Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I Believe in God and Christ

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:03:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Recently, I took it upon myself to lay out the argument as to why I believe in God and Christ. I did this in a large project and I want to share it with the people in this community who take such interest in these things.

I posted it here: http://conservativepolitico.blogspot.com...

Now I'm not trying to change minds but rather get people to understand why I believe what I do.

Feel free to post comments here and discuss what I have come up with. I am not a scholar or a philosopher so please try and refrain from knit picking my arguments too finely.

Also, I don't want any atheist hate mail either lol

Just wanted to share my entire experience.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:13:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why do you need to justify your beliefs at all? You formatted these logical arguments, but let me ask you, is this connection you have with God a logical connection?

A theist who tries to prove the existence of God using a logical argument is no better than an atheist who tries to show that God could not possibly exist by finding "contradictions" in the Bible.

If you don't consider yourself a scholar and you're not open to nitpicky atheists trying to pick apart your beliefs, then you shouldn't try to justify your faith through other means. Just explore your faith. That's it.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:17:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ummm....I do believe in God (I'm still questioning the validity of Christ)...but, it seems like most of your arguments are fallacious appeals to authority. Simply stating because a majority of the population believes something does not make it true.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:37:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good thing I don't really care what you guys think because this was to share my beliefs and my beliefs only. I said I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

I was challenged to provide reasoning behind my beliefs and this is what I came up with.

I don't care how wrong you think it is.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:51:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:03:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Recently, I took it upon myself to lay out the argument as to why I believe in God and Christ. I did this in a large project and I want to share it with the people in this community who take such interest in these things.

I posted it here: http://conservativepolitico.blogspot.com...

Now I'm not trying to change minds but rather get people to understand why I believe what I do.

Feel free to post comments here and discuss what I have come up with. I am not a scholar or a philosopher so please try and refrain from knit picking my arguments too finely.

Also, I don't want any atheist hate mail either lol

Just wanted to share my entire experience.

Well, the arguments were one big plate of fallacious spaghetti but I will address as many noodles as I can.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1

1. "something from nothing" has nothing to do with cause and effect.

2. "Causes" are a label we applied to functionality within the universe, there is no evidence a cause can apply to the universe as a whole simply because causes happen inside the universe (this would be the fallacy of composition)

3. Causes don't involve bringing things into existence, they involve changing the form of pre-existing things or rearranging these pre-existing things.

P2

1. The universe has a finite past, however time began with The Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory which explains the expansion from the singularity. The Big Bang doesn't say the singularity began to exist, since the singularity was the universe at on point, then the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is baseless.

All I needed to do was attack the first two premises, however even if it is true that the universe needed an external cause there is no way to infer it would be "God" that would be a bare assertion fallacy. M-theory explains a "cause" of the universe way more in depth than any theist account, this means it is not necessary for the cause to be God even if the assertion of a cause was founded.

The Laws of the Universe Reflect Design

"If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself"

1. You are assuming it was possible for the "explosion" to differ with no reasoning, how do you know things didn't turn out the way they did because of the necessity of the singularity's nature?

2. What makes you think the universe didn't collapse and bang billions of times prior to the certain Big Bang we are in now? IF you roll the dice enough, you will land with a universe like ours. I'm not saying this is what I believed happened, however there are many fallacious assumptions in the quote you provided.

"Right from the start we can see that the statistical probability of the Big Bang occurring perfectly and creating the spatial universe we exist in, in itself, in a near impossibility."

You are here, I am here, so no it's very possible

What caused God?

1. What caused God is a good question, you didn't really answer it.

2. Even if what you say is true, there is no evidence that God exists now. He could have ended his existence in a suicide sometime after he made the earth and humans for any number of reasons.

Occam's Razor

Occam's razor supports Atheism not theism.

Atheists assumes: The Natural world exists

Theists assumes: The Natural world exists, the supernatural world exists, the afterlife exists, and a supreme being exists.

Who is making more baseless assumptions? The theist.

Conclusion:

Your arguments were all fallacious and just flawed.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:55:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:37:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Good thing I don't really care what you guys think because this was to share my beliefs and my beliefs only. I said I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

I was challenged to provide reasoning behind my beliefs and this is what I came up with.

