> Kalam's argument

Yep. But that wasn't the only argument I was making. It was one of seven, so I was talking about the weight of evidence from many angles.

> what version of the [ontological] argument are you actually making?

The one I wrote. It would help if you read what I wrote before you responded to it. Here's the ontological argument I posted:

1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore God’s existence is logically necessary.

> Now look, real world evil would need to be scientifically demonstrated. There would have to be observed phenomena that show that certain acts violate a tangible aspect of nature.

This seems, to me, to border on the absurd. If someone snuck (sneaked?) into your house and killed your whole family and group of friends, as long as they isn't get caught, it's not evil? That astounds, me, frankly. So what you are telling me is that there is no evil and there is no good, there is only neutral cause and effect? If the Boston Marathon bomber didn't get caught, it would have been OK? If the Newtown School shooter didn't get caught, no harm no foul? To me that's unreasonable and unrealistic.

> And in the past, those morals were fluid

Some morals are fluid, because there are different levels of morality.

> The universe, so far as we can tell, goes on neutrally no matter if you rescue a burning baby or put it in a death camp.

This is shocking for me to hear. It's hard for me to believe you actually believe this. And what I truly can't believe is that you can live this way. So if you kidnap a baby, torture it and kill it, that's not wrong if it doesn't violate a tangible aspect of nature??? I would guess, then, that you don't believe in justice either, because one can't rightly be held accountable for that which doesn't violate a fundamental law of physics. I'm not trying to be cheeky, I'm just trying to find out what you believe. And if someone wished to destroy you, or torture you? Do you feel that you have no worth or significance that would make that a violation of your being? What about the atrocious genocide in Rwanda? If you believe that no objective real quality of the universe was impacted, it was OK?

To me what you have done is logically denied personality and humanity.

Hold on there, Cocheese. I think you mean Kalam's argument, right? The problems with that are well known, but let me put it simply: it presumes formal temporality—ordered, sequential events. The incongruent and transitive cosmological concept of temporality is much different. Nothing can be said to begin in this sense, and both cosmology and quantum theory are pointing to this model.

The ontological argument...you say it makes sense to you, but if you eliminate those ideas you deny mentioning, what version of the argument are you actually making?

Now look, real world evil would need to be scientifically demonstrated. There would have to be observed phenomena that show that certain acts violate a tangible aspect of nature. If an evil act is done...what happens? If a good act is done, what happens? So far, the only consequences to immoral acts are SOCIAL. If you kill for fun and don't get caught, what objective real quality of the universe has been impacted? What is the method of action by which a wrong act violates absolute morality? Gravitational? Electromagentic? If there is a universal moral law, how can it be violated? We don't have the ability to violate any of the other fundamental laws of physics.

And in the past, those morals were fluid. It was the height of morality to sacrifice a virgin to the sun gods. It was the height of morality to burn a non-believer at the stake. It was the height of morality to put people in a stadium and have them kill each other for public amusement. We may think of it as wrong now, but that's a result of our own cultural moral sense, and we have no reason to think we are more enlightened now. The universe, so far as we can tell, goes on neutrally no matter if you rescue a burning baby or put it in a death camp.

> What caused the first cause?

You'll notice that the argument read, "Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause." The reasoning shows how God's not having a beginning supports the thesis, not destroys it. Your rebuttal fails because you are changing all of the terms of the argument in order to knock it down.

> The ontological argument

What you said ("it assumes that what we can think of must exist according to our own rules of logic, which can be paradoxical") was not in what I said. Your rebuttal fails because you are changing the terms of the argument to knock it down. I never said the universe conforms to our conceptions of it. I never said that whatever we can think of must therefore exist. I never said that existence is more perfect than non-existence. Wow.

> Plantinga's argument.

Your rebuttal fails because you are changing the terms of the argument to knock it down. Plantinga didn't argue that the universe was made for us.

> The axiological argument is built on the premise that evil is an objective quality of the universe.

The argument is not built on a premise of an abstract quality, but of the presence of a universally observable experience of reality.

