It is important to understand that these arguments as formulated by Aquinas are highly structured deductive arguments that proceed from quite specific premises and reach deductive conclusions. Most popular versions of these arguments, even by professional philosophers, misrepresent them, and nearly all atheist 'refutations' of the arguments are aimed at a bastardization of the arguments and have no validity whatsoever. Once you understand the argument, you see that the atheist 'refutations' are nonsense.
The actual arguments are tightly reasoned, and have not been refuted.
...
If you are reading a critique (or defense) of the cosmological argument, and the interlocutor mentions 'Big Bang', stop reading and go on to someone who understands the argument.
People who invoke the Big Bang to refute or defend the cosmological arguments don't understand the arguments at a very basic level.
stretched_girl ago
LOLS, and the hits of the mind keep on coming.
It's those "specific premises" that sets the stage for whatever the person decides to spew forth.
That solution only work is one fully accepts those "specific premises" and ignores everything else.
Again, achieving a desired outcome when you control the input is easy. Untrue, but easy.
Okay, now you can start your gutter mouth rebuttal based on my character. Well, you or one of your "Antiracist" sockpuppets.
JesusOfNazareth18 ago
All talk. No substance. You can't refute the premises because you're an idiot.
stretched_girl ago
Why should I refute another man's fantasy? It's only philosophy, not truth, not fact.
JesusOfNazareth17 ago
You need to refute after you talk shit. But you just talk shit and can't back it up.
stretched_girl ago
What part of that didn't you understand?
JesusOfNazareth17 ago
You don't know what truth is, you dumb cunt.
stretched_girl ago
And neither do you, but it doesn't stop you from insisting on the existence of the abrahamic god.
I'll bet no one has ever approached you about being a lay preacher, have they?
JesusOfNazareth18 ago
FTA:
It is important to understand that these arguments as formulated by Aquinas are highly structured deductive arguments that proceed from quite specific premises and reach deductive conclusions. Most popular versions of these arguments, even by professional philosophers, misrepresent them, and nearly all atheist 'refutations' of the arguments are aimed at a bastardization of the arguments and have no validity whatsoever. Once you understand the argument, you see that the atheist 'refutations' are nonsense.
The actual arguments are tightly reasoned, and have not been refuted.
...
If you are reading a critique (or defense) of the cosmological argument, and the interlocutor mentions 'Big Bang', stop reading and go on to someone who understands the argument.
People who invoke the Big Bang to refute or defend the cosmological arguments don't understand the arguments at a very basic level.
Like shiteating @Crensch.