INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Like I said before, you make it easy.

in fact, it is getting to the point of you being a fish in a barrel, no challenge at all.

I can see picking up the level of your debate was a bridge way too far as usuall, so consider this kind of nonsense ignored for the time being. What a waste of 1s and 0s.

 

[McBell]

This is true but the numbers in this case rule out an individual blind spot for a few normally deductive people. These are history's most rigorus and brilliant deductivists and there are thousands of them in many fields. BTW I did not claim it true because of them, simply a reasonable belief and no the numbers above are not a fallacy in this case. You did not make a fallacy claim but they are the most abused concept in these dicussions and little understood apparently.

Unless of course you merely chose people with a blind spot that you think favours your argument...

and I have to agree that you have little understanding of not only the fallacies you use, but also the fact that you are so dependent upon them.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Also, the reason "God" is "God" is because it/he doesn't have a creator. That's what makes him above all laws of the universe, thus being this transcendent being.

I've heard so many people say "So what created god?" That's the whole point of God! He didn't have a creator and that's what makes him matter. And that's why there's so many different interpretations of God. He doesn't have a creator, so doesn't obey any natural laws, so could be anything. We just don't know and will never know. We can only rationally conclude that he exists.

I tell you what, Matter/Energy can neither be created or destroyed. If you can show me a single documentable example of matter or energy being uterly destroyed, I'll call it god.

 

[1robin]

I tell you what, Matter/Energy can neither be created or destroyed. If you can show me a single documentable example of matter or energy being uterly destroyed, I'll call it god.

The only thing science knows about this issue is that within the small amount of natural law that we understand we have yet to identify a natural process that creates or destroys them. That is a far cry from saying they can't be. In fact as another more immutable law indicates (entropy) if they were eternal then both would have become evenly distributed within the universe infinitely long ago. The universe is not eternal nor any of its constituents. Something caused them to begin to exist and the philosophically derived characteristics of what this was are identical to the Biblical God. If you wish to challenge God I would not do so in this context. The latest trends in cosmology support a finite universe and therefore a non-natural cause is a necessity.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The only thing science knows about this issue is that within the small amount of natural law that we understand we have yet to identify a natural process that creates or destroys them. That is a far cry from saying they can't be. In fact as another more immutable law indicates (entropy) if they were eternal then both would have become evenly distributed within the universe infinitely long ago. The universe is not eternal nor any of its constituents. Something caused them to begin to exist and the philosophically derived characteristics of what this was are identical to the Biblical God. If you wish to challenge God I would not do so in this context. The latest trends in cosmology support a finite universe and therefore a non-natural cause is a necessity.

So, you follow my logic. Even if you can create or destroy matter or eneregy, then it will not result in violating a natural law, it will result in redefining the natural laws. However, you seem not to grasp the implication of this as indicated by your use of the term 'immutable.' There is no such thing as an immutable natural law EXCEPT WHERE OUR UNDERSTANDING IS COMPLETE. The entropy dificulty for a non-homogenous universe is a perfect example THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING IS INCOMPLETE, it is not proof of god.

There is absolutly no reason, logic, or evidence for a philosophical postion that a finite universe would require a supernatural agent, anymore than a blackhole is supernatural.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Wrong again. You must be doing it on purpose to have become this skilled at it. I have a Math degree and over 190 sem hours in it, science, and history.

Wow, and a complete inability to comprehend even the most basic metaphor. Congratulations on proving the assertion that education doesn't equate to intelligence.

 

[Agnostic75]

I love a good counter argument and I never balk about a counter position no matter how silly.

Apparently you did not like my counter arguments in another thread. I was arguing from scientific consensus, and yet you called my arguments strange. It is a bit comical for a person to argue opinions that are minority opinions among experts, all call other people's arguments strange. You are intelligent, and well-educated, but it is difficult to prevail in public debates against sizeable scientific consensuses. Even very intelligent people can have confirmation bias, especially when religion is involved.

As far as strange is concerned, you are among the strangest Christians that I have ever come across. Some of your posts were really off the wall, like making an analogy comparing homosexuality with ancient ritual sacrifice. You said:

"Other countries [that allow openly homosexual people to join the military] have no bearing on the issue even if you are correct. Cannibalism and ritual sacrifice worked well for some nations according to them."

