INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Omnipotence as a capacity works- the potential to enact any state of affairs, but not necessarily actually enacting all states of affairs- and perhaps even omniscience (although a being that not only has the capacity to know everything, if it should choose to do so, but in fact does know everything would be more "all knowing" than one that merely has the capacity to know everything)... But it won't work with omnibenevolence; benevolence is a feature of intentions, motives- it does imply purpose. Thus, a being that has the capacity for being all-loving or all good, but does not do so, is clearly not as benevolent as one that is maximally loving or good in actuality.

Omni benevolence is a description of nature not capability. A being without any capacity to affect change may be all good. BTW Omni benevolence as a term in not in the Bible. In fact without God Omni-benevolence, benevolence, good, and evil have no foundation as a category of actual truth at all. As many atheists like Dawkins and Ruse have said morality without God is an illusion or a contrivance. Not truth.

Furthermore, the conjunction of these three attributes excludes the sort of "parent" situation you describe; no such "tough love" or "hard lessons" are required for a being with omnipotence- in other words, no suffering or evil is necessary to achieve any of the goals omnibenevolence may dictate. Being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent would mean you can make omelets without breaking any eggs.

They are perfectly consistent with a being that chose to act within certain parameters. Mainly freewill. If I have no capacity to reject him then I am not free. If my actions are prevented from causing suffering the object lesson necessary to convince many is missing. Omni-benevolence only dictates nature not action. It may be that the exact ration of good and evil we have will produce the most people that freely choose God.

A necessary being (and the only being that is ever really said to be necessary is God) is often said to be "independent of cause" as well, but that isn't what "necessary being" means. It means no more and no less than that God "must exist"- the logical sense I've described.

Actually the argument from necessary existence is used by philosophers as proof God does exist. I have never liked the argument as I hate the subject but no one in formal debate has to my knowledge ever claimed it as evidence he does not exist. I also have never heard a philosopher use a must exist aspect of "necessary being". I am not saying it doesn't include that but it must be so low on the application list it never receives acknowledgement and I have see hundreds of hours of debates. One thing is certain the non-contingent is the most often used aspect by far (I mean far) in professional debates on God.

Thus, your claim is clearly mistaken.

See the above

The theologians and philosophers mentioned above have argued that God "must exist"- including contemporaries like Plantinga, Hartshorne, Thomists like Gilson, as well as all the historical writers (like Anselm, Godel, etc.).

Gödel was a mathematician. Anselm was a theologian. My comment left out a qualifier. I meant in modern debate. I have little access to the older debates. Craig is a philosopher and probably the one who uses that argument the most AS PROOF OF GOD and I have never seen him mention the necessity of existence. In fact he even corrected someone who thought that is what necessary being meant.

As we have seen, you are apparently not especially acquainted with the relevent portion of the literature. It is traditionally held that God is a logically necessary being- that is, that he exists necessarily. (it is also traditionally held that God is uncaused/self-caused, but this is not the same claim as his necessary existence)

As I have said I hate modal being and regard it as very weak and to technical issue no matter who's side uses it. However every philosopher I have seen use it had the view that I have explained. Here is the argument as I have heard it used.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/craig-s-case-for-theism-argument-maps-t21229-20.html

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I would say that Omnibenevolence while not biblical is implied much like all the other Omni's.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree with some of this. I do not know the specific physical applications of the supernatural but no claim I made that I can remember requires I do so. I have claimed:

1. The rules known to govern natural law have no known application the supernatural. The supernatural is defined as that which in non natural. There is no reason what so ever to think what applies to the natural applies to the supernatural. The statement it does is not even coherent. The supernatural is often categorized as a suspension of natural law. Something can't apply where it is suspended.

There's no reason to think it doesn't apply either, considering that if the supernatural world even exists at all we have no way of knowing anything about it.

2. I claim many philosophical things about the supernatural which there exists no reason to think do not apply though it is not a proven fact they do.

There's no reason to think they do apply either. I can make all kinds of claims about the mating habits of the abominable snowman if I want, but it doesn't amount to much. See above.

3. I can also posit supernatural truths revealed in theology as truths as likely as the integrity of the texts used.

There are no supernatural truths.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even if true your contention (or complaint) is a genetic fallacy. A claim is not wrong because of how it began. The eye is a challenge to evolution at this point even if I read it on a cereal box.

