If one is observant, he will find that many Christian apologists run away from defending their God but instead, they argue for a deistic God.

Christian apologists like kingebukasblog, Craig Williams and Turek all seen to be Christians at heart but deist when they meet atheists.

Isn't this some kind of silent admittance that a christian God is just not logical, especially when it comes to philosophical debates?

When you point it out they start talking shyiiiiit

Confused lot

jonbellion:
When you point it out they start talking shyiiiiit

Confused lot

It is something that I noticed.

Nothing in Genesis resembles the big bang or formation of galaxies.

JackBizzle:


It is something that I noticed.

Nothing in Genesis resembles the big bang or formation of galaxies.

it has made KingEbukasBlog insane
You know how he acknowledges old earth creationism and the pre adamite theory that is not biblical
Mumu

Craig argues for the resurrection in almost every debate he does yet you think he's arguing for the deism.

Richirich713:
Craig argues for the resurrection in almost every debate he does yet you think he's arguing for the deism.

That is, he is arguing for the divinity of Jesus.

When it comes to God, it is a different matter. My guy dey do cosmological arguments

JackBizzle:

That is, he is arguing for the divinity of Jesus.

Which is an argument for the truth of Christianity, therefore arguing for theism not deism.

JackBizzle:
When it comes to God, it is a different matter. My guy dey do cosmological arguments

He doesn't just use that argument, he specifically says he is making a cumulative case for theism.

Richirich713:




He doesn't just use that argument, he specifically says he is making a cumulative case for theism.

His strongest argument could be used for any God.

It seems that you are not seeing the problem.

JackBizzle:


His strongest argument could be used for any God.

It seems that you are not seeing the problem.

Can't be used for any God, Thor, Zeus, FSM etc all are finite, contingent beings. The Cosmological he gives can only be used to support monotheism or deism, it also directly proves atheism is false which is one of his goals.

From there he makes his cumulative case.

Richirich713:


Can't be used for any God, Thor, Zeus, FSM etc all are finite, contingent beings. The Cosmological he gives can only be used to support monotheism or deism, it also directly proves atheism is false which is one of his goals.

From there he makes his cumulative case.

Kalam can be used for polytheism, infact that's one of the pitfalls

hopefulLandlord:


Kalam can be used for polytheism, infact that's one of the pitfalls

Yeah that to (for some forms of the cosmological arguments) just no one argues for that.

Richirich713:


Yeah that to (for some forms of the cosmological arguments) just no one argues for that.

apologists simply hide under deism/generic god when facing atheists then switch to theism when on the pulpit

Another problem with Kalam stems from its use of the word “cause”
– implying one, singular cause. This is a very convenient assumption slipped in by the apologist, which helps make the case much easier for a monotheistic deity being that one cause. There’s no good reason to assume “cause” as opposed to “causes.” Virtually all known phenomena that we’ve examined and gained an understanding of has been shown to have multiple causes; not just one. The weather, for example, has no one cause – it has many of them. Apologists imagine something outside our universe and before our universe, but then he arbitrarily limits himself to but a single cause. If one is going entertain pure speculation, open up Pandora’s Box and begin to image what it’s like to be outside our universe - a purely hypothetical "place" that we have zero experience interacting within and know nothing about - then it seems a terrible poverty of the imagination to then limit ourselves to but a single thing that can somehow exist outside the universe.

Richirich713:


Can't be used for any God, Thor, Zeus, FSM etc all are finite, contingent beings. The Cosmological he gives can only be used to support monotheism or deism, it also directly proves atheism is false which is one of his goals.

From there he makes his cumulative case.

it can't be used for FSM? what nonsense

In all honesty, there is not one single Christian argument when put to the rigors of reason and rationality and/or science that is even the slightest bit convincing in any way whatsoever. The whole foundation from start to finish is on sinking sand. It can only be believed by the monumentally naïve or the willfully dishonest or someone who just lacks the capacity to think critically.

Christianity seems to have a way of stunting your ability to think outside the box, but not stunting your ability to rationalize why you're inside the box.

that's the problem, isn't it? Because if there were clear and compelling evidence in support of the notion that there is a god and we understand what it wants from us...well, we wouldn't need any arguments at all.

Instead, what we get is the a la carte menu approach to argumentation. Pick one from each column, continue until you throw up (or convert). Don't like the Ontological Argument? How about the Kalaam? Or the Argument from Design?

