What are the best arguments in favor of theism and against atheism?

[Ben Avraham]

Been here before, we know you can't prove god magic, hence the reason you ask the impossible of your opponent's. Its the only way you feel you can cover your butt. And still you have not provided a defence of your lies about atheism.

Have I not! The problem is that your atheistic preconceived notions do not allow you to think for yourself. I am ready to admit the non-existence of the Primal Cause if you can show me evidences that the Universe caused itself to exist. Some atheists have tried and soon enough gave up on their lies.

 

[ChristineM]

Your assumption that mine were lies not to agree with atheists. Please, read your post #326. That's what is implied in it. What Evolution is proved without doubt, that your DNA shows evidence of the link with the primate? I have checked mine and I did not find that evidence. Ignorance of the past! Whose past, that of the one who proved Evolution without doubt? If you are trusting so hard in Darwin, be aware that his theory of Evolution has already found its way into the ignorance of the past.

What you found is irrelevant to fact, you are a primate, end of story.

Darwin published his major work over 150 years ago, stop using outdated arguments just because progress pees on your bonfire

Please provide valid citation (not self serving creationists nonesense) for your claim that "Evolution has already found its way into the ignorance of the past" i eagerly await your failure to do so.

 

[Ben Avraham]

So no defence of your lies about atheism. Fair enough. Your argument on genetic causality is flawed because it does not account for evolution. Evolution is proven in several ways so ignoring it in an argument on genetics is something of a waste of time. I can give you 27 theories on how the universe came into existence, each is mathematically possible. How about you? P.s. logic has nothing to do with it, the laws from which logic are derived did not exist so are irrelevant.

Twenty-seven theories on how the Universe came into existence! Theories are propositions which are given and not too long they are replaced by new ones because prior ones have been proved false. Therefore lies though exposed in ignorance. And sometimes not in ignorance but in the assumption to promote one's name; lies all the same.

 

[Ben Avraham]

What you found is irrelevant to fact, you are a primate, end of story. Darwin published his major work over 150 years ago, stop using outdated arguments just because progress pees on your bonfire. Please provide valid citation (not self serving creationists nonesense) for your claim that "Evolution has already found its way into the ignorance of the past" i eagerly await your failure to do so.

Likewise, I eagerly await your failure to provide me with the evidences that the Universe caused itself to exist if you keep on your foolish attempt to prove the non-existence of the Primal Cause.

 

[ChristineM]

Have I not! The problem is that your atheistic preconceived notions do not allow you to think for yourself. I am ready to admit the non-existence of the Primal Cause if you can show me evidences that the Universe caused itself to exist. Some atheists have tried and soon enough gave up on their lies.

It has already been explained to you several times by several different people. Your refusal to even acknowledge that fact just shows exactly how ready you are to admit your god dream is a crock.

Your assumption's is flawed, a/ the universe did not necessarily self create b/ however there is nothing in science to show it did not self create.

 

[ChristineM]

Twenty-seven theories on how the Universe came into existence! Theories are propositions which are given and not too long they are replaced by new ones because prior ones have been proved false. Therefore lies though exposed in ignorance. And sometimes not in ignorance but in the assumption to promote one's name; lies all the same.

You mean like the theory gravity? Oh right..

Or perhaps you have evidence to show god is even more than a hypothesis. At least those theories about the creation of the universe are mathematically feasible, based on current factual knowledge and explain the history of the universe. Please provide such evidence to show god magic dun it... Waiting.

I do not lie and your ignorance in your moronic claim only shows the type of failure you are, a liar for your dream of god, how pathetic

 

[osgart]

A God of limits is the best explanation. The apparent design in nature. The fine tuning argument in cosmology. non locality in physics. The convictions of great scientists of the past. The hard problem in mind/brain correlation in consciousness. the subjective experience and meditation and self study, the study of self. The application of spiritual wisdom of the heart,mind and will. the mathematical nature of the universe. The occurrence of computer code in string theory. DNA coding language.
all these are clues to the revealance of God.

there may be many creators, but they are creators that are flawed and bound and limited, yet they can manipulate universes, if not create them.

 

[ChristineM]

Likewise, I eagerly await your failure to provide me with the evidences that the Universe caused itself to exist if you keep on your foolish attempt to prove the non-existence of the Primal Cause.

Yup i know you would fail

 

[Segev Moran]

The best arguments against Atheism is to ask the logical question if the Universe caused itself to exist. If atheists don't give up the debate from the start, you bring up the argument of generic causality and they are out.

I Would guess the answer to the first question is no, but the fact is we don't really know yet.
The best thing we have got so far is the inflation thesis, but it is too soon to determine.

As for the second question, can be pointed back to you.