But besides all that, the point is this: what is the most logical conclusion given that we see a universe that had a beginning, organisms that appear designed, and humans who all have some sense of right and wrong? I contend that the existence of God makes a lot of sense. You contend that "nothing" makes more sense. To me, that carries no weight of logic.

> There is no objective morality outside of culture,

I disagree thoroughly. Sure, if the premise is "Killing is never OK," "Lying is never OK, "Stealing is never OK," we can always think of exceptions. But let's add something:


Is killing for the mere fun of it OK? Never. Not anywhere, not any time.
Is lying for the mere fun of it OK? Never. Not anywhere, not any time.
Is torturing babies for the mere fun of it OK? Obviously, NEVER.

I think we can all agree, in the real world, there is such a thing as objective morality.

The Cosmological argument fails for me for a few reasons, most notably because it resorts to special pleading to avoid infinite regress. What caused the first cause? Nothing? Then not everything has a cause, which loops back and destroys the premise. Make a rule, violate it to preserve the rule. The concept of god is used to terminate the regress the argument causes. Furthermore, there is still no justifiable reason to go from god the anti-terminating device to god the one who listens to prayers, turns people into pillars of salt, and causes earthquakes to punish the gays. The rational thing to do in the face of a regress is to reject the cosomological argument.

The ontological argument fails because it assumes that what we can think of must exist according to our own rules of logic, which can be paradoxical. It assumes the universe conforms to our conceptions of it. I also reject the assumption that existence is more perfect than non-existence.

Platinga's argument fails under the anthropic principle. It has it backwards.The universe was not made for us, we ended up this way because of the universe. Platagana's argument is about as sensible as those arguments claiming the banana is evidence of god.

The axiological argument is built on the premise that evil is an objective quality of the universe. There is no reason to think that morality and good and evil are not completely subjective concepts. There is no objective morality outside of culture, and what's more, due to being subjective, it constantly changes. Good and evil are what we say they are depending on the current zeitgeist.

OK, so you finally come clean. Your point isn't about evolution or even the plausibility of miracles. Your presupposition is that God doesn't and can't exist. OK, well that's a different conversation. My reasoning for the plausibility of the existence of God is based in a number, actually, of arguments that make sense to me.

I think the cosmological argument makes sense (stated extremely briefly):

1. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence.
2. Then there has to be at least one being that is distinct from and pre-existing all beings that began to exist.
3. Therefore that first being is uncaused, and there is at least one first, uncaused being.

Another form of the cosmological argument also makes sense:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

Kalam's cosmological argument may be the strongest form of it:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

To me, the ontological argument also makes sense:

1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore God’s existence is logically necessary.

The teleological argument has some strength to it.

1. Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design.
2. The universe exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends.
3. Therefore the universe is probably the product of intelligent design.

The analogical argument proposed by Plantinga makes sense:

1. The productions of human contrivance are the products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles the productions of human contrivance
3. Therefore probably the universe is a product of intelligent design
4. Therefore probably the author of the universe is an intelligent being.

There's also the axiological argument (the existence of morality): (from Zacharias)

1. We all admit that evil exists in the world.
2. If evil exists, one must assume that good exists in order to know the difference
3. If good exists, one must assume that a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil.
4. If a moral law exists, one must posit an ultimate source of moral law, or at least an objective basis for a moral law.
5. The source of a personal, moral law must also be personal and moral
6. Therefore God must exist.

We both know that these arguments don't PROVE the existence of God. What we are after is what is reasonable—reasoning to the best inference given the reality we see around us. And what we see around us is

A universe that had a beginning
A universe and life forms that appear designed
Personality
Transcendent, objective moral truths
Informational data (we have no example of informational date that does not come from an intelligent cause)

Given what we see, God is a reasonable explanation for it. It's a far cry from equating such thoughts from a purple unicorn wrapped in cellophane.

There is no more validity to the suggestion of god's existence as an explanation for scientific observations than there is for the existence of a purple unicorn wrapped in cellophane as the same explanation. They are arbitrary and baseless.