INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

That is certainly what it sounds like but I have been surprised to find upon investigation that is almost never what it turns out to be. For example I have heard biblical inerrancy for many years and always thought it to be the claim the bible is perfect in all forms which is absurd. I began investigating and found it that it almost never means that. It usually means the original revelation was free of error. Maybe that organization defies what I have found to be almost universal but I am not going to grant that until shown.

I'm taking it for what it says.

You can deny that it says what it says if you wish. Your choice.

I DID NOT claim there are no Christians that believe the bible is perfect. I said I knew of none. That was to indicate their numbers are so small that in a data set that includes hundreds I know of not one. Your butchering my claims again.

Yes, I know. Hence why I said, "It doesn't matter if you're a member. I used the mission statement to point out that your claim in fact there are Christians in the world that do claim the Bible is right in totality. While you may not personally know these people, they do exist."

Claiming that because you personally know of no Christians that believe the Bible is perfect, doesn't say anything at all about how large or small the data set is. How have I butchered your claim?

Here is my claim again: I know of no Christian that thinks the bible is right in totality until proven wrong.

I read it the first time, thanks.

Whether you personally know of a Christian that thinks the Bible is right in totality or not doesn't mean a whole lot of anything. It certainly doesn't mean they don't exist, as I've shown. Ask Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron or Eric Hovind if they think the Bible is right in totality until proven wrong. I bet they'd tell you that it is.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I have explained this over and over again. I must have commented on this one point more than any other.

So... Post # or link?

Add in textual transcripts from many other debates, many books on the subject devoured (currently I am reading one by Craig and another huge tomb on the history of theistic debate), plus constantly researching posted links and links for my own use. I also collaborate with three people much older then myself with lifelong interests in theological debate.

Ok, and? This still doesn't give you a basis for making a claim about scholarly consensus... Particularly when your impression is contradicted by the PhilPaper survey, which was taken from something like 1800 philosophy professors or PhD's. According to that survey, most professional philosophers are atheists (70+%), and most also believe that objective moral truths/values/facts exist (55-65%)- which is incompatible with your claim that most atheists grant that objective morality does not exist without God, since claiming that God does not exist and that objective morality does not exist without God precludes holding that objective morality exists.

I am currently hung up neck deep in scientific reliability issues and do not have time for anything. I would rather spend what little time I might come across on the foundations of morality without God, if we can get it posted. This issue will require a long time to hash out. For example I must investigate the differences concerning robust and minimal realism, and what they mean exactly concerning objective truth. I have no problem coming back to it, it will be meaningless but I would find it interesting anyway. So just for now let's try and get the foundations on record.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here.

After I had explained why I did not want to do it, yet was wiling to do so anyway because I had obligated myself to do it time after time after times without being told to go ahead I considered the matter closed. I will re-open the matter again if when I provide philosophical justification for each argument in it's premise you will concede the point. I already know exactly what will occur. I will spend many hours finding each justification given by at least one respected philosopher and you will attempt to negate it by the opinions of some other scholar. It is hard to justify the effort on that basis. Almost all these semantic objections resolve to a point where it is one scholars opinion versus another, and more importantly we lack any objective standard to determine who is right. I consider Aquinas and Leibniz, etc... right and you will not. What is the point?

I'm not interested in you citing a bunch of people who agree with you. I'm interested in your argument for the claim that objective moral truths/values/whatever can't exist unless God does.

The fact that almost every human who ever lived intuitively perceived an objective moral realm is certainly a lot more persuasive than for dark matter which no one intuitively perceives.

Since intuition is not an argument for dark matter, whether intuition more strongly supports objective moral truths or dark matter is obviously a pretty poor and irrelevant question. But it is NOT a fact that "almost every human who ever lived intuitively perceived an objective moral realm", and that would not entail that there is an "objective moral realm" anyways so the point is moot either way.

 

[gnostic]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Well, isn't circular reasoning just wonderful? :sarcastic

Sorry, but science is man-made tool or process of gathering and validating new information, through observing, testing or finding evidences.

God has no part to play in science.

 

[Thief]

Well, isn't circular reasoning just wonderful? :sarcastic

Sorry, but science is man-made tool or process of gathering and validating new information, through observing, testing or finding evidences.

God has no part to play in science.

