can you proove there isn't a deity?

[lewisnotmiller]

Per you request I am responding to this. Sorry I missed it.

No dramas.

I can tell you exactly why it is that is unsatisfying. We hate suffering, pain, and misery. There are two components to the problem of evil. A philosophical one about properties and purpose, but there is another half that is pure emotional. Craig (I think I used Craig) can prove to a certainty that the Biblical God and evil can both exist without God's compromising his nature or purpose (purpose is the reason evil exists anyway). What can't be resolved is our revulsion over evil. Emotions do not have a rational and evinced based foundation. That is the reason that any boxer or debater trying to win at all costs will attempt to get the other mad.

No, I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, I think your point about us having an aversion to pain, suffering and the like makes sense, but I meant more that I was looking for an argument that was comprehensive, and to me, this wasn't it. I did acknowledge the more instinctive reaction (as in, where's the justice) later in my post, and also acknowledged that Craig himself had stated that his argument was purely from point of logic, which makes sense to me, actually.

Philosophy can eliminate any incompatibility between God and evil. (though God will eventually eliminate all evil and suffering).

What can't be done is make that conclusion satisfy our hatred of evil and suffering. Just like physical pain is hated but also has a purpose so does evil.

Which was kinda what Craig was trying to prove. But whilst his arguments made some sense in terms of humans, they make (in my opinion) zero sense in relation to the Emerald Cockroach Wasp, which is why I chose it.

That is true. Craig uses cold calculated reason to determine the nature of things. His philosophy is lethal to arguments from emotion or sentimentality but is has no ability to make them go away. Craig is also one of the most compassionate and warm debaters I know of but ideas are resolved best when emotion is not included.

Hmmm...I think he treads the line between slightly cynically courting his audience (connecting to them) and using hard logical arguments. Mind you, I don't count that against him. Debating is a skill, and both use of hard to refute logic, and connecting to the audience are requisite skills. In any case, fair to say his approach in this case is understandable to me, and I'm certainly not appealing to emotion to argue against him. Merely acknowledging the visceral reaction (much as he did).

Let me add one to the 4 I do not think Craig covered. The Bible records that nature was made perfect in the beginning and went horribly wrong when Adam sinned. I do not know if the story is literal or allegory but what is clear is that at one time God supervised and maximized nature for our benefit. Once we rebelled then to illustrate the cost of rejecting God he took his supervising control off of nature and let it run by cold natural law alone except for rare intercessions. He did so to indicate the nature of rebellion. He wanted to make sure man realized just how wrong and terrible the nature of his rebellion and sin is. That is where weird things like you wasp might come in. God did not make that wasp the way it is. He stopped supervising nature and it was allowed to change and (evolve) on it's own. This produced teddy bear like panda's and things that look like they are from a nightmare. The garden of Eden (whether a place or a state) was over and we were exposed to whatever nature produced.

I think this is the crux of our differing viewpoints on this, so I'll focus here. My comments, in no particular order, are as follows;

1) Extending Craig's argument with your own suggests that you think Craig's argument is lacking, so perhaps on that count we can agree?

2) Craig's argument in this area is focused on the idea that evil is not incompatible due to the potentially informative and constructive role it can play. Again, this is focused on human impact. It suggests that God allows evil (since he is omni-benevolent) only because of it's constructive possibilities, not because it's a runaway train he is no longer correcting as punishment. How many souls have been saved due to the parasytic feeding patterns of the Emerald Cockroach Wasp? Arguing from the viewpoint of probabilities as I am (rather than certainties) it seems improbable that the wasp has contributed to the saving of a single soul. It's more likely to turn someone away from God, if anything. Yet it's feeding method is cruel and unusual in the extreme.

God judges in two ways. Individually and corporately. If you find it bizarre that God would use tragedy and suffering to produce faith just think back a bit. Most of us spend al our time thinking about what play station game came out, what is going on at the club, what the president is doing. The few times even those that hate the idea of God will seriously consider him is at a funeral, when their drunk driving cost a life, or when they are diagnosed with a serious illness. It takes us out of this world and makes us consider things beyond it. I am not saying God directly kills us, makes us crash while driving drunk, or gave us an illness (not in general anyway). I am saying his purposes made him allow a world that includes those things because we are so hard headed that is the extremes necessary to wake us up.

Come on, now. You asked for a logical argument focused on something, so that you would have a chance to respond. I didn't refute the point Craig made on hardship potentially teaching humans. I quite explicitly acknowledged his points, but said that these are all ONLY in relation to humans. I don't see how the suffering caused by the Emerald Cockroach Wasps are in any way helpful in forging our souls.
My argument is that looking at evil as a neccessary or at least effective means in strengthening human resolve does nothing to account for evil which is not informative to this process, yet is allowed to exist by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.

BTW I did not look at your link (I detest insects) but my response should have included whatever they do and it's possible explanation.

Yep...as you'd no doubt realise, there are a bunch of similar examples. They basically paralyse live creatures, and lay their eggs in them to provide a food source to the young 'uns when they hatch. Generic arguments against this are acceptable, since they are just an example.

Incidentally, we all have things we detest. For you, it's insects, and for me it's the LA Lakers.

 

[1robin]

No dramas.

I have never heard those words used that way.

No, I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, I think your point about us having an aversion to pain, suffering and the like makes sense, but I meant more that I was looking for an argument that was comprehensive, and to me, this wasn't it. I did acknowledge the more instinctive reaction (as in, where's the justice) later in my post, and also acknowledged that Craig himself had stated that his argument was purely from point of logic, which makes sense to me, actually.

