can you proove there isn't a deity?

[Quirkybird]

I will note that although I do believe that Jesus was most likely a real person, I don't believe that he was the Son of God. I believe his message got twisted around. I believe his message was exactly like that Gospel of Thomas quote I posted earlier. We are all sons of God. Not of a literal man-like deity, but rather we are all part of this great existence...the light that shines over all things, from whence all came forth and to which all return. That which God is, is inside us and all around us.

What a sensible post.:yes:

 

[1robin]

Do you know anything at all about the religion you follow?

That was certainly productive. For some reason the formatting of your post placed format scripts before and after every sentence. It made it far too hard to understand. I will copy your last paragraph just to show some examples of where this very modern liberal scholarship goes so terribly wrong and supply counter evidence as well. Parallelism is about the worst anti-Christian argument there is. BTW why is a Harvard student constantly using Wikipedia?

In the course of the Christianisation of Europe in the Early Middle Ages, the Christian churches adopted many elements of national cult and folk religion,[1] resulting in national churches like Latin, Germanic, Russian, Armenian, Greek and so on. Some Pagan ceremonies were brought in and the festivals became modern holidays as pagans joined the early church.[1] The Pagan vernal equinox celebration was 'Christianized'[1] and then referred to as the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary or Annunciation of the Lord and celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation.

So far we have claims that outside influences were incorporated into CHURCH PRACTICES. I agree and have always agreed to that. That has nothing to do with the Christianity it's self. You are going to have to separate what a church or group did with what our revelations and doctrines say. The core Christian revelations and doctrines had been established long before a group here or there adopted some outside practice. What does the fact the Romans adopted Dec 25th as Christ's birthday have to do with his existing and being the messiah? What does the Roman's adopting Easter as his birth have to do with the virgin birth? These are both traditions nor revelations. They were thought by idiot Catholics to make the faith more palatable to Pagans. I condemn these traditions but my faith is based on Christ dying for me not what day he was born on. Every group on Earth is influenced by heir neighbors, nothing new or meaningful here. However Christian revelation was not established by the importation of anything from others. I will get into more of this later.

The Germanic Pagan solstice celebrations (Midsummer festivals) are also sometimes referred to by Neopagans and others as Litha, stemming from Bede's De temporum ratione and the fire festival or Lith- Summer solstice was a tradition for many pagans. This pagan holiday was basically brought in and given a name change, and in Christianity was then associated with the nativity of John the Baptist, which now is observed on the same day, June 24, in the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant churches. It is six months before Christmas because Luke 1:26 and Luke 1.36 imply that John the Baptist was born six months earlier than Jesus, although the Bible does not say at which time of the year this happened.[2]

I see we have more about Catholic tradition and nothing about the bible. I do not believe, nor care, nor have ever heard the dates associated with John the Baptist. Who cares? There is nothing more offensive ort damnable to me that Catholic tradition usurping scripture. However the protestants believe in Scriptural Sola, and the Catholics have reversed their dominance of tradition over scripture many times over (why do you not know this?). No Christian on Earth is a Christian because traditions about John the Baptists date of birth. I have never heard a sermon on it, never read about it in Sunday school, I have never even heard a person mention it and it is not part of revelation. I have no idea what your doing here, but it is having no effect on Christianity as revelation.

One goal of the Reformation was to return the Christian churches to the state of early Christianity. Restorationists such as Jehovah's Witnesses continue to argue that mainstream Christianity has departed from Apostolic Christianity due, in part, to such Pagan influences.[3] See also Great Apostasy.

That is far too simplistic. The Church (not the doctrine it is based on) has ebbed and flowed from being very reflective of Christian doctrine to being compromised by outside influences, but the text bears almost no parallel. With far less than 5% corruption the text (which is Christianity) has remain the same, and because it has an unparalleled textual tradition we know every error or change and every modern bible notates them and explains them. With 95% exactness and the awareness of even the 5% error their exists nor problem with actual Christianity even if every Church on Earth started worshiping the almighty Turnip. Actual Christianity is revelational doctrine not church practice. God and the Bible remain true even if every Christian was wrong.

Romans 3:4 BBE
Bible in Basic English

In no way: but let God be true, though every man is seen to be untrue; as it is said in the Writings, That your words may be seen to be true, and you may be seen to be right when you are judged.


Now besides that fact that you gave no evidence Christianity (the Bible) was pagan influenced and the faultiness of faulty men is not note worthy in this context let me add why it is almost certain no one would have tried to bring in anything from paganism in the 1st - 3rd century AD Israel.