So the all knowing and magnificient All Mighty.....doesn't know His own handiwork?
(just asking)

 

[metis]

So does the Chicago statement of faith but inerrancy applies only to revelation not that transmission of it. I find almost no Christians that understand this. In fact the only guarantee of perfection applies to the original revelation alone, not to it's copying.

Sorry, but I have seen a fair number of people here who claim it's entirely inerrant and must be taken literally. Take a look, for example, at some of the posts dealing with evolution/creationism.

 

[1robin]

I'm taking it for what it says.

What it says is irrelevant. My claims was about an approximately probability for a whole being very low based on my sample size. My sample size was zero this is consistent with a whole probability being very small. Your lone possible exception is irrelevant. I actually went to the site. I found nothing on biblical inerrancy and was surprised to find a very eloquent theory that included evolution in a Biblical narrative. Again I doubt the statements apparent literalness but it is irrelevant anyway.

You can deny that it says what it says if you wish. Your choice.

Says the person who claimed this statement:

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

even when combined with this additional quote:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176). Vilenkin

Actually meant the exact opposite of both.

Read more: Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith

Yes, I know. Hence why I said, "It doesn't matter if you're a member. I used the mission statement to point out that your claim in fact there are Christians in the world that do claim the Bible is right in totality. While you may not personally know these people, they do exist."

That had nothing to do with claim nor what is relevant. There are a small group of people who will and do believe in anything no matter how stupid. That has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of claims of other members of a group who hold faintly similar beliefs and has no relevance to either.

Claiming that because you personally know of no Christians that believe the Bible is perfect, doesn't say anything at all about how large or small the data set is. How have I butchered your claim?

It emphatically states exactly hat the data set is. My experience. You meant to complain that that data set no matter how large it is, is not big enough. That at least is a coherent if unknowable claim. I have more than enough data to have general understanding of biblical inerrancy as a doctrine and generally how persuasive the belief in it is. You do not seem to even understand what it is:


Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is accurate and totally free from error of any kind; that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". https://www.google.com/#q=biblical+inerrancy+definition

You are referring to infallibility and comes in several versions the one which you describe being by far the smaller. Statements like the Chicago statement of faith are what most protestants and most modern Catholics subscribe to and does not insist all bible's are infallible or any are. Only the originals. Since bibles differ slightly only the greatest of fools would claim they were all perfect, and I do not believe humans in general are the greatest of fools, not even at answers in genesis.

I read it the first time, thanks.

Then why do you keep making statements that are irrelevant to my claim?

Whether you personally know of a Christian that thinks the Bible is right in totality or not doesn't mean a whole lot of anything. It certainly doesn't mean they don't exist, as I've shown. Ask Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron or Eric Hovind if they think the Bible is right in totality until proven wrong. I bet they'd tell you that it is.

I know a few of those people very well and they do not believe all bible copies are perfectly accurate, and I doubt there is any chance that any think the one in their hand is, unless they are one of the few King James only idiots and I know that two of them are not for a fact. You are endowing inerrancy with a definition it does not have. That last line is also not what we have been discussing. You mentioned a group that believes the bible right regardless, I mentioned that most believe the original is right and will be proven right, now you throw in a group that believes it is right until over turned absolutely. What is next?

 

[1robin]

So... Post # or link?

Since as I said I already have done so and have still not been given credit for it there is no justification for doing so again. I actually tried to remember what the subject was. I went through four levels of posts and gave it up. I don't have time to post things 10 times over.

Ok, and? This still doesn't give you a basis for making a claim about scholarly consensus... Particularly when your impression is contradicted by the PhilPaper survey, which was taken from something like 1800 philosophy professors or PhD's. According to that survey, most professional philosophers are atheists (70+%), and most also believe that objective moral truths/values/facts exist (55-65%)- which is incompatible with your claim that most atheists grant that objective morality does not exist without God, since claiming that God does not exist and that objective morality does not exist without God precludes holding that objective morality exists.

When I get a Pulitzer, a Nobel, or as Nash claimed "to be offered president of the ant-arctic or the like then I will seek your approval. Here is another study I believe that was larger than yours.

