Challenge for atheists

[GrosMinet]

I've noticed that when atheists discuss the cosmological argument, they often make a reference to a crude reasoning going as follows :

1) Everything has a cause.
2) The world is something.
3) Therefore the world has a cause.
4) That cause is, by definition, God.
5) Therefore God exists.

And they go on to point out that God too is something, so he must have a cause, which the believer denies, thus denying the first premiss. It's a facile critique.

My question for atheists is : can you quote ONE theistic philosopher or theologian in history who used such an absurd argument? Because I've seen none. It would look like atheists are relying here on folk religion or even are making up an absurd theistic argument just to make believers look stupid.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

I've noticed that when atheists discuss the cosmological argument, they often make a reference to a crude reasoning going as follows :

1) Everything has a cause.
2) The world is something.
3) Therefore the world has a cause.
4) That cause is, by definition, God.
5) Therefore God exists.

And they go on to point out that God too is something, so he must have a cause, which the believer denies, thus denying the first premiss. It's a facile critique.

My question for atheists is : can you quote ONE theistic philosopher or theologian in history who used such an absurd argument? Because I've seen none. It would look like atheists are relying here on folk religion or even are making up an absurd theistic argument just to make believers look stupid.

I got a question for you. Where did Cain's wife come from?

 

[Tuatara]

I've noticed that when atheists discuss the cosmological argument, they often make a reference to a crude reasoning going as follows :

1) Everything has a cause.
2) The world is something.
3) Therefore the world has a cause.
4) That cause is, by definition, God.
5) Therefore God exists.

And they go on to point out that God too is something, so he must have a cause, which the believer denies, thus denying the first premiss. It's a facile critique.

My question for atheists is : can you quote ONE theistic philosopher or theologian in history who used such an absurd argument? Because I've seen none. It would look like atheists are relying here on folk religion or even are making up an absurd theistic argument just to make believers look stupid.

Sorry but I've never seem any atheist use this argument.

 

[Crystalclear]

An atheist doesn't believe God exists, so they don't even see God as that "cause" you are talking about.

 

[GrosMinet]

I've noticed that when atheists discuss the cosmological argument, they often make a reference to a crude reasoning going as follows :

1) Everything has a cause.
2) The world is something.
3) Therefore the world has a cause.
4) That cause is, by definition, God.
5) Therefore God exists.

And they go on to point out that God too is something, so he must have a cause, which the believer denies, thus denying the first premiss. It's a facile critique.

My question for atheists is : can you quote ONE theistic philosopher or theologian in history who used such an absurd argument? Because I've seen none. It would look like atheists are relying here on folk religion or even are making up an absurd theistic argument just to make believers look stupid.

Sorry but I've never seem any atheist use this argument.

See Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell.

 

[editec]

I've noticed that when atheists discuss the cosmological argument, they often make a reference to a crude reasoning going as follows :

1) Everything has a cause.
2) The world is something.
3) Therefore the world has a cause.
4) That cause is, by definition, God.
5) Therefore God exists.

And they go on to point out that God too is something, so he must have a cause, which the believer denies, thus denying the first premiss. It's a facile critique.

My question for atheists is : can you quote ONE theistic philosopher or theologian in history who used such an absurd argument? Because I've seen none. It would look like atheists are relying here on folk religion or even are making up an absurd theistic argument just to make believers look stupid.

Yes, I too have noted that when atheists debate they prefer to debate STRAW MAN RELIGIONS.

The most recent example of that is found on NETFLCKS in a documentary where Hawkins the physicist claims that he will show us why what believes trumps the need for a GOD.

He then does not actually prove his claim, but he spends a great deal of time whining about what religions 500 years ago did to nonbelievers.

Its like suddenly one the smartest men in the world FORGOT how to make a logical argument.

I note that otherwise very bright atheists lose their ability to think logically when confronted with the subject of religion.

 

[Mr Natural]

Either you believe or you don't.

You can't make yourself believe any more than you can make yourself not believe.

It's just that simple.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

My only arguement in favor of atheism is everything we know about God, or a god comes from a religion. And every religion comes from a known person or persons. So it's more likely every religion and god is simply a construct of human beings. If a real god wanted to reveal its existence and impose its will onto us I'd assume it'd do so personally and repeatedly. Why impose your will onto a species if you're just gonna take off soon after? Presumedly the peoples' worship pleases you some how so that'd you stick around and not leave your existence up to faith.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I've noticed that when atheists discuss the cosmological argument, they often make a reference to a crude reasoning going as follows :

1) Everything has a cause.
2) The world is something.
3) Therefore the world has a cause.
4) That cause is, by definition, God.
5) Therefore God exists.

And they go on to point out that God too is something, so he must have a cause, which the believer denies, thus denying the first premiss. It's a facile critique.

My question for atheists is : can you quote ONE theistic philosopher or theologian in history who used such an absurd argument? Because I've seen none. It would look like atheists are relying here on folk religion or even are making up an absurd theistic argument just to make believers look stupid.

Sorry but I've never seem any atheist use this argument.

That's just atheists use logic and reason that post lacks both.

My question is, why is it, every few days, the bible thumpers post yet another "challenge" to atheists? You folks need to work on your own questions, like, why you need imaginary invisible sky fairies to get you through the night.

Hint: don't ask gismo cuz he ain't got a clue. Gee, come to think of it, none of you do.

Carry on.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Either you believe or you don't.

You can't make yourself believe any more than you can make yourself not believe.

It's just that simple.

It really is.

I could no more ignore all reasoning and logic to suddenly embrace a god than gismo can stop his insane raving.

The definition of faith is the suspension of reason.

 

[GrosMinet]

I've noticed that when atheists discuss the cosmological argument, they often make a reference to a crude reasoning going as follows :

1) Everything has a cause.
2) The world is something.
3) Therefore the world has a cause.
4) That cause is, by definition, God.
5) Therefore God exists.

And they go on to point out that God too is something, so he must have a cause, which the believer denies, thus denying the first premiss. It's a facile critique.

My question for atheists is : can you quote ONE theistic philosopher or theologian in history who used such an absurd argument? Because I've seen none. It would look like atheists are relying here on folk religion or even are making up an absurd theistic argument just to make believers look stupid.

I got a question for you. Where did Cain's wife come from?

I'm a Darwinist. And a staunch one at that. Does it answer your question?