As anyone can read in the OT testament the Jews were constantly being misled by their neighbors and people outside Judaism. They had paid a dear price in blood and suffering over and over again. They had finally as always happens swung completely to far the other way. They jealously guarded their Judaism at this time and were intolerant of even slight distortions of it. Another reasons was they were occupied at the time and Judaism served to unite them culturally. They were a nation of zealots. The very last thing you could ever hope would be adopted by zealous Jews was pagan influenced doctrine. You were guaranteed of banishment or death. Paul was one of those who was doing everything he could to eradicate outside influence in Judaism and yet spoke more on Christianity and grace than any of the apostles. Paganism would not sell in 1st century Israel. Why in the world risk and lose you life trying to market what no one wanted (especially some bizarre hybrid) that neither the Romans nor Jews would accept?

I mean no offense nor satire but are you just beginning your biblical textual studies? These arguments are sophomoric and your sources never seem scholarly, and these were not even on the subject at all.

1. Church corruption is common, admitted, and condemned by mean. It is also not the subject at all.
2. The bible is the subject and not only is it hauntingly accurate and free from outside influence but not touched by anything you said here at all.


http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-pagan-christianity.htm

 

[1robin]

This is embarrassing


It is not fact or fiction.


It is theology. Written using, metaphor, poem, allegory, and well known mythology.

So you have invented a whole new category. Things are either true, false, or NEITHER. Of course the bible contains allegory and parable. It is quite honest and forthright about doing so. The parables either represent fact or fiction. Myth has nothing to do with the bible, metaphors - poems - parables - and allegory are pretty much the same things and either represent fact or fantasy. I claim they represent fact, I guess you claim they represent NEITHER. I have never encountered the bible is neither true nor false claim before. Non-theists are a prolific if not rational lot.

 

[Quirkybird]

So you have invented a whole new category. Things are either true, false, or NEITHER. Of course the bible contains allegory and parable. It is quite honest and forthright about doing so. The parables either represent fact or fiction. Myth has nothing to do with the bible, metaphors - poems - parables - and allegory are pretty much the same things and either represent fact or fantasy. I claim they represent fact, I guess you claim they represent NEITHER. I have never encountered the bible is neither true nor false claim before. Non-theists are a prolific if not rational lot.

It seems to me some people have the ability to swallow stories like the creation and flood in the Bible, and believe them to be literally true, when if found in any other book they would think them works of fiction! One can only suppose they don't permit logic to intrude where their belief system is concerned.

 

[1robin]

Here is your pagan Yahweh

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

Wikipedia again. Harvard would be so proud. I would not advise o doctorial thesis based on Wikipedia.

BTW I checked twice and it was a dead link.

Another point you made was only off by 700 years or so. The oldest Biblical literature is dated to the 12th century BC, not 500BC.

God suggests he was to known to many people long before Israel existed. Adam, Lot, Noah, and Abraham for example were not Jewish yet knew God. I have no reason to think that among the many false identities given to false Gods many cultures believe in the true God. IN the course of progressive revelation many times true is eventually strained out of falsehoods originally not challenged early on in history. For example almost everyone believe in multiple God's, unless it was what God was interested in illuminating at the time the belief was not directly challenged until mankind was ready to accept only one God existed. This is true of a thousand things associated with progressive revelation. Just as we do not challenge a child's belief in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny ( I would not teach my children they were true but do not interferer with other children's beliefs) when very young, God is only interested in teaching certain things at certain times. Only in the fullness of time did Christ come, only in time did the requirement to put away false God's come. Also Yahweh could mean God as well as be a proper name for God. So who meant what by the word is hard to nail down. Even the same culture used the words both ways.

Let me make a note on this Canaanite versus Jewish issue. Abraham was led to Canaan. What would be the Jewish people lived in Canaan until a famine struck. Many of them migrated to Egypt. They stayed there as (forced labor or slaves) for 400 hundred years or so . They eventually left and went back to Canaan and this is when they came into conflict and existed as distinct cultures formed from a single genetic group. This explains a couple of things.

1. Why two of the very few uses (and the oldest) of the word Yahweh are found in Egypt.
2. Why the Jewish culture was distinct from the Canaanite culture until they much later blended somewhat.
3. It also explains why Yahweh is only found in the western (Jewish) sematic Canaanite language roots (not in the eastern strictly Canaanite cultures).
4. Yahweh is not a proper name anyway. It is actually a verb. It means to be, or to cause. It is usually attached to EL or some action. Like I am who I am, or he who causes deliverance. It is not like William Smith and was a God like attribute title.
5. The overwhelming (maybe 95%) of the information we have on Yahweh is biblical. So if textual evidence is the standard the bible's claims are by far more certain. However like many of the secondary details from 4000 years ago it is probably unknowable which brings me to a point.

