Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists: your strongest argument for God?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:09:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Ooh!

Well the argument would have to be for a personal cause for the universe, to fit the loose definition of what I would accept to be a God.

I personally fine zmikecuber/Iredia/rational_thinker9119's pantheistic-type arguments to be the most convincing. Where they try on different levels to argue that everything is mental/causally separate. But this is a very different animal to the being generally depicted by the monotheistic religions.

To me conciousness (as well as the origins of the cosmos) seems best explained by physical processes, if it could be shown that solipsism is true however then I'd find these types of arguments very convincing.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:18:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

I'm not an atheists, but I would say the strongest argument for the existence of "God" from an atheist's perspective is that the universe is an expression of order. "God", whatever else it is or is not, is the source of both the energy, and the limitation that creates order within the expression of that energy, that results in the way existence as we know it, exists.

I realize that all I'm saying is that God it the Big Mystery Behind It All. But that's fundamentally what God is from our limited and ignorant human perspective. After this statement has been made, you can argue the semantics of the term, but you can't argue with the question of source, nor with the ignorance that remains in the face of it. And both are the essence of the concept of "God".
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:21:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The kca........................does anybody still use that?

How could the universe come into existence?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:23:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.

Okay...

Let's take the general KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. Universe has a cause

Now, let's accept this conclusion for the sake of argument, how do you get from a cause too God?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:30:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:21:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The kca........................does anybody still use that?

How could the universe come into existence?

Well you might be surprised to learn that mainstream science accepts that hypothesis (the Big Bang) and is supported by observable evidence of the universe expanding and a beginning to the universe is required by einstein's theory of relativity.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:34:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:23:33 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.

Okay...

Let's take the general KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. Universe has a cause

Now, let's accept this conclusion for the sake of argument, how do you get from a cause too God?

Because the only logical cause would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful to create space, time, matter, and energy. The possible causes are abstract, unembodied, or personal (conscious). Of these three, a personal cause is the best deduction.
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:34:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

That's probably the weakest, except for maybe the Argument from Morals...
Dude... Stop...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:37:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Umm it's biggest proponent ALWAYS argues that the cause of argued for in the KCA is personal. What are you talking about?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:38:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:34:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:23:33 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.

Okay...

Let's take the general KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. Universe has a cause

Now, let's accept this conclusion for the sake of argument, how do you get from a cause too God?

Because the only logical cause would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful to create space, time, matter, and energy. The possible causes are abstract, unembodied, or personal (conscious). Of these three, a personal cause is the best deduction.

1. Why timeless, if the cause is temporal, that doesnt logically follow form the argument

2. Why enormously powerful, if all it needs to do it set off the first smidge of space/false vacuum. Since there is good evidence that the universe contains zero total energy (as I explained in our debate), then God, or the cause only needs to create the conditions this can occur under.

Also, since power is usually described in terms of energy/time, even this contradicts your argument it needs to be timeless (since you cant have power outside of time).

3. You still haven't even begin to argue for a personal cause.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:40:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It also assumes that the temporally-defined concept of 'beginning' is meaningful in such a context, which we have precisely zero reasons to believe is the case. KCA is dreadful and it depresses me that so many people seem oblivious to it. But that could be said for a lot of things, in fairness.

As for what I'd say the strongest argument is? Some sort of fractal self-similarity of scale, I guess; I don't think it'd fit the traditional conception of god, but then I quite literally cannot get my head around the traditional version. Monotheistic god is something that doesn't fit into my mental concept-space in any coherent way.

But some sort of ultra-intelligence could be nearly equivalent, based on the idea that reality has some sort of inherent scaling self-similarity.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:40:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:37:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Umm it's biggest proponent ALWAYS argues that the cause of argued for in the KCA is personal. What are you talking about?

Because the logical conclusion from the premises of the argument as generally given has no reference to whether or not the cause is personal.

C. The universe has a cause.

Job done.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:40:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:34:29 AM, Fanath wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

That's probably the weakest, except for maybe the Argument from Morals...

I think objective morality is a strong argument. If we're truly accidents of random mutation then human beings would have no intrinsic worth. This obviously isn't the case. Also, some, if not most people people who accept neo-darwinism presuppose a purpose among a purposeless species (to evolve) which would provide some kind of collective intrinsic worth to human beings to advance the evolutionary process.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:41:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually the best argument right now is CTMU, but only because it's a fuzzy firewall of wordplay that essentially bars itself from criticism unless you spend weeks reading it.