On moral realism, we find that just over 30 percent think of themselves as moral realists, and over 50 percent as nonrealists.
What Do Philosophers Really Think? – Brainstorm - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education

This is a great place for something I found yesterday:

Atheists often argue that they can make moral claims and live good moral lives without believing in God. Many theists agree, but the real issue is whether atheism can provide a justification for morality. A number of leading atheists currently writing on this issue are opposed to moral relativism, given its obvious and horrific ramifications, and have attempted to provide a justification for a nonrelative morality. Three such attempts are discussed in this article: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s position that objective morality simply “is”; Richard Dawkins’s position that morality is based on the selfish gene; and Michael Ruse and Edward Wilson’s position that morality is an evolutionary illusion. Each of these positions, it turns out, is problematic. Sinnott-Armstrong affirms an objective morality, but affirming something and justifying it are two very different matters. Dawkins spells out his selfish gene approach by including four fundamental criteria, but his approach has virtually nothing to do with morality—with real right and wrong, good and evil. Finally, Ruse and Wilson disagree with Dawkins and maintain that belief in morality is just an adaptation put in place by evolution to further our reproductive ends. On their view, morality is simply an illusion foisted on us by our genes to get us to cooperate and to advance the species. But have they considered the ramifications of such a view? Each of these positions fails to provide the justification necessary for a universal, objective morality—the kind of morality in which good and evil are clearly understood and delineated.

[...]We can get to the heart of the atheist’s dilemma with a graphic but true example. Some years ago serial killer Ted Bundy, who confessed to over thirty murders, was interviewed about his gruesome activities. Consider the frightening words to his victim as he describes them:

Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong”….I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.


While I am in no way accusing atheists in general of being Ted Bundy-like, the question I have for the atheist is simply this: On what moral grounds can you provide a response to Bundy?
Chad Meister: can atheists make sense of morality? | Wintery Knight

Continued:

 

[1robin]

Sorry, but I have seen a fair number of people here who claim it's entirely inerrant and must be taken literally. Take a look, for example, at some of the posts dealing with evolution/creationism.

I can only say that knowing hundreds of Christians and looking the issue up many times nothing I ever found even hints at what you claimed. There are dozens of Bible versions that contain differences. It is very arrogant to assume a group as intellectual as Christians in any large measure considers books with slight inconsistencies all perfect. Even the doctrine on inerrancy it's self does not contain that belief.

 

[1robin]

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here.

I was telling you I was very busy and would only have time for the most relevant issue which was not how many scholars believed what.

I'm not interested in you citing a bunch of people who agree with you. I'm interested in your argument for the claim that objective moral truths/values/whatever can't exist unless God does.

I do not care. If you desire my response I will provide the best info I can. That will include many times what the experts think. Why in the world someone would not want the best possible info escapes me. That officially does it. I am not going to offer to do something that I really did not want to do over and over and either be ignored or be given qualifications that make no sense. I withdraw the offer and officially give up completely of on getting anyone to actually present what atheist groups claim is the foundation for objective morals. Enough is enough. I even tried to look a few up and kept getting tautologies and question begging.

Since intuition is not an argument for dark matter, whether intuition more strongly supports objective moral truths or dark matter is obviously a pretty poor and irrelevant question. But it is NOT a fact that "almost every human who ever lived intuitively perceived an objective moral realm", and that would not entail that there is an "objective moral realm" anyways so the point is moot either way.

I disagree with every statement here.

 

[metis]

I can only say that knowing hundreds of Christians and looking the issue up many times nothing I ever found even hints at what you claimed. There are dozens of Bible versions that contain differences. It is very arrogant to assume a group as intellectual as Christians in any large measure considers books with slight inconsistencies all perfect. Even the doctrine on inerrancy it's self does not contain that belief.

There are numerous examples that I think probably everybody here but you has seen at one time or another on one thread or another. The arrogance is on your part-- in spades-- because you simply continue to make up your own "reality" and then expect everyone here to be gullible enough to believe you.

BTW, not every Christian is an "intellectual", but I can see why you would think so.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Since as I said I already have done so and have still not been given credit for it there is no justification for doing so again. I actually tried to remember what the subject was. I went through four levels of posts and gave it up. I don't have time to post things 10 times over.

I'll settle for once. I don't believe that you ever addressed this particular point, at any length whatsoever, in any exchange in which I participated. But perhaps we'll get to it this time around.

Here is another study I believe that was larger than yours.