Anyone interested in actual truth would start at the most knowable claim. Only people who wish to hide preference in the unknowable discuss the most ambiguous parts of a claim. If a scientist made two claims, that 2 = 2 = 5 and that multiverses exist would not his 2 + 2 claim be where his merit should be first tested. I do not think anyone knows nor ever will the actual origination of the word Yahweh. There has not even been a record of how it was pronounced since 70AD. I do not think a single Christians faith is based on the name Yahweh in any way.

 

[1robin]

It seems to me some people have the ability to swallow stories like the creation and flood in the Bible, and believe them to be literally true, when if found in any other book they would think them works of fiction! One can only suppose they don't permit logic to intrude where their belief system is concerned.

Well true or false that is logical. If there is as has been claimed many times 25,000 historical corroborations for the Bible and outside of known scribal a few known scribal errors no provable historical mistakes it is much more logical to conclude that only concerning what is untestable did the bible's authors suddenly loose their minds. I myself have given up determining what category the stories even belong in. I do not know whether one groups theory about their literalism is true or the other groups theory about analogy is. My faith does not depend on these obscure stories. It depends on the well corroborated historical claims in the new testament. Some things in the bible I know are true (like God existence and what the salvation experience is), some things are very well evidenced conclusions like Christ's resurrection, some are less evidenced like Israel's status in Egypt, some are pure faith like the flood, and some are virtual philosophic and scientific necessities like creation ex nihilo and modal being.

The mistake is to take the uncertainty concerning the pure faith conclusions and extrapolate it to well corroborated historical claims or claims to experience.

 

[1robin]

What a sensible post.:yes:

What may be sensible and what is true, are two independent realities. As histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence conclude the Gospels pass every modern test in law for sincerity and reliability. See Simon Greenleaf or Lord Lyndhurst as referenced.

 

[1robin]

Valid arguments have accepted properties that make them valid in just the same fashion.

I thought of a way to illustrate what my major problem is with this criteria. Lets say we are given an argument X. You say it is invalid according to logical validity and I say your understanding of logical validity is incorrect. Exactly how do we tell who is right. What objective standard for logical validity exists to settle the issue? There is not one. That is why I say it is pure opinion. Any conclusion about validity would simply be an opinion. They are useful and rational in most cases and supply a common ground for discussions. I have read Craig stating numerous reasons why the Cosmological argument is valid. You can agree or disagree but there is no objective criteria by which to determine the truth. That on top of it being a standard that justifies false arguments more easily that true ones and you have a self defeating and arbitrary criteria. By arbitrary I mean a standard that does not correlate with truth.

You've contradicted yourself. If the cosmological argument is a good argument using my terms, then it is substantive (non-trivial) and sound (it is logically valid, and its premises are all true)- but you then say it may not be logically valid. Since logical validity is a necessary condition for soundness, and a sound deductive argument is generally what is taken to be a "good one" (or, at the very least, a valid argument whose premises are probably true), we most certainly "give a rip" whether the argument is valid.

I said an argument can be logically invalid and still have justifications for it's rationality. I have been avoiding it as hard as possible, but I have repeatedly said every step in the argument has validation of one kind or another. I am avoiding it because they are not listed all together and I have to search through two books to dig up the justification for each step in what is obviously a reasonable argument. I hate these technical and procedural discussions because the technicalities are completely independent from truth.

For example the claim that the universe is not infinitely old is valid because it must be either finite or infinite and infinite causal chains and actual infinite quantities are not traversable. Anyone could see the claim is perfectly justified yet some arbitrary criteria (independent from truth) can be hatched in some think tank some where to invalidate anything. I do not care about think tanks, I care about truth.

This is not what I asked for. I've already pointed out, ad naseum, that validity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a "good argument"- meaning, when we determine whether a deductive argument is good, we certainly want to know whether it is valid- but then we also need to know something else as well. This does not mean that validity is irrelevant- just that it is not the whole story. If you want to be able to ignore validity, you need to give an example of a good deductive argument that is logically invalid, not a valid argument that is not good. Seriously, I feel like a broken record here.