And I got better things to do than do that...
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:50:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:38:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:34:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:23:33 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.

Okay...

Let's take the general KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. Universe has a cause

Now, let's accept this conclusion for the sake of argument, how do you get from a cause too God?

Because the only logical cause would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful to create space, time, matter, and energy. The possible causes are abstract, unembodied, or personal (conscious). Of these three, a personal cause is the best deduction.

1. Why timeless, if the cause is temporal, that doesnt logically follow form the argument

2. Why enormously powerful, if all it needs to do it set off the first smidge of space/false vacuum. Since there is good evidence that the universe contains zero total energy (as I explained in our debate), then God, or the cause only needs to create the conditions this can occur under.

Also, since power is usually described in terms of energy/time, even this contradicts your argument it needs to be timeless (since you cant have power outside of time).

3. You still haven't even begin to argue for a personal cause.

1. Time and space exist on a continuum, and the Big Bang has shown that space is expanding. Also there must be something from which everything comes: an uncaused first cause. The best candidate for this is God given that minds have been shown to produce specific causes, especially considering a cause as great as the universe.

2. Do you accept the Big Bang theory? I guess I should've asked you much sooner before assuming that you do.

-mainstream science accepts that time was created in the instance of the Big Bang.

A personal cause is the only logical deduction given that it's a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful cause.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:55:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:30:54 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:21:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The kca........................does anybody still use that?

How could the universe come into existence?

Well you might be surprised to learn that mainstream science accepts that hypothesis (the Big Bang) and is supported by observable evidence of the universe expanding and a beginning to the universe is required by einstein's theory of relativity.

OH WOW.
How then could your non dimensional god have had anything to do with it.

Apparently your god is outside of time, yes?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:55:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:50:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:38:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:34:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:23:33 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.

Okay...

Let's take the general KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. Universe has a cause

Now, let's accept this conclusion for the sake of argument, how do you get from a cause too God?

Because the only logical cause would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful to create space, time, matter, and energy. The possible causes are abstract, unembodied, or personal (conscious). Of these three, a personal cause is the best deduction.

1. Why timeless, if the cause is temporal, that doesnt logically follow form the argument

2. Why enormously powerful, if all it needs to do it set off the first smidge of space/false vacuum. Since there is good evidence that the universe contains zero total energy (as I explained in our debate), then God, or the cause only needs to create the conditions this can occur under.

Also, since power is usually described in terms of energy/time, even this contradicts your argument it needs to be timeless (since you cant have power outside of time).

3. You still haven't even begin to argue for a personal cause.

1. Time and space exist on a continuum, and the Big Bang has shown that space is expanding. Also there must be something from which everything comes: an uncaused first cause.

Perhaps. BBT only shows that everything was in one place in a hot, dense, exceptionally curved state. It in no way states that time and space has a beginning however, only that our current best model of gravity (relativity) breaks down when attempting to describe it.

The best candidate for this is God given that minds have been shown to produce specific causes, especially considering a cause as great as the universe.

Huh?!

2. Do you accept the Big Bang theory? I guess I should've asked you much sooner before assuming that you do.

I definitely do.

-mainstream science accepts that time was created in the instance of the Big Bang.

WRONG!

A personal cause is the only logical deduction given that it's a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful cause.

Please show me this 'logical deduction' for a Personal cause.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:12:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:40:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:37:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Umm it's biggest proponent ALWAYS argues that the cause of argued for in the KCA is personal. What are you talking about?

Because the logical conclusion from the premises of the argument as generally given has no reference to whether or not the cause is personal.

C. The universe has a cause.

Job done.

C1. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an incaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creatiOn is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.
C2. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the univetse is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, tineless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

Job done.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:15:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:55:36 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:50:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:38:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:34:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:23:33 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.

Okay...

Let's take the general KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. Universe has a cause

Now, let's accept this conclusion for the sake of argument, how do you get from a cause too God?

Because the only logical cause would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful to create space, time, matter, and energy. The possible causes are abstract, unembodied, or personal (conscious). Of these three, a personal cause is the best deduction.