I don't care how wrong you think it is.

I'm getting mixed messages about what's going on here. Do you only want people who find your arguments impressive in the first place to respond?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:57:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:37:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Good thing I don't really care what you guys think because this was to share my beliefs and my beliefs only. I said I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

I was challenged to provide reasoning behind my beliefs and this is what I came up with.

I don't care how wrong you think it is.

If you dont care about the objections that people have to your argument, why bother posing an argument in the first place? You might as well have said "God exists, i believe it, that settles it". Thats not much of an argument, i agree, but neither is an argument that has clear flaws within it. And if you dont care about these flaws, then it shouldnt matter which argument you post.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 6:13:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:03:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Recently, I took it upon myself to lay out the argument as to why I believe in God and Christ. I did this in a large project and I want to share it with the people in this community who take such interest in these things.

I posted it here: http://conservativepolitico.blogspot.com...

Now I'm not trying to change minds but rather get people to understand why I believe what I do.

Feel free to post comments here and discuss what I have come up with. I am not a scholar or a philosopher so please try and refrain from knit picking my arguments too finely.

Also, I don't want any atheist hate mail either lol

Just wanted to share my entire experience.

Let's start with 1iA. Either the statement that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" refers to things that begin to exist ex nihilo, or it does not. If the former, then this premise cannot be supported inductively, since we have no examples of things coming into existence ex nihilo. If the latter, then we are justified, and indeed compelled, to say that whatever begins to exist has a cause that is finite, limited, and composed of matter and/or energy, since we have no counterexamples to this principle.

Thus, given the former God is unproved, and given the latter God is disproved.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 6:15:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:37:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Good thing I don't really care what you guys think because this was to share my beliefs and my beliefs only. I said I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

I was challenged to provide reasoning behind my beliefs and this is what I came up with.

I don't care how wrong you think it is.

If you state a proposition or argument, and are unwilling to countenance objections to your proposition or argument, then you cannot be said to have been "reasoning."
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Phoenix.Wright
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 6:26:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are somewhat major differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam with regards to belief in God though and you generalize by saying they all believe in the idea of God in Christianity.

Christians believe in a trinity and believe Jesus was God. Both Judaism and Islam reject this. Judaism rejects Jesus completely and believe he was false meaning they reject God since Jesus is God. Islam believes in Jesus (not as god) but rejects the Holy spirit which means they also reject God. So you are casting huge generalizations to try to support yourself.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 6:29:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:37:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Good thing I don't really care what you guys think because this was to share my beliefs and my beliefs only. I said I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

I was challenged to provide reasoning behind my beliefs and this is what I came up with.

I don't care how wrong you think it is.

You need to tell those people that you don't NEED to provide reasoning behind your beliefs. It would be even better if they realized it themselves.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 6:32:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 6:13:40 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Thus, given the former God is unproved, and given the latter God is disproved.

How do you disprove something that is definitively beyond both comprehension and reality?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 6:44:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 6:32:05 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/9/2012 6:13:40 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Thus, given the former God is unproved, and given the latter God is disproved.

How do you disprove something that is definitively beyond both comprehension and reality?

Well, simply by pointing that out, I guess. Something that is beyond reality is not part of reality and is therefore not real.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 6:50:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Conservativepolitico,

I congratulate your attempt to articulate justification for belief in God, but you should ideally defend this in a debate. I'd be more than than happy to oblige, if you are looking a challenger.

Also, as others have said, you should expect a certain amount of criticism when posting on this topic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 7:04:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 6:44:42 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Well, simply by pointing that out, I guess. Something that is beyond reality is not part of reality and is therefore not real.

It's common doctrine for theists that God does not exist in the same manner that we do. Are you content with accepting "God exists beyond our reality"? Most non-theists will view that statement as a contradiction whereas most theists can readily accept it.

It doesn't strike you as silly to conclude a truth value about something that, if it exists, exists outside our realm of comprehension and ability to process reality? To me, it's kind of like sticking a baby thermometer into the sun to test its temperature.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 7:39:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 7:04:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/9/2012 6:44:42 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Well, simply by pointing that out, I guess. Something that is beyond reality is not part of reality and is therefore not real.