I would assume your answer will be that God is outside of time and space, so the question of its maker is irrelevant or something like that.

so i can give you several ideas that outrank a divine god in their logical probability:

Simulated reality.
Alien race.
An infinite universe.
Multiverse.

(Which all are exactly that, ideas.)

What makes God a better idea than any of these?
And how come Generic causality doesn't apply on God?

 

[Milton Platt]

As you say above, you have no reason to prove the Negative. I believe I did not ask you to prove the negative but the positive. Do you believe that the Universe exist? I am sure you do because you and I are parts of the Universe. That's positive. So, please, prove to me that the Universe caused itself to exist or was caused by something else that preceded it. This is a request to prove the positive; not the negative. You know you exist as part of the Universe. So, the burden is upon you too to prove if you caused yourself to exist as part of the Universe or if you were caused by something else that preceded you. The Primal Cause is the One Who caused the Universe to exist. Can you prove the opposite? If you can, I am all ears. Supernatural deities can be claimed by the Greeks, Egyptians and all sort of pagan polytheists in the world.

Well, I'm not a cosmologist or a physicist, but I understand they have some theories that are based upon evidence and measurements they have made that it indeed began, or at least began in the form we know. Over time, hopefully one of those can be strengthened by more evidence and the others will cease to be considered .As to what existed before that, nobody knows. I choose not to fill in blanks in my knowledge with magical beings, or primal causes, or whatever, though. I'm good with 'I don't know".

I have no burden to "prove the opposite". What is the opposite of Primal cause? My inability to demonstrate a knowledge of how the universe began does not legitimize your assertion about a "primal cause." Can you define this primal cause and demonstrate that it exists? I'm willing to look at the science behind it. Where are the studies, the papers to be found?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Well, I'm not a cosmologist or a physicist, but I understand they have some theories that are based upon evidence and measurements they have made that it indeed began, or at least began in the form we know. Over time, hopefully one of those can be strengthened by more evidence and the others will cease to be considered .As to what existed before that, nobody knows. I choose not to fill in blanks in my knowledge with magical beings, or primal causes, or whatever, though. I'm good with 'I don't know". I have no burden to "prove the opposite". What is the opposite of Primal cause? My inability to demonstrate a knowledge of how the universe began does not legitimize your assertion about a "primal cause." Can you define this primal cause and demonstrate that it exists? I'm willing to look at the science behind it. Where are the studies, the papers to be found?

Yes, the Primal Cause by definition is the One Who caused the Universe to exist. The only way for you to discard the existence of the Primal Cause is by showing the proper evidences that the Universe caused itself to exist. I am well aware of the Cosmologist's theories and measurements even to the point that the Universe has an age. To talk about the age of the Universe, you must start with telling us about its beginning. If it had a beginning, it is only obvious that it was caused to exist. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, it is only logical that Something Else that preceded it, caused itself to exist. If you ask me, that's the Primal Cause. If you find it hard to believe, you have only two options either to never discuss this subject with a theist or to explain What or Who caused the Universe to exist.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I Would guess the answer to the first question is no, but the fact is we don't really know yet. The best thing we have got so far is the inflation thesis, but it is too soon to determine.
As for the second question, can be pointed back to you. I would assume your answer will be that God is outside of time and space, so the question of its maker is irrelevant or something like that. so i can give you several ideas that outrank a divine god in their logical probability: Simulated reality. Alien race. An infinite universe. Multiverse. (Which all are exactly that, ideas.) What makes God a better idea than any of these? And how come Generic causality doesn't apply on God?

Guesses based on the lack of enough evidences to know what you have decided to discuss is simply verbal juggling without common sense. Yes, you have assumed right. The Primal Cause is not subject to time or space. So, the question of Its Maker is not irrelevant because you will be bagging the question to explain What then caused the Universe to exist if it couldn't even cause itself to exist. Regarding your question why Generic Causality does not apply to the Primal Cause is because if the Primal Cause were caused It could no longer be the Primal Cause. And last but not least, Universe by definition stands for every thing. It means that the theory of Multiverse is irrelevant. Also, the theory of an infinite universe only renders the Cosmologists false claimers of theories to make a name for themselves because all of them speak of the age of the Universe. Age is evidence of a beginning; and beginning is evidence of the Primal Cause.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Yup i know you would fail

So, get moving!

 

[Ben Avraham]

It has already been explained to you several times by several different people. Your refusal to even acknowledge that fact just shows exactly how ready you are to admit your god dream is a crock. Your assumption's is flawed, a/ the universe did not necessarily self create b/ however there is nothing in science to show it did not self create.