Not really.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not the way I understand it. Some creatures split from a creature that had a visual functionality some did not. However even if every creature with an eye split from one having, let's say a light sensitive patch on it's head it still would not explain why each branch evolved a similar eye structure eventually.[/font][/color]

No but it did many times. BTW the eye was just a single example. There are thousands of these things. There is even a term for them called divergent evolution I believe.

That is inapplicable unless every later commonality had an original primitive source. Many things have no record past a certain point that lies beyond a split.

Let's say that is true overall for convenience. Why di most creatures evolve from that very very primitive light sensitive group of cells to create so many eyes with identical parts.

I will get to your links if I ever get caught up. However I have read many explanations of this difficulty. Some do give a reasonable explanation to a percentage of cases. (Not a proven solution but at least a reasoned response). However no theory solves what we see in reality. Dawkins was asked this once and he ruined his already low credibility with me. He literally drew a cartoon and say there you have it. Even if his cartoon was logical (it wasn't) how is a cartoon evidence?

I'll wait til you read the links then.

And while you're at it you can watch Richard Dawkins' demonstration of eye evolution.
[youtube]Nwew5gHoh3E[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Omni benevolence is a description of nature not capability. A being without any capacity to affect change may be all good.

Sure, but a being that is all good (omnibenevolent) that has a capacity to affect change would have to affect such changes as it can in accordance with its (all good) nature/goals/motives- and this obviously applies to a being that has the capacity to affect any possible change (an omnipotent one).

BTW Omni benevolence as a term in not in the Bible.

Obviously. When we're talking about a God that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, necessary, eternal, and so on, we obviously are not talking about the Biblical God, but the God "of the Theologians", as it were. Now, supposedly these two are the same entity (or so the story goes), but we can at least make a conceptual distinction here. And at present we're talking about the God of Christian theology, not Christian scripture.

They are perfectly consistent with a being that chose to act within certain parameters.

Not so fast- whence comes these parameters? Are they self-imposed? Then they would constitute a "hit" against his benevolence. If they are not, then this is a "hit" against his potency.

Mainly freewill. If I have no capacity to reject him then I am not free. If my actions are prevented from causing suffering the object lesson necessary to convince many is missing. Omni-benevolence only dictates nature not action. It may be that the exact ration of good and evil we have will produce the most people that freely choose God.

And as I mentioned, this is an inadequate response- one can have freedom of the will, in the sense that one's actions are not constrained or compelled, and yet have an inability to act in such a way that causes suffering. Most of our actions- which we "freely will", are not moral choices; thus an inability to cause suffering would not constrain our will in any absolute way. We could be unable to cause suffering, not through compulsion, but through a simple lack of this ability- the same way we cannot fly, not through any lack of freedom but due to lack of an ability to do so.

Moreover, the free will defense does not touch the problem of natural evil, i.e. suffering that does NOT result from agency of persons (i.e. genetic disorders, natural disasters, the food chain, etc.)

Actually the argument from necessary existence is used by philosophers as proof God does exist.

The argument for (not from) necessary existence has indeed been a popular form of natural theology espoused by philosophers. But it is also extremely historically significant, and the notion of God's necessity has informed many theologies.

I also have never heard a philosopher use a must exist aspect of "necessary being".

"Must exist" (in a logical sense) is precisely what "necessary being" means in these contexts.

I am not saying it doesn't include that but it must be so low on the application list it never receives acknowledgement and I have see hundreds of hours of debates. One thing is certain the non-contingent is the most often used aspect by far (I mean far) in professional debates on God.

Non-contingent=necessary. Same thing.

And the necessary existence of God is a persisent theme in Christian theology.

Gödel was a mathematician. Anselm was a theologian. My comment left out a qualifier. I meant in modern debate. I have little access to the older debates. Craig is a philosopher and probably the one who uses that argument the most AS PROOF OF GOD and I have never seen him mention the necessity of existence. In fact he even corrected someone who thought that is what necessary being meant.

Craig is a bad representative; despite the amount of press he receives, he is mostly just a footnote within academia. He's basically "theology for dummies", the Top 100 radio version of natural theology- easily accessible for the layman, but not much depth or meat on the bone.

In any case, God's necessity remains a feature of contemporary theology- Alvin Plantinga, probably the most noteworthy and foremost theologian active today, just released a book on the subject a few years ago, The Nature of Necessity, where he offers a sustained argument for God's necessary existence.