On moral realism, we find that just over 30 percent think of themselves as moral realists, and over 50 percent as nonrealists.
What Do Philosophers Really Think? – Brainstorm - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education

That is the exact same survey, and you're apparently misreading it:

Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?

Accept or lean toward: moral realism 525 / 931 (56.4%)
Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism 258 / 931 (27.7%)
Other 148 / 931 (15.9%)

56% of respondants accept or lean towards the thesis that objective moral truths/fact/duties exist, and yet 70 some percent disbelieve in God.

Atheists often argue that they can make moral claims and live good moral lives without believing in God. Many theists agree, but the real issue is whether atheism can provide a justification for morality. A number of leading atheists currently writing on this issue are opposed to moral relativism, given its obvious and horrific ramifications, and have attempted to provide a justification for a nonrelative morality. Three such attempts are discussed in this article: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s position that objective morality simply “is”; Richard Dawkins’s position that morality is based on the selfish gene; and Michael Ruse and Edward Wilson’s position that morality is an evolutionary illusion. Each of these positions, it turns out, is problematic. Sinnott-Armstrong affirms an objective morality, but affirming something and justifying it are two very different matters. Dawkins spells out his selfish gene approach by including four fundamental criteria, but his approach has virtually nothing to do with morality—with real right and wrong, good and evil.

Actually, it does. It just turns out that, if Dawkin's view is right, "real" right and wrong are slightly different from how they are ordinarily conceived, and our folk conception of these is simply mistaken. Saying that Dawkins is wrong because his definitions do not coincide with the popular, conventional understanding of right and wrong is simply begging the question.

Finally, Ruse and Wilson disagree with Dawkins and maintain that belief in morality is just an adaptation put in place by evolution to further our reproductive ends. On their view, morality is simply an illusion foisted on us by our genes to get us to cooperate and to advance the species. But have they considered the ramifications of such a view? Each of these positions fails to provide the justification necessary for a universal, objective morality—the kind of morality in which good and evil are clearly understood and delineated.

This is a bare assertion, unless you've simply omitted the part where he actually substantiates this.

[...]We can get to the heart of the atheist’s dilemma with a graphic but true example. Some years ago serial killer Ted Bundy, who confessed to over thirty murders, was interviewed about his gruesome activities. Consider the frightening words to his victim as he describes them:

Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong”….I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.

While I am in no way accusing atheists in general of being Ted Bundy-like, the question I have for the atheist is simply this: On what moral grounds can you provide a response to Bundy?
Chad Meister: can atheists make sense of morality? | Wintery Knight

Continued:

A few things here; the assumption that someone who is NOT a moral realist would not have ANY response to Bundy, that there are NO grounds to avoid committing such acts if there is no such thing as objective morality, is false to begin with. At the very least, there are very good practical reasons to avoid behavior that is typically understood as immoral. In any case, every form of moral realism has an available response here; the consequentialist simply points out that Bundy has failed to understand the meaning of moral concepts- "good" and "right" just mean that which tends to produce the most happiness and minimizes pain, and his actions objectively fail to meet this critera; thus, they are bad or wrong. The deontologist points out that Bundy has failed to recognize his rational duty in light of universal moral principles: his own actions are self-defeating. The virtue ethicist points out that there are some objective measures by which eudemonia, or flourishing, can be gauged, and that Bundy's actions are counter-productive, both for his own flourishing and that of his victims. Until something can be shown to be wrong with these sorts of responses, we are trying to solve a problem which does not yet exist.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do not care. If you desire my response I will provide the best info I can. That will include many times what the experts think. Why in the world someone would not want the best possible info escapes me. That officially does it. I am not going to offer to do something that I really did not want to do over and over and either be ignored or be given qualifications that make no sense. I withdraw the offer and officially give up completely of on getting anyone to actually present what atheist groups claim is the foundation for objective morals. Enough is enough. I even tried to look a few up and kept getting tautologies and question begging.

A mistake you routinely make is that you don't provide an argument but rather provide links to other people that agree with you. It doesn't matter if everyone in the world agreed with you if the argument doesn't hold up.

We are asking you specifically to make the argument. If you wish to use links then use links but actually form the argument.

There is no "atheist group" position on morality. It is up to the individual as nothing about "atheists" dictate how they feel on the subject. I have brought you the scientific research, findings and theories on morality. For whatever reason that didn't seem to be enough for you.