Now, I am going to prove to you how irrelevant is your statement that there is nothing in Science to show that the Universe did not self create. There is Logic and you are simply verbal juggling with words without commonsense. The Universe could not have caused itself to exist because, to do so, it had to exist and, since it already existed, there would be no longer need to further cause itself to exist. It means that you have failed to provide us with an answer about the self creation of the Universe. The only thing you have proved is that you don't have what it takes to discuss the existence of the Primal Cause with a Jew.

 

[ChristineM]

Now, I am going to prove to you how irrelevant is your statement that there is nothing in Science to show that the Universe did not self create. There is Logic and you are simply verbal juggling with words without commonsense. The Universe could not have caused itself to exist because, to do so, it had to exist and, since it already existed, there would be no longer need to further cause itself to exist. It means that you have failed to provide us with an answer about the self creation of the Universe. The only thing you have proved is that you don't have what it takes to discuss the existence of the Primal Cause with a Jew.

You prove nothing but provide flawed opinion. I am providing scientific fact, you don't like it try praying to god to make science go away. Oh Right.

Don't talk nonsense about what you don't understand, stomping your foot in ignorance is never a good proof.

 

[Segev Moran]

Guesses based on the lack of enough evidences to know what you have decided to discuss is simply verbal juggling without common sense.

how so?

Yes, you have assumed right. The Primal Cause is not subject to time or space.

Obviously, otherwise you would have to admit you have no idea.

So, the question of Its Maker is not irrelevant because you will be bagging the question to explain What then caused the Universe to exist if it couldn't even cause itself to exist.

What do you mean by maker?

Maker as an event? then yes. maker as an entity? so far we have no reason to believe that such an entity exists.

Regarding your question why Generic Causality does not apply to the Primal Cause is because if the Primal Cause were caused It could no longer be the Primal Cause.

Lol, Now who is jiggling words?
Is Primal cause physical?

And last but not least, Universe by definition stands for every thing.

What do you mean by every thing?

It means

Oh

that the theory of Multiverse is irrelevant.

I Think you are confusing your way of defining a universe with the scientific term of a universe

Also, the theory of an infinite universe only renders the Cosmologists false claimers of theories to make a name for themselves because all of them speak of the age of the Universe.

Yet it is theoretically possible, so we can't yet falsify that.

Age is evidence of a beginning;

Yep
and beginning is evidence of the Primal Cause.[/QUOTE]
Nope.
Well.. again, depends what you mean by primal cause.
I had a beginning. my primal cause is the "moment" of my parents mating.
we can't even understand the primal cause for our universe to be formed and you claim to "know" what caused the entire existence of everything that can ever be.

Can you demonstrate god as a physical matter?
I assume your answer is no, because god is not physical.
So can you demonstrate god as a mathematical prediction?
I assume your answer is no, because god is not measurable.
Well, can you demonstrate god as a concept that provides solutions to our problems? (like preventing children of dying as an example?)
I assume the answer is no, because god gave free will, and cannot "intervene" with humans choice to harm other beings.
Ok, How about, can you demonstrate a god that provides anything other than subjective feeling?
I assume the answer is no, because god speaks and affect us through those feelings.

Can you recognize a pattern here?

 

[Vaderecta]

There is no argument. Atheists absolutely know in their mind that there is no god. Theists absolutely know in their mind that there is a god. Neither side wants to hear from the other side and nothing will change their minds.

This is not true. I know many ex-theists that are now atheists and even a couple of atheists that are now devout theist. Generalizing like this is just intellectually silly.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Maybe they just changed their minds. Does there have to be an argument that caused the change.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, the Primal Cause by definition is the One Who caused the Universe to exist. The only way for you to discard the existence of the Primal Cause is by showing the proper evidences that the Universe caused itself to exist. I am well aware of the Cosmologist's theories and measurements even to the point that the Universe has an age. To talk about the age of the Universe, you must start with telling us about its beginning. If it had a beginning, it is only obvious that it was caused to exist. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, it is only logical that Something Else that preceded it, caused itself to exist. If you ask me, that's the Primal Cause. If you find it hard to believe, you have only two options either to never discuss this subject with a theist or to explain What or Who caused the Universe to exist.

No, that is wrong. I do not have to have any beliefs at all about how the universe began to discard something that is merely an assumption.

But something else could have very well preceded it and natural causes caused the current configuration of matter and energy. We do not know what preceded the universe as we experience it. Just because we can pinpoint a time when this universe began does not mean that nothing at all preceded it. The creation of universes, or the creation of space/time and energy could be a perpetual thing.
We have no way of knowing. The only way you could use the phrase "primal cause" would be as a placeholder for an area where we do not yet have any actual knowledge. I prefer just to admit that I don't know.

You cannot on the one hand say that everything must have a cause, and then not explain the cause of your primal cause. If your primal cause can exist without a cause, then we can skip that step and just admit that things can exist without a cause.

 

[syo]

theism has answers. atheism has nothing.