Craig is a philosopher and a Christian. He can speak as either and does so authoritatively. If it was not the emotional aspect that was giving you some dissatisfaction the only other option I am aware of is that if you do not have a born again faith in God (currently I cannot recall your theological status) then any theory based on God and his attributes is not going to satisfy them. I do not believe evolution can explain many aspects of biological reality, it is however used to explain everything in nature. I am never satisfied with the arguments because I do not believe evolution that capable. If neither of these are the explanation then I am at a loss. I do know that Craig's philosophy is air tight if the God of the Bible exists. It has no weak point unless you know of one I am unaware of. Was there a certain claim you did not like or was it a general dissatisfaction.

Which was kinda what Craig was trying to prove. But whilst his arguments made some sense in terms of humans, they make (in my opinion) zero sense in relation to the Emerald Cockroach Wasp, which is why I chose it.

I believe I showed how human rebellion and God justice produced a world where a cockroach can have a terribly wayward behavior without God having directly put that behavior into place. Things were left to operate by natural law instead of heavenly supervision. They have in most cases just gone where they went by could hard law. Let me add that unless a God existed there is no basis on which to call what the cockroach or anything else did as evil. Evil as a quality of morality the same are meaningless as moral truth unless God exists.

Hmmm...I think he treads the line between slightly cynically courting his audience (connecting to them) and using hard logical arguments. Mind you, I don't count that against him. Debating is a skill, and both use of hard to refute logic, and connecting to the audience are requisite skills. In any case, fair to say his approach in this case is understandable to me, and I'm certainly not appealing to emotion to argue against him. Merely acknowledging the visceral reaction (much as he did).

He does take the logical outworking's of what his opponents say to demonstrates how wrong it is if carried out to its natural conclusion, and he tries to do so with a sense of irony so as not to turn a debate into mud slinging. That is a tactic I learned a long time ago and it exists in the greatest philosophical minds of the last few thousand years.

Christian theologians and philosophers (at least he really good ones) believed and had subjective proof that they were right and were certain their opponents were wrong. The idea is if you give a guy who is necessarily wrong enough time or if you do not have the time then simply extend his claim out to it's conclusion it will betray it's falsehood. For example the first thing Jesus did was ask his accusers a set of questions so as to get them to construct their own gallows (so to speak) and then he made them hang themselves. Ravi Zacharias says he tries to do the same but calls it opening a man's up in his own assumptions. Craig does it by carrying a moral, logical, or philosophical claim by his opponent to it's logical application or terminus. It is truly genius if done right because you have the other person construct the testimony that dams his position. I am not nearly so sophisticated but the principle is not lost on me.

I think this is the crux of our differing viewpoints on this, so I'll focus here. My comments, in no particular order, are as follows;

1) Extending Craig's argument with your own suggests that you think Craig's argument is lacking, so perhaps on that count we can agree?

It lacked nothing for me because I could fill in the background context with my years of Bible study. IOW no one in an hour or two can hit every point in a topic this complex. Craig took a given Christian doctrine and applied it through rigorous philosophy to a claimed conflict that does not actually exist. He could have given the full backstory and filled in all the details but it would have taken years. I was attempting to bring out the Christian context that illustrated why a few things he granted as a given were true. I found his argument lacking nothing that was purposed. It does require much more study to fill in every brush stoke.

2) Craig's argument in this area is focused on the idea that evil is not incompatible due to the potentially informative and constructive role it can play. Again, this is focused on human impact. It suggests that God allows evil (since he is omni-benevolent) only because of it's constructive possibilities, not because it's a runaway train he is no longer correcting as punishment. How many souls have been saved due to the parasytic feeding patterns of the Emerald Cockroach Wasp? Arguing from the viewpoint of probabilities as I am (rather than certainties) it seems improbable that the wasp has contributed to the saving of a single soul. It's more likely to turn someone away from God, if anything. Yet it's feeding method is cruel and unusual in the extreme.

I think you are confusing an allowance for evil with a specified purpose for specific things like suffering and loss. Both occur but if you do not recognize they have very different natures it becomes confusing. I see that what I said made little impact on you about the roach. God took his supervision of nature when we said we did not want his help. He did exactly what we desired. It is like an irrational child who says they wished their parents were not around. Imagine what would happen to that child if that occurred. Bills are not being paid, food isn't bought, in short everything goes to crap and does so by natural law. No longer is God preventing evolution from creating cockroaches with repulsive behaviors, he is not stopping germs from mutating into monsters, he is not even stopping me from drinking myself to death. Therefor germs are mutating, people may be drinking themselves into the grave, and germs may become plagues. God did not want it, he did not mandate it, he did not cause it specifically to occur. It is a result of our rebellion and the loss of his direct supervision of nature. That being said you have no idea what will turn a person to God. I have been a prayer counselor for years and have heard a dizzying array of the most incredibly diverse things that set a person on his path to God. Most of them involve something very negative. It is usually the defects that provide inspiration and desire for improvement.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

Let me do what I said Craig and Ravi did, above. Your argument takes the form of a cockroach but is a false optimization fallacy at it's core. So I will carry it out to its terminus to show it's fault. You picked an arbitrary thing as an example of something so bad that no God that was good can be compatible with it. Using the philosophy uncoupled from its arbitrary standard means that any arbitrary imperfection is contradictory or none of them are. You have chosen the former. If every imperfect thing is contradictory to a perfect God's existence then God is left with only the ability to create redundant perfect God's of violate your standard. I realize that you picked something you think was unique but at it's core the object was arbitrary and the principle involved is absurd. God can and I believe has allowed nature to produce vulgarities without violating any aspect of his nature. I would agree that looking at cockroaches would probably never point to a good God but he did not send cockroaches to represent him. He sent Billy Graham, Mother Theresa, Paul, Christ, prophecy, the most scrutinized book in history and many of the most intelligent people in history. I will ask another question to draw out the fault in your core argument. If evil exist on a scale from 1 - 100 and your roach is a 90 for example. Please tell me exactly what the cut off number is for what is consistent with a perfect God and a wayward creation. Is it a 60 or an 85? or some other number and what criteria were used. If your honest you would say you have no idea and justify my point here.

