INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

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

Despite it having no discernible threshold I am sure major steps in evolution have occurred.

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.

Why is this relevant in a discussion with someone who believes it occurred?

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.

I believe this the fourth time you have copied and pasted this and I still do not know the purpose.

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

You have also posted this many times and I have addressed it and it seems like that is true of the balance so I will delete it. It does no good to contend something only to have it repeated over and over.

 

[1robin]

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.

First what is meant by ancient Hebrews and ancient Greeks are not equivalent. Second the Biblical God is concerned with spiritual truth and scientific truth is a distant second at best.

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.

I do not initiate claims that Godliness is necessary for scientific achievement and only mention theisms dominance of science during it most heyday as a response to irresponsible assertions that it lacks scientific achievement like in your poor equivalence with evolutions acceptance. I do claim the Bible gives scientific truths through revelation but beyond that there is little connection.

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.

As far as I know Moses died, Abraham dies, Jesus died. I think the precedent that Christians die is well established by the Bible.

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.

I do not know about this particular event but most of Israel's troubles came through their disobedience. However why do you not consider evidence to the contrary from what you have as arguments for God. For example prophecy says Israel will never again be evicted from their land. They have defeated armies that outnumbered them by over 20-1 and have done so in some of the most lopsided victories in history despite the fact that in 1948 5 nations attacked them and they had a grand total of 3 tanks, no air force, and no standing army. Seems your very inconsistent.

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.

God is primarily concerned with spiritual well being not physical. God has condemned this world and is not trying to fix it.

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.

I am not debating homosexuality currently. I do not have enough time to answer the posts on the subjects I am interested in and you seem to be repeating yourself on that issue even more than you are here.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

Why ask for a Biblical citation when I've already clarified that, at present, we are not necessarily talking about the Biblical God, but rather about the God of Christian theology? And I'm not arguing that God must exist- this is a claim made by Christian theologians, which I'm arguing is logically inconsistent with other claims about God- namely, the attribution of omnipotence.

(and we can set up a similar argument with eternality and omnipotence- i.e. that an eternal being ("eb") is one which, in any logically possible world P such that eb exists in P, there is never any time (t) such that eb does not exist in P.

But an omnipotent being ("ob") is such that there is at least one possible world P such that ob exists in P at at some time t1 but does not exist in P at some later time t2.

This is also a contradiction, and shows that no entity can be both omnipotent and eternal any more than one could be omnipotent and necessary...)

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'm happy for him. Unfortunately, debating doesn't necessarily have a whole lot to do with philosophy, and skill as a debator doesn't imply any merit as a philosopher. And on paper, his many arguments for the existence have God have been consistently refuted and debunked, and the general consensus is that they ultimately fail for a variety of reasons- many writers have shown as much.

Moreover, his works are not cited in academic journals, and number of scholarly citations is as strong an objective quantifier of the relative influence or significance of a writer as any. He simply is not relevant within the academic fields of theology or philosophy of religion. His work is for popular consumption, it is "lightweight" stuff. WLC is essentially Alvin Plantinga Lite.

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.

You've evidently forgot the context of this discussion. I'm not claiming God must exist. I'm claiming that conceptions of God which include the attributes of necessity and omnipotence are logically contradictory, and thus no such entity could exist. If you also reject the attribution of necessity to God, then obviously this particular argument isn't especially relevant to you.

 

[Agnostic75]

God is primarily concerned with spiritual well being not physical.

You are welcome to try to provide specific reasonable proof that a God inspired the Bible.

I am not debating homosexuality currently. I do not have enough time to answer the posts on the subjects I am interested in and you seem to be repeating yourself on that issue even more than you are here.

I have only repeated arguments that you have conveniently refused to reply to. I have clearly showed how nonsensical some of your arguments are. If you believed that you had the advantage, I am pretty sure that you would keep discussing homosexuality. Surely no logic states that all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life, even monogamous homosexuals. That is absurd.

