Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Deism

tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 2:44:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe the Universe is the product of an event; is that different?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 6:47:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 10:22:07 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
Let's hear some thoughts...

As everyone is a secret theist, it means that Deism is a given too..

WILLFULLY IGNORANT!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:34:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No intellectual thoughts or opinions? Surprising. I figured a site such as this would have a strong following either for or against Deism.

It seems that Deism is making a comeback in our modern era... Of course, this is mere speculation on my part.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 1:41:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:34:18 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
No intellectual thoughts or opinions? Surprising. I figured a site such as this would have a strong following either for or against Deism.

It seems that Deism is making a comeback in our modern era... Of course, this is mere speculation on my part.

No, no intellectual thoughts, just spiritual: reality itself demands a God!
The Cross.. the Cross.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 1:56:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Deism is an ad hoc piece of horse sh1t.

The universe is literally everything that is observed, postulated, and existent. If something is external from the universe, it by definition doesn't exist.

God cannot be external.

It is also a rather unnecessary and pointless belief. I don't think it is a product of rationality so much as a desire and attachment to the idea of an external creator God.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 2:10:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:34:18 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
No intellectual thoughts or opinions? Surprising. I figured a site such as this would have a strong following either for or against Deism.

It seems that Deism is making a comeback in our modern era... Of course, this is mere speculation on my part.

No "intellectual thoughts" on your behalf either. If youre going to start a thread, you have to give us something to work with here.

With a vague, undirected OP, what do you expect?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 11:17:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I kinda have an odd ball question on Deism. Deism is basically that belief that God created everything and left it at that right? If this is the case can a Deist God be sovereign? If a deist God is sovereign is he omniscient? If those two positions are true then one cannot be a Deist. Because if God is sovereign and omniscient then he infallibly knows everything that will happen and because He is sovereign then he must determine that those things either happen or not. If he determines everything to happen or not then he is 'acting' or 'willing' 'unto' his creation.

Unless its a false dichotomy to assume that if a god is sovereign and omniscient he must determine reality, which I cannot see being false.
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:43:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 1:56:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Deism is an ad hoc piece of horse sh1t.

The universe is literally everything that is observed, postulated, and existent. If something is external from the universe, it by definition doesn't exist.

God cannot be external.

It is also a rather unnecessary and pointless belief. I don't think it is a product of rationality so much as a desire and attachment to the idea of an external creator God.

You don't seem to know much about Deism.
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:44:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 2:10:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:34:18 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
No intellectual thoughts or opinions? Surprising. I figured a site such as this would have a strong following either for or against Deism.

It seems that Deism is making a comeback in our modern era... Of course, this is mere speculation on my part.

No "intellectual thoughts" on your behalf either. If youre going to start a thread, you have to give us something to work with here.

With a vague, undirected OP, what do you expect?

Fair enough. A reasonable response.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:47:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 10:44:42 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/31/2012 2:10:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:34:18 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
No intellectual thoughts or opinions? Surprising. I figured a site such as this would have a strong following either for or against Deism.

It seems that Deism is making a comeback in our modern era... Of course, this is mere speculation on my part.

No "intellectual thoughts" on your behalf either. If youre going to start a thread, you have to give us something to work with here.

With a vague, undirected OP, what do you expect?

Fair enough. A reasonable response.

What do you think about Deism? What's your argument bra?
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 11:14:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:17:55 PM, joneszj wrote:
I kinda have an odd ball question on Deism. Deism is basically that belief that God created everything and left it at that right? If this is the case can a Deist God be sovereign? If a deist God is sovereign is he omniscient? If those two positions are true then one cannot be a Deist. Because if God is sovereign and omniscient then he infallibly knows everything that will happen and because He is sovereign then he must determine that those things either happen or not. If he determines everything to happen or not then he is 'acting' or 'willing' 'unto' his creation.

Unless its a false dichotomy to assume that if a god is sovereign and omniscient he must determine reality, which I cannot see being false.