1. You have an arbitrary and ambiguous standard.
2. You pile that on top of an irrational principle.

And you can't help but get an erroneous result. I also think this is a form of my emotional dislike explanation. That roach just happens to be what violated your emotional threshold but will grant I could be mistaken.

Come on, now. You asked for a logical argument focused on something, so that you would have a chance to respond. I didn't refute the point Craig made on hardship potentially teaching humans. I quite explicitly acknowledged his points, but said that these are all ONLY in relation to humans. I don't see how the suffering caused by the Emerald Cockroach Wasps are in any way helpful in forging our souls.
My argument is that looking at evil as a neccessary or at least effective means in strengthening human resolve does nothing to account for evil which is not informative to this process, yet is allowed to exist by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.

You do not see how a realm of moral consciousness being appalled at the state of nature within the context of the Biblical narrative as demonstrating both a transcendent realm and the humans access to it and the reliability and comprehensiveness of the explanation for it given in the bible? Just be reading the Bible I would expect to find both cockroaches with abhorrent behaviors to which humans fundamentally rebel and a beauty in nature that transcends speech. The most common reason people give for their starting a turn to God is a horrible experience. In my case it was two major things. My mothers death (she was a truly good Christian) and my wrecking a relationship with another good Christian girlfriend. One represented a fact so abhorrent I wanted answers instead of the next video game. The other represented my unfitness for answers by being incompatible with them. When the planes hit the twin towers Church attendance spiked. Funerals are the only time a militant atheist actually opens his heart to God for a second. Deaths, pain. suffering, the depth of human evil have all produced millions of Godly men. The person with the strongest faith I have ever known had the least reason for it. She had every disease I ever heard of, she spent most of her life in a hospital suffering intensely. I never knew a stronger believer. The point is three things.

1. We in more cases than not need to be shocked before we actually begin thinking. A kid most of the time will not change by explanation but by punishment. We can't even understand beauty without the ugly, contentment without insecurity, peace without strife, and love without hate.
2. Your example was explained in detail by me theologically. If you need more I can supply it, but I saw no lack in it. If you want a reason to disbelieve there are plenty of arbitrary ones. Even some that make your roach look like an angel of mercy. If you want a reason to believe then a cockroach is not the place to look. I also have never understood denying the only hope in response to the problem.
3. No one can predict what will inspire a human to switch gears. It truly is remarkable.

I think the main problem is your looking for a direct explanation for the cockroaches of the world instead of an indirect one. God did not fashion your roach as it is. He fashioned a world and universe of perfection. We told him to take a hike and when he did so we complained about what that produced or resulted in and some use it as a reason to even deny his existence. If God constructed your roach that way and set him in the garden prior to sin then you would have a point. He didn't. What occurred wit the roach may have been 100% the result of his no longer supervising nature as he once did and 0% to do with converting anyone. There are events that have no purpose but I do not think anything could not be used by God if we would let him.

Yep...as you'd no doubt realise, there are a bunch of similar examples. They basically paralyse live creatures, and lay their eggs in them to provide a food source to the young 'uns when they hatch. Generic arguments against this are acceptable, since they are just an example.

I said I did not look it up because I hate bugs and everything they do. Why did you describe what they do anyway? Let me ask you something, if the world was free of whatever bugs you dislike the habits of would there no longer be any reason you would not become a believer?

Incidentally, we all have things we detest. For you, it's insects, and for me it's the LA Lakers.

To me basket ball is not much of an improvement. Football, maybe. I have been more critical of your argument in this post but do not think I am being critical of you specifically. I judge ideas in a debate not a person, unless I am certain they are insincere. I think your argument is weak but I am very patient with the person making it because I spent 27 years thinking the same things, and much worse. I will keep attempting to make points more clearly until you tire of it or become belligerent, or until you come over to my side of the force in-spite of the insect community and their habits.

 

[ladybug77]

I can prove there is one. using logical math applied to science.

 

[outhouse]

I can prove there is one. using logical math applied to science.

I would love to hear this.

To date, no god exist scientifically.

In my opinion, all the evidence we do have points to mythology as we see the deities evolve into one over a thousand year period.

Other words. We see polytheistic Israelites that later changed to monotheism and compiled two deities into one due to politics, King Josiahs reforms that did not take for hundreds of years in the general population.

WE also see many of the early figures in scripture that have no historicity what so ever, and those that have some historicity, we see exaggerations and in some cases fabrication.

 

[McBell]

I would love to hear this.

now you gone and done it...

For a quick review of her "proof":

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/156510-i-saw-equation-my-dreams-lastnight.html​

 

[1robin]

I would love to hear this.

To date, no god exist scientifically.

In my opinion, all the evidence we do have points to mythology as we see the deities evolve into one over a thousand year period.

Other words. We see polytheistic Israelites that later changed to monotheism and compiled two deities into one due to politics, King Josiahs reforms that did not take for hundreds of years in the general population.

WE also see many of the early figures in scripture that have no historicity what so ever, and those that have some historicity, we see exaggerations and in some cases fabrication.

I agree that no proof exists for God except in philosophy but I in no way agree that the evidence suggests it is mythology.

 

[ladybug77]

I would love to hear this.

To date, no god exist scientifically.

