Any Athiests who now believe in God?

The Universe does require a cause, because the universe is contingent (reliant on other things), whereas for God to be God, God has to be necessary. Therefore, the universe and God are completely different in nature i.e. God has to exist in reality otherwise there would always be a greater being that existed that caused the universe to exist.

The claim that the universe is dependent on other things is just that, a claim. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that the universe must require a cause.

As to your comments on God, they are just baseless assertions, equally devoid of evidence. Substituting “God” for “omnipotent, magical rabbit” highlights the absurdity of your position.

That's the thing though, you don't need empirical evidence to prove that God exists. A priori reasoning, as opposed to a posteriori reasoning, is much stronger because arguments for the existence of God using empirical evidence, such as the teleological argument, can be criticised via scientific discoveries, making them weak.
I don't actually have a religion, I'm just knowledgeable when it comes to philosophy. So then, if God doesn't exist, how would you explain the cause of the Universe out of interest?

Of course you need empirical evidence to prove God exists! You can't just define God into existence using philosophical arguments, they are, by definition, not physical proofs of anything.

The universe expanded from a singularity. What caused it is currently unknown, but a cause need not be intelligent and magical. Better to wait until evidence is provided rather than making up explanations that are not based on data.

you can't just make the world be a certain way because that's how you want it to be, and you can't just say something is true because you don't like the people who support the opposite side of the argument. if you want spirituality there is poetry, literature, art, music, philosophy, nature and the whole world and cosmos itself. I know atheists can be so arrogant and unflinching in their opinions, which doesn't even make sense - how can anyone know anything for sure? atheism too closely mirrors deism in their absolute certainty for my liking. a more intelligent way to be is an agnostic who doesn't think there is a religious god but then again can't say anything for sure. please don't go to the dark side because of some militiant atheists.

It has been proven that you don't though and Anselm's argument has not been successfully defeated until this day. So just saying 'you need empirical evidence' doesn't disprove a priori reasoning.
But it's an interesting debate, great practice for my Rs exam in 3 months haha! I guess everyone is bound to have different viewpoints, if you prefer evidence then good for you but I personally love the ontological argument and its creativity

That's the thing though, you don't need empirical evidence to prove that God exists. A priori reasoning, as opposed to a posteriori reasoning, is much stronger because arguments for the existence of God using empirical evidence, such as the teleological argument, can be criticised via scientific discoveries, making them weak.
I don't actually have a religion, I'm just knowledgeable when it comes to philosophy. So then, if God doesn't exist, how would you explain the cause of the Universe out of interest?

No, Anselm's Argument does not prove God exists, it is just semantics and "word magic". Anselm didn't show why a being of which none greater can be conceived must exist in reality if it can be conceived of in the mind.

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers presented a major objection to Anselm's, namely that theists cannot actually conceive of God in the first place, at least not fully, causing the argument to collapse.

A further flaw in the argument is the devil corollary response, which destroys the very foundations of Anselm's arguments, rendering it null and void. Anselm's argument is just word play, it doesn't actually physically prove God exists.

We don't yet know the cause of the universe, but as so many people say;
"Just because we don't yet know something, doesn't mean you can just fill in the gaps with no evidence."

Just because we have not witnessed God, i.e. via religious experience, does not cause Anselm's argument to collapse, since the argument is deductive.

Gaunilo's objections were completely invalid; his analogy of a perfect island ultimately fails since an island is subjective in nature, and more importantly, God can't be compared to a contingent object [the island], since the respective natures fundamentally differ. Plantigua provided a good response to Guanilo, too, arguing that an island is different to God because it has no "intrinsic maximum". Descartes also argues that since in our mind we can think of a Perfect Being - God - yet we are contingent, proves that the idea must have originated from a necessary being.

Empirical evidence is therefore limited in comparison to the effectiveness of reasoning and logic

And a deductive argument doesn’t physically prove the existence of a deity. Once again, you can’t define God into existence by using fancy words.



I wasn’t talking about the example of the perfect island, I was talking about Gaulino’s comment that God cannot be conceived of in the first place, rendering the argument void.

You still have not explained why an imagined being of which greater cannot be conceived must exist in reality. That is just a leap that is not supported by evidence and therefore no reason to accept it as true. Just because something may be consistent in formal logic does not necessarily mean in reality. Anything that exists in reality must necessarily be proven to exist via physical means, i.e. evidence.

Ignoring the contention that e cannot actually conceive of a perfect being, how on Earth would being able to do so prove it must have come from said being? That is a total non-sequitur.

Not so, empirical evidence actually proves things exist, abstract philosophical arguments don’t in all cases.

1) You're just repeating the same point here and not really adding anything new; you're insisting that God needs to be proved. The only reason why Guanilo argued that God can't be conceived of is because he is an empiricist, i.e. you need evidence. BUT Anselm proves you don't need physical proof.

2) In fact, it does prove it does exist in reality because since we can think of God in our minds, then therefore God must exist in reality because it is greater to exist in reality and the mind, than just the mind. And because the concept of God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, God must exist in reality because there is a contradiction in the greatest possible being not existing in reality.

You disagree with the ontological argument, I agree with it. Case closed

I better get back to my history revision

1) You're just repeating the same point here and not really adding anything new; you're insisting that God needs to be proved. The only reason why Guanilo argued that God can't be conceived of is because he is an empiricist, i.e. you need evidence. BUT Anselm proves you don't need physical proof.

2) In fact, it does prove it does exist in reality because since we can think of God in our minds, then therefore God must exist in reality because it is greater to exist in reality and the mind, than just the mind. And because the concept of God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, God must exist in reality because there is a contradiction in the greatest possible being not existing in reality.

You disagree with the ontological argument, I agree with it. Case closed

I better get back to my history revision

You don't have an ounce of evidence for this, it is special pleading. If the complexity of the creator doesn't require a cause, then you cannot make the argument that the universe's does.

I never claimed to have any evidence. But, nonetheless you haven't refuted my point. So, it still stands. It's hard to say because we don't know what laws the creator is bound by. You again make a lot of assumptions about the creator having certain limitations, when I have already pointed out that this need not be the case if the creator is not bound by the laws that govern our universe.

The Universe does require a cause, because the universe is contingent (reliant on other things), whereas for God to be God, God has to be necessary. Therefore, the universe and God are completely different in nature i.e. God has to exist in reality otherwise there would always be a greater being that existed that caused the universe to exist.

Interesting, I think it's great how much of a positive impact theism brings into the world and to individuals (not necessarily religion); if only everyone knew this

Your point doesn't stand because you made no point to refute. You just made a baseless assertion which can be dismissed without evidence. Further, existing outside of space and time (whatever that even means) is irrelevant to the argument that complexity does or doesn't require a creator.

It's not a baseless assertion because it cannot be dismissed entirely. If the divine power, or creator behind the Universe is not subjected to the limitations that govern our Universe then he does not need to have been created in the first place, which was the argument that you made in the first place (i.e. Who created God?).

Throwing up the same old sophomoric Atheist argument of "Who created God then?" has already been answered, and none of the Atheists have been able to disprove the Theological responses to such arguments. If God is a timeless, immaterial and eternal being, he does not have to have been created in the first place.