Do you think I do not understand what you are saying. I am saying I understand it but do not concur. I think there are many truths that would not survive the technicality wars waged against them. In the exact same way false claims can be "approved" by a criteria and be perfectly wrong. I like philosophy and science but as in all subjects it always gets pushed beyond competence. The same is true with the fact most people get promoted one level beyond competence. I understand what your saying but I do not agree with it as a criteria valid for truth. I believe it is fact counterproductive in many cases. I believe we should conclude a client is guilty that is whether any procedure was violated in proving it or not. Don't take that analogy to literally.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

It most certainly pertains to formal or informal debate- mathematical logic is not different from any other sort of logic on this point. Validity is validity, which is premises following from a conclusion. Its really that simple. In an informal debate, if you give an argument in which your conclusion does not follow from your premises, then you will most likely lose the debate.

The cosmological argument is not a claim to certainty. It is a claim to logical consistency or best fit. It is logical, rational, justifiable (informally if you wish to split hairs) but has existed in formal debates and considered among the best arguments for God in academia by those most experienced with technical philosophy. In recent research I read it is the most debated argument concerning God in western culture. In (maybe) hundreds of formal debates I have seen or read I have never heard a single atheist claim the argument is technically invalid. They usually simply claim it is uncertain or other explanations can exist. To be fair they are usually not professional philosophers but are scientists or physicists.

AND if it is logically valid. Google it, look it up on any website or textbook you care to pick. Soundness is validity, and true premises.

Talk about futility of repetition. I have granted the technical basis for your objection. I just deny it's authority. Tell me something. In what field or on what basis is the criteria for logical validity useful? Where does it help arrive at truth? I can not even find a reasonable theoretical use for it.

Yeah, neither of these arguments are sound, and neither are the full argument we're talking about (i.e. the cosmological argument for the existence of God), and we're not past the basic stuff about validity and soundness yet, so we'll just leave this be for now.

I have said time and again each step of the argument has an individual validity or reason for acceptance. It would be very rare for a complex argument to have an identical reason to accept it's every step. There are just to name a few deductive validity, inductive validity, non-contradiction, soundness, properly basic, evidence, causal reasoning, elimination of possibilities (in known sets), inferential logic, related rates, modal logic, and even persuasiveness alone (which is hyperbolically arbitrary. Let me illustrate why I do not like these technicalities of philosophers.

Hume said: Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Besides being complete crap the statement is self condemning. I do not have time for that garbage.

Someone told Craig and Plantinga that belief in God was not properly basic because it was not self evident. Now let's pretend they were right to begin with their comments dealt with the application of the standard all together.

Their response from Craig's: A reasonable response.
1. Of only self evident and incorrigible positions are properly basic, then we are all irrational, since we all commonly accept numerous beliefs that are not based on evidence and are neither self-evident nor incorrigible.
2. The proposition that "Only beliefs that are self evident or incorrigible are properly basic" is not it's self self-evident nor incorrigible.

A criteria that cannot survive it's self leaves me writing the credibility of the one who states it off entirely. There is no test for these claims. We can't go check and see if they are true. I think while they may have value their use as an arbiter is way over employed.

Irrelevant hand-waving.

How is this response not guilty of it's own accusation. I was pointing out the fact that the technicalities dreamed up by philosophers do not necessarily apply top all arguments and do not always correlate with truth.

Now you're just equivocating.

Nope, by now I am simply exhausted with the attempt to disqualify a reasonable claim by the use of a technicality of which there is absolutely no way of verifying the truth of. The timeless acceptance of the argument as a potent claim speaks much louder than technicality. The undertaker just can't keep the corpse in the coffin.

Seriously? Its not that hard, we can literally come up with an indefinite number of trivially valid arguments, including the good ol' "Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal" example.

Trivial or not that argument and the cosmological argument have a reasonable premise and conclusion.

Yeah, we aren't talking about inductive arguments, which are ALL deductively invalid, regardless of whether they are good or not. The cosmological argument isn't an inductive argument. It is a deductive argument. (in other words, what is true of inductive arguments is irrelevant here: give me an example of a good deductive argument that is invalid- that is all that is pertinent)

What is the standard for goodness? This is sort of like morality without God. I do not care what terminology you dress it up in not how technically it is described it is pure opinion without an objective reference by which to determine who's opinion is right. Craig (and many of histories greatest thinkers) claim the cosmological argument is valid, you claim standards exist that show it invalid. I am saying how do you know who is actually right. Since they are both opinions and in effect wash out then we wind up exactly where we started and I have been the whole time (but without the ability to keep you there) in the realm of common sense. The argument is reasonable according to every thing I know and believe anyone without bias could admit it is reasonable if not conclusive. It takes a real expert to invalidate the reasonable in the name of being reasonable.