In my opinion, all the evidence we do have points to mythology as we see the deities evolve into one over a thousand year period.

Other words. We see polytheistic Israelites that later changed to monotheism and compiled two deities into one due to politics, King Josiahs reforms that did not take for hundreds of years in the general population.

WE also see many of the early figures in scripture that have no historicity what so ever, and those that have some historicity, we see exaggerations and in some cases fabrication.

When i wrote the original thread of the equation...there were quarks...because it was just a dream. When i worked through it...it makes total sense. Bit theres a bunch a bunch of comments in the middle of the truth.

 

[ladybug77]

I would love to hear this.

To date, no god exist scientifically.

In my opinion, all the evidence we do have points to mythology as we see the deities evolve into one over a thousand year period.

Other words. We see polytheistic Israelites that later changed to monotheism and compiled two deities into one due to politics, King Josiahs reforms that did not take for hundreds of years in the general population.

WE also see many of the early figures in scripture that have no historicity what so ever, and those that have some historicity, we see exaggerations and in some cases fabrication.

Ill send a pm so u dont have to read threw all the junk

 

[outhouse]

Ill send a pm so u dont have to read threw all the junk

Thank you

 

[outhouse]

I agree that no proof exists for God except in philosophy but I in no way agree that the evidence suggests it is mythology.

How does a believer come to grips that Israelites did not exist before 1200 BC, and that they evolved from displaced Canaanites and other Semitic speaking people in the Levant ?

Israel Finklestein claims this to be fact, and really no one argues it.

I do believe it is factual that there was no conquest, but yet a peaceful migration after 1200 BC.

How do you deal with their polytheism to El, Yahweh, Baal, and Asherah the wife of both El and later Yahweh?


Monotheism did not exist until after 622 and King Josiah's reforms, even then it took hundreds of years to stop the polytheism, yet the OT has some history all the way to 1000 BC. It is said by scholars that there were collections of scripture compiled and edited over hundreds of years, then redacted to monotheism to Yahweh alone after these monotheistic reforms.


How do you deal with the fact Yahweh and El were both Canaanite deities before Israelites even existed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)




Yahweh, prior to becoming Yahweh, the national god of Israel, and taking on monotheistic attributes in the 6th century BCE, was a part of the Canaanite pantheon in the period before the Babylonian captivity. Archeological evidence reveals that during this time period the Israelites were a group of Canaanite people. Yahweh was seen as a war god, and equated with El. Asherah, who was often seen as El's consort, has been described as a consort of Yahweh in numerous inscriptions

 

[ladybug77]

How does a believer come to grips that Israelites did not exist before 1200 BC, and that they evolved from displaced Canaanites and other Semitic speaking people in the Levant ?

Israel Finklestein claims this to be fact, and really no one argues it.

I do believe it is factual that there was no conquest, but yet a peaceful migration after 1200 BC.

How do you deal with their polytheism to El, Yahweh, Baal, and Asherah the wife of both El and later Yahweh?


Monotheism did not exist until after 622 and King Josiah's reforms, even then it took hundreds of years to stop the polytheism, yet the OT has some history all the way to 1000 BC. It is said by scholars that there were collections of scripture compiled and edited over hundreds of years, then redacted to monotheism to Yahweh alone after these monotheistic reforms.


How do you deal with the fact Yahweh and El were both Canaanite deities before Israelites even existed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)




Yahweh, prior to becoming Yahweh, the national god of Israel, and taking on monotheistic attributes in the 6th century BCE, was a part of the Canaanite pantheon in the period before the Babylonian captivity. Archeological evidence reveals that during this time period the Israelites were a group of Canaanite people. Yahweh was seen as a war god, and equated with El. Asherah, who was often seen as El's consort, has been described as a consort of Yahweh in numerous inscriptions

Because we all came from the same source. We all are created by the same ONE AND ONLY. It CAN be proven!!! We need to respect eachother from now on. Thats all. together we equal one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To me basket ball is not much of an improvement. Football, maybe. I have been more critical of your argument in this post but do not think I am being critical of you specifically. I judge ideas in a debate not a person, unless I am certain they are insincere. I think your argument is weak but I am very patient with the person making it because I spent 27 years thinking the same things, and much worse. I will keep attempting to make points more clearly until you tire of it or become belligerent, or until you come over to my side of the force in-spite of the insect community and their habits.

Hola...
So, there's obviously a lot of ground to cover, in terms of your detailed response (and I appreciate the effort, to be honest) but I'll not do the quote thing. Instead, I'll just respond directly to this bit above, and then more generally to the rest.

For me, I quite enjoy the chance to debate this stuff. No fear of me getting belligerent. Honestly, I find this quite stimulating. I like debate, and I'm adult enough to see the difference between playing the man and playing the ball, so to speak. I'll try and cover things by point form, just to cover as much ground as possible, and hopefully my paraphrasing will be accurate enough. If I misconstrue your arguments, just correct me. I won't take offence.

1) 'No dramas' is a common Australian-ism...We also say 'No worries' or 'No problem', and when asked how we are, often say 'Not bad'. This reverse-speak is cultural, and often confuses the heck out of the Swedes and Sri Lankans I regularly work with. 'Why don't you just say you are Good?' Meh. Diversion...sorry about that.

2) I actually like the way Craig argued his points. I like the way he acknowledged the emotional, but clearly stated his argument was logical. He set the parameters, and stuck to them. I have watch some of his live debating, and he clearly has some skill at it, and I found him amusing at times (which is obviously part of the skill).