1. Why timeless, if the cause is temporal, that doesnt logically follow form the argument

2. Why enormously powerful, if all it needs to do it set off the first smidge of space/false vacuum. Since there is good evidence that the universe contains zero total energy (as I explained in our debate), then God, or the cause only needs to create the conditions this can occur under.

Also, since power is usually described in terms of energy/time, even this contradicts your argument it needs to be timeless (since you cant have power outside of time).

3. You still haven't even begin to argue for a personal cause.

1. Time and space exist on a continuum, and the Big Bang has shown that space is expanding. Also there must be something from which everything comes: an uncaused first cause.

Perhaps. BBT only shows that everything was in one place in a hot, dense, exceptionally curved state. It in no way states that time and space has a beginning however, only that our current best model of gravity (relativity) breaks down when attempting to describe it.

The best candidate for this is God given that minds have been shown to produce specific causes, especially considering a cause as great as the universe.

Huh?!

2. Do you accept the Big Bang theory? I guess I should've asked you much sooner before assuming that you do.

I definitely do.

-mainstream science accepts that time was created in the instance of the Big Bang.

WRONG!

A personal cause is the only logical deduction given that it's a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful cause.

Please show me this 'logical deduction' for a Personal cause.

"Did space exist prior to the big bang?

Most scientists would answer "No" to this question. The Big Bang marks the beginning of space and time as we know them, so there was no space before the Big Bang. I say "most scientists" rather than "all scientists" because the Big Bang itself is not completely understood, so it's possible that our understanding of this event will improve over time."
http://www.ucolick.org...

It's a logical deduction among potential spaceless, timeless, immaterial causes which would have enough potential energy to create everything in our observable universe
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:15:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:12:27 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:40:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:37:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Umm it's biggest proponent ALWAYS argues that the cause of argued for in the KCA is personal. What are you talking about?

Because the logical conclusion from the premises of the argument as generally given has no reference to whether or not the cause is personal.

C. The universe has a cause.

Job done.

C1. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an incaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creatiOn is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

I'm quite sorry but you have merely just asserted it's personal. Let's tack on other attributes, like 'american' and 'hates pizza', shall we?

It's appropriate to apply Occum's razor to all extraneous attributes until they are demonstrated/argued for.

C2. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the univetse is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, tineless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

Job done.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:20:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:15:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:55:36 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:50:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:38:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:34:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:23:33 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.

Okay...

Let's take the general KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. Universe has a cause

Now, let's accept this conclusion for the sake of argument, how do you get from a cause too God?

Because the only logical cause would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful to create space, time, matter, and energy. The possible causes are abstract, unembodied, or personal (conscious). Of these three, a personal cause is the best deduction.

1. Why timeless, if the cause is temporal, that doesnt logically follow form the argument

2. Why enormously powerful, if all it needs to do it set off the first smidge of space/false vacuum. Since there is good evidence that the universe contains zero total energy (as I explained in our debate), then God, or the cause only needs to create the conditions this can occur under.

Also, since power is usually described in terms of energy/time, even this contradicts your argument it needs to be timeless (since you cant have power outside of time).

3. You still haven't even begin to argue for a personal cause.

1. Time and space exist on a continuum, and the Big Bang has shown that space is expanding. Also there must be something from which everything comes: an uncaused first cause.

Perhaps. BBT only shows that everything was in one place in a hot, dense, exceptionally curved state. It in no way states that time and space has a beginning however, only that our current best model of gravity (relativity) breaks down when attempting to describe it.

The best candidate for this is God given that minds have been shown to produce specific causes, especially considering a cause as great as the universe.

Huh?!

2. Do you accept the Big Bang theory? I guess I should've asked you much sooner before assuming that you do.

I definitely do.

-mainstream science accepts that time was created in the instance of the Big Bang.

WRONG!

A personal cause is the only logical deduction given that it's a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful cause.

Please show me this 'logical deduction' for a Personal cause.

"Did space exist prior to the big bang?

Most scientists would answer "No" to this question. The Big Bang marks the beginning of space and time as we know them, so there was no space before the Big Bang. I say "most scientists" rather than "all scientists" because the Big Bang itself is not completely understood, so it's possible that our understanding of this event will improve over time."

Actually most scientists would say 'I don't know'. Huge difference.

http://www.ucolick.org...