 

[Agnostic75]

I was telling you I was very busy and would only have time for the most relevant issue which was not how many scholars believed what.

Well how many scholars make a difference to you? You must have some interest in them since you later said:

".......I will provide the best info I can. That will include many times what the experts think. Why in the world someone would not want the best possible info escapes me."

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and the National Academy of Sciences are neutral on the existence of God. Some of you own highly touted sources, Vilenken, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, at best are agnostics, and have probably never said anything that agrees with your claim early in this thread that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. No widely accepted peer reviewed science papers make such a claim.

You have said a number of times that all of macro evolution has problems, but according to one study, in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept it. You made many posts about macro evolution even though your own personal knowledge of biology is rudimentary, and you have refused to debate experts. Whatever problems macro evolution has, according to most experts, creationism has far more problems than macro evolution does, but you never admitted that.

You would have no chance in debates against experts in many fields that you debate, so why should anyone at these forums pay any attention to you? I frequently only get involved in long debates regarding topics that I am willing to debate with experts, such as homosexuality, and certain aspects of the existence, and morality of God.

It is interesting to note that of the relative handful of experts who accept creationism, a good number of them also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory. Surely, their scientific judgments are questionable, and are more the result of biblical presuppositionalism than objective scientific research.

Please explain why some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people with lower incomes.

The best evidence shows that science alone cannot make a reasonable case for or against the existence of God. However, if for the sake of argument. everyone agreed that a God exists, that does not settle anything about morality since no one knows what God morals are. You are far from being an expert in biblical criticism and history. I know of some gifted skeptic amateurs at various Internet websites who would be willing to debate biblical criticism and history with you. Many of them are fluent in New Testament Greek. You debate many topics, but they specialize in biblical criticism and history, so their knowledge is far superior to yours.

You have touted people such as William Lance Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Thomas Aquinas, and C.S. Lewis. I do not have enough knowledge to debate much of those people's writings with you, but surely many skeptics do, and have far more knowledge about the writings of those people than you do.

So what is your actual opinion about experts? Do you care what they say, or not, or do you care what they say, but only what your handpicked experts say?

Regarding morality, even if a God inspired the Bible, that does not necessarily mean that God is fair, and just. All that that would mean is that God is powerful enough to enforce his own rules. Obviously, there is not a necessary correlation between morality, and power. No logic states that whoever God is, whatever he says and does is right. If that was so, then you would have to agree that if God told lies, it would be right for him to tell lies.

You never adequately refuted my argument that God could be evil, and could be masquerading as a good God. As I said, Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. You said that God gives Christians ways to tell good supernatural beings from bad supernatural beings, but logic indicates that if God is evil, and all powerful, if he wanted to, he could easily convince you, and millions of other people, that he is good.

 

[Agnostic75]

The universe even by most secular theories did not always exist.

I think that what you said deserves a thread of its own, so I will start one. I will title the new thread "The universe did not always exist."

 

[1robin]

A mistake you routinely make is that you don't provide an argument but rather provide links to other people that agree with you. It doesn't matter if everyone in the world agreed with you if the argument doesn't hold up.

We are asking you specifically to make the argument. If you wish to use links then use links but actually form the argument.

There is no "atheist group" position on morality. It is up to the individual as nothing about "atheists" dictate how they feel on the subject. I have brought you the scientific research, findings and theories on morality. For whatever reason that didn't seem to be enough for you.

I am one of the very few orthodox protestants in these threads and so am the target for most of the opposition, a few of which a very very prolific. I have typed my fingers off until I have developed a few techniques that save me some time. I constantly test reactions to simple claims before investing much time into developing what went into them. If I find a person with a dismissive attitude (maybe 40% of the time) I can save a lot of time by dismissing them and not developing something that will be ignored anyway. Another is to determine if semantics will be the focal point or a subjects intuitive value. Another factor is how respectful a person is. I have also learned that if I give my understanding scholars will be demanded, If I give scholars my understanding will be demanded. If an opinion a link will be demanded, if a link an opinion will be insisted upon. I wind up in 80% of the cases concluding I am not up against reason or evidence but preference and prefer not to waste to much time in those debates. If you review my posts you will find:

1. Links are given but not utilized.
2. Expert opinion being dismissed as a popularity contest.
3. My opinion being said to not be of authority.
4. Complaints of too lengthy posts.
5. Of too short posts.
6. I once even was told I could not use the defense given by the man who was quoted.