3) Regarding my comments around 'disatisfaction' with his arguments...Purely from a logical point of view, I found holes in his argument. As requested by you (understandably I might add) I focused on a single argument rather than scatter-gunning. So for our purpose here, my sole focus is on the argument that evil is not incompatible with an omni-benevolent, and omnipotent God, and I do so from a probalistic point of view, not a certain point of view. As Craig did, I am attempting to set the parameters of my argument clearly, so you can fairly respond. Nothing more.

4) The broad thrust of my argument is that Craig has not explained evil which has no impact on humans. The entirety of his argument in this realm focuses on the human impact of evil. I am arguing that this neither acknowledges, nor deals with the fact that evil exists, quite apart from human impact.

5) Your own arguments and clarifications are also focused on the human impact of evil. This does nothing to convince me. Whilst I would acknowledge I am unlikely to be convinced of God's existence via this argument, I have an open mind to at least seeing the fallacy of my point. But it would need some discussion of evil without frame in human terms.

6) Bugs have nothing to do with my disbelief in God. The only relevance they have here is as an example of evil which occurs apart from impact on humans. On the scale of evil (1-100 as you put it) they probably rate a 1. Hitler might rate a 99. Craig's argument explains Hitler, but does not explain the wasp. From my point of view it is not the degree of evil that is important, but the manner in which it fits within his explanations of the compatability of evil and an omni-benevolent, omnipotent God. Honestly, there is no emotive content in this argument. If I was going an emotive route, I would argue it entirely differently. I am directly tying my argument to the point argued by Craig.

Sidenote for Clarification : Evil, much like morality, would be considered a subjective term in my worldview. I think you made some reference to this, and I'd agree. I do not believe in true, Biblical-style evil, and I do not believe in objective morality. However, it seems useless to debate along those lines, so in the context of this thread I am attempting to assume the existence of true evil and objective morality.

PS: If, by football, you mean NFL, then I am a Niners fan. Make of that what you will, but I harboured deep-seated Cowboy hate during my formative years.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Something that should be pointed out before hand is that god does not exist scientifically. The word god is in itself an entirely subjective label based upon personal(esoteric or exoteric) standpoints about what qualifies as god. The word god is bloated and jam packed with contradictions, absurdities and just varying interpretations with no mutual correspondence to each other.


The Qur'an for examples almost gives a panentheistic interpretation of god and assigns naturalistic and scientifically proven events(although a little stretched) as the works of god. I myself define any action that occurs at all as the "work of god".


God can be stretched, compressed and purported to any extremes the user of such a claim likes. The Deist will always see the natural world and assign it to god while the theist will see god before they define god by naturalistic laws and events.


For example one of the most idiotic assertions is that god is all good and loving....this is not true int he slightest considering the amount of hatred in the world. This obviously cannot be true when you apply an intervening "all loving deity" into the mix because if the word hatred exist as the antonym of love and absolute creationism is immediately assigned to such a deity then how can an all-loving deity produce the opposite of it's own nature?


This is the fallacy of theism and its regards for producing a concept(god) and assigning it to the real world to only find out it does not match. The existence of god is self refuting in this regards as religiosity cannot help but place itself on self-destruct 99% of the time.

~Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason~
"Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the Creation.
Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is
governed! Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in
the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to
contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that
abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is?
Search not the book called the Scripture, which any
human hand might make, but the Scripture called the Creation."​

The existence of god is found in natural existence. Natural existence sums up a concept of actions and those actions can be used to find claim that god exists. If you believe in natural existence then you believe in god by default but this only applies to a particular conception of what one defines as god. Pagans used naturalistic views to define god and thus assign events to god through elaborate interpretations of witnessed events which is why animism was so prevalent at one point in mankind's genesis. Thunder was assigned to Zeus, wisdom to Apollo and war to Ares and so forth. All of the deities in mankind's past have all described naturalistic events and even when applying non-naturalistic events such as an afterlife, the definements of such a life is still given a materialistic view based upon natural existence. Both heaven and hell are assigned earthly delights and earthly punishments ranging from burning flames to sexual lewdness.

~Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason~​

"The only idea man can affix to the name of God is that of a
first cause, the cause of all things. And incomprehensible and
difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he
arrives at the belief of it from the tenfold greater difficulty of
disbelieving it. It is difficult beyond description to conceive that
space can have no end; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. It
is difficult beyond the power of man to conceive an eternal duration
of what we call time; but it is more impossible to conceive a time
when there shall be no time.
In like manner of reasoning, everything we behold carries in
itself the internal evidence that it did not make itself Every man
is an evidence to himself that he did not make himself; neither
could his father make himself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his
race; neither could any tree, plant, or animal make itself; and it
is the conviction arising from this evidence that carries us on, as it
were, by necessity to the belief of a first cause eternally
existing, of a nature totally different to any material existence we
know of, and by the power of which all things exist; and this first
cause man calls God."​

The most abundant of concepts which is assigned to/as god is the First Cause for Creation(سبب الأول خل&#1602. This is the only true evidential claim that can be made for the existence of "God" int he conceptual idea of that of a Demiurge. The first cause is a key aspect in understanding one's conception of god. This can be found in Abrahamic, Hellenic and Dharmic religions across the globe. The refutation of the first cause does not lye in assigning of the first cause itself to godly conduct but in the definitions and actions which describe the first cause found in religious texts such as the 6 day creation period or the world blooming from a flower. The religious depictions of the first cause are easily refutable but not the scientific grounded definition of a first cause minus religious overtones.

God is nothing but a concept, not a physical being, not a man in the sky but a concept and a construct of human interpretation. The existence of god is henceforth a semantic issue not an evidential issue unless the definement for a god exits naturalistic understanding.