In any case, what I've said here obviously doesn't apply to conceptions of God which doesn't have the relevant attributes (necessity, omnipotence, etc.)- but it does show that any conception of God which includes these attributes could not exist.

 

[1robin]

There's no reason to think it doesn't apply either, considering that if the supernatural world even exists at all we have no way of knowing anything about it.

Actually unless your stance renders your acknowledgement of it impossible I think I can prove this wrong. Lets say we have an X that is completely unknown. Is it more probable that a very specific set of laws that apply to a totally unrelated and independent Y also apply to X or is probability on the side of claiming that something other that what governs Y govern X. That is absolute. I may be wrong but probability is almost infinitely on my side. There are many other ways why what you said is incorrect or at least highly improbable but that one is enough. I can't even imagine the "whatever-ness" it would take to make the argument you have here. I have wondered why I am the only one who in a debate with people as committed as you I am the only one that will ever concede the slightest thing (I would never have even thought to claim monkeys are as smart as humans). After many weeks and discussing it with a Phd and a man with two masters I think it is because I am so secure with the concept I defend that admitting a mistake in a peripheral semantic issue or word use is no threat to me or my position and my claim to God is based on experience and any claim of no-God is not. It seems as if many atheists and non-theists think that if the slightest ray of light gets through the whole house of cards will fall. Even if I was a monkey randomly hitting the key board, with this many posts I had to be right even if by accident many times yet I do not recall your ever conceding the slightest point. Why is that?

There's no reason to think they do apply either. I can make all kinds of claims about the mating habits of the abominable snowman if I want, but it doesn't amount to much. See above.

What governs X is almost surely not the same as what governs not X. As I have pointed out miracles are commonly referred to as suspensions of natural law. How can natural law govern a suspension of it. How did natural law raise Christ, heal the blind, or calm the storm even theoretically? The claim its self is just strange.

There are no supernatural truths.

You can't know that. Claiming to know that which you not only do not but can't is described by harsher terms than I will use here.

 

[1robin]

Not really.

No, that is an official fallacy.

 

[1robin]

I'll wait til you read the links then.

And while you're at it you can watch Richard Dawkins' demonstration of eye evolution.
[youtube]Nwew5gHoh3E[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

Not only have I watched it I can duplicate it. It is the worst demonstration for proof of evolution I have ever seen and it even embarrassed me. It was one drawing or cartoon which he changed and said there. I even have several problems with the drawing. However his demonstration did not even address many of the problems I mentioned. If I drew a picture of Christ rising is that proof?

 

[1robin]

Sure, but a being that is all good (omnibenevolent) that has a capacity to affect change would have to affect such changes as it can in accordance with its (all good) nature/goals/motives- and this obviously applies to a being that has the capacity to affect any possible change (an omnipotent one).

Before we even talk about this tell me something. On what basis would a human know what good even actually was unless God existed? On what basis would he know what an all good being must do? Suppose an all good being was powerless or not aware.

Obviously. When we're talking about a God that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, necessary, eternal, and so on, we obviously are not talking about the Biblical God, but the God "of the Theologians", as it were. Now, supposedly these two are the same entity (or so the story goes), but we can at least make a conceptual distinction here. And at present we're talking about the God of Christian theology, not Christian scripture.

I am pretty sure we were talking about the Biblical God however if we are talking about a philosophers God I am not a believer so have no need to defend that God.

Not so fast-

I will type slower if that's even possible.

whence comes these parameters? Are they self-imposed? Then they would constitute a "hit" against his benevolence. If they are not, then this is a "hit" against his potency.

They are part of his eternal nature. A discussion of the source of eternal things is beyond my capacity. However it is not a strike against omnipotence to say he did not do any certain thing.

And as I mentioned, this is an inadequate response- one can have freedom of the will, in the sense that one's actions are not constrained or compelled, and yet have an inability to act in such a way that causes suffering. Most of our actions- which we "freely will", are not moral choices; thus an inability to cause suffering would not constrain our will in any absolute way. We could be unable to cause suffering, not through compulsion, but through a simple lack of this ability- the same way we cannot fly, not through any lack of freedom but due to lack of an ability to do so.

I could argue with this based on logic but it is sufficient to say that reality is consistent with God's purpose. No one is qualified to say what his purpose should have been only if his actions are consistent with it. Sorry it's been a long day I am taking the easy but just as effective way out.