Classical Deism does hold the position on God that you speak of (for the most part at least)... But not Modern Deism. I myself am a Modern Deist and more specifically a Pandeist. Though you are correct about Classical Deists believing that God created and then left it's creation to manage it's self without interference... You are wrong in the rest of your statement and incorrect in your assumptions towards Deism. Deists do not assume what you have stated. Deists do not assume details about God at all for the most part. The more commonly accepted belief about God amongst Deists is this.... A solid belief in the existence of a Creator without the need or influence of revealed religions or their doctrines. Deists believe in a Creator or God through reason, not blind faith or revelation. Deists hold that nature and God are one in the same and that one can better understand the Creator through studying the creation, using science and reason as the most efficient tools in doing so.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:46:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 11:14:11 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:17:55 PM, joneszj wrote:
I kinda have an odd ball question on Deism. Deism is basically that belief that God created everything and left it at that right? If this is the case can a Deist God be sovereign? If a deist God is sovereign is he omniscient? If those two positions are true then one cannot be a Deist. Because if God is sovereign and omniscient then he infallibly knows everything that will happen and because He is sovereign then he must determine that those things either happen or not. If he determines everything to happen or not then he is 'acting' or 'willing' 'unto' his creation.

Unless its a false dichotomy to assume that if a god is sovereign and omniscient he must determine reality, which I cannot see being false.

Classical Deism does hold the position on God that you speak of (for the most part at least)... But not Modern Deism. I myself am a Modern Deist and more specifically a Pandeist. Though you are correct about Classical Deists believing that God created and then left it's creation to manage it's self without interference... You are wrong in the rest of your statement and incorrect in your assumptions towards Deism. Deists do not assume what you have stated. Deists do not assume details about God at all for the most part. The more commonly accepted belief about God amongst Deists is this.... A solid belief in the existence of a Creator without the need or influence of revealed religions or their doctrines. Deists believe in a Creator or God through reason, not blind faith or revelation. Deists hold that nature and God are one in the same and that one can better understand the Creator through studying the creation, using science and reason as the most efficient tools in doing so.

Yea, I hope you saw that my premise was not assumed. I had asked if they held those certain beliefs then drew that it would be inconsistent if they did. I am a little bit familiar with the classic and modern deist positions. would you mind explaining how it is that you view them? How they relate and disagree?
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 3:19:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:46:23 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/1/2012 11:14:11 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:17:55 PM, joneszj wrote:
I kinda have an odd ball question on Deism. Deism is basically that belief that God created everything and left it at that right? If this is the case can a Deist God be sovereign? If a deist God is sovereign is he omniscient? If those two positions are true then one cannot be a Deist. Because if God is sovereign and omniscient then he infallibly knows everything that will happen and because He is sovereign then he must determine that those things either happen or not. If he determines everything to happen or not then he is 'acting' or 'willing' 'unto' his creation.

Unless its a false dichotomy to assume that if a god is sovereign and omniscient he must determine reality, which I cannot see being false.

Classical Deism does hold the position on God that you speak of (for the most part at least)... But not Modern Deism. I myself am a Modern Deist and more specifically a Pandeist. Though you are correct about Classical Deists believing that God created and then left it's creation to manage it's self without interference... You are wrong in the rest of your statement and incorrect in your assumptions towards Deism. Deists do not assume what you have stated. Deists do not assume details about God at all for the most part. The more commonly accepted belief about God amongst Deists is this.... A solid belief in the existence of a Creator without the need or influence of revealed religions or their doctrines. Deists believe in a Creator or God through reason, not blind faith or revelation. Deists hold that nature and God are one in the same and that one can better understand the Creator through studying the creation, using science and reason as the most efficient tools in doing so.

Yea, I hope you saw that my premise was not assumed. I had asked if they held those certain beliefs then drew that it would be inconsistent if they did. I am a little bit familiar with the classic and modern deist positions. would you mind explaining how it is that you view them? How they relate and disagree?