It's common doctrine for theists that God does not exist in the same manner that we do. Are you content with accepting "God exists beyond our reality"? Most non-theists will view that statement as a contradiction whereas most theists can readily accept it.

It doesn't strike you as silly to conclude a truth value about something that, if it exists, exists outside our realm of comprehension and ability to process reality? To me, it's kind of like sticking a baby thermometer into the sun to test its temperature.

Theopedia.com describes God as eternal, holy, unchanging, impassionate, infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnisapient, omniscient, simple, self-existent, immaterial, good, loving, gracious, merciful, just, jealous, free and sovereign.

I submit to you that a being about whom you can list at least twenty attributes is, in at least twenty respects, comprehensible.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 11:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:03:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Recently, I took it upon myself to lay out the argument as to why I believe in God and Christ. I did this in a large project and I want to share it with the people in this community who take such interest in these things.

I posted it here: http://conservativepolitico.blogspot.com...

Now I'm not trying to change minds but rather get people to understand why I believe what I do.

Feel free to post comments here and discuss what I have come up with. I am not a scholar or a philosopher so please try and refrain from knit picking my arguments too finely.

Also, I don't want any atheist hate mail either lol

Just wanted to share my entire experience.

If you really are confident in your beliefs, you should debate how logical your contentions are.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 1:40:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:37:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Good thing I don't really care what you guys think [about how fallacious my arguments are.]

Needless to say, you shouldn't have posted them then.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 11:18:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:37:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Good thing I don't really care what you guys think

Ok.. but people should care what you think ;)

I don't care what you think about my saying you're silly...

so.. You're silly.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:53:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 7:39:43 PM, WriterDave wrote:
I submit to you that a being about whom you can list at least twenty attributes is, in at least twenty respects, comprehensible.

I reject. That's a terrible argument for numerous reasons.

The first of which is that the very concept of comprehension involves knowing something in totality. To say that something is comprehensible in as many respects as it has understandable attributes is absurd. For lack of a better analogy, that's like saying you know President Obama, insofar that you know he's black and male.

The second reason, which is even more pressing, is that description is not the same as comprehension, especially for something with attributes derived theoretically instead of by observation.

Example: "Square circle" is an object that is defined as a shape that is both square and circular in the same way at the same time. This is incomprehensible unless you force the definition via semantics.

The third reason is that we don't even know if these twenty attributes are even valid. You're basing your argument on the desperate assumption that a dictionary definition represents the concept of God in any legitimate sense.

But none of that makes any difference. Our entire exchange is a complete and total waste of time. Answer the following question:

If God exists, do we necessarily have the capacity to prove the existence of God?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:59:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:03:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
the one main difference between Hinduism and ancient Judaism is that the Indian people were never compelled to give up their religion in favor of another. Judaism was constantly under attack from rivaling states and rivaling religions and yet it pulled through these hardships. On the other hand Hinduism, until the appearance of Islam in the region, suffered no serious threat from outside nations or religions.

False. Hinduism was heavily challenged by Buddhists and Jains 2,000 - 3,000 years ago and the conflict continues to this day.
"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
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:15:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:53:34 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/9/2012 7:39:43 PM, WriterDave wrote:
I submit to you that a being about whom you can list at least twenty attributes is, in at least twenty respects, comprehensible.

I reject. That's a terrible argument for numerous reasons.

The first of which is that the very concept of comprehension involves knowing something in totality. To say that something is comprehensible in as many respects as it has understandable attributes is absurd. For lack of a better analogy, that's like saying you know President Obama, insofar that you know he's black and male.

The second reason, which is even more pressing, is that description is not the same as comprehension, especially for something with attributes derived theoretically instead of by observation.

Example: "Square circle" is an object that is defined as a shape that is both square and circular in the same way at the same time. This is incomprehensible unless you force the definition via semantics.

The third reason is that we don't even know if these twenty attributes are even valid. You're basing your argument on the desperate assumption that a dictionary definition represents the concept of God in any legitimate sense.

I deny that total comprehension is necessary for comprehension. Rather than argue the point about description via comprehension, I will simply say that a being that can be described can be (in principle) disproved. As for your third point, take it up with your fellow Christians.