It's a logical deduction among potential spaceless, timeless, immaterial causes which would have enough potential energy to create everything in our observable universe

Perhaps you would like to read Stephen Hawking's page, who actually advocates the big bang being the beginning of the universe as we know it. At no point doe she state space is created at the big bang, and actually goes as far as to say 'prior' to the big bang is just a nonsensical statement/question.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

And you STILL haven't even begun to argue for a personal cause. I have asked for this 3 posts in a row now. Why personal.

Don't worry, I know it's hard, even WLC only devoted 1 and a half pages of his book to (weakly) arguing that part of the conclusion.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:27:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:15:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:55:36 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:50:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:38:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:34:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:23:33 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.

Okay...

Let's take the general KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. Universe has a cause

Now, let's accept this conclusion for the sake of argument, how do you get from a cause too God?

Because the only logical cause would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful to create space, time, matter, and energy. The possible causes are abstract, unembodied, or personal (conscious). Of these three, a personal cause is the best deduction.

1. Why timeless, if the cause is temporal, that doesnt logically follow form the argument

2. Why enormously powerful, if all it needs to do it set off the first smidge of space/false vacuum. Since there is good evidence that the universe contains zero total energy (as I explained in our debate), then God, or the cause only needs to create the conditions this can occur under.

Also, since power is usually described in terms of energy/time, even this contradicts your argument it needs to be timeless (since you cant have power outside of time).

3. You still haven't even begin to argue for a personal cause.

1. Time and space exist on a continuum, and the Big Bang has shown that space is expanding. Also there must be something from which everything comes: an uncaused first cause.

Perhaps. BBT only shows that everything was in one place in a hot, dense, exceptionally curved state. It in no way states that time and space has a beginning however, only that our current best model of gravity (relativity) breaks down when attempting to describe it.

The best candidate for this is God given that minds have been shown to produce specific causes, especially considering a cause as great as the universe.

Huh?!

2. Do you accept the Big Bang theory? I guess I should've asked you much sooner before assuming that you do.

I definitely do.

-mainstream science accepts that time was created in the instance of the Big Bang.

WRONG!

A personal cause is the only logical deduction given that it's a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful cause.

Please show me this 'logical deduction' for a Personal cause.

"Did space exist prior to the big bang?

Most scientists would answer "No" to this question. The Big Bang marks the beginning of space and time as we know them, so there was no space before the Big Bang. I say "most scientists" rather than "all scientists" because the Big Bang itself is not completely understood, so it's possible that our understanding of this event will improve over time."
http://www.ucolick.org...

It's a logical deduction among potential spaceless, timeless, immaterial causes which would have enough potential energy to create everything in our observable universe
You are sure that there was no time?

Or are you guessing?

Because if there was no time before time and time and space and the universe simultaneously came to exist then the universe is timeless and had no beginning.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:28:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:15:45 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:12:27 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:40:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:37:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Umm it's biggest proponent ALWAYS argues that the cause of argued for in the KCA is personal. What are you talking about?

Because the logical conclusion from the premises of the argument as generally given has no reference to whether or not the cause is personal.

C. The universe has a cause.

Job done.

C1. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an incaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creatiOn is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

I'm quite sorry but you have merely just asserted it's personal. Let's tack on other attributes, like 'american' and 'hates pizza', shall we?


Seems to me you are not familiar at all with WLC's argumentation otherwise you wouldn't make such a spurious claim. What you originally said is that the KCA doesn't even argue for a personal cause. You are wrong. WLC always does, and he uses that exact syllogism with the additional conclusions.

Please do your own homework next time. All of this is very easy to find.

"One way to see the difficulty is by reflecting on the different types of causal relations. In event/event causation, one event causes another. For example, the brick"s striking the window pane causes the pane to shatter. This kind of causal relation clearly involves a beginning of the effect in time, since it is a relation between events which occur at specific times. In state/state causation one state of affairs causes another state of affairs to exist. For example, the water"s having a certain density is the cause of the wood"s floating on the water. In this sort of causal relation, the effect need not have a beginning: the wood could theoretically be floating eternally on the water. . . . Now the difficulty that arises in the case of the cause of the beginning of the universe is that we seem to have a peculiar case of state/event causation: the cause is a timeless state but the effect is an event that occurred at a specific moment in the finite past. Such state/event causation doesn"t seem to make sense, since a state sufficient for the existence of its effect should have a state as its effect.

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe"s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present."