Look I am bored stupid by this discussion so I will summarize it and leave it up to you.

1. The cosmological argument is reasonable according to the common language use of reasonable (it is absurd when qualifications like that are necessary) and has been acknowledged as such for thousands of years, and still is.
2. It not meet some arbitrary criteria used in technical academia but that has little to do with it's reasonability.
3. Craig and Plantinga among others say the argument is reasonable (and technically valid) and you say (among others) it is not. I do not care. There is no way to who is right about either it's reasonability or the standard of logical validity. It simply exists in the minds of men.
4. That is a wash out and only leaves us with common sense. I claim anyone not prejudiced would conclude the argument is reasonable if not conclusive.
5. In all sincerity and honesty I have never seen anyone as aware of the technical aspects of philosophy as Craig. Right or wrong (and there is no objective standard) I have never seen his equal for pure knowledge. He is like a robot. The fact that even professionals as candid and technical as he, Aquinas, Plantinga, etc... and the fact the argument has no flaws I honestly can find personally (beyond the fact it is not a certainty), is more than enough for me to know claims of it's actual (objective) invalidity are flawed in principle.

I claim the client is guilty and obviously so whether you have a valid objection or not and am so bored as to no longer care about the technical validity of the objection.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What may be sensible and what is true, are two independent realities. As histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence conclude the Gospels pass every modern test in law for sincerity and reliability. See Simon Greenleaf or Lord Lyndhurst as referenced.

Greatest experts in evidence and testimony because they are lawyers? Is that correct? Personally, I would look to science for that evidence first.

 

[1robin]

There are Gospels wriiten in Greek afterall.

This furthers the Gnostic argument that Yahweh is not the Christ God, since Yahweh is a pagan deity not the one true God(this does not go for kabbalah).
yehweh was part of the Babylonian patheon.

yehweh(the deity) is considered an imposter god in Gnosticism. The real God is in our hearts, the one Jesus talked about. Yehweh(yahdoloth) is a renegade aeon(angel) that out of pride claimed to be equal to the unknowable God, hes described as Satan.

Was this aimed at me? If so I just covered the Yahweh origin thing in another thread. Should be easy to find if searched for, I lost track of which one I posted it in.

 

[1robin]

So you're own Bible clearly states that God made man and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life so he could become a living being, then later on the Bible goes on to state how man should rule over every other living thing that creeps on the Earth... I don't get how you can think that man is the only nephesh creature if the meaning of the word nephesh is literally "breath of life".

I did not say man is the only one. However that would be the logical deduction from man's being pre-eminent over every other living thing. It surely does not follow from being over every other thing to being equal to every other. Have you never heard the term soulish creature? It would make no sense to have that term if every other creature was soulish. I cannot remember which creatures are said to have souls but it was by far the minority.

Also, why the need for so many versions and interpretations of the Bible?

There is no need but given that it is a very cryptic and symbolic text written over thousands of years and covers the most important and controversial issues in history it is certainly not unexpected. I is a dire mistake to confuse uncertainty with non-existence. Virtually no issue has universal agreement.

Obviously they must have got at least one of those interpretations wrong or they wouldn't have had to revise it....sounds fishy to me. There is obviously some serious human error going on there. I can not trust that kind of "Word" or revelation. I am not a pantheist, I am an animist. I have no need for gods. The closest thing I would consider to being god-like are those naturally existing, animate forces of nature. To me, the belief in an all powerful god resembling an old man with gray hair and a beard that created the Earth by flapping his magic hands around is silly. It falls along the same lines as the belief in Santa Claus...very much a childish fantasy.

The forces of nature being given God like essence is what I understood to be the heart of pantheism.

If three reporters went to a ball game and one said team X won, the other said Y lost and another only reported a hard struggle the worst conclusion possible is that no game was played. God gave only one pure revelation. Unlike every other single work in ancient history it only contains 5% error and none in core doctrine. The worst conclusion possible from that fact is that God did not reveal anything.

The biblical God is specifically said to not be composed of material but spirit. Don't get your theology from "family Guy' or the "the simpsons" for starters. God is spirit not man. He may assume a body but that body is not God.

How in the world is faith "right or wrong" childish. That is just baseless sarcasm for effect. It is also a statement of knowledge so you MUIST prove it. Good luck.