 

[Agnostic75]

Despite it having no discernible threshold I am sure major steps in evolution have occurred.

Evolution definitely has a discernible threshold for the millions of theistic evolutionists, and that threshold is God. As far as how life began on earth is concerned, you know very well that evolution do not have anything to do with that. I assume that even most atheist biologists stick to what happened after life began on earth when they write books about evolution. You are so infatuated with atheists that you cannot resist attacking them whenever you can, even sometimes when atheism has nothing to do with a given topic, evolution being an example.

 

[1robin]

You are welcome to try to provide specific reasonable proof that a God inspired the Bible.

I can provide evidence within the categories commonly used to evaluate authorship and reliability but I have no requirement that that be scientific. Using methods used to evaluate the natural to evaluate the supernatural is not exactly wise or reasonable. Its is only necessary that science and the Bible are consistent and where science is reliable they are.

I have only repeated arguments that you have conveniently refused to reply to. I have clearly showed how nonsensical some of your arguments are. If you believed that you had the advantage, I am pretty sure that you would keep discussing homosexuality. Surely no logic states that all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life, even monogamous homosexuals. That is absurd.

Any review of my history at this site shows I have devoted hundreds of words to theology to every one to non-theology. I do not care about debating homosexuality. It is not a subject that can easily be clarified by discussion. I am uninterested in inaccurate estimates about what I should or should not debate and why.

 

[1robin]

Evolution definitely has a discernible threshold for the millions of theistic evolutionists, and that threshold is God. As far as how life began on earth is concerned, you know very well that evolution do not have anything to do with that. I assume that even most atheist biologists stick to what happened after life began on earth when they write books about evolution. You are so infatuated with atheists that you cannot resist attacking them whenever you can, even sometimes when atheism has nothing to do with a given topic, evolution being an example.

You have totally misunderstood what I said. I said that no threshold exists for deciding when microevolution becomes macroevolution. Even if one did it exists only in textbooks and not in nature. If you realized how impotent your critiques of why I debate or who with you would not bother typing them. I almost never look at what a person's theological status is and only debate arguments as I find them.

 

[Agnostic75]

You have totally misunderstood what I said. I said that no threshold exists for deciding when microevolution becomes macroevolution. Even if one did it exists only in textbooks and not in nature.

As even Michael Behe has admitted, humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and all life forms on earth are related. You can call it, or define it however you like. Scientifically, are you suggesting that it is probable, or plausible, that humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor, and that all life forms on earth are not related?

The Encyclopedia Britannica Online says that evolution is a "theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory."

A Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution says:

"Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."[4][1]

If you wish, you can read an article at http://phys.org/news/2013-03-dont-daisies-macroevolution-alternate-defense.html about macro evolution in plants. Consider the following excerpts from the article:

Interestingly, macroevolution and microevolution can be seen as describing fundamentally identical processes on different time scales. Through their divergent effects on population genetics, sexual reproduction strategies could significantly influence phenotypic expression – but the impact of mating system transitions has not been well understood. Recently, however, scientists at Cornell University have shown that the repeated, unidirectional transition from self-incompatibility to self-compatibility (increased inbreeding) leads to the evolution of an inducible (a gene whose expression is responsive to environmental change) – as opposed to a constitutive (a gene that is always expressed) – strategy of plant resistance to herbivores, as well as a strategy in which the loss of self-incompatibility is associated with the evolution of increased specificity in induced plant resistance. Moreover, they demonstrate that these two defense strategies represent evolutionary alternatives, leading to a macroevolutionary tradeoff whose magnitude is dependent on the mating system.http://

 

[Agnostic75]

I can provide evidence within the categories commonly used to evaluate authorship and reliability but I have no requirement that that be scientific. Using methods used to evaluate the natural to evaluate the supernatural is not exactly wise or reasonable. Its is only necessary that science and the Bible are consistent and where science is reliable they are.

