This is a spill over from another thread (Has Atheism Taken over NL) which seems to have fallen out of favour with the mods. I was going to post the following responds but found it had been blocked by the mods:

Prizm:

It is hard to make out what you are exactly arguing for here. The only thing I can simply say in reply is this:

"God does not BEGIN to exist" Take some time and digest this. Numbers for example do not BEGIN to exist. They exist whether or not there is a universe or not; they exist whether there are life-permitting universes elsewhere or a gallery of hypothetical or life-prohibiting universes; they exist whether there are human beings to conceptualize them or not.

What this clearly means is that to think that the Cosmological Argument invites an "infinite regress" is to have misunderstood the argument. Sure a regress is possible, but that regress cannot be infinite or there cannot be anything currently existing.

The disreputable Cosmological Argument, the workhorse of William Lane Craig, who calls it the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  First off, this arguments suffers from a number of unjustified assertion:

1) Anything that begins to exist MUST have a cause.

2) God did NOT begin to exist.

Why are we supposed to accept these premises?

The question of God's ontology was also discussed on the other thread, in which I pressed the theists to define or provide for consideration the ontology of their god(s).  I asked;

                        [size=16pt]How could one justify argument for an entity when the nature of that entity has not been settle?
[/size]

huxley:


1) Anything that begins to exist MUST have a cause.

2) God did NOT begin to exist.

Why are we supposed to accept these premises?

There has been no superior argument as of yet. . . . .or has there been?

noetic2:

There has been no superior argument as of yet. . . . .or has there been?

We know your hardness of comprehension is legendary - my question was; can those premises be justified? Rather than - what is the quality of those premises?

huxley:

This is a spill over from another thread (Has Atheism Taken over NL) which seems to have fallen out of favour with the mods. I was going to post the following responds but found it had been blocked by the mods:

The disreputable Cosmological Argument, the workhorse of William Lane Craig, who calls it the Kalam Cosmological Argument. First off, this arguments suffers from a number of unjustified assertion:

1) Anything that begins to exist MUST have a cause.

2) God did NOT begin to exist.

Why are we supposed to accept these premises?

The question of God's ontology was also discussed on the other thread, in which I pressed the theists to define or provide for consideration the ontology of their god(s). I asked;

[size=16pt]How could one justify argument for an entity when the nature of that entity has not been settle?
[/size]

just like a goat cannot comprehend how a computer was designed likewise a man cannever comprehend how God came into existence

huxley:

We know your hardness of comprehension is legendary - my question was; can those premises be justified? Rather than - what is the quality of those premises?

I believe that ur question was answered earlier.

1. is there any known "thing" that exists, which has no cause?

2. is there any reason to believe that God has a begining?

The premises on their are own self illustrating and explanatory.

Causality is another big subject entirely. Is there any such thing as a causal connection? Must a Cause exist prior to the thing caused in a temporal manner? These are deep metaphysical musings that cannot be said to have been resolved.

@huxley
God is not an argument. He is not a BEING OF REASON.

STOP TRYING TO SQUEEZE GOD INTO YOUR LITTLE HEAD.

@HUXLEY AND CO

THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD OR HOW ELSE CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN THIS ?

Saint Bernadette Soubirous - St. Bernadette was the original visionary at Lourdes, France and died in 1879 in Nevers, France. Her body was exhumed 30 years later in 1909 and was discovered completely incorrupt and free of odor. The body was again exhumed a second time ten years later in 1919 and was still incorrupt. Her body is still on display in the Chapel of St. Bernadette in Nevers, France to this day. See photo below

chukwudi44:

@HUXLEY AND CO

THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD OR HOW ELSE CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN THIS ?

Saint Bernadette Soubirous - St. Bernadette was the original visionary at Lourdes, France and died in 1879 in Nevers, France. Her body was exhumed 30 years later in 1909 and was discovered completely incorrupt and free of odor. The body was again exhumed a second time ten years later in 1919 and was still incorrupt. Her body is still on display in the Chapel of St. Bernadette in Nevers, France to this day. See photo below

What is the link between a non-decomposing body and God?

huxley:

What is the link between a non-decomposing body and God?

incorruptibilty is a supernatural occurrence ,it proves the existence of a creature that is beyond the comprehension of homosapiens