That was a ridiculous, nonsensical, and false statement, and is contradicted by the militaries in over 30 countries, including the U.S. You presume that you know more than who knows how many experts from over 30 countries, not to mention hundreds of thousands if not millions of soldiers.

 

[1robin]

So, you follow my logic. Even if you can create or destroy matter or eneregy, then it will not result in violating a natural law, it will result in redefining the natural laws.

Not necessarily. Only if the creation and distruction of matter and energy can be reliably established to have been performed within natural law would that be the case. Right now it can't yet it did begin to exist. God is the only known candidate at this time.

However, you seem not to grasp the implication of this as indicated by your use of the term 'immutable.' There is no such thing as an immutable natural law EXCEPT WHERE OUR UNDERSTANDING IS COMPLETE. The entropy dificulty for a non-homogenous universe is a perfect example THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING IS INCOMPLETE, it is not proof of god.

I did not say immutable. I said more immutable or in this context one that is less likely to have an exception. However both Einstein and Newton said that thermodynamics is the most immutable law in nature. The least likely to have an exception. I never claimed it as a proff of God. I do not think proof exists. Faith is required and faith precludes proof. I said it indicates God as the only candidate at this time. I am well aware how incomplete science is. Unfortunately grant hungry scientists are not. Of course a natural explenation of things is possible however not one shred of evidence suggests that anything natural could or did create the universe. In fact natural law is causally impotent. If you wait for arithmetic to create your money you will always remain bankrupt.

There is absolutly no reason, logic, or evidence for a philosophical postion that a finite universe would require a supernatural agent, anymore than a blackhole is supernatural.

Actually that is the only and insecapable option possible. The concept of cause and effect is absolute with no known exceptions even within quantum science. Your simple assertion to the contrary dissagrees with every observable action in history and virtually all of science and philosophy. Before time, matter, space, and natural law came into existance as components of the universe they did not exist to create anything. Out of nothing, nothing comes. That only leaves abstract concepts and a dissembodied mind. Abstract concepts can not create anything. The only thing left as a possible candidate is an all powerfull, all knowing, all present, non material, and personal mind. The fact that is exactly the same description as what is recorded by people for God thousands of years before they would have any idea what to fake is astounding. At this time no other candidate exists or has even any potentiality to exist, that would explain a universe beginning to exist.

 

[1robin]

Apparently you did not like my counter arguments in another thread. I was arguing from scientific consensus, and yet you called my arguments strange. It is a bit comical for a person to argue opinions that are minority opinions among experts, all call other people's arguments strange. You are intelligent, and well-educated, but it is difficult to prevail in public debates against sizeable scientific consensuses. Even very intelligent people can have confirmation bias, especially when religion is involved.

Yes I remember you and the strangeness of your argumentation very well but not the argument in question. If you will restate it in a PM I will re-examine it. BTW scientific concensus is that homosexuality increases over all suffering and costs billions.

As far as strange is concerned, you are among the strangest Christians that I have ever come across. Some of your posts were really off the wall, like making an analogy comparing homosexuality with ancient ritual sacrifice. You said:
"Other countries [that allow openly homosexual people to join the military] have no bearing on the issue even if you are correct. Cannibalism and ritual sacrifice worked well for some nations according to them."

Actually 90% of my arguments as a Christian are common arguments I have heard in professional debates or are well-known principles in philosophy, history, and the other fields. However the homosexual issue is off the beaten path for me. Regardless your complaint here is invalid. A comparison between two non-identical concepts has less than a perfect relationship. Only certain aspects in common are what are indicated by a comparison not all that they possess. This is not the thread for this but I will answer you. I was saying that the claim that anything that works in one nation is valid for all nations is as invalid an argument as saying that since cannibalism worked somewhere it is valid everywhere. The case can be made they are equally wrong but that was not what I was arguing. I got so appalled by your claims that I mentioned them to a coworker who retired from the Navy and an AF guy joined in and a 30 year veteran master chief came in and joined up also. We talked for 3 hours and it was one story after another where homosexuality in the military caused massive problems and lowered cohesion and efficiency. One even had a best friend that was a Navy doctor and he told me things they have to treat these days I did not even know existed (terrible things I am not comfortable listing). I can provide as many studies proving this as anyone could need but I do not think it will make any difference and this is not the thread for it.

