fact does not make it so.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Is it?? And how is that scientific fact tested?? Could you show me a peer reviewed scientific article on that?

I was referring to the Big Bang. Is that not peer reviewed enough?

I can show some articles that speculate that it might be possible (long shot, but possible) to detect these other universes using gravity leaking from them to us.

Why bring up speculation and long shots? The universe is thermodynamically closed, that is not so speculatory.

In addition, the Ekpyrotic Universe theory universe model is a model that
shows that somethign that is finite can be 'eternal' also. While not neccesarily true, it does have some observational evidence to back it up.

Something both finite and eternal, did I hear that right? Sort of beyond my reach of comprehension at this point, I admit. Everyday Joes like me think that is a contradiction.

In any case, you still have a singularity, you still need a transcendent origination. Originations need originators.

Your declaration that it is a scientific fact does not make it so.

Aside from speculations and long shots, I think there is enough evidence for a beginning of the universe. I am more interested in the facts than in metaphysics.

[A Beautiful Truth]

1) How can you claim that ? The universe exists for all time values which make sense. Asking for more is like asking what's going on at 100° Northern latitude.

2) We know from QM that there are acausal events. Why can't the existence of the universe be one ?

Do you believe in the Big Bang? Do you believe the Big Bang was the beginning of matter, energy, space, and time? Does not a beginning necessitate a beginner?

[Sacrificial Ram]

I was referring to the Big Bang. Is that not peer reviewed enough?


And what evidence do you have that we will never be able to see beyond the big bang? I pointed you to the article on the ekpyrotic universe. This suggests
your assumptions about the big bang are incorrect.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Do you believe in the Big Bang? Do you believe the Big Bang was the beginning of matter, energy, space, and time? Does not a beginning necessitate a beginner?
Well, the big bang was a change in state.

And why does a begining need a beginner?? Where did the 'beginner' come from? That is just making a special pleading for a deity.

You are doing two things that there is no evidence for.

1) That the "Big Bang" was the begining of everything, rather than a change of state.

2) You are assuming everything has a cause, and that there was a 'first cause'.

3) In addition, you are assuming that this first cause was a concious entity that purposely created the universe for some unknown but profound purpose.

Personally, I never found the cosmological argument to be very convincing. It has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

[A Beautiful Truth]

And what evidence do you have that we will never be able to see beyond the big bang? I pointed you to the article on the ekpyrotic universe. This suggests
your assumptions about the big bang are incorrect.

Sorry, was not able to access your article. It may very well have been an ekpyrotic big bang, you still need a transcendent cause of this universe.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Well, the big bang was a change in state.

And why does a begining need a beginner?? Where did the 'beginner' come from? That is just making a special pleading for a deity.

Is that why you run from it, becaue it pleads for a deity? Honest scientists are not suppose to do that. Go where the facts lead, and all that.

Cause and effect relationships take place in time. Something beyond our time, transcendent to it effected the Beginning of the universe. Effects have causes.

You are doing two things that there is no evidence for.

1) That the "Big Bang" was the begining of everything, rather than a change of state.

I did not say the Big Bang was the begining of everything for then nothing could have caused it to come into being. I said the universe (our matter, energy, space, and time) had a beginning. Is there a real problem with that?


2) You are assuming everything has a cause, and that there was a 'first cause'.

No, did not say that either. I said our universe has a cause (because it had a beginning)

3) In addition, you are assuming that this first cause was a concious entity that purposely created the universe for some unknown but profound purpose.

Gee, I don't remember that part really getting into the conversation. I did make that one small comment about atheists and theists being on the same ground before the beginning of the universe and that theists have better footing but that was a side jab just to be cute. In the science I have mentioned I have not mentioned "a concious entity that purposely created the universe for some unknown but profound purpose." But since you mentioned it I am pursuaded that perhaps this is the root of the problem with your acceptance of the Big Bang. Though not even the Ekpyrotic theory gets you beyond a singularity.

Personally, I never found the cosmological argument to be very convincing. It has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Fine, but don't let your predjudice keep you from accepting some basic understanding like cause and effect.

[C. D. Ward]

Sorry, was not able to access your article. It may very well have been an ekpyrotic big bang, you still need a transcendent cause of this universe.You can find a nice, and relatively untechnical article here (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000&pageNumber=6&catID=2), at SciAm. String theory eliminates the singularity entirely, and none of the various models proposed requires a "transcendent cause" in the sense of "intelligent and purposeful". The ekpyrotic model, for example, posits colliding branes in a meta-verse as the proximate cause of the existence of this universe...

[A Beautiful Truth]

You can find a nice, and relatively untechnical article here (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000&pageNumber=6&catID=2), at SciAm. String theory eliminates the singularity entirely,

I'll look into it.


and none of the various models proposed requires a "transcendent cause" in the sense of "intelligent and purposeful".

Transcendent in the sense that it is beyond our universe is what I meant by "transcendent".