You can use whatever evidence you like, whether biblical textual criticism, history, science, philosophy, theology, or whatever kinds of other evidence that you wish to use. What is your evidence that a God inspired the Bible?

I do not care about debating homosexuality. It is not a subject that can easily be clarified by discussion.

On the contrary, I have shown on numerous occasions, using simple, easy to understand arguments, that your claims that 1) all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life, even monogamous homosexuals, and that 2), homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, are very probably false.

Regarding item 1, it is quite easy for most people to understand that if all monogamous homosexuals practiced abstinence, that would do very little to influence the sexual behavior of promiscuous homosexuals. That is because since promiscuous homosexuals are not even interested in practicing safe sex, they would quite naturally be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. As illogical as your arguments are for monogamous homosexual men, they are much more illogical for monogamous homosexual women since some research has shown that monogamous homosexual women are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are.

Regarding item 2, in another thread, you claimed that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment. You said that if necessary, you would provide sources. I asked you for sources on several occasions, but you never provided any. Simple logic easily disproves your claim. If your claim was true, the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals would turn out to be homosexuals, but the majority of them turn out to be heterosexuals.

It is well-known that identical twins generally have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. Such being the case, if your claim is correct, we would expect to find that the majority of the time, when one identical twin is a homosexual, the other twin would also be a homosexual, but the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual.

There is no need for further clarification regarding those two issues since even the typical sixth grader could easily understand such simple arguments, and logic, evidence, and research are on my side.

At one time, you were very interested in debating homosexuality until you got into trouble. You like to debate, or you would not make so many posts at these forums. However, you only like to debate when you believe that you have the advantage.

Unlike you, I do not mind debating experts when I believe that I have good arguments. Regarding the two issues that I mentioned, I will be happy to discuss them with any experts who you bring to this forum.

 

[1robin]

Why ask for a Biblical citation when I've already clarified that, at present, we are not necessarily talking about the Biblical God, but rather about the God of Christian theology? And I'm not arguing that God must exist- this is a claim made by Christian theologians, which I'm arguing is logically inconsistent with other claims about God- namely, the attribution of omnipotence.

We are talking about one of two things here:

1. The Biblical God whom I defend and you need verses for.
2. Some generic God concept whom I do not defend and who is unquantifiable other than by arbitrary methods.

(and we can set up a similar argument with eternality and omnipotence- i.e. that an eternal being ("eb") is one which, in any logically possible world P such that eb exists in P, there is never any time (t) such that eb does not exist in P.

I see no need to discuss universes or eternities we have no evidence exist. I like philosophy but when we over apply it we can actually think our selves into imbecility. Please confine your arguments to the one universe and finite time period we have some reason to believe exists.

But an omnipotent being ("ob") is such that there is at least one possible world P such that ob exists in P at at some time t1 but does not exist in P at some later time t2.

This is just another way of stating omnipotence includes the capacity to self negate and that is a logical absurdity. God can't make self-contradictory things. He can't make round squares and he can't not exist if he did exist.

This is also a contradiction, and shows that no entity can be both omnipotent and eternal any more than one could be omnipotent and necessary...)

No this is a bunch a philosophic rhetoric.

I'm happy for him. Unfortunately, debating doesn't necessarily have a whole lot to do with philosophy, and skill as a debator doesn't imply any merit as a philosopher. And on paper, his many arguments for the existence have God have been consistently refuted and debunked, and the general consensus is that they ultimately fail for a variety of reasons- many writers have shown as much.

He is respected as a philosopher and chairs and scholars are not paid for by respected schools based on debate skill.

Moreover, his works are not cited in academic journals, and number of scholarly citations is as strong an objective quantifier of the relative influence or significance of a writer as any. He simply is not relevant within the academic fields of theology or philosophy of religion. His work is for popular consumption, it is "lightweight" stuff. WLC is essentially Alvin Plantinga Lite.

