There are many, many arguments
- Aquinas cosmological argument- an infinite regress of creation, cause and movers is impossible, so there must be an uncreated creator, uncaused agent and unmoved mover.
First, an infinite regress of cause, not creation. A creator is different from a cause. A is caused by B, which means if B dies, there will be no A. A is created by B, which means if B dies, it is not necessary that A will die too. Take an example of your dad and you for more clarification. If your dad dies, it does not mean you will die. He is just your creator, not cause.
Second, A is caused by B, B is caused by C, C is caused by D and so on. This chain might be an infinite regress. Just because you want to prevent this chain from an infinite regression, you wanted a terminator. Even though, you can name that terminator anything. For an example- Electrifying guy is a terminator, is supposed. It does not prove Electrifying Guy exists.
Third, this argument is not sound in 2019. The argument was stated by Aquinas in 12th century. According to your argument, there is no possibility of infinite or multiverse world. There is possibility of finite world. Right ? Big bang created space and time itself. There was no time before big bang for creator to create universe in. Everything was initialized from a photon and without time, cause-effect relationship cannot be established. As we have seen, quantum particles have no cause. They are something from nothing.
Fourth, first cause argument is the most flawed argument that I’ve ever gone through.
Premise 1- Whatever begins to exist, must have a cause.
Premise 2- God begins to exist.
Conclusion – God must have a cause.
Your conclusion violates its own premise
Take the idea of creator now
Premise 1- Everything that exists, must have a creator
Premise 2- God exists
Conclusion- God must have a creator
Your conclusion again violates its own premise
- Popularity- most of the world believes there is sufficient evidence of God's existence, and it is more likely that the majority is right and the minority is wrong.
Argumentum ad populum
A great amount of people say A exists, therefore A exists -flawed
You need to show evidences given by great people. You cannot use great people as evidences. Also, burden of proof will be always on you.
- Morality- we have a sense of right and wrong. And from a pragmatic angle, ethical relativism erodes the basis for right protections and destroys their meaning.
“We have a sense of right and wrong”- because it is our free will. It is our choice what to do and how to react- Good or bad or both or both not at same time.
“ethical relativism erodes the basis for rights protections and destroys their meaning ;”
It is capital offence to be atheists in most of the middle east countries. It is punishable to death in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran etc. They cannot even change their religion from Islam to any else. Which right protection are you talking about ? Fear, terror, slavery or homophobia ?
However, existence of God has nothing to do with ethics. Early Buddhism and Jainism are the most ethical religions of the world. They do not believe in any supernatural power. Your debate is pursuing with an atheist, he is not an anti-theist. An atheist is someone who disbelief in god or he says, “I know there is no God”. An atheist can follow religion without believing in God too.
If you still think so, I may write something special for you. Prophet Muhammad is quoted as calling for the death penalty against apostates-
The Prophet said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam
(apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 83, Hadith 17)
Now we will see the rights of wives-
The Quran also advocates beating wives when they misbehave:
“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth.
So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from
whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Quran 4:34)
- The teleological argument- things in the universe seem to have a purpose, and in fact people are always seeking meaning in existence. Without God there is no meaning or purpose.
Teleological argument is fifth argument of Aquinas. It is argument from design. You altered the whole argument. However, I will still reply you.
Premise 1- Every being is seeking meaning in existence (your premise)
Premise 2- God is a being
Conclusion- God is seeking meaning in existence
- Universality of mythos- all cultures and people have stories of creation and gods
Evolution was a natural process, Charles Darwin destructed the argument from design. The difference between our minuscule and Chimpanzee's minuscule is just 0.1 percent. Humans, chimpanzee and bonobons are closely related to one-another.
Hindu mythology says creationism took place 8 billion years ago.
Abrahmic religions say creationism took place 6,000 to 8,000 years ago.
Australian aboriginal dreamtime says our universe is 70,000 years old.
Science says Big bang took place 13.8 billion years ago. Archaeologists, biologists and cosmologists have found the oldest ice cores are 8,00,000 years old.
Did you mean creationism took place after evolution ? We existed before this creationism.
If he created this universe, why would he waste so much matter to create empty space ?
Space-time is not mentioned in Abrahmic religious books, how someone can create something without time ? How someone can work on matter ? How can someone count those days without time ?
When our universe was young, law of gravity was expanding it. Positive energy was created with explosion during bigbang. It created negative energy simultaneously. For an example- I dig a hole and throw some soil out of it. I create a hole with a hill simultaneously. There is no reason to think of a supernatural being.
Beyond our debate (this is not part of our debate)-
I'll make a topic on illogical theism. Someone made a topic on how atheism is irrational, but ofcourse he couldnt prove God's existence. I will show how people started to believe in myths.