That was a ridiculous, nonsensical, and false statement, and is contradicted by the militaries in over 30 countries, including the U.S.

You presume that you know more than who knows how many experts from over 30 countries, not to mention hundreds of thousands if not millions of soldiers.

See the above. No joint chief who ever lived knows as well as an enlisted veteran what is going on in the ranks. This issue is a well-known epidemic in the military and has resulted in not just stupid policies but the pointless death of tens of millions of soldiers throughout history. The entire world's military history is full of military officials claiming things that are not true by contrived data for political reasons. Saddam claimed he was kicking our tails until the broadcast station was atomized by a JDAM. Studies after ww1 by the US ARMY concluded African Americans were unfit for combat and cowards by nature. I would advise great caution depending on anything said by the brass. Studies by Britain before WW1 said gas would have a negligible effect and did not provide protection until tens of thousands were poisoned. Military intelligence is a contradiction. If you can't stand not be able to convince me of the dubious merits of homosexuality at least do it by PM. This is not the appropriate thread.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I did not say immutable. I said more immutable or in this context one that is less likely to have an exception.

So, more immutable means less likely to have an exception? So regular immutable would be more likely to have an exception. I don't believe we have established a mutually acceptable meaning for the term immutable.

Actually that is the only and insecapable option possible. The concept of cause and effect is absolute with no known exceptions even within quantum science. Your simple assertion to the contrary dissagrees with every observable action in history and virtually all of science and philosophy. Before time, matter, space, and natural law came into existance as components of the universe they did not exist to create anything. Out of nothing, nothing comes. That only leaves abstract concepts and a dissembodied mind. Abstract concepts can not create anything. The only thing left as a possible candidate is an all powerfull, all knowing, all present, non material, and personal mind. The fact that is exactly the same description as what is recorded by people for God thousands of years before they would have any idea what to fake is astounding. At this time no other candidate exists or has even any potentiality to exist, that would explain a universe beginning to exist.

Now this is just subjective hogwash! First, the concept of cause and effect has no basis in logic. It may be appearent at every turn. It may intuitive to the core. It may even be true. But there is no logical premise on which to base the conclusion. Why? Because it is not a conclusion, it is an assumption. At least in every single argument in which it is posited, it has never in the history of humanity been posited as a conclusion of premeis, but only as a given for which other conclusions can be drawn. The fact that this is difficult to grasp does not excuse primitive reasoning which would just as readily accept the barer of a zippo lighter as a god, if the current state of knowledge found the observable facts to be otherwise unexaplainable. (God is the only current candidate for zippo lighters has been a ture and self-evident fact in certain times among certain people. How do you find yourself superior to them?)

Second, allow me to give you cause and effect. The fact that you can not concieve of a 'natural' cause does not prove that a 'natural' cause can not exist, and therefore a supernatural cause must exist.

Third, Please show me where I made a simple statement regarding cause and effect??? And again, Natural Law does not exist except as a mental construct used to communicate and describe. Natural law has never caused anything, has never created anything, has never done anything except describe natural phenomena in a predictable way. Let me try to say this another way, cause and effect may be a natural law. But it is a natural law because it describes almost all known observable phenomena, not because it is logical, not even because it makes sense. It is a natural law because it can describe both past and future phenomena.

That does not mean it is immutable. It does not mean that there will never be an observable fact that can't be explained without cause and effect.

Now, we both have an example in mind. My claim isn't that the universe reqeires no cause. My claim is that even if the universe had a finite beginning (another argument entirely in which theology doesn't even have a place to stand), even if cause/effect is a valid descriptor of the beginning of the universe, that invoking a non-natural cause is nothing more than a desperate attempt to justify one's own preconcieved notions of metaphysics. It is a jump which immediatly leads to invoking numerous and abundent self-pleasing assertions based on preconceptions. It is a warm blanket.

E.g. If there must be a super-natural cause..

Please show me your logic for climing it must have created this universe rather than just cuasing it.

Pleae show me your logic for claiming it must be all-powerfull? Why not just powerfull enough to cause this universe? Why not creat a more impressive universe? What does all-powerful even mean? Are there any limits to this power? And if not explain to me how something that is all powerful could exist without using all it's power? This in itself is just silly. What is the purpose of an all powerful entity that can only create finite universes?