If all you have is whatever "animated forces of nature", how would you know murder was wrong. I am not asking how you could believe that I am asking how what you believed could possibly be true. Forces of nature by necessity cannot tell anyone the way things should be. Natural forces cannot create ex nihilo and do not want anything. Gravity doe snot care if you cheat on your wife.

 

[1robin]

Greatest experts in evidence and testimony because they are lawyers? Is that correct? Personally, I would look to science for that evidence first.

Let me ask if this is a reasonable criteria for "among the greatest experts" claim.

1. Greenleaf was the cofounder of the one of the greatest law schools in history (Harvard law) and he wrote text books on testimony and evidence used in most advanced nations. I have even read them while working in federal court rooms around the nation.
2. Lyndhurst is the only person in history to occupy every high court office of the largest empire in Earth's history.
3. Both have been at the top of every list of great legal minds I have ever seen.

Now if they are not qualified to examine testimony (and I could give dozens more near their credibility) then who would be?

BTW I do not know if I made a typing error or not. I always say two OF THE greatest (or try to) but now and then I forget the "OF THE" part. They may very well be THE two greatest but they are certainly among the greatest.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My views are strict protestant orthodox and also consistent with almost all of traditional Catholicism. If you disagree with me you are disagreeing with core Christianity. Does not make you wrong but it does make your disagreements suspicious. Let me ask an almost necessary but certainly not mandatory question. What makes you think you are a Christian since you disagree with orthodox Christianity? First tell me how you KNOW you are a Christian then tell me the core beliefs you have. This is personal so feel free not to reply.

I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone else. Who do you think you are? Protestantism and Catholicism are very different, anyway.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I thought of a way to illustrate what my major problem is with this criteria. Lets say we are given an argument X. You say it is invalid according to logical validity and I say your understanding of logical validity is incorrect. Exactly how do we tell who is right.

The same way we would settle it if I said X was a triangle and you said it was not: we'd open some sources on logic, and we would find that all of them say the same thing- validity is when the conclusion of an argument follows from its premises.

For example the claim that the universe is not infinitely old is valid

Only "valid" in a different sense of the word "valid".

Do you think I do not understand what you are saying. I am saying I understand it but do not concur. I think there are many truths that would not survive the technicality wars waged against them. In the exact same way false claims can be "approved" by a criteria and be perfectly wrong. I like philosophy and science but as in all subjects it always gets pushed beyond competence. The same is true with the fact most people get promoted one level beyond competence. I understand what your saying but I do not agree with it as a criteria valid for truth.

It isn't a criteria for truth. Validity and truth are related, but not the same. But if you understand this simple point I'm making- about validity being a necessary but not sufficient condition for a sound deductive argument (and a good deductive argument being one that is sound, or at least probably sound) then so much of what you've said is irrelevant. More likely you just want your cake and to eat it too.

The cosmological argument is not a claim to certainty. It is a claim to logical consistency or best fit. It is logical, rational, justifiable (informally if you wish to split hairs) but has existed in formal debates and considered among the best arguments for God in academia by those most experienced with technical philosophy. In recent research I read it is the most debated argument concerning God in western culture. In (maybe) hundreds of formal debates I have seen or read I have never heard a single atheist claim the argument is technically invalid. They usually simply claim it is uncertain or other explanations can exist. To be fair they are usually not professional philosophers but are scientists or physicists.

Most of this is not relevant- what you think people say or think about the cosmological argument has no bearing on whether it is valid, sound, or compelling. It is none of these, because of the simple fact that its premises could be true, and the conclusion false.

Talk about futility of repetition. I have granted the technical basis for your objection. I just deny it's authority. Tell me something. In what field or on what basis is the criteria for logical validity useful?

Any in which deductive inference is involved.

I have said time and again each step of the argument has an individual validity or reason for acceptance. It would be very rare for a complex argument to have an identical reason to accept it's every step. There are just to name a few deductive validity, inductive validity, non-contradiction, soundness, properly basic, evidence, causal reasoning, elimination of possibilities (in known sets), inferential logic, related rates, modal logic, and even persuasiveness alone (which is hyperbolically arbitrary. Let me illustrate why I do not like these technicalities of philosophers.

Hume said: Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Besides being complete crap the statement is self condemning. I do not have time for that garbage.

Someone told Craig and Plantinga that belief in God was not properly basic because it was not self evident. Now let's pretend they were right to begin with their comments dealt with the application of the standard all together.