۩Reposted from the al-Rabu'bay Wathaniyya blog۩​

 

[lewisnotmiller]

For example one of the most idiotic assertions is that god is all good and loving....this is not true int he slightest considering the amount of hatred in the world. This obviously cannot be true when you apply an intervening "all loving deity" into the mix because if the word hatred exist as the antonym of love and absolute creationism is immediately assigned to such a deity then how can an all-loving deity produce the opposite of it's own nature?

Far be it from me to defend God, or more specifically theism, but the discussion 1Robin and I are having centres around Craig's logical (not scientific) defence of the concepts you mention here. What did you think of it?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Far be it from me to defend God, or more specifically theism, but the discussion 1Robin and I are having centres around Craig's logical (not scientific) defence of the concepts you mention here. What did you think of it?

I have been through almost all of William Lane Craig's arguments for the philosophical arguments of the nature of god and I have to say that he makes far too many blunders and contradictions in his efforts that I just cannot take him as anything less than a charlatan.

My theology heavily relies upon panentheism, ignosticism, and deism while Craig's just spans across the map avoiding any argument which could leave one outside of the Abrahamic domain.

His contradictions for the Kalam argument are the most humorous such as his assertion that a willpower must exist in order for a first cause to occur. Hamza Tzortis a Muslim apologeticist uses the same argument at it fails simply because of the fact that time does not predate time. No will or consciousness is required for a first cause. But Hamza and Craig both need this to prove an intervening god.

Also his claims of the Atheistic/Scientific assertion of infinite matter/existence on the philosophical perspective is also a fail since he pulls a major strawman out of the hate to assert that atheists believe that matter is infinite in nature because of its formation from energy that there is no true first cause. No atheist asserts this though.

Craig's presuppositionalist arguments fail do to presupposed biases simply. He is a joke in most regards and not a heavy hitter.

 

[Copernicus]

Just a few comments to lewisnotmiller regarding his discussion with 1robin.

2) I actually like the way Craig argued his points. I like the way he acknowledged the emotional, but clearly stated his argument was logical. He set the parameters, and stuck to them. I have watch some of his live debating, and he clearly has some skill at it, and I found him amusing at times (which is obviously part of the skill).

When I read through the cited article, I did not have the same admiration for the way he argued his points. He started out with rather clear renditions of arguments from Epicurus, Hume, and J.L. Mackie, but he never really addressed their arguments with anything like the same clarity. He threw in a lot of familiar defenses by others such as Plantinga and a fair number of logical fallacies--appeals to popularity and authority. So, to me, it came off as a rather familiar rehash of the debates that we see all the time between theists and non-theists, but Craig's restatement was much more eloquent. He purported to be focusing on just the problem of evil, and that was a repetitive theme. Yet he threw in all of the other arguments in passing--a "kitchen sink" technique that tends to overwhelm the reader with a torrent of very questionable assumptions and Anselm-inspired arguments--the teleological argument, the ontological argument, etc. So his train of thought doesn't really remain coherently focused for those who find the chain of his logic continually broken by weak or illogical claims. Because it is well-written, it sounds very impressive to those who have already bought the conclusion he is reaching for. They can ignore the logical missteps as he carries them towards their desired terminus.

3) Regarding my comments around 'disatisfaction' with his arguments...Purely from a logical point of view, I found holes in his argument. As requested by you (understandably I might add) I focused on a single argument rather than scatter-gunning. So for our purpose here, my sole focus is on the argument that evil is not incompatible with an omni-benevolent, and omnipotent God, and I do so from a probalistic point of view, not a certain point of view. As Craig did, I am attempting to set the parameters of my argument clearly, so you can fairly respond. Nothing more.

It sounds like Craig's reasoning came off to you in pretty much the same way he did to me--a scatter-gun approach. Throw a lot of stuff at the wall and hope that something sticks. You used Craig's term "probabalistic", but he was really waving his hands at probability and a lot of other things. What he was referring to was an argument from plausibility, which is almost universally the position that atheists take, although J. L. Mackie was talking about a very specific concept of God that he argued rather effectively was impossible. (I groaned when Craig came up with the fatuously false "butterfly-hurricane" claim and passing reference to chaos theory.)

4) The broad thrust of my argument is that Craig has not explained evil which has no impact on humans. The entirety of his argument in this realm focuses on the human impact of evil. I am arguing that this neither acknowledges, nor deals with the fact that evil exists, quite apart from human impact.

All prey find predators to be "evil", but the glaring error in Craig's thinking is that he does not really address the concept of depraved indifference. Also, as Mackie once pointed out, it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to avoid responsibility by not acting or for an omnipotent being to be willfully ignorant of anything.

 

[1robin]

How does a believer come to grips that Israelites did not exist before 1200 BC, and that they evolved from displaced Canaanites and other Semitic speaking people in the Levant ?

You mean the nation? The Hebrew culture? The blood line? I do not understand the questions. My God was around long before 1200 BC as well as his revelation. However Israel did not evolve from the Canaanites nor would that have mattered anyway.

Israel Finklestein claims this to be fact, and really no one argues it.

Yes they do, and if it mattered I would as well.

I do believe it is factual that there was no conquest, but yet a peaceful migration after 1200 BC.

How do you deal with their polytheism to El, Yahweh, Baal, and Asherah the wife of both El and later Yahweh?

I do not get this. I have faith in God not the Hebrews as my savior. The Hebrews went astray many times and suffered terribly for it. Why would that affecet my faith in God?

Monotheism did not exist until after 622 and King Josiah's reforms, even then it took hundreds of years to stop the polytheism, yet the OT has some history all the way to 1000 BC. It is said by scholars that there were collections of scripture compiled and edited over hundreds of years, then redacted to monotheism to Yahweh alone after these monotheistic reforms.