The more arguments there are, the less likely it is that god exists. Because each successive one is an attempt to rescue the failures of all the previous arguments. Failure upon failure upon failure.

The problem with those arguments is that they're not relying on empirical evidence that obligately points to the presence/intervention of a supernatural something-or-other.

They're using observations about of the universe and declaring that the only way it could have gotten the way it is is through divine intervention. To which I always reply, "Aliens".

"Evidence" is the fuzzy word here. In order to count as evidence in favor of a deity, it has to both reject the null hypothesis "no god needed/exists" AND it has to also reject alternative hypotheticals (aliens, et al.)

If their "evidence" in favor of the existence of a deity could be used in favor of the existence of universe-building aliens, then it's not "evidence". That's why the KCA, Fine Tuning, Watchmaker, and other arguments of that ilk fail. Because "aliens"

JackBizzle:
If one is observant, he will find that many Christian apologists run away from defending their God but instead, they argue for a deistic God.

Christian apologists like kingebukasblog, Craig Williams and Turek all seen to be Christians at heart but deist when they meet atheists.

Isn't this some kind of silent admittance that a christian God is just not logical, especially when it comes to philosophical debates?

You are shamelessly ignorant

Deism is a theological position and theology studies the nature of the divine . Deism posits that the nature of the divine is one which does not intervene in the affairs of man or the universe

Cosmological , Teleological , Ontological arguments were created theists Like Leibniz , Thomas Aquinas , and other theist intellectuals .

The philosophy of religion is different from the general view of theism or deism .

Gosh , you have no paucity of shame at all .

hopefulLandlord:
[s]In all honesty, there is not one single Christian argument when put to the rigors of reason and rationality and/or science that is even the slightest bit convincing in any way whatsoever. The whole foundation from start to finish is on sinking sand. It can only be believed by the monumentally naïve or the willfully dishonest or someone who just lacks the capacity to think critically.

Christianity seems to have a way of stunting your ability to think outside the box, but not stunting your ability to rationalize why you're inside the box.

that's the problem, isn't it? Because if there were clear and compelling evidence in support of the notion that there is a god and we understand what it wants from us...well, we wouldn't need any arguments at all.

Instead, what we get is the a la carte menu approach to argumentation. Pick one from each column, continue until you throw up (or convert). Don't like the Ontological Argument? How about the Kalaam? Or the Argument from Design?

The more arguments there are, the less likely it is that god exists. Because each successive one is an attempt to rescue the failures of all the previous arguments. Failure upon failure upon failure.

The problem with those arguments is that they're not relying on empirical evidence that obligately points to the presence/intervention of a supernatural something-or-other.

They're using observations about of the universe and declaring that the only way it could have gotten the way it is is through divine intervention. To which I always reply, "Aliens".

"Evidence" is the fuzzy word here. In order to count as evidence in favor of a deity, it has to both reject the null hypothesis "no god needed/exists" AND it has to also reject alternative hypotheticals (aliens, et al.)

If their "evidence" in favor of the existence of a deity could be used in favor of the existence of universe-building aliens, then it's not "evidence". That's why the KCA, Fine Tuning, Watchmaker, and other arguments of that ilk fail. Because "aliens"[/s]

TRASH !

NO ATHEISTS HAS EVER DEBUNKED THE ARGUMENTS FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE AND THE TOP SEVEN REASONS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

EVERY ATHEIST ARGUMENT EVER KNOW TO MAN HAS BEEN DEBUNKED !

hopefulLandlord:


Kalam can be used for polytheism, infact that's one of the pitfalls

Atheism is the belief God/gods does/do not exist . Even if KCA can be used to argue for polytheism , atheism would still be debunked !

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause

This premise agrees that there are somethings that are without a cause and those things are uncreated . Eg God , abstract/mathematical objects

2. The universe began to exist

Laws of physics , observational data indicate that the universe has a beginning

3. Therefore , the universe has a cause

This shows that undoubtedly , the universe has a creator .

Who created the creator is not a valid argument . It is ridiculous and suffused with ignorance . Because with premise 1 , we have agreed that there are entities without a cause .

KingEbukasBlog:

[s]
Atheism is the belief God/gods does/do not exist . Even if KCA can be used to argue for polytheism , atheism would still be debunked !

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause

This premise agrees that there are somethings that are without a cause and those things are uncreated . Eg God , abstract/mathematical objects

2. The universe began to exist

Laws of physics , observational data indicate that the universe has a beginning

3. Therefore , the universe has a cause

This shows that undoubtedly , the universe has a creator .

