The Kalam Cosmological Arguement, Pascal’s Wager, The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument, The Teleological Argument (i.e. the argument from design), The Moral Argument, Religious Experience and The Argument from Miracles.

I personally like the Kalam Cosmological Arguement used so powerfully by William Lane Craig. I also like the moral arguement. I dont use the rest.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


This is a simple outline of the Kalam Cosmological Arguement.

That's a lame arguement anyway because it's argued from within a spacetime bubble.

In other words, the argument only holds within that bubble.

But let's look at these in more detail:

~~~~



This argument would also support Pantheism. So as a pantheist I have no problem with this argument. It most certainly doesn't point to the Mediterranean picure of a male-chaunistic God that asks people to stone sinners to death and to murder heathens.

This is actaully just an argument for spirit essence. It points to no religion in particular.




You'll have to explain that one a bit more.



The argument from design would suggest that there is no God.

What kind of a God would design a dog-eat-dog world?

The way that the universe is designed suggests that if it was designed, the designer was pretty lame.



That argument holds no water at all.



This would support all religions including witchcraft.

Again, it would support the pantheistic picture as well.

So none of these arguments are pointing to the Mediterranean picture of God.

The intelligent design argument actually argues that God is not intelligent.

That might actually support the Biblical depiction of God come to think of it.

We know the universe was once at a single point, but we do not know that it began . . .

#2 cannot be validated.

I have read the Kalam argument and it is wholly lacking.

______________

As far as the ontology of god, I am waiting for a coherent and primary ontology of god, never has one been proposed . . .

I will defend the Cosmological Argument and the moral Argument. I have not studied the others enough to be able to defend them. I only pointed them out to show that they are there.

Good point. We'll have to toss that one out until #2 can be confirmed or ruled out.

In fact, according to some forms of Inflation Theory that was not the beginning, but rather just a change of state.

When asked to validate the idea that everything which comes into existence needs a cause, defenders of the premise argue that the alternative is something being caused by nothing, which is of course impossible.

However, this blatantly ignores the actual logical opposite, which is to be cause less. If it is impossible for something to be causeless, then infinite regress it is, as god would not be exempt.

If something is causeless, then it never came into existence in the first place, thus falsifying the premise gain. To say that the universal singularity must have had a cause, is to advocate the idea of atemporal causality, in which case, an infinite regress of atemporal causes is possible.

" Just think about it for a minute. If the universe never began to exist, then that means that the number of events in the past history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self–contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self–contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.""

Well the Cosmological Argument is already in trouble because you can't confirm that your second premise is true.

I wouldn't argue hard against it anyway because I'm a pantheist, not an atheist. I have no problem with spirit creating the universe.

The Cosmological Argument doesn't support the Mediterranean picture of God anymore than any other spirituality or religion. So it's a wasted argument unless you are trying to convince an atheist of spirituatity.

But then they might choose pantheism, or any of the pagan philosophies.

~~~

Give your moral argument. I would love to hear it, but I doubt that I'll be impressed. I'm willing to bet that I will disagree with some of the premises there too that you also cannot prove.

The Kalam argument can be defended very powerfully.

Moral Arguement
"If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?"

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Simple outline

#2 can be established

There are a lot of paradoxes in mathematical formalism itself.

In fact, mathematics is indeed an formalism invented and constructed by man.

So this argument for the existence of a "God" is not impressive.

After all, the very notion of a "God" itself requires a leap of faith that non-logical beings can indeed exist.

You can't use logical systems to prove the existence of somethint that is illogical. And the concept of "God" most certainly is illogical.

You have done done nothing thus far to show my argument invalid.

An actual infinite is impossible.

Well, I totally disagree with #2 here for sure.

Objective values do not exist. All is subjective.

So much for that argument.

All you are doing is arguing that your opinions should be accepted as fact.

That's lame right there.

My opinion is that all values are subjective.

Therefore I claim that this is fact for me.

So there.

And you have done nothing to show that it is.

Touché

"Now from the very nature of the case, as the cause of space and time, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power which created the universe. Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. If the cause were timelessly present, then the effect would be timelessly present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its Personal Creator."