At this point I make arguments to my satisfaction and will continue to do so.

I have no idea about atheist's opinions in general but I do have a very good idea what is true of the atheist position. I go way way out of my way to specifically point out I am not making epistemological points about apprehension or beliefs. I make specifically ontological or foundational points. Yet as here I get epistemological complaints. There is no solution to this, I have even pointed out that I have pointed out that I make no epistemological claims and that it is a universally known fact atheists still complain about claims not made and even refuted, so I post to my own satisfaction. My authority is quite a bit above those who complain.

 

[1robin]

Well how many scholars make a difference to you? You must have some interest in them since you later said:

".......I will provide the best info I can. That will include many times what the experts think. Why in the world someone would not want the best possible info escapes me."

I do not remember the circumstances in which I claimed that but it is a hierarchical claim that would depend on the issue. For example if we are discussing hat I did yesterday a scientists opinion is not the best, mine is. It depends on the subject and my time limits.

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and the National Academy of Sciences are neutral on the existence of God. Some of you own highly touted sources, Vilenken, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, at best are agnostics, and have probably never said anything that agrees with your claim early in this thread that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. No widely accepted peer reviewed science papers make such a claim.

Physics has no significant relevance to faith. You might as well claim that most left handed, red haired, Eskimo's have faith. There is nothing in physics conclusive enough to confirm or deny faith but everything reliable is at least consistent with faith. I use scientists for scientific claims. Why aren't you? I have mentioned that Christians have contributed more to science than any similar group and have ben told that is irrelevant. Which is it? and why is todays scientific composition the arbiter of what it can't access anyway?

You have said a number of times that all of macro evolution has problems, but according to one study, in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept it. You made many posts about macro evolution even though your own personal knowledge of biology is rudimentary, and you have refused to debate experts. Whatever problems macro evolution has, according to most experts, creationism has far more problems than macro evolution does, but you never admitted that.

I am not going to say life from non life is no a problem until it isn't. I do not care if 1000% of people believe it. There are three categories to science. Claims hat have proof (I will not deny these), claims based on sufficient evidence (I almost always except these), claims based on significant faith (I will contend with these even if mistakenly called science). Creation does have problems. I do not see how it could have even a fraction as many because it does not have fractionally as much to bind it or violate. If Hitler had won WW2 and killed off all opposition then 100% of everyone would believe killing Jews was necessary. I would not be among them and that is not science.

You would have no chance in debates against experts in many fields that you debate, so why should anyone at these forums pay any attention to you? I frequently only get involved in long debates regarding topics that I am willing to debate with experts, such as homosexuality, and certain aspects of the existence, and morality of God.

I have no use for personal commentary but homosexuality has no defense at all and I am no longer entertaining the possibility it might. You had more than enough time to present that case and couldn't.

It is interesting to note that of the relative handful of experts who accept creationism, a good number of them also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory. Surely, their scientific judgments are questionable, and are more the result of biblical presuppositionalism than objective scientific research.

I do not agree with this type of creationist and they come in many types. You cannot condemn by the remotest of associations. For example most scientists history wise have believed in creationism but I make no claim to superiority on that account. I have noticed the people most resistant to expert opinion when against them are the greatest proponents when it helps.

Please explain why some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people with lower incomes.

That is not among my fields of knowledge. Perhaps they are less polluted by modern scientific propaganda. I have no idea. I do know that if any professional even mentions a theory that is consistent with God his career is as likely to end as continue. As with politics and every other human enterprise a necessary evil always becomes an absolute evil. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That does not enable facts to be invented (actually it does not stop the attempt) but it does make an industry out of ambiguity and classifies whatever faith is in vogue as truth. The exact same way it did when Popes condemned scientists.

The best evidence shows that science alone cannot make a reasonable case for or against the existence of God. However, if for the sake of argument. everyone agreed that a God exists, that does not settle anything about morality since no one knows what God morals are. You are far from being an expert in biblical criticism and history. I know of some gifted skeptic amateurs at various Internet websites who would be willing to debate biblical criticism and history with you. Many of them are fluent in New Testament Greek. You debate many topics, but they specialize in biblical criticism and history, so their knowledge is far superior to yours.