   Classical Deism has been defined as a belief in which God is separate from his creation (only transcendent); however, Modern Deism does not define God. This is because Reason is limited in its ability to fully comprehend and define God, which produces different views on what individuals believe the nature of God to be. Some Deists see design in nature and through this design they also see purpose in the universe (and in their lives). Others see God and the universe in a co-creative process. God may be seen as an observer or as a subtle and persuasive spirit. Of course, there are many other views as well. However, the overall view of Deism is to use Reason as the foundation and Experience and Nature as the basis of belief. As can be seen, some Deists are classical while others are not, but each is respected and finds a home in Modern Deism.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 3:38:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 3:19:52 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:46:23 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/1/2012 11:14:11 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:17:55 PM, joneszj wrote:
I kinda have an odd ball question on Deism. Deism is basically that belief that God created everything and left it at that right? If this is the case can a Deist God be sovereign? If a deist God is sovereign is he omniscient? If those two positions are true then one cannot be a Deist. Because if God is sovereign and omniscient then he infallibly knows everything that will happen and because He is sovereign then he must determine that those things either happen or not. If he determines everything to happen or not then he is 'acting' or 'willing' 'unto' his creation.

Unless its a false dichotomy to assume that if a god is sovereign and omniscient he must determine reality, which I cannot see being false.

Classical Deism does hold the position on God that you speak of (for the most part at least)... But not Modern Deism. I myself am a Modern Deist and more specifically a Pandeist. Though you are correct about Classical Deists believing that God created and then left it's creation to manage it's self without interference... You are wrong in the rest of your statement and incorrect in your assumptions towards Deism. Deists do not assume what you have stated. Deists do not assume details about God at all for the most part. The more commonly accepted belief about God amongst Deists is this.... A solid belief in the existence of a Creator without the need or influence of revealed religions or their doctrines. Deists believe in a Creator or God through reason, not blind faith or revelation. Deists hold that nature and God are one in the same and that one can better understand the Creator through studying the creation, using science and reason as the most efficient tools in doing so.

Yea, I hope you saw that my premise was not assumed. I had asked if they held those certain beliefs then drew that it would be inconsistent if they did. I am a little bit familiar with the classic and modern deist positions. would you mind explaining how it is that you view them? How they relate and disagree?

   Classical Deism has been defined as a belief in which God is separate from his creation (only transcendent); however, Modern Deism does not define God. This is because Reason is limited in its ability to fully comprehend and define God, which produces different views on what individuals believe the nature of God to be. Some Deists see design in nature and through this design they also see purpose in the universe (and in their lives). Others see God and the universe in a co-creative process. God may be seen as an observer or as a subtle and persuasive spirit. Of course, there are many other views as well. However, the overall view of Deism is to use Reason as the foundation and Experience and Nature as the basis of belief. As can be seen, some Deists are classical while others are not, but each is respected and finds a home in Modern Deism.

Have you always considered yourself a deist? Do you think that being a deist the topic of God is irrelevant? Do Deists such as yourself feel that God is utterly unknowable kinda like agnosticism or that God is transcendentally unknowable (which now that I think about it would be a property attributed to God)? Inadvertently can deists define god by what god is not? How do Deists look at reality in comparison the the supreme being?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 4:14:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 3:54:49 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
It is deism, not theism, that is the logical outcome of most of the popular arguments for God's existence.

Which is why it's so funny to see William Lane Craig using them to prove Christianity.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 5:05:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 10:22:07 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
Let's hear some thoughts...

Most of our founders were deist.
Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams...
They were more spiritual or metaphysical, like me!
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 6:13:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 3:38:50 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/2/2012 3:19:52 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:46:23 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/1/2012 11:14:11 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:17:55 PM, joneszj wrote:
I kinda have an odd ball question on Deism. Deism is basically that belief that God created everything and left it at that right? If this is the case can a Deist God be sovereign? If a deist God is sovereign is he omniscient? If those two positions are true then one cannot be a Deist. Because if God is sovereign and omniscient then he infallibly knows everything that will happen and because He is sovereign then he must determine that those things either happen or not. If he determines everything to happen or not then he is 'acting' or 'willing' 'unto' his creation.

Unless its a false dichotomy to assume that if a god is sovereign and omniscient he must determine reality, which I cannot see being false.