Please explain the reaoning with which you reach you conclusion that this super natural cause must be all-knowing? Or even have the ability to know anything? Why would a cause, supernatural or otherwise, need to know anything much less everything?

All-present? What does that even mean? There is no information in the human that is not either coming through senses or analyzed within the mind. What does it mean to be All-present if you can not be seen, heard, felt, touched, tasted?

Non-material? From where does this come? Are you aware of any single documentable cause througout the cosmos or history that is non-material? If not how can you posit this as a reqierment for the cause of theuniverse. Again, how can something be non-material, and all-present in a material universe?

Personal mind? Ieieieieooooowhat? This follows from what logic regarding established fact, reason, or observation. How do you reach this conclusion?

You reach all these "inescaple" conclusion based on the assertion that there must be a super-natural cause to the universe. Really?

 

[McBell]

I can see picking up the level of your debate was a bridge way too far as usuall, so consider this kind of nonsense ignored for the time being. What a waste of 1s and 0s.

Your lack of understanding was noted long ago.

but thanks anyway for the update.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your lack of understanding was noted long ago.

but thanks anyway for the update.

I'm ignoring you now too. Just letting you know. I'm totally going to ignore you.

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes I remember you and the strangeness of your argumentation very well but not the argument in question. If you will restate it in a PM I will re-examine it. BTW scientific consensus is that homosexuality increases over all suffering and costs billions.

I prefer public debates to private messages.

The consensuses that I was referring to were about the options that homosexuals have, and consensuses of military experts in over 30 countries. You said that there is no justification for homosexuality. Every major medical association disagrees with that. Primarily the only options that homosexuals have are reparative therapy, and abstinence, both of which often cause homosexuals to end up worse off than they were before. No major medical association recommends reparative therapy or abstinence as an effective way to deal with homosexuality. Logically, the justification for homosexuals having sex is that the alternatives frequently cause more harm than the homosexuality does. Reparative therapy, and abstinence, are sometimes effective, but more often they are not effective. Usually, the best approach for a homosexual alcoholic to use would be to use the same therapy that heterosexual alcoholics use.
So a scientific consensus definitely disagrees with your claim that there is not any justification for homosexuality.

Homosexuals generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do, but as a whole, they are not nearly as bad off as you think they are. The majority of homosexuals are not alcoholics, drug abusers, or pedophiles, and do not have HIV/AIDS. During the recent London olympics, openly gay people won seven medals, including four gold medals. The prime minister of Iceland is an open lesbian. So is the prime minister of Ontario.

Your main premise is the other thread was that homosexuality is harmful, but there are many healthy, well-adjusted homosexuals all over the world. In addition, you cannot name one serious medical problem that applies to the majority of homosexuals.

Actually 90% of my arguments as a Christian are common arguments I have heard in professional debates or are well-known principles in philosophy, history, and the other fields. However the homosexual issue is off the beaten path for me.

It isn't for me, and is in fact one of my specialties that I have been involved in for years in debates.

Regardless your complaint here is invalid. A comparison between two non-identical concepts has less than a perfect relationship. Only certain aspects in common are what are indicated by a comparison not all that they possess. This is not the thread for this but I will answer you. I was saying that the claim that anything that works in one nation is valid for all nations is as invalid an argument as saying that since cannibalism worked somewhere it is valid everywhere. The case can be made they are equally wrong but that was not what I was arguing. I got so appalled by your claims that I mentioned them to a coworker who retired from the Navy and an AF guy joined in and a 30 year veteran master chief came in and joined up also. We talked for 3 hours and it was one story after another where homosexuality in the military caused massive problems and lowered cohesion and efficiency. One even had a best friend that was a Navy doctor and he told me things they have to treat these days I did not even know existed (terrible things I am not comfortable listing). I can provide as many studies proving this as anyone could need but I do not think it will make any difference and this is not the thread for it.