You keep talking about what men have done and asking me how that effects my faith. I do not understand why.

How do you deal with the fact Yahweh and El were both Canaanite deities before Israelites even existed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)

Again I do not see what Israel or the names they applied to God has to do with anything. Most of those that believed in and accepted the Biblical God were not given his name. It was only in association with the Exodus events that God supplied his name. I will list several factors involved here that effect whatever it is your suggesting.

1. God had associated with and revealed himself to people outside the Bible. He may have given his name to others, I have no idea.
2. The fact he revealed his name to Hebrews in 900BC does not mean he was not associated with them and their ancestors back to Adam.
3. For some reason God places a lot of importance on his name and titles. He does not show up and say his name and then launch into a speech every time. His name was used in very limited fashion.
4. Even those that believed in him and used his name were sinful (all of them and all of us are the same). Some times they considered him one God among others. The Bible teaches they are wrong, but that would not show up in the history of their beliefs.
5. In primitive culture past they slapped new names on old concepts of God or old names on new ones.

The issue is what is true not when did Israel begin to exist, what name was used by what group, if God revealed himself to people not among the authors of the Bible.

I shy away from discussing the first five books because they were written when historical records are most scarce. If you wish to discuss the Gospels far more certainty exists to corroborate the Bible with. It is those four books that a Christian derives his faith. When I was born again it was Christ not the date the Hebrew nation began that was on my mind and that is the best place for a discussion to begin. I believe the OT as much as the NT but it is much harder to verify and much less relevant to my faith. Your post was confusing, I was not sure what your asking. You seem to have looked over the last 5000 years, picked anything that is contended commonly, and they all come from the most dim period of history where the least chance of corroboration either way is available. Why?

 

[outhouse]

You mean the nation? The Hebrew culture? The blood line?

Israelites as a people did not exist prior to 1200 BC, at that time they were proto Israelites.

The blood line is factually unknown even from 1000 BC.

I do not understand the questions.

Its obvious.


We are talking about real history, not biblical history which is not history. It is theology and mythology some times combined with real history but not always.

My God was around long before 1200 BC as well as his revelation.

That is false unless you have real evidence. Yahweh was unknown before 1500 BC. he wasnt the national god of Israelites until after 622 BC

However Israel did not evolve from the Canaanites nor would that have mattered anyway.

Yes they did. And early on they used the Canaanite religion, their houses and pottery identical.

I do not get this.

Its obvious.

I have faith in God not the Hebrews as my savior

Wonderful, but your required to have faith in Israelites as they are the ones who wrote about your deity

The Hebrews went astray many times and suffered terribly for it

No they did not. They suffered because many larger more powerful civilizations surrounded them

Again I do not see what Israel or the names they applied to God has to do with anything.

Gods not a god.

Israelites worshipped a few


Monotheism to yahweh took quite a while after the reforms


What you fail to realize is much of the bible deals with multiple deities.

Elohim and Yahweh were two different deities, El and Yahweh were compiled together, redacted after 622 BC

It was only in association with the Exodus events that God supplied his name

yet scholars claim the exodus never happened as written.

2. The fact he revealed his name to Hebrews in 900BC does not mean he was not associated with them and their ancestors back to Adam.

Adam is probably mythical and has no real place in history at this time.

900 BC Israelites worshipped Elohim, Yahweh, Baal, and Asherah gods wife. So your wrong.

5. In primitive culture past they slapped new names on old concepts of God or old names on new ones.

No they did not.

They had their own deities, they defined differently.

Your abrahamic god evolved, which often mirrored the people and their cultural needs.

I shy away from discussing the first five books because they were written when historical records are most scarce.

These books evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years.

They factually were not written down in one time period.

Your post was confusing, I was not sure what your asking.

Because you dont kow how the books were written, nor why.

You dont know the real history surrounding these books, people, culture or religious views.

You seem to have looked over the last 5000 years

Your wrong again

Israelites history doesnt go back that far.

It only goes back to 1200 BC when they were proto Israelites.

I deal a little with the late Canaanite culture but not much.

 

[1robin]

Hola...
So, there's obviously a lot of ground to cover, in terms of your detailed response (and I appreciate the effort, to be honest) but I'll not do the quote thing. Instead, I'll just respond directly to this bit above, and then more generally to the rest.

For me, I quite enjoy the chance to debate this stuff. No fear of me getting belligerent. Honestly, I find this quite stimulating. I like debate, and I'm adult enough to see the difference between playing the man and playing the ball, so to speak. I'll try and cover things by point form, just to cover as much ground as possible, and hopefully my paraphrasing will be accurate enough. If I misconstrue your arguments, just correct me. I won't take offence.

I have over many years of debate (and being an atheist as well as a Christian for decades each) developed a constant suspicion about motivations. I however do not act on that suspicion. As long as I can grant my opposite with sincerity I will treat them as if they have it. So far you seem to be sincere and I will act as if that is true until I am convinced other wise.

1) 'No dramas' is a common Australian-ism...We also say 'No worries' or 'No problem', and when asked how we are, often say 'Not bad'. This reverse-speak is cultural, and often confuses the heck out of the Swedes and Sri Lankans I regularly work with. 'Why don't you just say you are Good?' Meh. Diversion...sorry about that.

That was a very sophisticated explanation. No dramas or drachmas.

2) I actually like the way Craig argued his points. I like the way he acknowledged the emotional, but clearly stated his argument was logical. He set the parameters, and stuck to them. I have watch some of his live debating, and he clearly has some skill at it, and I found him amusing at times (which is obviously part of the skill).