It's appropriate to apply Occum's razor to all extraneous attributes until they are demonstrated/argued for.


Nope.

C2. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the univetse is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, tineless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

Job done.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:30:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Not the most strongest, but least weakest. But I cannot tell the difference between which argument is better than another, since they are all so weak.

However, there are a lot of arguments to which I understand why theists fall for them. Arguments like the KCA, or the anthropic principle, etc.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:33:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The universe and time and space have always existed.

There is no need for a creator.

As your belief in the BBT demonstrates.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:37:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:20:51 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:15:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:55:36 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:50:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:38:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:34:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:23:33 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:14:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:11:11 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:04:35 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:02:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:54:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If you had to make an argument to rationalize belief in God, what would be your single-most strongest argument?

Now I realize that you obviously don't believe that a god exists but I'm asking you to play devil's advocate here. If you don't believe there is any strong argument for god's existence that's perfectly acceptable too.

Yeah, nothing.

So not the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam is a really weak argument for the existence of God if I say so myself. It doesn't even argue for a personal cause. Just A cause, it works well in real time debate settings because it's so simple and works well to intuition, but it it far too easily picked apart.

Really? Personally think it's one of the strongest arguments. I think that the argument implies that the only logical deduction would be a personal cause rather than an abstract or unembodied cause.

Okay...

Let's take the general KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
C. Universe has a cause

Now, let's accept this conclusion for the sake of argument, how do you get from a cause too God?

Because the only logical cause would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful to create space, time, matter, and energy. The possible causes are abstract, unembodied, or personal (conscious). Of these three, a personal cause is the best deduction.

1. Why timeless, if the cause is temporal, that doesnt logically follow form the argument

2. Why enormously powerful, if all it needs to do it set off the first smidge of space/false vacuum. Since there is good evidence that the universe contains zero total energy (as I explained in our debate), then God, or the cause only needs to create the conditions this can occur under.

Also, since power is usually described in terms of energy/time, even this contradicts your argument it needs to be timeless (since you cant have power outside of time).

3. You still haven't even begin to argue for a personal cause.

1. Time and space exist on a continuum, and the Big Bang has shown that space is expanding. Also there must be something from which everything comes: an uncaused first cause.

Perhaps. BBT only shows that everything was in one place in a hot, dense, exceptionally curved state. It in no way states that time and space has a beginning however, only that our current best model of gravity (relativity) breaks down when attempting to describe it.

The best candidate for this is God given that minds have been shown to produce specific causes, especially considering a cause as great as the universe.

Huh?!

2. Do you accept the Big Bang theory? I guess I should've asked you much sooner before assuming that you do.

I definitely do.

-mainstream science accepts that time was created in the instance of the Big Bang.

WRONG!

A personal cause is the only logical deduction given that it's a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful cause.

Please show me this 'logical deduction' for a Personal cause.

"Did space exist prior to the big bang?

Most scientists would answer "No" to this question. The Big Bang marks the beginning of space and time as we know them, so there was no space before the Big Bang. I say "most scientists" rather than "all scientists" because the Big Bang itself is not completely understood, so it's possible that our understanding of this event will improve over time."

Actually most scientists would say 'I don't know'. Huge difference.

http://www.ucolick.org...

It's a logical deduction among potential spaceless, timeless, immaterial causes which would have enough potential energy to create everything in our observable universe

Perhaps you would like to read Stephen Hawking's page, who actually advocates the big bang being the beginning of the universe as we know it. At no point doe she state space is created at the big bang, and actually goes as far as to say 'prior' to the big bang is just a nonsensical statement/question.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

And you STILL haven't even begun to argue for a personal cause. I have asked for this 3 posts in a row now. Why personal.

Don't worry, I know it's hard, even WLC only devoted 1 and a half pages of his book to (weakly) arguing that part of the conclusion.

The argument that I was focusing on was that time itself had a beginning which was mentioned in my earlier post. At the end of his lecture stephen hawking states:

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."

Of the given options for the cause of the universe, a mind is the best explanation that fits the necessary criteria. It's the best option given that it has the most truth and explanatory power because minds can produce functionally-specific causes. The words that you're reading right now are specifically paired and sequenced out of the 26 letters of the alphabet. You haven't seen me actually type these words but of the possible options for explaining what I'm writing is that a person is wrote it. It could be a cat walking on the keyboard. But logically this isn't valid.