"Bringing Atheists to God"

[POI]

In a recent exchange, the following quote was made, at the very bottom (viewtopic.php?t=39637&start=410):

"Someone that recently read my argument for God, emailed me and thanked me for bringing him to God."

For Debate:

What is this argument for God, and why is it so convincing?

[Clownboat]

In a recent exchange, the following quote was made, at the very bottom (viewtopic.php?t=39637&start=410):

"Someone that recently read my argument for God, emailed me and thanked me for bringing him to God."

For Debate:

What is this argument for God, and why is it so convincing?

See this rock and this tree! J/K, I couldn't help myself, but I do await the convincing argument.

[Tcg]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I find no reason to believe this account.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

In a recent exchange, the following quote was made, at the very bottom (viewtopic.php?t=39637&start=410):

"Someone that recently read my argument for God, emailed me and thanked me for bringing him to God."

For Debate:

What is this argument for God, and why is it so convincing?

Yes I would be interested to see such a convincing argument for God. It seems to imply a Jump, maybe from First cause to the Bible, which might fool a few people who have never been told that there might be other options. But it comes down to this - the only atheists to fall for the normal doorstoop spiel are those who don't know the arguments. But it's possible that some of those with booklets and smartphone propaganda videos (I had one shoved in my face with the 'no transitionals' lie) who could convince even the atheist who knew a few arguments. The problem is the Big Lie - say "Do you know that an archaeologist discovered an early copy of Tacitus that confirmed the Jesus story in every detail?' How many people could refute that on the doorstep? And really the 'Sate of Israel' "Prophecy" looks pretty good even after research. And not long ago I had to check Isaiah (as I said I would). It seems to run as retrospective history from the 7th c BC to the 5th from the Assyrian smashing of Israel to the Babylonian smashing of Judea and the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. and I might struggle to prove that it's retrospective history rather than prophecy. How many dumbfounded by Kalam, Indeterminacy and ID arguments would think to say: "That may prove creator, but it doesn't prove which one".

[TRANSPONDER]

In a recent exchange, the following quote was made, at the very bottom (viewtopic.php?t=39637&start=410):

"Someone that recently read my argument for God, emailed me and thanked me for bringing him to God."

For Debate:

What is this argument for God, and why is it so convincing?

Yes I would be interested to see such a convincing argument for God. It seems to imply a Jump, maybe from First cause to the Bible, which might fool a few people who have never been told that there might be other options. But it comes down to this - the only atheists to fall for the normal doorstoop spiel are those who don't know the arguments. But it's possible that some of those with booklets and smartphone propaganda videos (I had one shoved in my face with the 'no transitionals' lie) who could convince even the atheist who knew a few arguments. The problem is the Big Lie - say "Do you know that an archaeologist discovered an early copy of Tacitus that confirmed the Jesus story in every detail?' How many people could refute that on the doorstep? And really the 'Sate of Israel' "Prophecy" looks pretty good even after research. And not long ago I had to check Isaiah (as I said I would). It seems to run as retrospective history from the 7th c BC to the 5th from the Assyrian smashing of Israel to the Babylonian smashing of Judea and the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. and I might struggle to prove that it's retrospective history rather than prophecy. How many dumbfounded by Kalam, Indeterminacy and ID arguments would think to say: "That may prove creator, but it doesn't prove which one".

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I find no reason to believe this account.


Tcg

Yea, I find this testimonial a little "Lee Strobel-ish", quite frankly... But I surely cannot wait to hear the possible be-all-end-all argument... I mean, is it one I have not heard before, is it a modification to an existing argument, or is it just the same 'ol existing argument, other?

[AquinasForGod]

[Diagoras]

[Replying to POI in post #1]
Something always exists. What can we figure out must be true of this eternal thing?

It must be uncaused.

Why can't this quality apply to the second explanation: i.e. something came uncaused from nothing?

The argument 'from first cause' is not new. Neither are objections to it.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]
Something always exists. What can we figure out must be true of this eternal thing?

It must be uncaused.

Why can't this quality apply to the second explanation: i.e. something came uncaused from nothing?

The argument 'from first cause' is not new. Neither are objections to it.

It is not an argument from first cause.

It would be true if you can accept spontaneous existence. It would be without a cause or explanation.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #7]

What have we figured out about the eternal? He is self-existent, unchanging, uncaused, cause of all things, all-knowing, self-aware, something like intelligent, and something like conscious, all-powerful, and omnipresent.

I think that is enough to establish him as God. I have deduced so much more about God in this same way, but if I keep going this will turn into a book, and I doubt you want to read a book right now.

Who is this God?

What you describe re the God, cannot - in all honesty, be the God of the Bible.

So who is the God of the Bible in relation to this God you have described?