No joint chief who ever lived knows as well as an enlisted veteran what is going on in the ranks. This issue is a well-known epidemic in the military and has resulted in not just stupid policies but the pointless death of tens of millions of soldiers throughout history. The entire world's military history is full of military officials claiming things that are not true by contrived data for political reasons. Saddam claimed he was kicking our tails until the broadcast station was atomized by a JDAM. Studies after ww1 by the US ARMY concluded African Americans were unfit for combat and cowards by nature. I would advise great caution depending on anything said by the brass. Studies by Britain before WW1 said gas would have a negligible effect and did not provide protection until tens of thousands were poisoned. Military intelligence is a contradiction. If you can't stand not be able to convince me of the dubious merits of homosexuality at least do it by PM. This is not the appropriate thread.

The key part about what you said, and the most outrageous part, was "the entire world's military history is full of military officials claiming things that are not true by contrived data for political reasons." No well-prepared debater in an academic setting such as at a university would ever use such an argument. One obvious reason is that even if what you said is true, today's militaries must deal with today's evidence, and what happened in the past cannot adequately settle the current issue of whether or not allowing gays in the military has worked well. Another obvious reason is that the other side can use the same argument, with nothing being settled.

You merely made a rhetorical statement that lacked substance.

What about contrived data for religious reasons, and confirmation bias? One reason why gays in the military has worked well in over 30 countries is because of more public acceptance of homosexuality. In the U.S., many polls have shown the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality by far a religious people. The same goes for abortion, and physician assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide is legal in the U.S. only in Oregon, and Washington State, which are two of the most liberal states in the U.S.

You cannot reasonably say that religion does not have anything to do with the success of gays in the military in over 30 countries. The main issues have to be religion, and the "perception" of gays by heterosexuals, not the ability of gays to perform their jobs well.

In those countries, your arguments would have much less support than they have in the U.S. In those countries, it would be easy to find large consensuses of rank and file servicemen who approve of gays in the military. Many of them would be quite puzzled to read your arguments, but it is not puzzling at all when religious bias is considered.

Your anecdotal mention of your recent conversations with some servicemen who agreed with you is contradicted by a wealth of research.

You said:

“No joint chief who ever lived knows as well as an enlisted veteran what is going on in the ranks.”

That comment indicates that you are poorly prepared to debate this topic. Simple logic, and just plain old common sense would tell most people that a good number of enlisted veterans were consulted, and approved of the new policy before, and after it was implemented. You said that we do not need to experiment with gays in the military, but over 30 countries have conducted experiments, including Israel for 20 years, and the results have been generally good.

Regarding "if you can't stand not be able to convince me of the dubious merits of homosexuality at least do it by PM," I do not expect to convince you of anything, but I do expect to convince some other people. You could effectively argue that homosexuality does not have merit from a religious perspective, but it definitely has merit from a secular perspective in many cases where reparative therapy, or abstinence made homosexuals worse off than they were before. Logically, and from a secular perspective, if several options are available, choosing the best option has merit. Feeling worse is not the best option.

I will be happy to match you research study for research study, regarding the U.S., and over 30 other countries, but I doubt that you would be willing to do that since you already know that the majority of experts will agree with me, including many rank and file servicemen.

I will be happy to post all of this post in a new thread if you wish.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Here is some documented research about gays in the military in the U.S., Britain, Israel, Canada, and Australia.

What Does the Empirical Research Say about the Impact of Openly Gay Service on the Military? | Palm Center

 

[1robin]

So, more immutable means less likely to have an exception? So regular immutable would be more likely to have an exception. I don't believe we have established a mutually acceptable meaning for the term immutable.

My definition is immutable for immutable. I was hoping to avoid a semantic diversion. I see there is no escape. To stop circling the hyper semantic drain let me state it a different way. Certain laws are thought to be more absolute than others.

Now this is just subjective hogwash! First, the concept of cause and effect has no basis in logic. It may be apparent at every turn. It may intuitive to the core. It may even be true. But there is no logical premise on which to base the conclusion. Why? Because it is not a conclusion, it is an assumption. At least in every single argument in which it is posited, it has never in the history of humanity been posited as a conclusion of premise, but only as a given for which other conclusions can be drawn. The fact that this is difficult to grasp does not excuse primitive reasoning which would just as readily accept the barer of a zippo lighter as a god, if the current state of knowledge found the observable facts to be otherwise unexplainable. (God is the only current candidate for zippo lighters has been a ture and self-evident fact in certain times among certain people. How do you find yourself superior to them?)