He is one of the best. He sits on several college boards and has a pedigree as good as anyone. He is also very warm and gentle personally but can be, and should be lethal to bad argumentation. He is the only debater atheists claim can put the fear of God into them. All of them say they get more e-mails from atheists saying "don't blow it" when facing him than any other.

3) Regarding my comments around 'disatisfaction' with his arguments...Purely from a logical point of view, I found holes in his argument. As requested by you (understandably I might add) I focused on a single argument rather than scatter-gunning. So for our purpose here, my sole focus is on the argument that evil is not incompatible with an omni-benevolent, and omnipotent God, and I do so from a probalistic point of view, not a certain point of view. As Craig did, I am attempting to set the parameters of my argument clearly, so you can fairly respond. Nothing more.

I believe your example was the cockroach. That was certainly specific but in that case specificity does not resolve anything. The cockroaches' behavior was not specifically intended by God. So it has little power to overturn any of Craig's comments. I got the impression you thought Craig was saying that all evil in all aspects was specifically determined by God so as to produce faith. Craig was being far more general than that and meant that evil in general was to provide evidence that something is terribly wrong. Not that every measure of evil has an equal measure of gain corresponding to it.

4) The broad thrust of my argument is that Craig has not explained evil which has no impact on humans. The entirety of his argument in this realm focuses on the human impact of evil. I am arguing that this neither acknowledges, nor deals with the fact that evil exists, quite apart from human impact.

I think I explained that above. Let me use an analogy to hopefully make it clearer. Lets say I gave a family a house and all that I required was their faith and love for providing it. (in this case that was the reason the house and the family were created). I promised to maintain the house perfectly if those conditions are met. They moved in and told me to take a hike. I no longer maintain the house so as to show them their decisions cost. I promised to build them a mansion if they just had faith again. They refused and one day a beam fell down and killed one of the great great grand kids. I did not want the beam to kill them, I did not set out to allow beams to fall, I did not cause the beam to fall directly, and I regret the damage done. Now in what way is the beams killing of the child proof I did not exist or evidence that I did not.

5) Your own arguments and clarifications are also focused on the human impact of evil. This does nothing to convince me. Whilst I would acknowledge I am unlikely to be convinced of God's existence via this argument, I have an open mind to at least seeing the fallacy of my point. But it would need some discussion of evil without frame in human terms.

Again the existence of evil was to indicate the costs and quality of our choice to sin and rebel. It only has purposes related to us. Even it is not the end in its self. God does not want us to die separated from him by our rebellion. If our rebellion did not cost us (at times dearly) then human nature shows that we will not believe they ever would costs us. Even the awful costs we have do not convince us. In 5000 years we have had 300 of peace. We do not learn in general. However once in a while a person recognizes what is going on and changes. That is the purpose of evil but that was the specific purpose of every aspect of evil. Evil is simply the lack of God and what that produces. I can't separate evil from humanity because humanity is why evil exists.

Let me turn this around as the master Ravi Zacharias has done so many times.

The claim evil exists so God can't.
1. If evil exists then good must exist for evil to be a unique category.
2. If Evil and good exist then there must be a moral law by which to judge which is which.
3. If there exists a moral law there must exist a moral law giver. (nature does not have the capacity to make anything good or evil).
4. The only possible source known for a moral law is God.

Conclusion evil proves God exists.

6) Bugs have nothing to do with my disbelief in God. The only relevance they have here is as an example of evil which occurs apart from impact on humans. On the scale of evil (1-100 as you put it) they probably rate a 1. Hitler might rate a 99. Craig's argument explains Hitler, but does not explain the wasp. From my point of view it is not the degree of evil that is important, but the manner in which it fits within his explanations of the compatability of evil and an omni-benevolent, omnipotent God. Honestly, there is no emotive content in this argument. If I was going an emotive route, I would argue it entirely differently. I am directly tying my argument to the point argued by Craig.

In my analogy above there would have been ways in which that house deteriorated which had no impact on the family living in it. It would naturally flow from my no longer maintaining the house but would not be evidence I as the architect never built it or intended its decay to indicate the loss incurred by rejecting me.

I think you are taking an argument about the general reason for evil and applying it to every aspect of evil. I hope my analogy clears that up. Craig was explaining the existence of evil, not the purpose of every case where it occurs.

Let my state something here that I didn't not want to be misunderstood. God's judges corporately and individually. He judged the universe corporately and like the house is allowing it to deteriorate by his inaction in general. He can also act specifically through a certain act whether that act be good or bad from our perspective. He took his hand off nature in general but still acts by suspending natural law on rare occasions comparatively. Your roach is probably not one of these miraculous acts but a general one. The sending of the locusts was a direct act for example.

Sidenote for Clarification : Evil, much like morality, would be considered a subjective term in my worldview. I think you made some reference to this, and I'd agree. I do not believe in true, Biblical-style evil, and I do not believe in objective morality. However, it seems useless to debate along those lines, so in the context of this thread I am attempting to assume the existence of true evil and objective morality.

Yes without God evil becomes an illusion. It is only preference and convenience redefined as morality. Moral truth can't possibly exist without a transcendent standard. I understand your assumption and am pleasantly surprised a non-theist understands what is true and necessary so well.

PS: If, by football, you mean NFL, then I am a Niners fan. Make of that what you will, but I harboured deep-seated Cowboy hate during my formative years.

I no longer really care about sports to much. I used to be a raiders fan back in the long hair, constantly penalized, Stabler era and am from Alabama so I keep up with the tide but have long ago ceased taking it too seriously outside not liking basketball at all but that is probably because I always played baseball and football instead. I should have played the guitar or drums and I would not have arthritis and pains in my joints constantly.