Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[bhsmte]

Quite simply, Hawking believes that the universe began to exist.

Because I can't use the witness of the Holy Spirit as evidence for others. Surely, you understand that.

Can you give us more specifics on what Hawking believes in regards to the universe and how it developed?

I mean, you brought the guy up, so lets go a little deeper with his thoughts.

 

[Joshua260]

But I seriously don't know where else we can go with this argument. I think we've tried everything. Last off topic thing, I promise... What if we make a time machine, go back 2500 years, and remove the KCA from history?

Yes, I can understand. As I said, I haven't seen one good objection (or "shredding") to the KCA yet.
...but I appreciate your discussion.

 

[Joshua260]

If you believe him, you're showing P2 to be incorrect. P2 is a statement of certainty instead of the probability you're referencing here.

You are incorrect. Craig merely claims that p2 is more plausibly true than not.

 

[Davian]

It is completely relevant. If you are personally discrediting the very individuals you are citing as supporting your KCA, should not everyone in this forum be aware of it?

This is just off-topic and I will not address it. Please stay on topic.

Your evasion pretty much addresses it.

 

[Joshua260]

Your evasion pretty much addresses it.

And your diversion techniques are all too obvious. Let's stick to the KCA.

 

[Davian]

There is no prior to the beginning of time.

I was referring to the Planck epoch; what you are talking about is speculation.

 

[Davian]

And your diversion techniques are all too obvious. Let's stick to the KCA.

It's not looking too good. What else can we do with it? Does anyone find it convincing, in itself?

Stuck

• Davian
• Mar 9, 2012

 

[Davian]

Quite simply, Hawking believes that the universe began to exist.

He also believes that the universe is billions of years old.

Because I can't use the witness of the Holy Spirit as evidence for others. Surely, you understand that.

Then why do you bring it into the discussion?

"I have proof that cold fusion is a workable technology, but that proof only works for me, not others. Surely, you can understand."

No, I do not.

 

[TillICollapse]

Quite simply, Hawking believes that the universe began to exist.

Do you think Hawking posits anything existed prior to the beginning of the universe ? Again, I think you are taking some of his ideas out of context.

Because I can't use the witness of the Holy Spirit as evidence for others. Surely, you understand that.

And yet this seems to be what you are referencing anyways, which is why I don't understand why you are spending so much time focusing on a vague argument that has more holes in it then a Dunkin Donuts. Are you convinced because of what you are calling the witness of the Holy Spirit, or are you convinced because of the KCA ?

 

[bhsmte]

You are incorrect. Craig merely claims that p2 is more plausibly true than not.

Craig claims a lot of things.

 

[quatona]

You are incorrect. Craig merely claims that p2 is more plausibly true than not.

I am under the impression that he even coined the term "more plausibly true than...", because "unsubstantiated" has such a negative ring to it.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Yes, I can understand. As I said, I haven't seen one good objection (or "shredding") to the KCA yet.
...but I appreciate your discussion.

Next post will be very long, and have KCA in front of every sentence.

 

[bhsmte]

I am under the impression that he even coined the term "more plausibly true than...", because "unsubstantiated" has such a negative ring to it.

Sounds like Willy. He should have been a lawyer.

 

[Davian]

I am under the impression that he even coined the term "more plausibly true than...", because "unsubstantiated" has such a negative ring to it.

I have observed that Joshua says "more plausible than not", while WLC says “more plausible than their negations”.

The purpose of a dichotomy is to put one of the "choices" in a better light than it would typically be seen in without the forcing of the dichotomy.

But then, if I am asked to compare his claims to their negations, I would call him out on his false dichotomies.

It's a shame that he has been doing it wrong all this time. I was going say something earlier, but... .

 

[Joshua260]

Then why do you bring it into the discussion?

Only because I answered a question. If the unbeliever had not asked their question, I would not have given that answer. I will not reply to you any more on this. I've answered this before and after all, it's off-topic.

 

[AllanV]

Bananas - nightmare.

Bananas have potassium and this helps in a good nights sleep.

 

[Joshua260]

Do you think Hawking posits anything existed prior to the beginning of the universe ?

I really don't care. Some atheists on this thread have been claiming that certain scientists (like Sean Carroll and Vilenkin) have shown that the universe did not have a beginning, so all I wanted to do was to show that several other notable (atheistic) scientists (Hawking, Krauss and Vilenkin actually refutes Carroll's model) have publicly stated that the universe probably did have a beginning ...in effect confirming that p2 (the universe began to exist) is more plausibly true than not.

And yet this (the witness of the Holy Spirit) seems to be what you are referencing anyways, which is why I don't understand why you are spending so much time focusing on a vague argument that has more holes in it then a Dunkin Donuts. Are you convinced because of what you are calling the witness of the Holy Spirit, or are you convinced because of the KCA ?

Lol!!!! No, in fact, even with all the attacks on this thread, the KCA has stood rock solid and no one has offered a good objection to it yet.

The only reason I brought up the Holy Spirit is because I answered a question. If the unbeliever had not asked it, I would not have referenced it.

 

[nonbeliever314]

OK, THIS IS REGARDING KCA. JOSHUA PLEASE REMEMBER, YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT DO NOT THINK THERE IS A GOD THAT THERE IS ONE.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

(I'll repeat myself again..)
If everything that "begins to exist" has a cause for it's existence, then everything that was a cause for something else's existence, had a cause for it's existence. Ad infinitum.

Premise one says EVERYTHING, and I said before doesn't everything also include god? Which means that god has a cause as well?

You said this earlier..

I already answered this. The Christian God did not "begin to exist". He is the "I am".

This is an argument by assertion. After everything you've said to back up the existence of god with KCA, you say he is real with absolutely no evidence, and you can't jump to premise two to try to explain off premise one. It doesn't stick.

So explain premise one again please... And explain how god somehow isn't included in the "everything" category. Then if you actually give a sound explanation, then we can move on.

 

[Davian]

Lol!!!! No, in fact, even with all the attacks on this thread, the KCA has stood rock solid and no one has offered a good objection to it yet.

Who appointed you the sole arbiter of that assessment? Have we anyone on record as finding the argument convincing, in itself? It didn't convince you, did it?

 

[bhsmte]

Who appointed you the sole arbiter of that assessment? Have we anyone on record as finding the argument convincing, in itself? It didn't convince you, did it?

I got a kick out of that as well.

The KCA is rock solid, because he says so.