That's not even close to any of the arguments he presents but I can tell you despise the guy so you aren't being completely fair.

I think we've already had very similar discussions before. It's much more intellectually dishonest to deliberately misrepresent your opponent's ideas.

cosmological arguments are arguments from metaphysical necessity, they're not about "not knowing". in fact they clearly claim some knowledge of the nature of the world and come to their conclusions from that knowledge.
i don't see how a misunderstanding like yours is even possible.

I'm only going off Devil_Kin's example. If you wanna go over why the Kalam Cosmological argument or the argument from morality are equally bollocks as evidence for the existence of the Christian deity then we can... although I find it hard to believe you don't know already.

I don't buy the argument, but that it's a "God of the gaps" argument is not why.

Personally I'd rather understand an argument and be wrong about the truth value of its conclusion than to get the right answer but only by mistake. I happen to think you're right that the conclusion of all arguments for the existence of God are false, but I think it's useful to know specifically where the argument goes wrong (and at the very least to know what the argument is in the first place).

This post was edited by Voyaging on Aug 31 2015 03:20pm

this thread:


God's not dead
he's surely alive
he's living on the inside

atheists BTFO

tl;dw

no, you linked me to something

Ah, OK then. If you have any specifics we can discuss it.

wanna relink it? it's been a few years

I have no idea what it was lol. If it was a full book it was probably Warranted Christian Belief but I'm guessing you didn't read an entire book so IDK what it was.