But none of that makes any difference. Our entire exchange is a complete and total waste of time. Answer the following question:

If God exists, do we necessarily have the capacity to prove the existence of God?

Depends on what the attributes of God are, and what the attributes of the universe is.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:31:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 4:15:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
I deny that total comprehension is necessary for comprehension. Rather than argue the point about description via comprehension, I will simply say that a being that can be described can be (in principle) disproved. As for your third point, take it up with your fellow Christians.

I'm a hard agnostic, not a Christian. But I can understand your confusion, since I am actively arguing against you.

I agree with your notion that describable things can be disproved to some extent.

To "disprove" something based on its description is merely to state that the description doesn't match based on your understanding of reality. For example: Square circle. Based on our understanding of reality, this does not exist because we have never encountered, nor do we have the capacity to encounter, something that is both square and circular in the same way at the same time.

This can't be done with God, because the attributes God has of existing beyond time and space, as the creator of reality, make it definitively incomprehensible. Furthermore, a comprehensible description of God is lacking in and of itself. How do you disprove something you can't really define the essence of? Theists and atheists alike apply labels but none of these labels definitively capture the core of God enough such that disproving the label disproves the entity.

Depends on what the attributes of God are, and what the attributes of the universe is.

Does God necessarily exist within the universe?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 9:29:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:37:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Good thing I don't really care what you guys think because this was to share my beliefs and my beliefs only. I said I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

I was challenged to provide reasoning behind my beliefs and this is what I came up with.

I don't care how wrong you think it is.

Good for you, thanks for sharing! :)
Me
XDebatorX
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 2:42:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Muslims and Jews don't believe in the God of the bible that's false. You try to draw connections between all of the three main religions (which is good) but you have to admit, Christians have changed from what the Jews believed in with regards to God. Jews like Muslims believe in one sole God whereas Christians believe in a trinity. This is a huge difference so your stretching too far when you say that both Muslims and Jews believe in the God of the bible because that includes Jesus and the Holy spirit which both Jews and Muslims reject completely.

Your arguments for rejecting Prophet Muhammad are very weak too. Muhammad never 'violently' conquered the Arabian Peninsula but took over it after the Meccans broke a treaty. I encourage you to read the Quran and compare it to the bible, you would be surprised and might realize the truth of Islam.

You also rely heavily on philosophical arguments for the existence of God which is not strong enough. You should be able to prove that the Bible itself as a scripture couldn't have been anything but divine at the time it was written. Arguments from the scripture itself is much stronger than philosophical arguments (which BTW first came from the Muslims!) and easier to understand for the common man than the philosophical arguments for God's existence.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 5:37:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:03:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Recently, I took it upon myself to lay out the argument as to why I believe in God and Christ. I did this in a large project and I want to share it with the people in this community who take such interest in these things.

I posted it here: http://conservativepolitico.blogspot.com...

Now I'm not trying to change minds but rather get people to understand why I believe what I do.

Feel free to post comments here and discuss what I have come up with. I am not a scholar or a philosopher so please try and refrain from knit picking my arguments too finely.

Also, I don't want any atheist hate mail either lol

Just wanted to share my entire experience.

It is great you are getting your thoughts out by blogging. I hope it goes well.

Lets just go after the the cosmological argument.

I will quote you.

C. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence

Since we can prove that both A and B are true then by logic C must be true. Since the universe exists and nothing can exist without a cause we can assume the universe exists due to a cause making the Kalam Cosmological Argument true.

ii. A God is the Cause

In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to hold up we must assume that whatever caused the universe cannot be part of the universe. The cause of an object and the object cannot be the same thing. Therefore we must assume that whatever caused the universe must exist outside of it. This argument proves that the theory of the Big Bang is false. How can the thing that created existence have been part of existence? It cannot be. If we assume this to be true then the Big Bang or the First Cause must have come from somewhere outside the Universe.

I will address your point about the big bang. The big bang only describes the expansion of the universe. It says nothing about what caused this expansion. The big bang could have even been caused by God himself.

The universe is just the bubble of space-time we are in. The cause of the big bang was likely outside the universe but inside existence. So the cosmological argument does not disprove the big bang or any natural phenomena that could have caused the big bang.