My favorite arguements.

[TheWall]

Mr peters talks a lot about Aquinas and the five ways. I don't know much about Aquinas so I use different arguments.

A. Dostoevsky's argument for moral standards.
1. If there is no God one can do no wrong.
2. Things exist which are wrong like murder.
3. Therefore God exist as the standard of morality.

B. The Kalam cosmological argument.
1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause and that cause is God.

C. The Statement of Paul.
If Christ is not raised our faith is in vain.

These are some. I happen to like the trillema as well.

[Starlight]

A. Dostoevsky's argument for moral standards.
1. If there is no God one can do no wrong.
2. Things exist which are wrong like murder.
3. Therefore God exist as the standard of morality.

My own view is that the definition of 'immoral' is an action taken by one person that affects another where in the mind of the person taking the action they had negative intentions toward the other person (e.g. they wished harm or ill on the other due to dislike or malice etc). In short, 'morality' is about labeling interpersonal interactions as being positive or negative in intent. So if you murder someone it's immoral because you wanted to harm them. Any action (including God's) can thus be judged for morality depending on the extent to which harms or benefits toward others were intended in the mind of the person taking the action.

B. The Kalam cosmological argument.
1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause and that cause is God.

If time is part of the universe and began with it, then the universe's 'beginning' is quite different to the way things that begin within the universe, so the analogy in the premises seems iffy. Anyway, I don't mind saying the universe had a cause - it's probably some quantum physical mathematical theorem that's a truism we've yet to discover. Seems unlike that the mathematical theorem would be conscious. Seems particularly unlikely it would be the Christian God.

C. The Statement of Paul.
If Christ is not raised our faith is in vain.

I'm not quite sure what the argument is here. As an atheist I would say that yes, Christ wasn't raised, and yes, your faith is in vain. How does that prove to you or I that God exists?

I happen to like the trillema as well.

My view is that a critical examination of the gospels shows Jesus saw himself as a prophet of God like the prophets of the OT. Naturally, as an atheist I think he wasn't really a prophet because I don't think God exists. So I think like the other biblical prophets he was delusional in that respect. IMO, later Christians deified him and put a small number of words in his mouth in some of the later-written parts of the gospels that suggested he was substantially more than a prophet. So overall, I'd opt for both the he-never-said-any-such-thing and he-was-a-bit-delusional options.

[Cow Poke]

Mr peters talks a lot about Aquinas and the five ways. I don't know much about Aquinas so I use different arguments.

A. Dostoevsky's argument for moral standards.
1. If there is no God one can do no wrong.
2. Things exist which are wrong like murder.
3. Therefore God exist as the standard of morality.

B. The Kalam cosmological argument.
1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause and that cause is God.

C. The Statement of Paul.
If Christ is not raised our faith is in vain.

These are some. I happen to like the trillema as well.

My favorite argument was "but he did it first"!

(mom never bought that, either)

[Roy]

Mr peters talks a lot about Aquinas and the five ways. I don't know much about Aquinas so I use different arguments.
...
B. The Kalam cosmological argument.
1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause and that cause is God.

I hope you don't use this argument, because the last five words are not justified.

[mikewhitney]

Where are the spelling nazis when you need them?

[Sparko]

Where are the spelling nazis when you need them?

That's "Nazis" with a capital N.

[mikewhitney]

That's "Nazis" with a capital N.

It sounded too harsh to start with a capital N. Try it. Say it with a capital N and then say it with a lower case n and see the difference.

[Sparko]

It sounded too harsh to start with a capital N. Try it. Say it with a capital N and then say it with a lower case n and see the difference.

You would hear the difference, not see it.

[rogue06]

It sounded too harsh to start with a capital N. Try it. Say it with a capital N and then say it with a lower case n and see the difference.

Wow! It makes Nazis seem positively cuddly when I use the lower case letter "n"

"nazi"
GIF Giddy.gif
SQUEEE!

[firstfloor]

....
3. The universe has a cause and that cause is God.
....

[Cow Poke]

It sounded too harsh to start with a capital N. Try it. Say it with a capital N and then say it with a lower case n and see the difference.

If you say "it" with a capital N, it becomes NIT! Or, it becomes nit.