The ekpyrotic model, for example, posits colliding branes in a meta-verse as the proximate cause of the existence of this universe...

I'll look into it further.

[shunyadragon]

I was referring to the Big Bang. Is that not peer reviewed enough?
The big bang is an even in the past that the details are not fully understood.

Why bring up speculation and long shots? The universe is thermodynamically closed, that is not so speculatory.
It is unknown as whether the universe is a thermodynaically closed system or not.

Something both finite and eternal, did I hear that right? Sort of beyond my reach of comprehension at this point, I admit. Everyday Joes like me think that is a contradiction.

In any case, you still have a singularity, you still need a transcendent origination. Originations need originators.
It is not known whether the universe or the matrix of existence that contains it is finite or infinite.

Aside from speculations and long shots, I think there is enough evidence for a beginning of the universe. I am more interested in the facts than in metaphysics.
There is evidence of a beginning of this event, but we do not know whether there was more than one event or not.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Sorry, was not able to access your article. It may very well have been an ekpyrotic big bang, you still need a transcendent cause of this universe.
Define what you mean by 'transcendent cause'. What evidence do you have that a cause is needed at all?? We have empirical evidence that there are
noncausual events happening on the quantum level, therefore noncausual
events occur.

And, if the ekpyrotic version of the big bang is correct, there isn't a cause at all.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Define what you mean by 'transcendent cause'.

A cause outside of our universe's matter, energy, space, and time.

What evidence do you have that a cause is needed at all?? We have empirical evidence that there are
noncausual events happening on the quantum level, therefore noncausual
events occur.

And, if the ekpyrotic version of the big bang is correct, there isn't a cause at all.

I'll look into it more.

[exile]

Well, it's no sillier than the argument - Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheism is wrong. Which I have had put to me often, I assure you.

The weakest theist argument that is put by reasonably intelligent theists is the ontological one. This really does get me hot under the collar as it keeps on surfacing yet seems to be obviously nonsensical.

Weakest atheist argument? Most atheist arguments consist of rebuttals of theist ones.
The main positive atheist argument is the argument from evil - which strictly speaking denies God is omnipotent, omniscient and ominbenevolent. In the sense you can accept this argument without ruling out the existence of God, I suppose this is a weak argument, though IMO it kills the Christian concept of God stone dead.

[Jack777]

The only "argument" I would accept is this one. There fore the strongest argument for the theists is this one. I can be forgiven of my sins and Jesus died on the cross so I can have eternal life. It is immaterial whether I know everything and every answer to all of reality, or I do no tknow. It is my opinion that I do not know everything and probably not as much as a lot of people. The thing is that Jesus is real and everything the Bible say is true. I did not know it is true until I became a believer. The spirit of anit-Christ is responsible for making people think Jesus was not bodily resurrected and denial of the miracles. It is not theoretically satisfying, but it is true.

[flipper]

The TAG argument is frightfully bad.

[flipper]

Where's Minn's original thread, by the way?

[HRG_new]

Do you believe in the Big Bang? Do you believe the Big Bang was the beginning of matter, energy, space, and time?

No.

1) If no condition was previous to the big bang, then "before the BB" makes no sense. A "beginning of X" requires a time when X did not exist.

2) If the BB is the result of some event (e.g. the collision of two branes, or the transition from false to true vacuum), then it wasn't the beginning of matter (and at most of our kind of space and time).

Does not a beginning necessitate a beginner?

No - for two reasons:
1) Nature seems to be fundamentally acausal.
2) Even if a beginning is caused, the cause does not need to be personal.

[exile]

Well, THAT is now the weakest theist argument I've seen.

[shunyadragon]

The only "argument" I would accept is this one. There fore the strongest argument for the theists is this one. I can be forgiven of my sins and Jesus died on the cross so I can have eternal life. It is immaterial whether I know everything and every answer to all of reality, or I do no tknow. It is my opinion that I do not know everything and probably not as much as a lot of people. The thing is that Jesus is real and everything the Bible say is true. I did not know it is true until I became a believer. The spirit of anit-Christ is responsible for making people think Jesus was not bodily resurrected and denial of the miracles. It is not theoretically satisfying, but it is true.
The argument sounds very, ah . . . egocentrically satisfying in a Neolithic human sacrafice viewpoint.

[Jin-Roh]

I actually can agree that the the problem of evil is pretty near the bottom of the convincability scale in my mind. It seems the objection is with some other god, not the Christian God.

Others would probably be things like a la David Hume against miracles, God is a dictator who is out to ruin my fun, or assertions that believing in Christianity somehow demands that you jettison you're ability to think ("blind faith").

[Heathen Dawn]

Least compelling for atheism: evolution means that nature is all there is. (yup, that’s why now, as a theistic evolutionist, I’m stronger in my theistic beliefs than I ever was a young-earth creationist)

Least compelling for Christianity: the first Christians wouldn’t have gone to martyrdom unless the Resurrection really happened. (so I guess the Muslim martyrs mean Islam is true?)