Classical Deism does hold the position on God that you speak of (for the most part at least)... But not Modern Deism. I myself am a Modern Deist and more specifically a Pandeist. Though you are correct about Classical Deists believing that God created and then left it's creation to manage it's self without interference... You are wrong in the rest of your statement and incorrect in your assumptions towards Deism. Deists do not assume what you have stated. Deists do not assume details about God at all for the most part. The more commonly accepted belief about God amongst Deists is this.... A solid belief in the existence of a Creator without the need or influence of revealed religions or their doctrines. Deists believe in a Creator or God through reason, not blind faith or revelation. Deists hold that nature and God are one in the same and that one can better understand the Creator through studying the creation, using science and reason as the most efficient tools in doing so.

Yea, I hope you saw that my premise was not assumed. I had asked if they held those certain beliefs then drew that it would be inconsistent if they did. I am a little bit familiar with the classic and modern deist positions. would you mind explaining how it is that you view them? How they relate and disagree?

   Classical Deism has been defined as a belief in which God is separate from his creation (only transcendent); however, Modern Deism does not define God. This is because Reason is limited in its ability to fully comprehend and define God, which produces different views on what individuals believe the nature of God to be. Some Deists see design in nature and through this design they also see purpose in the universe (and in their lives). Others see God and the universe in a co-creative process. God may be seen as an observer or as a subtle and persuasive spirit. Of course, there are many other views as well. However, the overall view of Deism is to use Reason as the foundation and Experience and Nature as the basis of belief. As can be seen, some Deists are classical while others are not, but each is respected and finds a home in Modern Deism.

Have you always considered yourself a deist?

-No I did not always consider myself a Deist, though I have always been a Deist. I just never knew the label existed until a certain age of my life.

Do you think that being a deist the topic of God is irrelevant?

-No, why would it be?

Do Deists such as yourself feel that God is utterly unknowable kinda like agnosticism or that God is transcendentally unknowable (which now that I think about it would be a property attributed to God)? Inadvertently can deists define god by what god is not? How do Deists look at reality in comparison the the supreme being?

-Modern Deism does not define God in any such way specifically... Though Deists as individuals are welcome to formulate personal opinions about such details about God.
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2012 10:02:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Arguments for the existence of God

The Argument From Motion:
There is motion (locomotion) in the universe. Something cannot move itself: an external agent or force is required. An infinite regress of forces is meaningless. Hence, there must be a force that is the ultimate source of all motion, personal and non-personal, while not being moved itself. This force, this being, is God, the unmoved mover.

The Ontological Argument (an argument from being):
Major premise: Man has an idea of an infinite and perfect being.
Minor premise: Existence is a necessary part of perfection.
Conclusion: An infinite and perfect being exists, since the very concept of perfection requires existence.

The Teleological Argument (The Argument From Design):
There is an observable order or design in the world that cannot be attributed to the object itself (e.g., inanimate objects). This observable order argues for an intelligent being who established this order. This being is God.

The Moral (or Anthropological) Argument:
All people possess a moral impulse or categorical imperative. Since this morality is not always rewarded in this life, there must be some basis or reason for moral behavior that is beyond this life. This implies the existence of immortality, ultimate judgment, and a God who establishes and supports morality by rewarding good and punishing evil.

The Cosmological Argument (The Argument From Cause):
Every effect has a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of finite causes. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause or necessary being. This being is God.

The Cosmological Argument (The Argument From Necessity):
Why is there something rather than nothing? If something exists now, then something exists necessarily: if anything is, (even if it is only illusion), then something must have the power of being within itself (i.e., God). One datum is sufficient to show the point: a single molecule, atom, subatomic particle, or idea is enough to show the existence of God. Whatever exists is either self-created, self-existent, or created ultimately by something that is self-existent. To say it is self-created is illogical, violating the law of causality by postulating an effect without a cause, and violating the law of non-contradiction by postulating that it can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship. Therefore, something exists necessarily. Something has the power of being within itself and is self-existent: it is not dependent on another. Created things are just that, created, and obviously, as contingent things, do not posses that power, but even as a whole group show their dependency on a necessary being. There must be "a" one and only one necessary being, because to be self-existent and not dependent is to be unlimited and infinite in independence. There cannot be two infinitely all powerfuls. For if there is more than one, then each lacks what the other has, each is not infinitely all-powerful nor infinitely independent. This is an example of reasoning from the parts to the whole, and though this type of argument can sometimes be erroneous, it is not always so. Anyone who claims that all reasoning from the parts to the whole is fallacious is committing the fallacy of hasty generalization by claiming such here.