Moreover, the free will defense does not touch the problem of natural evil, i.e. suffering that does NOT result from agency of persons (i.e. genetic disorders, natural disasters, the food chain, etc.)

Genesis does. When we told God that we "got this" God said then have at it. The distortion of natural events is to provide evidence of that initial fall and it's inconceivable effects.

The argument for (not from) necessary existence has indeed been a popular form of natural theology espoused by philosophers. But it is also extremely historically significant, and the notion of God's necessity has informed many theologies.

That is great but it did not challenge what I said it contained.

"Must exist" (in a logical sense) is precisely what "necessary being" means in these contexts.

There is no basis for claiming a thing must exist mush less as a form of argument and as I have said no philosopher I have seen suggested this. Some even corrected someone who did.

Non-contingent=necessary. Same thing.

Now that is something I can show is wrong. Being independent from causation does nothing to show it must exist. It just means its existence is not conditional on anything else. I believe God exists but it is possible he doesn't.

And the necessary existence of God is a persisent theme in Christian theology.

Verse please. The Bible assumes he exists and describes him independent from causation but never suggests he must exist. BTW is not your argument that he does not exist. How can something that must exist not exist.

Craig is a bad representative; despite the amount of press he receives, he is mostly just a footnote within academia. He's basically "theology for dummies", the Top 100 radio version of natural theology- easily accessible for the layman, but not much depth or meat on the bone.

He is a contributing faculty many of several colleges and got his degree from a very respected school not to mention he has destroyed every secular philosopher I have seen him face. I have heard him challenged but never said to be less than extremely competent. You will need more than your opinion to convince. What about Ravi Zacharias and his half dozen doctorates, he makes the same argument and I know of no-one more respected.

In any case, God's necessity remains a feature of contemporary theology- Alvin Plantinga, probably the most noteworthy and foremost theologian active today, just released a book on the subject a few years ago, The Nature of Necessity, where he offers a sustained argument for God's necessary existence.

I have admitted that I hate the subject. I do not think it compelling for either side but will look at this man's pedigree if you give link.

In any case, what I've said here obviously doesn't apply to conceptions of God which doesn't have the relevant attributes (necessity, omnipotence, etc.)- but it does show that any conception of God which includes these attributes could not exist.

In summary I deny any claim that anything must exist and any basis for claiming that. I would like an explanation for why anything must exist that is not an exercise in futile rhetoric however.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Not only have I watched it I can duplicate it. It is the worst demonstration for proof of evolution I have ever seen and it even embarrassed me. It was one drawing or cartoon which he changed and said there. I even have several problems with the drawing. However his demonstration did not even address many of the problems I mentioned. If I drew a picture of Christ rising is that proof?

I would love to see this. The video is not proof of evolution but it is disproof of the immediate creation theory. Evolution is the state of something evolving and perfecting itself over time.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Before we even talk about this tell me something. On what basis would a human know what good even actually was unless God existed?

What? Humans have been making value-judgments since before Christianity existed. Describing things as "good" or "bad" has no logical connection to any claims about any deities...

On what basis would he know what an all good being must do? Suppose an all good being was powerless or not aware.

Except that, per the problem of evil, the being in question is omnipotent and omniscient. Without these attributes, there is no problem- so are you saying God is not omnipotent or not omniscient?

I am pretty sure we were talking about the Biblical God however if we are talking about a philosophers God I am not a believer so have no need to defend that God.

We're talking about the God of Christian theology- the entity named "God" as described by the likes of St. Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and so on.

This is not obviously the same entity as the Biblical God, although they are purported to be the same thing. Prima facie, they have different attributes and characteristics.

I will type slower if that's even possible.

Not sure what good that is going to do, but whatever floats your boat.

However it is not a strike against omnipotence to say he did not do any certain thing.

Right. It is a conflict when omnibenevolence is added to the picture- then it makes a requirement for action.

I could argue with this based on logic but it is sufficient to say that reality is consistent with God's purpose.

Then one of the "omni" attributes must be given up.

Genesis does. When we told God that we "got this" God said then have at it. The distortion of natural events is to provide evidence of that initial fall and it's inconceivable effects.

How does that alleviate the problem of evil?

There is no basis for claiming a thing must exist mush less as a form of argument and as I have said no philosopher I have seen suggested this.

I've given a list of prominent philosophers and theologians who argue this. They are some of the most significant Christian thinkers history has to offer.