Who created the creator is not a valid argument . It is ridiculous and suffused with ignorance . Because with premise 1 , we have agreed that there are entities without a cause .
[/s]

Even if we concede the entire KCA as true, it does not prove the existence of a god. Not even a little bit. As Hitchens once opined, "all your work is still ahead of you."

If there cannot be an infinite regress, as WLC, has noted, and God has always existed, what was his first thought? (from a Dan Barker debate)

From a simple man's point of view, corollary from the KCA proof, that God caused the universe, is not self-evident. Yet he passes it off as such. Here's how I interpret the augment:

1: Whatever begins to exist had a cause
2: The universe began to exist
3: Therefore, the universe had a cause
4: Corollary: God was that cause

For those that don't just believe in a god, assuming the base KCA logic is complete, there seems to be a whole lot missing between 3 and 4. The only corollary that one can logically conclude -- again, assuming the base KCA is complete -- is that our understanding is incomplete. Could it be a god? Maybe. But there's nothing provided in the argument that would logically lead to that conclusion.

But let's say the argument's logic is complete, including the corollary. How does one go on to draw the conclusion that the god that caused the universe is the same god that he believes in? I'd like to see him prove that one out, using science and logic. It would probably go something like this:
1: The Bible says he is the true God
2: God inspired the Bible
3: Therefore, the God of the Bible is the god that caused the universe

most apologists gloss over the fact that the KCA and most other popular arguments today (fine tuning, design, moral, Teleological, Ontological, etc.) are all deist arguments. If they convinced you, you'd be quite far from specifics about what deity(s) created the universe, how to please them, if they care about humans, etc.

This is circular reasoning. The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it's the word of God. The Quran makes similar noises about Allah's word. Why should we disregard the Quran and accept the Bible? Both of them make the same argument about being the word of God or Allah. For that matter, the Vedas claim to be inspired as well. Hindus claim the Vedas are inspired in a different way than the Bible and Quran but the claim is still made. Baha'is claim the Kitáb-i-Aqdas is inspired. Buddhists consider the Tripitaka (Pali Canon), Mahayana Sutras and the Tibetan Book of the Dead to be sacred. The Word o' God™ books are a dime a dozen.

The Kalaam was actually proposed by a Muslim to prove the existence of Allah...so, there's that

They try to claim that the Bible is true due to fulfilled prophecies and recorded miracles, etc. However as we know, this doesn't hold up. Muslims claim the Quran is the best book ever, and thus it's Allah's dictate (most even say it existed eternally with him). If you don't agree, well, then I guess they just say you're in denial.

The problem for Christian apologists is that they are satisfied as using "God" an an answer for anything and everything in understanding the Cosmos and our place in it. When you actually think through their arguments, you get excellent, thought-provoking articles like this 3 in a series about Cosmological Argument, that illustrate how using "God" is not an answer to any serious question about our existence or the universe. It is difficult to study these questions and realize that we currently don't have any absolute answers on how our universe came to be. I can live with this uncertainty and it doesn't bother me one bit. I think that uncertainty troubles many people of faith who require certainty in their worldview. It is much easier for them to accept that their specific version of "God" created everything and runs the show rather than face the uncertainty of our brief existence.

Physicists collect data and attempt to build models of how the universe works based on that data. Craig asserts that theologians do the same thing when they attempt to build models of god. The key word here is data. Physicists collect data first, build models second, test those models third, and get conclusions last. Theologians typically start with their conclusions, then skip step 2 and 3, and lastly search for data that supports their conclusion.

Christianity is Vapid and full of nonsense with NOTING logical backing it up

Richirich713:
Craig argues for the resurrection in almost every debate he does yet you think he's arguing for the deism.

Leave these ignorant atheists .

Most arguments for God's existence were created by theists . The cosmological argument , teleological argument , ontological and moral arguments were all arguments for God's existence in theism .

Craig also talks about evidence for the resurrection of Christ . He can also teach Christian philosophy in his podcasts on youtube channel .

hopefulLandlord:


apologists simply hide under deism/generic god when facing atheists then switch to theism when on the pulpit

Atheists are too used to jumping to Agnostism, so it's of no surprise many think theists were are arguing for deism for centuries when they were developing these arguments for God.