It does settle what moral foundations are and it does also improve greatly knowing what moral truths are. No matter what problems you invent of find with God he greatly clarifies morality and clarity is not even a test for truth anyway. I know with God the proposition that murder is wrong theoretically may be true and without God it can't be.

You have touted people such as William Lance Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Thomas Aquinas, and C.S. Lewis. I do not have enough knowledge to debate much of those people's writings with you, but surely many skeptics do, and have far more knowledge about the writings of those people than you do.

I cannot fault you for this but I can say unless you familiarize at least your self with the subjects these men have written on you do not have a proper grasp of the issues. It is sort of like saying you want to discuss math but have never read newton, Galileo, or Einstein. Certainly not a fault but not a qualification for debate either.

So what is your actual opinion about experts? Do you care what they say, or not, or do you care what they say, but only what your handpicked experts say?

I care about what they say in proportion to the know ability of what they claim and the logic employed.

Regarding morality, even if a God inspired the Bible, that does not necessarily mean that God is fair, and just. All that that would mean is that God is powerful enough to enforce his own rules. Obviously, there is not a necessary correlation between morality, and power. No logic states that whoever God is, whatever he says and does is right. If that was so, then you would have to agree that if God told lies, it would be right for him to tell lies.

One thing at a time. There are specific arguments or evidence for each claim and should not be faulted for insufficiency if misused.

You never adequately refuted my argument that God could be evil, and could be masquerading as a good God. As I said, Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. You said that God gives Christians ways to tell good supernatural beings from bad supernatural beings, but logic indicates that if God is evil, and all powerful, if he wanted to, he could easily convince you, and millions of other people, that he is good.

I responded with the divine command theory. Whatever God's nature made true would be called good or right. No argument exists to eradicate that fact. That is not to my liking but is so absolute I gave up and adopted it. For example I and Allah may not agree on what is right and I can reject him but he would still be right in the end because I have no standard to condemn him by that would succeed. I can and do call him evil but if he existed I would be wrong, but I would still reject him.

 

[1robin]

I think that what you said deserves a thread of its own, so I will start one. I will title the new thread "The universe did not always exist."

Send me the link but this will not be a long debate. This is simply consistent with most of the dominant models in cosmology.

 

[1robin]

I'll settle for once. I don't believe that you ever addressed this particular point, at any length whatsoever, in any exchange in which I participated. But perhaps we'll get to it this time around.

I will take it. I said something to you in another post that requires clarification. I said your comments ruined your credibility with me. That was not accurate. I meant that it eroded your objectivity in my opinion below justifying my response.

That is the exact same survey, and you're apparently misreading it:

56% of respondants accept or lean towards the thesis that objective moral truths/fact/duties exist, and yet 70 some percent disbelieve in God.

I searched for 70% in that article. It only appears twice: Here is the quote again: On some things we do estimate about right. For instance, we (that is professional philosophers) are about 70 percent atheist, and we estimate about the same number. As with snobbishness, I cannot tell whether we go into philosophy because we are atheists, and looking for a nonreligious meaning to life (the Darwinian selection answer), or become atheists as a result of doing modern philosophy (the Lamarckian acquired answer). Believe me, modern philosophy is not very god friendly, although as it happens there are some very well-regarded philosophers — like Alvin Plantinga — who are openly and aggressively Christian.

As you dig in, you do start to get really interesting nuggets of information. For instance, among philosophers of religion (this is a self-described category), 70 percent describe themselves as theists and only 20 percent as atheists, and when it comes to moral realism — meaning that you think that moral claims (“Don’t hit children”) refer to actual facts of some kind (often these are thought to be non-natural facts, like God’s will) — then over 80 percent of philosophers of religion think of themselves as moral realists and only 10 percent as moral nonrealists. When you turn however to philosophers of biology, a group to which I belong, nearly 85 percent think of themselves as atheists and a mere 1.5 percent think of themselves as theists. On moral realism, we find that just over 30 percent think of themselves as moral realists, and over 50 percent as nonrealists.
What Do Philosophers Really Think? – Brainstorm - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education
That article is all over the place but I do not see what you do and I do see what I said. Please highlight where you get your claim as I did.

Actually, it does. It just turns out that, if Dawkin's view is right, "real" right and wrong are slightly different from how they are ordinarily conceived, and our folk conception of these is simply mistaken. Saying that Dawkins is wrong because his definitions do not coincide with the popular, conventional understanding of right and wrong is simply begging the question.