Good night nurse. Fisrrt no freaking way on zippo lighters, Second in the dying hope that the issues can be discussed and not meaningless diversionary semantic technicalities let me restate this one another way as well. Slap whatever label on it that will pacify you, there are no known exceptions to the concept that effects always have causes and those causes are always sufficient to produce the effect.

Second, allow me to give you cause and effect. The fact that you cannot conceive of a 'natural' cause does not prove that a 'natural' cause cannot exist, and therefore a supernatural cause must exist.

I have no idea why that was relevant. When considering the possible causes for natural law (the universe), natural law cannot be one of them. We need to look outside natural law because it never created anything even after it existed, it sure could not have before it did. Outside or above natural law is where supernatural concepts lye. In this case we have a well-defined one, in God. I never said that therefore God is the answer I said it is the only candidate at this time so your argument above does not apply to anything I said.

Third, Please show me where I made a simple statement regarding cause and effect??? And again, Natural Law does not exist except as a mental construct used to communicate and describe.

I don't remember saying anything that this is a meaningful response to. I have no context for the request. Natural law exists in reality, it is only the descriptions of it that exist as abstracts. Magnetic forces exist in reality but the language used to describe them is abstract. Even if you were accurate I fail to see the relevance. Actually they kind of indicate something I thought indicates God's reality but have never mentioned it and it is an incomplete concept.

Natural law has never caused anything, has never created anything, has never done anything except describe natural phenomena in a predictable way.

Momentum exists in reality and dictates in reality that cars crash through houses every day. Only the descriptions of what took place are abstract, but I still see no use for the clarification.

Let me try to say this another way, cause and effect may be a natural law. But it is a natural law because it describes almost all known observable phenomena, not because it is logical, not even because it makes sense. It is a natural law because it can describe both past and future phenomena.

Cause and effect is a term that describes a principle that exists in reality that has no exception known. That is the only description or context that applies here.

That does not mean it is immutable. It does not mean that there will never be an observable fact that can't be explained without cause and effect.

So to avoid the mere possibility that a well-established and logical concept like God to be posited as an explanation for what we see you will hold out for something we have no reason to even suspect exists nor no idea what it might be to violate what has no known violation, nor even a potential for one given natural law and history as we know it. That seems extremely desperate and a waste of time.

Now, we both have an example in mind. My claim isn't that the universe requires no cause. My claim is that even if the universe had a finite beginning (another argument entirely in which theology doesn't even have a place to stand), even if cause/effect is a valid descriptor of the beginning of the universe, that invoking a non-natural cause is nothing more than a desperate attempt to justify one's own preconceived notions of metaphysics. It is a jump which immediately leads to invoking numerous and abundant self-pleasing assertions based on preconceptions. It is a warm blanket

This is getting a little weird, far from no leg to stand on, the recent understanding that the universe most likely is finite has been an exhaustively discussed positive fact in the case for God. What you are stating is the direct opposite of what every Christian interested in cosmology knows about the impact of the nature of the universe on faith. A finite universe is the best possible cosmological fact in defense of God. I have seen no example for you potential cause if that is what you meant. I have a very well-reasoned and defined one and it meets every philosophical requirement for the cause of the universe. Invoking a non-natural cause for a condition that has no natural causes possible is not desperate it is an inescapable necessity. I have no idea where you get this stuff. My argument was not invented by me. It is what the professional philosophers, cosmologists, and mathematicians know very well to be the relevant issues. When you make claims diametrically opposed to well understood truths not from 1robin but from Newton, Sandage, Eddington, Hoyle, etc.......In fact my argument is essentially the Kalam cosmological argument and that is what is debated not semantics or conclusions the exact opposite from all faith related cosmology I am aware of. It is obvious you are educated but you are getting off the track of well understood principles somewhere along the way.

E.g. If there must be a super-natural cause..
Please show me your logic for claiming it must have created this universe rather than just causing it.

That is quite strange and in many years of debate never heard it before. To change something from non being into being requires creation. You cannot cause (in the traditional use of the word, you see what you make necessary) nothing to become anything without creation. Nothing is potentially and causally impotent.