The Argument From Perfection:
It can be observed in the universe that there is a pyramid of beings (e.g., from insects to man), in an ever-increasing degree of perfection and complexity. There must be a final being who is absolutely perfect, infinitely complex, and the source of all perfection. This being is God.

The Argument From Possibility and Necessity:
Things exist in a network of relationships to other things. They can exist only within this network. Therefore, each is a dependent thing. However, an infinite regress of dependencies is contradictory. There must, then, be a being who is absolutely independent, not contingent on anything else. This being is God.

The Argument From Perception:
Man is able to perceive (sense) things around him and/or inside himself. This cannot be caused either by physical events (perception as a mental act) or by man himself. Therefore, the existence of perception implies God's existence as the only rational explanation for man's perceptions.

The Argument From Man's Finitude:
Man is aware of his finitude. What makes man aware of this? God is continually impressing man with God's infinitude. Therefore the sense of finitude itself shows that an infinite being, God, exists

The Argument that God is an Innate Idea:
Every person is born with the idea of God implanted in their mind, though it is suppressed in unrighteousness. As the child grows into adulthood, this idea becomes clearer, though more suppressed.
1. There must be a Creator. Things do not make themselves. No animate or inanimate thing can logically create its own existence when it doesn't exist in the first place; no thing can logically spontaneously self-generate from nothing. Some things do form from other things, but the formation is accompanied by a loss. Creation contains both singular and plural things as essential, intrinsic qualities. In some sense, this can show us a Creator that is both singular and plural.
2. The Creator must have incredible Wisdom and Power. The quantity of information and power within the universe is amazing! The information and intricacy of any living organism is beyond our ability to truly comprehend. And if this is only what we as limited beings can see about life, how much more can the God of nature see? Studies in science have revealed a great deal of information about the creation, some in incredible detail, which helps us to see more about the mighty power and Creator behind the whole of creation.
3. The Creator must be logically loving and logically hateful. The capacity and desire to nurture, protect, play, grieve, become enraged, violent, destructive, and more, seen in so many creatures, only makes consistent sense if their good Creator possesses these same attributes. The overall creativity for preservation and the continuance of life seen in nature show more answers about our Creator.
4. The Creator must be Just and require justice. Creation abounds with evidence for the Creator's balanced justice. The laws in creation exist in both simple and complex levels. The laws throughout the whole design of nature (even the laws that govern one's own existence) are not just a bunch of nonsense. Actions have reactions: everything has consequences, beneficial or not. With everything being the way it is in the whole system, and since there is great injustice in this life, this life can't be all there is. A final summation has been stated that since justice is often not done in life on earth, either 1., justice is done in life after earth, in which case there must be an afterlife, or else 2., this demand we make for any sort of moral meaning and justice is not intertwined with life and reality, but is a mere subjective, relative, meaningless concept that is filled with meaning as an apparent part of nature, yet has no meaning. On the contrary, reflection on inward natural instincts and outward investigation affirm that there are rights and wrongs. Human beings have a conscience and justice exists.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 8:35:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/6/2012 10:02:01 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
Arguments for the existence of God...

"The Argument From Motion:
There is motion (locomotion) in the universe. Something cannot move itself: an external agent or force is required"

This force it called gravity, it moves things.

"The Ontological Argument (an argument from being):
Major premise: Man has an idea of an infinite and perfect being.
Minor premise: Existence is a necessary part of perfection.
Conclusion: An infinite and perfect being exists, since the very concept of perfection requires existence."