Now that is something I can show is wrong. Being independent from causation does nothing to show it must exist.

No, "contingent" is a technical term in logic, meaning "possible not to be". This is the sense in which God is said to be contingent by St. Thomas, for instance.

I'm out of time, I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not only have I watched it I can duplicate it.

Good. That's how science is supposed to work.

It is the worst demonstration for proof of evolution I have ever seen and it even embarrassed me. It was one drawing or cartoon which he changed and said there. I even have several problems with the drawing. However his demonstration did not even address many of the problems I mentioned. If I drew a picture of Christ rising is that proof?

It's not a demonstration for the proof of evolution, it's a demonstration on how the eye works and how it evolved. He used those particular drawings because we happen to know many of the various stages in eye development from studying the eyes of living creatures. Remember I told you that every known stage in eye evolution is present in living organisms?

Did you bother reading the very good articles I provided for you? Or do I have to address each of your individual claims?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, that is an official fallacy.

The eye is not a challenge to evolution at this point in time.

 

[Agnostic75]

Even if true your contention (or complaint) is a genetic fallacy. A claim is not wrong because of how it began. The eye is a challenge to evolution at this point even if I read it on a cereal box.

About a week ago you said that macro evolution is likely. Do you still believe that?

An article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation shows that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macro evolution.

The same article shows that some of the most likely people to support creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have less income.

The National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, but they strongly support macro evolution.

Even Michael Behe, who you once used as a source, supports macro evolution. He said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

The New York Academy of Sciences Magazine has an article about the evolution of the eye at How the Eye Evolved | The New York Academy of Sciences. There are numerous other Internet articles that also show that the evolution of the eye is not an issue that comes even remotely close to causing the vast majority of experts to reject macro evolution.

Whatever challenges that the evolution of the eye has, surely Behe, and the rest of the vast majority of experts who support macro evolution, including the majority of Christian experts, obviously believe that the total scientific evidence for macro evolution far outweighs the evidence against it. As far as biology is concerned, you are a layman, and an amateur, and do not nearly know enough about it to debate an expert who accepts macro evolution, and win the debate. Even is you were an expert, why should laymen take the word of a relative handful of creationist experts, many of whom also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory. Some examples are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Answers in Genesis (AIG). Both organizations accept the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

Consider the following:

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While an overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.

The Discovery Institute, a pro–intelligent design lobby group located in the United States, also claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.

Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data.

Quite simply, there are not any good reasons why anyone should pay any attention to anything that you say against macro evolution. The fact that you have refused to debate macro evolution with an expert, but are still discussing it with laymen shows that you do not mind conceding that you would lose a debate with an expert as long as you can try to create doubt among laymen. However, all that any laymen needs to do is to tell you "Since I am a layman, I am not able to understand lots of often complex biology, nor can you, in which case I believe that it is reasonable to accept the professional scientific opinions of the vast majority of experts."

 

[Agnostic75]

There is no argument even theoretically possible to counter one that having access to the true architect of the universe (God) would not affect positively the scientific knowledge of that group of people.

Then since the ancient Greeks were way beyond the ancient Hebrews in science, art, philosophy, and literature, the Greek gods must have given them that knowledge, or an unknown god.

There most certainly is not any necessary correlation between which groups of people have made the most scientific achievements, and the truth. If there were, then if one day the vast majority of the greatest scientists were not Christians, that would mean that Christianity is a false religion. If you believe that you have some documented research that shows a necessary correlation between scientific achievements, and the truth, please post it. It would be even better if you started a new thread on that topic, but I doubt that you will since you know that you cannot adequately defend such a claim, neither at this forum, nor at any philosophy website that has lots of professional members.

When Hurricane Katrina went ashore in Louisiana, Christians there supposedly had access to God, but God destroyed their homes, and killed some of them just like he did regarding all other groups of people. The people who recovered the best were rich people, who were able to more easily rebuild their homes, or relocate elsewhere.

Ancient Hebrews supposedly had access to God, but in the beginning of the second century A.D., the Roman Emperor Trajan went to Palestine, and killed 500,000 Jews.

Today, Christians supposedly have access to God, but generally, the people who have the best health are not specifically Christians, but people who eat healthy foods, and get enough exercise.

