*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Willamena]

Actually, it is not. In philosophy, this is known as the "problem of induction." (In fact, the example you gave of the black swan being the most prominent one to illustrate the problem.)

Justified doesn't mean you're right, it means "with good reason." Before we knew there were black swans in Australia, we had good reason to think that they all were white.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't find either of those categories credible.

That is true only if you are demanding absolute certainty

 

[Gambit]

It is so, as the problem of induction exemplifies. The "problem" is, in basing the conclusion on only evidence, do you arrive at knowledge?

To which the answer is, "it depends."

The argument from contingency is based on deduction, not induction.

Science basically operates on induction.

 

[Willamena]

The argument from contingency is based on deduction, not induction.

Science basically operates on induction.

What is the argument from contingency?

 

[Reflex]

What is the argument from contingency?

Also known as the Cosmological Argument.

Here's an informative website:

Philosophy of Religion

 

[Willamena]

The argument from contingency is based on deduction, not induction.

Science basically operates on induction.

There is an inductive cosmological argument.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#6

 

[outhouse]

Also known as the Cosmological Argument.

Which is a laughable argument that has been completely refuted for a very long time

 

[Gambit]

There is an inductive cosmological argument.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#6

I was referring to Aquinas' (well-know) version, not Swinburne's (little-known) version.

 

[outhouse]

I was referring to Aquinas'

It is funny how you cherry pick his philosophy but ignore how much of his apologetic rhetoric has turned out incorrect.

There is no credibility there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also known as the Cosmological Argument.

Here's an informative website:

Philosophy of Religion

Here's another:

Cosmological argument - Iron Chariots.org

 

[Shad]

Also known as the Cosmological Argument.

Here's an informative website:

Philosophy of Religion

Read your own reference and the links for your cosmological argument. It has the objections to said argument on the website.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/

People linking websites they do not read just boggles my mind at times.

 

[Reflex]

Here's another:

Cosmological argument - Iron Chariots.org

I read that a while back. Kinda funny in my book.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I read that a while back. Kinda funny in my book.

Then it captured the feeling of the original argument.

I haven't found a classical argument for theism yet that doesn't rely on some sort of logical fallacy.

 

[Reflex]

Then it captured the feeling of the original argument.

The link you posted begins with a blatant lie. How does a lie capture the feeling of an argument?

I haven't found a classical argument for theism yet that doesn't rely on some sort of logical fallacy.

This is from the link you posted:

The first cause argument runs like this:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

A close variant is the argument from the Big Bang:

1. The universe began to exist at the Big Bang
2. Something apart from the universe caused this
3. Therefore, a creator exists.

Do you rely on this? The lie in this stands out like magnesium flare in a dark room.

 

[outhouse]

• The universe began to exist at the Big Bang

• Something apart from the universe caused this

• Therefore, a creator exists.

It is a failed laughable argument.

#1 yes

#2 false. A singularity existed that contained the universe. A supermassive black hole could have expanded.

#3 Therefore no mythology is required to explain anything

 

[outhouse]

Scientifically it is laughable

The first cause argument runs like this:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

#1 then what caused god

#2 saying we do not know, is often a million times more intelligent then claiming false conclusions.

#3 false, said cause needs to be defined, and when yo do you will be required top use login and reason.

#4 special pleading beyond reason and logic

#5 therefor mythology is not required

 

[outhouse]

I read that a while back. Kinda funny in my book.

Its obvious you find credible knowledge funny while proposing your personal unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You have never had a credible argument

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The first cause argument runs like this:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

But why stop at god? On what terms, based on what conditions, imply that god is the ultimate cause? What caused god? What if god has a god? To stop at god is not following the argument through to its logical conclusion.

 

[Reflex]

Why atheism is absurd:

But why stop at god? On what terms, based on what conditions, imply that god is the ultimate cause? What caused god? What if god has a god? To stop at god is not following the argument through to its logical conclusion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why atheism is absurd:

Except that I'm not an atheist.