Their response from Craig's: A reasonable response.
1. Of only self evident and incorrigible positions are properly basic, then we are all irrational, since we all commonly accept numerous beliefs that are not based on evidence and are neither self-evident nor incorrigible.
2. The proposition that "Only beliefs that are self evident or incorrigible are properly basic" is not it's self self-evident nor incorrigible.

A criteria that cannot survive it's self leaves me writing the credibility of the one who states it off entirely. There is no test for these claims. We can't go check and see if they are true. I think while they may have value their use as an arbiter is way over employed.

How is this response not guilty of it's own accusation. I was pointing out the fact that the technicalities dreamed up by philosophers do not necessarily apply top all arguments and do not always correlate with truth.

This is called "throwing a whole bunch of ***** at the wall and hoping some will stick". Good gravy, what on earth is going on here? Talk about all over the place and confused... Fortunately, none of this is really relevant at all, so we'll just move along.

Trivial or not that argument and the cosmological argument have a reasonable premise and conclusion.

"Reasonable" is very vague. The cosmological argument is not valid- that is, even if its premises were true, the conclusion would not follow. It's premises are also neither true nor probably true, but appeal to facts not in evidence/are extremely contentious/are extremely speculative. But since it is not valid to begin with, the truth of the premises is sort of a footnote only, since they could be true and the conclusion would nevertheless not follow.

What is the standard for goodness?

Of a deductive argument? Validity and true premises (i.e. soundness), and pertinence.

Look I am bored stupid by this discussion so I will summarize it and leave it up to you.

1. The cosmological argument is reasonable according to the common language use of reasonable (it is absurd when qualifications like that are necessary)

Yeah, its not- or if it is, our common standard for what is reasonable has become a total joke, if it lets invalid arguments somehow count as "reasonable".

and has been acknowledged as such for thousands of years, and still is.

Well no, not really- or at least is only "acknowledged as such" by a handful of apologists and theologians. But what people have acknowledged for thousands of years is not relevant to what is the case- that would be an argumentum ad popularum, and we both know you don't give fallacious arguments, so that can't be what you're trying to say, right?

2. It not meet some arbitrary criteria used in technical academia but that has little to do with it's reasonability.

An invalid deductive argument cannot be reasonable, so this objection has no teeth, as we've pointed out several times now.

3. Craig and Plantinga among others say the argument is reasonable (and technically valid)

Actually, not that its relevant, but I seem to recall Plantinga saying that he doesn't think the cosmological argument is sound, which is why he endorses a modal ontological argument for the existence of God and his foundationalist epistemology. Given the latter, Plantinga has no use or need for arguments for the existence of God since for him, belief in God constitutes epistemic bedrock. But this is merely a footnote, and I could be remembering incorrectly.

and you say (among others) it is not. I do not care. There is no way to who is right about either it's reasonability or the standard of logical validity. It simply exists in the minds of men.
4. That is a wash out and only leaves us with common sense. I claim anyone not prejudiced would conclude the argument is reasonable if not conclusive.
5. In all sincerity and honesty I have never seen anyone as aware of the technical aspects of philosophy as Craig. Right or wrong (and there is no objective standard) I have never seen his equal for pure knowledge. He is like a robot. The fact that even professionals as candid and technical as he, Aquinas, Plantinga, etc... and the fact the argument has no flaws I honestly can find personally (beyond the fact it is not a certainty), is more than enough for me to know claims of it's actual (objective) invalidity are flawed in principle.

I claim the client is guilty and obviously so whether you have a valid objection or not and am so bored as to no longer care about the technical validity of the objection.

Yeah, try as you might, validity is a crucial property of ANY good/compelling/reasonable deductive argument. And the cosmological argument is not valid. We could grant the premises, and it would still not follow that God exists/created the universe/was the first cause/etc. This makes it a garbage argument, which is one reason why it is only of scholarly interest in the philosophy of religion- it is a relic of a bygone age, an example of reasoning gone amok that we can learn from. Again, this isn't especially relevant to the question at hand, but it seems to me that Craig is the only contemporary thinker of ANY distinction whatsoever who endorses the cosmological argument, and that's not a good sign since Craig is considered a pariah, in part for that very reason, in most academic circles.

 

[outhouse]

I will note that although I do believe that Jesus was most likely a real person, I don't believe that he was the Son of God. I believe his message got twisted around. I believe his message was exactly like that Gospel of Thomas quote I posted earlier. We are all sons of God. Not of a literal man-like deity, but rather we are all part of this great existence...the light that shines over all things, from whence all came forth and to which all return. That which God is, is inside us and all around us.