Pleae show me your logic for claiming it must be all-powerful? Why not just powerful enough to cause this universe? Why not create a more impressive universe? What does all-powerful even mean? Are there any limits to this power? And if not explain to me how something that is all powerful could exist without using all its power? This in itself is just silly. What is the purpose of an all-powerful entity that can only create finite universes?

Ugh, more diversionary semantics. That was a relative statement not an absolute one. The forces required are beyond anything comprehensable and the only concept in human history that has any merit. He is said to be powerfull enough to do anything so the two requirements (one subjective) have only one known candidate. The point being the only concept that is described to be sufficiently capable is God. The power required from our perspective is in effect infinite. All powerful means to be sufficiently powerful for any effect or potential effect said to proceed from that cause. What laws and rules are you using to claim to know what a supernatural being can or cannot do and what must be silly. That is like a ladybug telling Newton that his fundamental definition of a limit is wrong. IN fact it is infinitely worse. Until you can fully grasp natural laws I think I would not insist I know what laws God is bound by. This is just silly maximal purpose besides being undefinable is not mandatory given capability. Potential does not mandate effect.

Please explain the reasoning with which you reach you conclusion that this super natural cause must be all-knowing? Or even have the ability to know anything? Why would a cause, supernatural or otherwise, need to know anything much less everything?

Imagine a set of knowledge necessary to explain everything that exists. The set would include all the knowledge that exists. In order to create that set you would have to know everything about everything in the set. By definition that is knowing all information.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

All-present? What does that even mean? There is no information in the human that is not either coming through senses or analyzed within the mind. What does it mean to be All-present if you cannot be seen, heard, felt, touched, tasted?

I am not discussing human qualities. It would be hard to create Earth if you have no access to the area.

Non-material? From where does this come? Are you aware of any single documentable cause throughout the cosmos or history that is non-material?

God is not a part of that set. That is like saying do you know of anything on Earth that can produce sun like heat. I guess the sun does not exist. Was there anything known to govern how bosons behave. I guess they do not exist either. You are asking the wrong questions. Whatever existed before the universe can't be material. The universe by definition contains all matter.

If not how can you posit this as a requirement for the cause of the universe. Again, how can something be non-material, and all-present in a material universe?

There is no if not, possible. The cause God or not must meet these conditions based on everything we currently know or potentially think we will ever know. That last question has no impact on anything but I have never considered it. You keep describing things we know about the natural universe and binding God by them. That is meaningless. You can't bind planetary motion by quantum mechanics.

Personal mind? Ieieieieooooowhat? This follows from what logic regarding established fact, reason, or observation. How do you reach this conclusion?

It is not my conclusion. It is an inescapable conclusion from philosophical scholars. Personal in this case means capable of choosing. If whatever created the universe can't decide to act it would either have always existed or never existed. Natural law did not exist to cause it to act.

You reach all these "inescaple" conclusion based on the assertion that there must be a super-natural cause to the universe. Really?

You have premise - conclusion confusion. There existed no nature before the universe to do anything. Something beyond it (super natural) is all that is left. The individual characteristics are all components of both whatever supernatural force in fact created everything and also perfectly describe God. By faith I choose to believe he is the answer based on evidence. You do realize all these conclusions and arguments are well known and have been accepted as an intellectually valid concept for a very long time by scholars on both sides. Of course some find the logic so objectionable inconvenient they cling to any fantasy no matter how bereft of evidence but all acknowledge the philosophy involved. Please get more relevant or more efficient in your posts. The rate of return on monsters like this are hard to justify.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Here is some documented research about gays in the military in the U.S., Britain, Israel, Canada, and Australia.

What Does the Empirical Research Say about the Impact of Openly Gay Service on the Military? | Palm Center

I have never denied such data exists. I said I can equal it and probably exceed it with it's opposite and what you provide is not an accurate reflection of reality for the reasons I gave. If you wish to continue this please do it in a PM or a 1 on 1 thread. If you do not know how just ask me. I apologize but I can't derail someone elses thread that far. My agreement is certainly important to you I see.

 

[1robin]

I prefer public debates to private messages.

