Top rank scholars Fred Hoyle? Do you know that his theory was supplanted by the big bang theory and he was critical of the big bang theory? Fred Hoyle's theory was the steady state theory go look it up . . .

Context context context.

More appeals to authority.

Sorry I dont care how accomplished someone is that posits that the universe had to be created by an all knowing god.

The only way around infinite regress is either god always was, or the universe always was. Your argument against infinity is just as applicable to god as it is to an eternal universe. Occums razor would favor my philosophy . . . so who wins here?

Lol this is always so fun. What is fun is that I don't have to work hard to refute you its been done to death over and over again. lol I love apologetics.

Here you can even watch your argument go up in flames if you so desire this gent is just as good at smashing Kalam as most real philosophers have been. He goes into much more detail then I feel is needed, but its all about audience, and the person he is responding to might in fact need those extra descriptions to understand the holes in Kalam's arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y75jNVBXIw

And that's a matter of faith.

You have faith in the premises that you accept.

Good for you.

But if you want to talk about them in terms of 'arguments' for the existence of God, all that really breaks down to is asking other people to place faith in the same premises that you have accepted.

Clearly I disagree with your very premises. So your "arguments" are dead in the water with me.

Arguments always boil down into placing faith in the underlying premises.

It's all faith based.

When it comes to the Biblical picture I would simply ask why anyone would want to have faith that they fell from grace from their creator, and that he had to have his son nailed to a pole to pay for their rebellious attitude?

I don't believe that I have failed my creator, and I most certainly won't want to have faith that he had to do something horrible to pay for my rebellious attitude which I don't even feel that I have.

So when it comes to pure faith why would I want to put my faith in such a horrible picture?

Especially considering that there are far more wonderful pictures of God to be had.

Why not place your faith in a wonderful relationship with God?

Why choose such a horror story as Mediterranean folklore to put your faith in?

That would be my question.

Um Fred Hoyle is top rank.
THe Kalam Cosmological argument calls for everything that begins to exist. God is outside of time. Time itself cannot be infinite. This is because you cant have a infinite series of events. If you think the Kalam is weak read the transcript of the debate between Quenten Smith and William Lane Craig.

My argument is valid. You could have a valid argument and still end up with the wrong conclusion.

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological argument.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/kalam-oppy.html


Read how William lane Craig defends the argument.

If you need to prove the existence of God to yourself then you have no faith at all.

Besides, it's a very long way to get from using a cosmological argument that some sort of spirit world must exist, to getting to the Mediterranean picture of God.

Moreover, once you get to the Mediterranean picture of God then you've got Judsism, Islam, and Christianity to choose from.

If you decide to choose Christiantity then you must choose between Catholicism and Protestantism.

If you choose Protestantism, then you need to chose precisely what you will be protesting against.

There's a good chance that if you have gotten that far you will be like most Protestants and just protest against everything but your own personal interpretations.

You may as well just make up your own religion from the get go without any proof at all if that's where you're headed.

I believe my views can be defended. This is for another thread.

I want to move onto the moral argument.

the three of us will have to agree to disagree about Kalam.

I really thought this would be more fun, but that would require for you to address each issue I have already brought forth with the Kalam argument.

Just saying "ITS VALID ITS VALID" is not actually an arguable point at all.

I have made several points you have failed to resolve.

1) Infinity being an issue applies equally to a god as it does to a natural cause. Either god is eternal or the universal creating mechanism is eternal, without eternal whatever then you get to ask what created that.

2) Show me how the big bang has to be the first anything. Yes OUR time would have begun then, but time can stop and start, but that does not mean it could not start again, and stop again for eternity.

Essentially the Kalam argument posits that all things began with the big bang and that god was its creator, but if god is not infinite, then what created god?

If god is infinite then YOUR argument against infinity applies, resolve it! (it can be resolved, but I will not provide that . . lol you will benefit from researching and learning some math)

If your god is not infinite then when and who created it? Causeless cause? If you evoke that, then why couldnt the universe itself be causeless? If you can have a causeless god, then why not a causeless universe? If you have a theory for a causeless god, and a theory for a causeless universe, then which is simpler, which is more complex? Would an all powerful, all knowing causeless creator be more or less complex then a causeless unknowing, non-concious universe?

Since this question was rhetorical I will answer. Occums razor clearly shows that if we use the very nature of nature, then it appears that the chance of a god is smaller then the chance of no god, and the argument that god must exist due to logic is flawed.


My 4th issue comes from the idea that god is outside time.

How can any action of creation exist outside time? Cause and effect require time to be self consistent, otherwise its absurd.

So you have a lot to explain.

_________________________________________

Also in context to the big bang theory again Fred Hoyle is not the top authority . . . . again go look it up.

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

Name an objective moral value.

Also I am disappointed you have ignored my previous arguments.

As I said God is outside of time. God does not exist in the space time continuum. It is a infinite series of events that cannot exist. "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.""

My argument does not apply to God because the Kalam Cosmological argument calls for everything that begins to exist. Not only that but I will argue that God "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 sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. If the sufficient conditions were timelessly present, then the effect would be timelessly present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless but for the effect to begin in time is if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. And, thus, we are brought, not merely to the transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator."

Rape is always wrong.

God does not apply to the cosmological argument.

I am sorry Bushidobilly I do not think your rebuttals are that strong.

But yet, your bible promotes it.

Chapter and verse?

Judges 19:23-4 "Nay, my brethren, may I pray you you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter, a maiden, and his concubine, them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you; but unto this man do not so vile a thing"

Gotta love a book were sodomy and rape is accepted, and women are nothing more than objects. . .