Major premise: I have an idea that I am very rich
Minor premise: Millions of dollars are a necessary part of being very rich
Conclusion: I am very rich, because the very concept requires millions of dollars...Wait, what the heck? I checked out my bank account and I'm not very rich, must be a hole in your logic.

" The Cosmological Argument (The Argument From Cause):
Every effect has a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of finite causes. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause or necessary being. This being is God."

Why can't the universe itself be the uncaused cause? It's inception could be uncaused while also being the cause of everything that happened after The Big Bang.

"The Cosmological Argument (The Argument From Necessity):

This was a horrible argument, not worth my time.

" The Argument From Perception:
Man is able to perceive (sense) things around him and/or inside himself. This cannot be caused either by physical events...."

You see things therefore you perceive things (you with me so far?), you see things because you have an eye where physical events are taking place...This means that you are able to perceive things which are caused by physical events. No offense, but you don't honestly believe the things you type, do you?

"The Teleological Argument (The Argument From Design)"

I see no mind behind anything in the universe. A star blows up every second we type, galaxies are always colliding, there are countless baron planets with storms and climate which would be like hell to us just hanging out with nobody to see them, endless destruction on massive scales. Maybe a retard, but nothing intelligent would design the universe we live in.

" The Moral (or Anthropological) Argument:
All people possess a moral impulse or categorical imperative. Since this morality is not always rewarded in this life, there must be some basis or reason for moral behavior that is beyond this life."

You imply that the only reason to do good or be moral is because of reward, this is false. I do good to people without the need to be rewarded or expectation of such.

You also operate under the false assumption that there is cosmic justice, where is your evidence of this? Oh ya that's right...

" The Argument From Perfection
It can be observed in the universe that there is a pyramid of beings (e.g., from insects to man), in an ever-increasing degree of perfection and complexity. There must be a final being who is absolutely perfect, infinitely complex, and the source of all perfection. This being is God."

All beings we observe (insect to man) are biological, biology can only exist after the universe exists, therefore nothing biological can create the universe. You may claim that God is not biological, I would say there are no examples of beings who are not biological, therefore making your pyramid argument useless.

"The Argument From Possibility and Necessity:
Things exist in a network of relationships to other things. They can exist only within this network. Therefore, each is a dependent thing. However, an infinite regress of dependencies is contradictory. There must, then, be a being who is absolutely independent, not contingent on anything else. This being is God.|"

This goes back to the same concept of uncaused cause, I already explained that The Big Bang could be the uncaused cause.

"The Argument From Man's Finitude:
Man is aware of his finitude. What makes man aware of this? God is continually impressing man with God's infinitude."

It has not been proven that God exists, how can anyone be impressed by anything an imaginary idea has done?

"Every person is born with the idea of God implanted in their mind, though it is suppressed in unrighteousness."

Evidence?

"1. There must be a Creator."

A creation can only be made with pre-existing material/ matter. You can't paint a painting without a pre-existing canvas and pre-existing paint for example. There can be no creation of matter and material because matter and material are needed for creation in the first place.

Lets say I grant you a creator for the sake of argument, there is no evidence it has a consciousness or intelligence. Ice can be "created" without a mind, all you need is water and below zero temp for example.

" 2. The Creator must have incredible Wisdom and Power"

If the creator exists maybe you would have a case, you haven't even laid out a case for his existence that I haven't found holes in.

"3. The Creator must be logically loving and logically hateful"

This is not seen in the universe. There are innocent people who die every day of hunger, natural disasters kill innocent people same with fatal viruses, while non innocent people eat, survive storms and don't get fatal viruses. Therefore, if there is a God, he does not express his love or hate logically. If God saves showing this love or hate for the afterlife, there first must be a case laid down for an afterlife which is something I have yet to see in this discussion.

" 4. The Creator must be Just and require justice"

This is not seen. Innocent people are born with deformities, is that just? You may once again say that justice is saved for the afterlife, but what case have you laid down in favor of an afterlife?

I don't think you have laid down one valid argument for the existence of God in that whole post.