Cosmological Arguement
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.

1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.
2. The cosmos as a whole exists.
3. The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing).
4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God.


Teological arguement

1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
3. God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
4. Therefore, God exists.

Or simply
1. Complexity implies a designer.
2. The universe is highly complex.
3. Therefore, the universe has a Designer.

Ontological Arguement


1. God is, by definition, a being greater than anything that can be imagined.
2. Existence both in reality and in imagination is greater than existence solely in one's imagination.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality; if He did not, God would not be a being greater than anything that can be imagined.

1. God is that entity than which nothing can be greater.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God exists in one's mind but not in reality.
4. The concept of God's existence is understood in one's mind.
5. If God existed in reality, it would be a greater thing than God's existence in the mind.
6. The final step to God's existence is that God in reality must exist.

I assume we are invited to comment?

Cosmological argument

Arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that the natural condition of matter is not to exist. Why? Maybe matter, in whatever form, has always existed, and will always exist.

Off hand, I cannot think of a good reason why there should be nothing rather than something, even if the usual demand is to think of a good reason why there should be something rather than nothing.

Teleological argument

If you dump logs into a river, then they "assemble themselves" into an enormous raft that moves downstream with considerable stability. "Chance" plays a role, but each log is non-randomly seeking a "minimum energy condition" subject to the constraints of the river and the other logs seeking the same thing for themselves. Log rafts happen. Log raft designers don't.

Ontological argument

By counterexample:

The top number is a natural number than which no natural number can be greater. I just conceived of it. The top number plus one is a natural number, and it is greater than the top number.

My conception was fine, but it failed to refer. We do it all the time. That it fails to refer is a bona fide fact of mathematics, unavailable to me except that I can conceive of this top number which isn't.

Matter can not have always existed. Not only the very thought is ridiculous, I mean... time is a continuum that there's seperate events and since there are seperate events happening, there must be a beginning and end to everything. And if time is infinite, that means there needs to be an infinite amount of events that happened before that event, always being something before the infinite event. Does that make sense to you? That's logically corrupted.




You think everything in the universe and the complexity was all ruled out by miraculous chance? You can think better than that.

That's the idea.



What do you mean by "infinite event"?



He was explaining how the chances of certain things happening are better when you have pieces that can already fit together, attempting to do so. At least, that's what I got from it. IE: The logs can fit together side by side in the river, because of the way the water moves. They will all naturally be trying to fit into the same position, and can then stick together to form a raft. Chance plays only a part in it.

So you're basically saying that because we don't know, it must be god but you offer zero evidence to support your idea that it is god, but it's the lack of our knowing that makes it true for you. Quite the reaching...

Other than you saying so, what makes this true? Ever see the kickoff return from the 1980's where the Stanford band rushes the field? There's about 6 lateralls, running through the band and ends in a slamdunk into a trombone player! Beautiful, complex, purposeful? Yes. Random?? YES

The rest of your argument just fell like a house of cards.....

lol too funny

My arguments are better.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys -- you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth" John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Jimi Hendrix is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

KORESH ARGUMENT
(1) I forgot to take my meds.
(2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS
(1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded face in that tortilla.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

CALVINISTIC ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

There are no arguments for the existence of God.



This is meaningless fluffery. So what you're saying is that because the universe is (probably) finite, then it must have had a cause as it couldn't have "caused" itself. So the "cause" must be God huh? So what "caused" God? Its pointlessly circular logic.

We don't know what caused the birth of the universe. But that doesn't suddely leave a gap we can fill with God, and you certainly can't say it is definate proof of God. Look up brane theory. Its one of the ideas about the cause of the Big Bang.



1. Again, there was a "cause" for the universe, but that doesn't mean it was God.

2. And?

3. This is meaningless again. You're inventing the need for a God. So the universe would be destroyed without an "ongoing" cause to "preserve" it? Basically saying "the universe wouldn't exist without constant external support"? So what supports God to stop him from being destroyed?

4. This is just naive. Like I said - we don't know what happened pre-Big Bang. It could be an endless number of Big bangs and Big Crunches going on for infinity. You can't just say "we don't know what happened, therefore God is a logical idea". Thats taking cosmology back to the Dark Ages.



1. Saying X is "too complex" is subective, and therefore not a rational argument for God. "Too complex" according to who? Have you ever read about quantum theory? The universe is more complex than we ever thought.

You can't hold on to a medieval frame of thought and say "well, nature is so complex it couldn't have happened naturally". How the hell do you know? Nature is mindblowingly complex. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean its the workings of God.

The universe is not orderly. We see it as orderly because thats how we evolved. We would never have evolved being able to see with our own eyes the chaos of quantum activity. So again, this is subjective, and therefore not a rational argument for God.

"Apparently purposeful"? Again, subjective. Therefore a useless argument.

"Beautiful"? Highly subjective. Incredibly useless.



No it doesn't. From our subjective point of view, it seems as if nature was designed. But that is because we did not evolve to naturally see its complexity, because this has no evolutionary benefit for us. Being able to see a neutrino popping in and out of existence wouldn't have helped a cave man hunt for food.

All we see that is complex is something that is made by humans, like a watch. Therefore, if something in nature is that complex, it must also have been designed???? Utter utter nonsense.




1. The definition is a man-made one. God is by definition "anything" only because thats how we choose to describe him.

2. A muddled statement designed to confuse the reader. Existence is more complex than we can imagine, yes. But this has nothing to do with God.

3. Again, muddled and deliberately confusing. God is subjectively described by humans to be unknowable. Simply saying "existence is so complex that the most extreme example of this complexity must be God" is subjective and unprovable. And therefore pointless as an argument.

"Matter cannot always have existed" is what you need to prove. Perhaps the proposition is true, but it is contingent, and so in need of demonstration. No demonstration was offered. Bald claims that its contrary is "ridiculous" is not an argument. I don't think it is ridiculous.

If something can always have existed, then anything can always have existed. You like God as an always-existing something; I like matter in whatever form.

Neither you nor I know the geometry of time. A circle has unboundedly many points, and no point is the first. Perhaps that is the way of time.

To a small bug crawling on a very big circle, who sees just a small arc of the circle before he dies, the circle would seem exquisitely like a line segment. Doubtless he would imagine that what he is navigating "must have" a beginning point and an ending point, too.

As to the role of chance, I was clear that while "chance" (whatever that means exactly) may be said to play a role in the formation of the log raft, it is not the only factor at work.

I notice the poor ontological argument has been allowed a quick and painless death. Just as well.

General consensus......yes

Good call

Thats always my favourite! Let me ask you... Is god less complex than the universe?

That's precisely what I wanted to ask. If God exists he is unimagineably more complex than the Universe. According to the logic of the teleological argument, we must conclude that he has a creator. Next, we must conclude the creator's creator has a creator; and the creator's creator's creator must also have a creator. Basically, we end up with an absurd infinite regression of creators. Of course the theist will argue that God doesn't require a creator. If that is indeed the case, however, they've contradicted the first premise, and without it we are left with absolutely no reason to believe the complexity of the Universe implies that it has an intelligent designer in the first place.

Ouch ! about says it all !