Another problem with Kalam stems from its use of the word “cause”
– implying one, singular cause. This is a very convenient assumption slipped in by the apologist, which helps make the case much easier for a monotheistic deity being that one cause. There’s no good reason to assume “cause” as opposed to “causes.” Virtually all known phenomena that we’ve examined and gained an understanding of has been shown to have multiple causes; not just one. The weather, for example, has no one cause – it has many of them. William Craig imagines something outside our universe and before our universe, but then he arbitrarily limits himself to but a single cause. If one is going entertain pure speculation, open up Pandora’s Box and begin to image what it’s like to be outside our universe - a purely hypothetical "place" that we have zero experience interacting within and know nothing about - then it seems a terrible poverty of the imagination to then limit ourselves to but a single thing that can somehow exist outside the universe.

Craig has already responded to this charge : http://www.reasonablefaith.org/kalam-and-multiple-cosmic-causes

I agree that it's possible with some forms of the cosmological arguments. I just don't think it's more likely or even possible if we consider other arguments that ruled it out. Arguments involving God's omnipotence, something Craig's appeals to in his article.

hopefulLandlord:

Even if we concede the entire KCA as true, it does not prove the existence of a god..

This is a very dumb statement . God is the appellation (title) given to the creator of the universe . Since the KCA is true , then the universe has a creator . We call this creator God .

hopefulLandlord:


it can't be used for FSM? what nonsense

he's made of spaghetti, contingent being.

KingEbukasBlog:


Leave these ignorant atheists .

Most arguments for God's existence were created by theists . The cosmological argument , teleological argument , ontological and moral arguments were all arguments for God's existence in theism .

Craig also talks about evidence for the resurrection of Christ . He can also teach Christian philosophy in his podcasts on youtube channel .

We're devolved by theists also for centuries , wondering if theists during the middle ages knew they weren't theists.

hopefulLandlord:
Not even a little bit. As Hitchens once opined, "all your work is still ahead of you."

If there cannot be an infinite regress, as WLC, has noted, and God has always existed, what was his first thought? (from a Dan Barker debate)

Simple : God has always borne his thoughts .

hopefulLandlord:


For those that don't just believe in a god, assuming the base KCA logic is complete, there seems to be a whole lot missing between 3 and 4. The only corollary that one can logically conclude -- again, assuming the base KCA is complete -- is that our understanding is incomplete. Could it be a god? Maybe. But there's nothing provided in the argument that would logically lead to that conclusion.

Like I said earlier , the cause of the existence of the universe is whom we call God .

KingEbukasBlog:


[s]This is a very dumb statement . God is the appellation (title) given to the creator of the universe . Since the KCA is true , then the universe has a creator . We call this creator God .
[/s]

just as I expected, you have nothing to counter when the nonsense of both you and Craig are exposed except to pick one part and run with it

Christianity has NOTHING logical and objective backing it up, its vacuous, vapid and nonsensical

Richirich713:

he's made of spaghetti, contingent being.

antromorphism

hopefulLandlord:


But let's say the argument's logic is complete, including the corollary. How does one go on to draw the conclusion that the god that caused the universe is the same god that he believes in? I'd like to see him prove that one out, using science and logic. It would probably go something like this:
1: The Bible says he is the true God
2: God inspired the Bible
3: Therefore, the God of the Bible is the god that caused the universe

You are mixing up so much . I sense so much confusion . The existence of God is one thing and if God inspired the bible is another thing . If all theistic religions are false , it does not in any logical way question God's existence . It simply means God did not inspire the writing of any religious books or the supposed messengers .

hopefulLandlord:


just as I expected, you have nothing to counter when the nonsense of both you and Craig are exposed except to pick one part and run with it

Christianity has NOTHING logical and objective backing it up, its vacuous, vapid and nonsensical

I countered it so easily . Its like a hobby these days . . You didn't have a logical rebuttal , so you resorted to empty vituperation . Its okay , atheists are NOT known to be logical and knowledgeable .

I dare you , rebut it .

hopefulLandlord:


antromorphism

is he just like the special computer:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go6m-KNUmG4

KingEbukasBlog:


You are mixing up so much . I sense so much confusion . The existence of God is one thing and if God inspired the bible is another thing . If all theistic religions are false , it does not in any logical way question God's existence . It simply means God did not inspire the writing of any religious books or the supposed messengers .

if everything is false it doesn't invalidate the existence of anything from the big foot to pink unicorns

even Craig said there's a "self authenticating witness of the holy spirit makes Christianity true" in other words Nonsense! even Arid Hamed exposed the illogicality of it all when Craig had the misfortune of debating him

NOTHING objectively logical backs Christianity up