I did not say Dawkin's was wrong. If there is no God I can't. He appears to reasonably conclude no objective standard exists so no one could ever claim Hitler was right or wrong, and I agree given atheism. You can't dress garbage up as a princess, but you tried hard.

This is a bare assertion, unless you've simply omitted the part where he actually substantiates this.

I see nothing contentious in that statement in need of clarity. It is the simplest of deductions. What is it you challenge?

A few things here; the assumption that someone who is NOT a moral realist would not have ANY response to Bundy, that there are NO grounds to avoid committing such acts if there is no such thing as objective morality, is false to begin with. At the very least, there are very good practical reasons to avoid behavior that is typically understood as immoral. In any case, every form of moral realism has an available response here; the consequentialist simply points out that Bundy has failed to understand the meaning of moral concepts- "good" and "right" just mean that which tends to produce the most happiness and minimizes pain, and his actions objectively fail to meet this critera; thus, they are bad or wrong. The deontologist points out that Bundy has failed to recognize his rational duty in light of universal moral principles: his own actions are self-defeating. The virtue ethicist points out that there are some objective measures by which eudemonia, or flourishing, can be gauged, and that Bundy's actions are counter-productive, both for his own flourishing and that of his victims. Until something can be shown to be wrong with these sorts of responses, we are trying to solve a problem which does not yet exist.

I did not provide that as condemnation of realism or atheists but of atheism. I said atheism does not contain a sufficient contention to his claims, a personally more persuasive reason not to do as he did may exist but no objective condemnation does. It may be said his actions do not agree with another's but it can't be said his justifications for his actions are wrong. The other professionals you mention first of all do not give objective reasons for their claims and second of all they only got another result from the same equations. For example Hitler and his cohorts sincerely thought their actions would actually improve human societies development in the future. They used the same equation (in general) and got another result. Others used it and determined killing a hundred million human lives in the womb was just fine but killing a condemned murderer was not. Your equations are so full of ambiguity and assumptions that anyone can get almost any answer and there exists no objective criteria to know which one is right, the exact same way no objective political criteria means two diametrically opposed positions are both claimed by millions to be right even as Rome burns.

 

[1robin]

There are numerous examples that I think probably everybody here but you has seen at one time or another on one thread or another. The arrogance is on your part-- in spades-- because you simply continue to make up your own "reality" and then expect everyone here to be gullible enough to believe you.

BTW, not every Christian is an "intellectual", but I can see why you would think so.

1. You have changed your claim from a "fair number" which is ambiguous but only has relevance if meaning significant number of Biblical inerrant here. Which I disagree with, to claiming that numerous examples exist which is so ambiguous I can't consider. I claim the large majority of Christians believe the revelation was pure and the translation almost but not perfectly accurate. I do not care and have no idea the relevance of the 5% or 10% you are talking about.

2. That is reality and the reality I live in, though what the purpose of that remark is I do not know. The reality is this is what the term means: Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is accurate and totally free from error of any kind; that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". https://www.google.com/#q=biblical+inerrancy+definition

3. I never said that Christians were all scholars and have no idea where you got this. If you mean that Christians in large numbers are so stupid to believe a book that differs by translation as much as 5% are all correct then that deserves no response.

 

[Agnostic75]

You never adequately refuted my argument that God could be evil, and could be masquerading as a good God. As I said, Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. You said that God gives Christians ways to tell good supernatural beings from bad supernatural beings, but logic indicates that if God is evil, and all powerful, if he wanted to, he could easily convince you, and millions of other people, that he is good.

I responded with the divine command theory. Whatever God's nature made true would be called good or right. No argument exists to eradicate that fact. That is not to my liking but is so absolute I gave up and adopted it. For example I and Allah may not agree on what is right and I can reject him but he would still be right in the end because I have no standard to condemn him by that would succeed. I can and do call him evil but if he existed I would be wrong, but I would still reject him.

Wikipedia says:

"Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by what God commands, and that to be moral is to follow his commands. Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God's commands in establishing morality."

I do not have any idea what that means, but none of it makes any difference since an evil omnipotent God would have just as much power as a good omnipotent God, and would be able to do anything that he wanted to do, including deceiving anyone who he wanted to deceive, and predicting the future.