Minister's arguments for origin of the Universe:
1) the minister brought up a theory from thermodynamics that all bodies are cooling off. He asked, well if everything naturally cools off, where does the heat come from? Implying that God must be the source
2)Newton's 1st law and expansion of the universe: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. The minister said that the universe, instead of oscillating in size, has been proven to be expanding exponentially or at a growing rate and if Newton's 1st Law holds true the universe must be having a force acting on it in order for it to grow at an increasing rate, implying that God must have been the one who initiated this constant force. Otherwise, in his theory, the universe could only be growing at a constant rate or declining rate. A declining rate would suggest a finite universe since if its declining it must be converging to a limit.
for the afterlife:
his arguments for the afterlife did not have any scientfic basis. He posed a typical argument and that is that its better to live you're life as a Christian in case there is an afterlife since if you don't you're risking an eternity of anguish. I said that the probability of an afterlife is highly subjective. And then he said it was 100% but started talking about how if you decide to live as a christian you will choose the right path 100% of the time. I know! Illogical right?! Completely changed the subject. (Maybe that'll give you an idea of what I'm dealing with. I don't know if that was meant as an intential diversion to what I was talking about or what?
evidence of a designer:
he said that there is a moral code among men that is universal. I really don't have an argument to that. I believe that as an objectivist one can observe that in fact there seems to be a core of morals common among all men. He said that this couldn't have happened by chance, and that this "code" must exist by design. He also talked about the complexity of the human eye and how that couldn't have been the sum of random events. He also said that, since when something is designed it has a purpose, that we (humans) must have a purpose that serves our creator.
Ok, that's the gist of it. I'm hoping to get an abundance of feedback.
Edited by Aristocrates, 04 March 2011 - 09:58 AM.