The consensuses that I was referring to were about the options that homosexuals have, and consensuses of military experts in over 30 countries. You said that there is no justification for homosexuality. Every major medical association disagrees with that. Primarily the only options that homosexuals have are reparative therapy, and abstinence, both of which often cause homosexuals to end up worse off than they were before. No major medical association recommends reparative therapy or abstinence as an effective way to deal with homosexuality. Logically, the justification for homosexuals having sex is that the alternatives frequently cause more harm than the homosexuality does. Reparative therapy, and abstinence, are sometimes effective, but more often they are not effective. Usually, the best approach for a homosexual alcoholic to use would be to use the same therapy that heterosexual alcoholics use.
So a scientific consensus definitely disagrees with your claim that there is not any justification for homosexuality.

Homosexuals generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do, but as a whole, they are not nearly as bad off as you think they are. The majority of homosexuals are not alcoholics, drug abusers, or pedophiles, and do not have HIV/AIDS. During the recent London olympics, openly gay people won seven medals, including four gold medals. The prime minister of Iceland is an open lesbian. So is the prime minister of Ontario.

Your main premise is the other thread was that homosexuality is harmful, but there are many healthy, well-adjusted homosexuals all over the world. In addition, you cannot name one serious medical problem that applies to the majority of homosexuals.



It isn't for me, and is in fact one of my specialties that I have been involved in for years in debates.



The key part about what you said, and the most outrageous part, was "the entire world's military history is full of military officials claiming things that are not true by contrived data for political reasons." No well-prepared debater in an academic setting such as at a university would ever use such an argument. One obvious reason is that even if what you said is true, today's militaries must deal with today's evidence, and what happened in the past cannot adequately settle the current issue of whether or not allowing gays in the military has worked well. Another obvious reason is that the other side can use the same argument, with nothing being settled.

You merely made a rhetorical statement that lacked substance.

What about contrived data for religious reasons, and confirmation bias? One reason why gays in the military has worked well in over 30 countries is because of more public acceptance of homosexuality. In the U.S., many polls have shown the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality by far a religious people. The same goes for abortion, and physician assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide is legal in the U.S. only in Oregon, and Washington State, which are two of the most liberal states in the U.S.

You cannot reasonably say that religion does not have anything to do with the success of gays in the military in over 30 countries. The main issues have to be religion, and the "perception" of gays by heterosexuals, not the ability of gays to perform their jobs well.

In those countries, your arguments would have much less support than they have in the U.S. In those countries, it would be easy to find large consensuses of rank and file servicemen who approve of gays in the military. Many of them would be quite puzzled to read your arguments, but it is not puzzling at all when religious bias is considered.

Your anecdotal mention of your recent conversations with some servicemen who agreed with you is contradicted by a wealth of research.

You said:

“No joint chief who ever lived knows as well as an enlisted veteran what is going on in the ranks.”

That comment indicates that you are poorly prepared to debate this topic. Simple logic, and just plain old common sense would tell most people that a good number of enlisted veterans were consulted, and approved of the new policy before, and after it was implemented. You said that we do not need to experiment with gays in the military, but over 30 countries have conducted experiments, including Israel for 20 years, and the results have been generally good.

Regarding "if you can't stand not be able to convince me of the dubious merits of homosexuality at least do it by PM," I do not expect to convince you of anything, but I do expect to convince some other people. You could effectively argue that homosexuality does not have merit from a religious perspective, but it definitely has merit from a secular perspective in many cases where reparative therapy, or abstinence made homosexuals worse off than they were before. Logically, and from a secular perspective, if several options are available, choosing the best option has merit. Feeling worse is not the best option.

I will be happy to match you research study for research study, regarding the U.S., and over 30 other countries, but I doubt that you would be willing to do that since you already know that the majority of experts will agree with me, including many rank and file servicemen.

I will be happy to post all of this post in a new thread if you wish.

I can't do this here. PM me. BTW I am an amateur military historian. I know way more about military history than my faith would certainly justify and I do not care what a debater would do, Military officials killing millions by policies justified with false data [at times on purpose (the false part)] is a sad and obvious fact of history that anyone who ever served in ww1 or ww2 etc...knows only too well. I have been as polite as possible but I insist this be done somewhere else and I will not respond here again.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

To Robin1

I shall cast no more pearls in thy path.

 

[1robin]

To Robin1

I shall cast no more pearls in thy path.

As you wish. It was exhausting just replying (covering all the aspects of the cosmological argument in one post would always be so) but it is the end of the day for me as well.