Least compelling for Islam: you can’t produce a chapter like the Qur’an, so it must have been authored by God. (you can’t produce a sonnet like Shakespeare’s, so they must have been authored by God, right?)

Least compelling for Judaism: the Jewish people wouldn’t have survived for so long if not for God’s help. (I guess that makes the Chinese God’s chosen people.)

Least compelling for Buddhism: when you want something you have a feeling of pain, so it proves all suffering is caused by attachment. (blithely ignoring the times I don’t feel pain when I want something, or the times I feel pain without having any prior attachment.)

Least compelling for Mormonism: the eight witnesses of the Golden Plates. (yup yup, “and we lie not, God bearing witness of it” is a 100% guarantee against false testimony, just like with Dark-Helmet-faux-King-Roland’s “I guarantee it. Would I lie?” to Princess Vespa in Spaceballs – “Fooled you! HAHAHAHAHA!” :teeth: )

Least compelling for Scientology: L Ron Hubbard’s haircut. OK I’d better stop it right now…

[Jin-Roh]

Least compelling for Scientology: L Ron Hubbard’s haircut. OK I’d better stop it right now…

:lol:

[Ryokan]

The arguement about the improbabilty of, well, pretty much anything is the one that makes the least since to me. With only 1 universe, that is nearly infinitely huge, how can we know what is or isn't probable? We'd need many universes to do probabilities on crap like that. But people say it anyway, cuz they don't understand it.

[Darth Executor]

Atheist n00bs making bible contradiction sites without understanding even the basics of Christianity. When I realised how many of them were doing this, all my awe of the entire atheist "freethinking" movement dissovled. If I was an atheist, I'd ridicule those people into exile, because it's pretty much destroying their position as far as I'm concerned.

[Tux314]

I'd have to say it's a tie. One is relativism, with claims like the claim that God exists for me because I believe in him but not for the atheist because the atheist doesn't believe in him. These contradict basic logic.

The other is the claim that the Bible says pi is three. It just doesn't.

[Cynic Sage]

I would say that Hume's "Miracles can't happen, because they just can't, dangit!" is the most unconvincing argument I've come across.

What really ticks me off is when Xtians take typological references to Jesus used by NT writers and call them "prophecies" (Although I do believe that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy) such as the "I have called my son out of Egypt" passage in Malachi (?).

[Noesis]

The most compelling argument for Atheism that I can think of is the seeming inability of God, in any of the guises I'm familiar with, to produce people who are markedly different in quality of character and compassion than those involved in the other religions. In our particular Christian denomination for example, we teach and believe that the redeemed are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and yet I really see little to distinguish the church generally from the rest of the population. it seems like mean people stay mean and compassionate people stay compassionate. Part of me believes the answer lies in the belief that most people are Christians in name only and not imitators of Christ. Often they are Christian as opposed to something else, i.e. it's a cultural identity from which they see themselves as blessed and chosen and right and the other guys as cursed and rejected and wrong. I notice such folks don't read the gospels much.

But I am seeing some light out there. I met a group of young men the other day whose idea of church is painting houses for widows, food distribution, prison visits, and not sitting in a mega-church while a slick entertainer rails against the outsider and the unbeliever. Could be the Lord has reserved a remnant after all.

[Doug Shaver]

As counter point to Minnesota's question about what arguement do you find most compelling, ..

What arguement from 'The other side' do you find LEAST compelling?

The least compelling argument for theism? That's a tough one, but any argument that attempts to demonstrate the Bible's inerrancy would certainly be a candidate.

[pljames]

I'd have to say it's a tie. One is relativism, with claims like the claim that God exists for me because I believe in him but not for the atheist because the atheist doesn't believe in him. These contradict basic logic.

The other is the claim that the Bible says pi is three. It just doesn't.

:sigh: I am a relativist, to me your statement is logical. I would rather claim this description of of this defininition than argue/debate.

I know nothing about pi is three. Logic is defined as mathematical and grammitical., two opposites. Whats your definition of basic logic? pljames

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

As counter point to Minnesota's question about what arguement do you find most compelling, ..

What arguement from 'The other side' do you find LEAST compelling?
From the atheists -- the idea that lack of evidence is evidence of lack.

From the theists -- none in particular. They're equally non-compelling.

[shunyadragon]

Atheist n00bs making bible contradiction sites without understanding even the basics of Christianity. When I realised how many of them were doing this, all my awe of the entire atheist "freethinking" movement dissovled. If I was an atheist, I'd ridicule those people into exile, because it's pretty much destroying their position as far as I'm concerned.

I doubt seriously you ever believed atheists were 'free-thinkers'. The attribute of 'free-thinking' or an 'open-mind' is more dependent on how many presuppositions or fixed inflexible beliefs determine how you view other beliefs, ideas, and knowledge. This is generally not an attribute of those who believe very strongly in one worldview and assume all others are wrong.