Please reply to my post #1347 about homosexuality, a subject that you are poorly prepared to debate. Surely no rational person would ever recommend that all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life, even monogamous homosexuals (about half of homosexuals are monogamous), since, as you claimed, monogamous homosexuals could not guarantee that they would stay monogamous. That is really wacky, and incoherent, but is consistent in its absurdity with your attempt in another thread to compare homosexuality with cannibalism. I mentioned that dozens of countries successfully allows gays to join the military. You basically replied "So what, cannibalism has also worked well for some cultures." Cannibalism obviously did not work well for the people who were eaten, but often, homosexuality works well for many homosexuals, especially for monogamous homosexuals.

 

[1robin]

I would love to see this. The video is not proof of evolution but it is disproof of the immediate creation theory. Evolution is the state of something evolving and perfecting itself over time.

I have no idea how to supply you with that video. It was one in which he drew a picture of something he called a light sensitive spot, and then he simply scribbled successive theoretical changes to it and said "there". My point is not that the eye never evolved it was that what he did was not proof of anything beyond the fact that nothing is too absurd to be considered proof. I believe evolution happened. BTW what is "immediate creation theory" do you mean a literal 6 days concept? I have no firm creation theory only that evolution alone could not produce reality as well know it.

 

[1robin]

What? Humans have been making value-judgments since before Christianity existed. Describing things as "good" or "bad" has no logical connection to any claims about any deities...

I was not making an epistemological argument but an ontological one. I believe that anyone can access a moral realm but only with God does it have any foundation. Prove that without God killing all life on Earth is actually wrong or evil.

Except that, per the problem of evil, the being in question is omnipotent and omniscient. Without these attributes, there is no problem- so are you saying God is not omnipotent or not omniscient?

No, I was saying that Omni-benevolence does not necessity action nor does omnipotence. It is one thing to bee all good and another to be all powerful but neither force against an independent object. To be good doe snot necessitate making everything else good.

We're talking about the God of Christian theology- the entity named "God" as described by the likes of St. Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and so on.

Did not you just say we were speaking of a philosophers God. The way you post kills the links so it is not easy to go back and verify.

This is not obviously the same entity as the Biblical God, although they are purported to be the same thing. Prima facie, they have different attributes and characteristics.

The philosophers God and the Christian God are considered independent concepts by even Christian Philosophers.

Right. It is a conflict when omnibenevolence is added to the picture- then it makes a requirement for action.

I think you are aware I disagree. I may be good and powerful enough to do so but that would not necessitate I make anyone else do only good. How can a limited human even begin to know what Omni benevolence means in every detail.

Then one of the "omni" attributes must be given up.

Characteristics of nature are not binding on actions beyond those taken. How can any God who grants freewill subvert what is granted?

How does that alleviate the problem of evil?

Evil is allowed to persist because it generates faith or proves that evil exists as claimed to. Everyone knows that if we tell a child to take of his toys but always fix them when he breaks them the Child will doubt the wisdom of our request. The destruction nature causes is to provide evidence of what sin costs.

I've given a list of prominent philosophers and theologians who argue this. They are some of the most significant Christian thinkers history has to offer.

Please explain why something must exist. Every philosopher I have seen use the argument claims only that God is non contingent if others claim he must then why? I do not wish semantic reason I want logical ones.

No, "contingent" is a technical term in logic, meaning "possible not to be". This is the sense in which God is said to be contingent by St. Thomas, for instance.

God may be real, he may be absent, he may be non-contingent but I fail to see the slightest even theoretical reason to think him contingent. Nothing preceded God for him to be contingent on. What is God contingent on?

I'm out of time, I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.

Take your time, I am swamped.

 

[1robin]

Good. That's how science is supposed to work.

I said I could duplicate what he did I did not say what he did was science. He did not duplicate evolution so he did not do as it was "supposed" to by your standards.

It's not a demonstration for the proof of evolution, it's a demonstration on how the eye works and how it evolved. He used those particular drawings because we happen to know many of the various stages in eye development from studying the eyes of living creatures. Remember I told you that every known stage in eye evolution is present in living organisms?

I know what it was representative of but I believe the request was how do we know it occurred.

Did you bother reading the very good articles I provided for you? Or do I have to address each of your individual claims?

I have read some. I must get a dozen a day and can't get to all of them. I read enough of yours however to know you claim more for them that they contain in many cases.

 

[1robin]

The eye is not a challenge to evolution at this point in time.

I see duplication is not a requisite when it does not exist. How convenient.