Nothing wrong with that

 

[outhouse]

Let me ask if this is a reasonable criteria for "among the greatest experts" claim.

1. Greenleaf was the cofounder of the one of the greatest law schools in history (Harvard law) and he wrote text books on testimony and evidence used in most advanced nations. I have even read them while working in federal court rooms around the nation.
2. Lyndhurst is the only person in history to occupy every high court office of the largest empire in Earth's history.
3. Both have been at the top of every list of great legal minds I have ever seen.

Now if they are not qualified to examine testimony (and I could give dozens more near their credibility) then who would be?

BTW I do not know if I made a typing error or not. I always say two OF THE greatest (or try to) but now and then I forget the "OF THE" part. They may very well be THE two greatest but they are certainly among the greatest.

Neither were biblical experts, they were blood sucking lawyers.

That was 150 years, and neither were historians and knew nothing about ancient history.


And if you go back and read what they wrote, it is laughable at best.



With what we know today, I would personally have them disbarred if they tried to retry that ancient debacle you think is credible

 

[Runewolf1973]

I did not say man is the only one. However that would be the logical deduction from man's being pre-eminent over every other living thing. It surely does not follow from being over every other thing to being equal to every other. Have you never heard the term soulish creature? It would make no sense to have that term if every other creature was soulish. I cannot remember which creatures are said to have souls but it was by far the minority.


There is no need but given that it is a very cryptic and symbolic text written over thousands of years and covers the most important and controversial issues in history it is certainly not unexpected. I is a dire mistake to confuse uncertainty with non-existence. Virtually no issue has universal agreement.






The forces of nature being given God like essence is what I understood to be the heart of pantheism.

If three reporters went to a ball game and one said team X won, the other said Y lost and another only reported a hard struggle the worst conclusion possible is that no game was played. God gave only one pure revelation. Unlike every other single work in ancient history it only contains 5% error and none in core doctrine. The worst conclusion possible from that fact is that God did not reveal anything.

The biblical God is specifically said to not be composed of material but spirit. Don't get your theology from "family Guy' or the "the simpsons" for starters. God is spirit not man. He may assume a body but that body is not God.

How in the world is faith "right or wrong" childish. That is just baseless sarcasm for effect. It is also a statement of knowledge so you MUIST prove it. Good luck.

If all you have is whatever "animated forces of nature", how would you know murder was wrong. I am not asking how you could believe that I am asking how what you believed could possibly be true. Forces of nature by necessity cannot tell anyone the way things should be. Natural forces cannot create ex nihilo and do not want anything. Gravity doe snot care if you cheat on your wife.

As our ancestors evolved over time they learned what sorts of acts benefited the community and what sorts of acts harmed the community. They learned right from wrong and what was good from what was bad through trial and error. Man does not require religious intervention to be morally good in nature. We just need to learn from our mistakes.

Man is not necessarily the most preeminent or successful of creatures. Over the ages we have simply learned how to stay out of the food chain. Sometimes we get caught in a situation where we soon realize that we are still part of that food chain. Sharks are a great example of this, they have been around long before man ever came into the picture.

Those animate forces of nature are the equivalent of that “spirit” you talk about. I simply prefer not to call it God, nor do I believe it is anything “supernatural”. It is the fundamental forces of nature....that which even science knows to exist.


---

 

[Runewolf1973]

Let me ask if this is a reasonable criteria for "among the greatest experts" claim.

1. Greenleaf was the cofounder of the one of the greatest law schools in history (Harvard law) and he wrote text books on testimony and evidence used in most advanced nations. I have even read them while working in federal court rooms around the nation.
2. Lyndhurst is the only person in history to occupy every high court office of the largest empire in Earth's history.
3. Both have been at the top of every list of great legal minds I have ever seen.

Now if they are not qualified to examine testimony (and I could give dozens more near their credibility) then who would be?

BTW I do not know if I made a typing error or not. I always say two OF THE greatest (or try to) but now and then I forget the "OF THE" part. They may very well be THE two greatest but they are certainly among the greatest.

What evidence did they bring to the table?

 

[1robin]

I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone else. Who do you think you are? Protestantism and Catholicism are very different, anyway.

That is precisely why I (not you) said answering my question is your choice. Not only was this post hypocritical in asking me to explain myself while refusing to do so your self. I have already answered the question you asked?

My views are strict protestant orthodox

No Catholic doctrine and protestant doctrine are not very different. They are have about a 90% common core. Your confusing tradition with doctrine.