A positive case for theism:

[dlectronic]

This will be in the form of the Kalam Cosmological argument. Dr. William Lane Craig defends this argument a lot and has written numerous books on it. A full writing by Craig on the argument can be found on his site, Reasonablefaith.org. A specific link to the paper is here: www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5174

(@ Brent: perhaps this is the logical argumentation for theism that you seek.)

The basic form of the argument is as follows:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of it's existence.


The premisses of the argument can be expanded as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.

[Jeremy]

How does the existence of a "cause" prove there is a God?

[Manifold Curiosity]

What is the cause of God, then?

[dlectronic]

Jul 11, 2010 15:11:16 GMT -5 Jeremy said:

How does the existence of a "cause" prove there is a God?

What else could it be? The argument demands the "cause" be timeless and spaceless. All that could be is either an abstract object (like a number, or some sort of trait/notion), or an unembodied Mind. Abstract objects, by definition, do not act. They are abstract.

Jul 11, 2010 16:30:14 GMT -5 Manifold Curiosity said:

What is the cause of God, then?

Forgive me for being frank, but this is quite simple to respond to. God is by nature an uncaused Being who transcends time and space. This fact itself is a simple thing to understand. Do you see how the question you asked doesn't apply to God due to His nature? It is pivotal to understand the nature of the Cause we are speaking of.

Of course, this argument alone of Craig's doesn't lead us straight to the God of the Bible (he has a number of others to give that challenge a shot), but it does offer an extremely compelling case for theism. It is logically airtight in that the conclusion follows logically from the premisses. To defeat the conclusion, one must prove a premiss to be false. It should most definately give non-theists (atheists and agnostics) something to think about, to say the least.

[Patrick]

The positive case for Theism is that humanity cannot afford to lose it. As soon as Christianity and Judaism die, restraint and self-control will die. Brent himself has said that his reason for living is for his own happiness. Often times though, what's in the best interest for someone's happiness is someone else's misery. Proper Christianity gives the restraint that people need to look to other's interests above their own. A world of selfishness is inherantly unsustainable, so we need a faith that can sustain some degree of selfless altruism in a number of people.

[Metzuda]

I don't know why people still try the old, failed "proofs". There are some good arguments out there about infinities, but they always go nowhere.

Edit: I was also going to examine the argument your source presented, but I have to register on the site? Screw that.

[Brent]

Don't worry Patrick, religion will not die in our lifetime, and probably never will because of how gullible the common man is. Especially in religions like Hinduism where tradition and indoctrination are strong.

Jul 11, 2010 15:03:54 GMT -5 dlectronic said:

(@ Brent: perhaps this is the logical argumentation for theism that you seek.)

I don't seek anything. There will continue to be arguments well past my death, it is a fruitless endeavor.vvThere needs to be a medium for which things are proven and explained and the scientific method is the standard. Only facts reign, and the fact is supernatural beings cannot be explained with science.

[dlectronic]

Jul 11, 2010 18:48:09 GMT -5 Metzuda said:

I don't know why people still try the old, failed "proofs". There are some good arguments out there about infinities, but they always go nowhere.

Edit: I was also going to examine the argument your source presented, but I have to register on the site? Screw that.

Oops. I actually didn't realize you had to register. I did that a while ago and am always logged in, so I missed that. I should say however, that you really ought to considering logging in and checking in out, as Craig is a top-notch scholar of our time and defends no such "failed" arguments. He provides good stuff.

And the argument doesn't talk about simply "infinities," though that is a large part of premiss 2.

Don't choke yourself out by not giving the thing a shot.

Jul 11, 2010 18:49:06 GMT -5 Brent said:

I don't seek anything. There will continue to be arguments well past my death, it is a fruitless endeavor.vvThere needs to be a medium for which things are proven and explained and the scientific method is the standard. Only facts reign, and the fact is supernatural beings cannot be explained with science.

I simply don't hold this belief of yours to be true. I think you genuinely do seek. Why else would you be so openly (and sometimes militantly) non-theist? Give the argument a shot. It is formulated and substantiated using logic and, get this, science! You ask for science? I refer you to Craig's defense of the second premiss. He gives philosophical defense for it (namely with talk of infinity), as well as scientific evidence for premiss 2. Give it a shot! See what you think.

[Metzuda]

Hmm, unless the guy has some earth-shaking new revelation on the nature of infinities, it's a dead-end argument.

[dlectronic]

Well I do not claim to be the top mathematician this board has ever seen (not by a long shot), but have you heard of "potential" infinities versus "actual" infinities? He discusses those. But the argument is not only grounded in talk of infinities. Infinities are the philosophical section of support for the Kalam cosmological argument's second premiss. There is an entire other scientific section of defense for the KCA's second premiss.

You ought to give Craig and this argument a shot.

[dlectronic]

So there we have it! the argument seems to be more plausibly true than not. Unless we can get some objections and discussion going here! (nudge nudge)

In other words. Bump.