Please see the link for his 200 plus published articles. Publications | Reasonable Faith
Why have I heard of Craig in every scholarly circle that applies and have not the slightest idea who Alvin is? There exists no foundation for claiming Craig is anything but a competent scholar but any argument as to who's best is beyond the scope of a forum. Claiming this guy is anything but competent is just weird.

William Lane Craig [FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]is research professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. He has earned doctorates from the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984) and has taught at Trinity Evangelical Seminary and Wheaton College, along with pursuing research at the University of Louvain (Belgium). [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,Georgia]He has authored or edited over thirty books, including noteworthy Crossway titles like [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]The Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia](co-edited) (2007), [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]Hard Questions, Real Answers [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia](2003) and [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia]Time and Eternity [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Georgia][FONT=Georgia,Georgia](2001). [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,Georgia]Dr. Craig is an international lecturer and debater. He has spoken at numerous universities, including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, Moscow, and Peking. Moreover, he has spoken at numerous conferences and churches, including Willow Creek Community Church (Chicago), All Soul's (London), and McLean Bible Church (Washington, D.C.). Given his extensive experience, he is known for his skillful communication to both scholar and student alike. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

You've evidently forgot the context of this discussion. I'm not claiming God must exist. I'm claiming that conceptions of God which include the attributes of necessity and omnipotence are logically contradictory, and thus no such entity could exist. If you also reject the attribution of necessity to God, then obviously this particular argument isn't especially relevant to you.

I do not grant that necessity indicates a necessity of existence, and I do not grant that God must or can accomplish logical absurdities and in these is the foundation of your argument. Instead on using obscure and unknowable logical law can you instead explain why God can't simply be what he claimed to be? My background in engineering and electronic work for the DOD is what I do and I can tell you that many times the equations say one thing but reality will not obey and the equations that govern electronic behavior are far more well founded than these very obscure philosophic principles you have based your conclusions on. They are not testable and are dealing with things that can't be quantified or observed.

 

[1robin]

You can use whatever evidence you like, whether biblical textual criticism, history, science, philosophy, theology, or whatever kinds of other evidence that you wish to use. What is your evidence that a God inspired the Bible?

That involves first proving it is accurate. I believe I have already given you a link to a legendary work on the subject by a man who may be the finest scholar on testimony and evidence in human history. That alone is enough to justify faith. However prophecy (2500), knowledge unknown to the authors at the time, personal revelation, a consistent narrative that spans more than human lifespans and even cultures, eyewitness accounts of the supernatural consistent with revelation, and what the scriptures have produced in the lives of believers. Remember faith does not have a burden of proof but of intellectual permissiveness.

On the contrary, I have shown on numerous occasions, using simple, easy to understand arguments, that your claims that 1) all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life, even monogamous homosexuals, and that 2), homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, are very probably false.

You know probably the number one reason I have resisted debating homosexuality with you is your obsession with it. I have not sought you ought for Biblical debate why do you constantly seek me out for this issue. It argues to me for obsession and obsession has no regard for facts. Anything that is primarily based on emotion can't be contended.

Regarding item 1, it is quite easy for most people to understand that if all monogamous homosexuals practiced abstinence, that would do very little to influence the sexual behavior of promiscuous homosexuals. That is because since promiscuous homosexuals are not even interested in practicing safe sex, they would quite naturally be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. As illogical as your arguments are for monogamous homosexual men, they are much more illogical for monogamous homosexual women since some research has shown that monogamous homosexual women are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are.

I have not been arguing against a class or aspect of homosexuality but against the very act and what it produces. Because one form or one aspect is less destructive than another is not an argument for the practice. It produces massive additional suffering and economic loss even for many who do not practice it. That is indefensible unless it has some merit that justifies the loss and it does not.

Regarding item 2, in another thread, you claimed that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment. You said that if necessary, you would provide sources. I asked you for sources on several occasions, but you never provided any. Simple logic easily disproves your claim. If your claim was true, the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals would turn out to be homosexuals, but the majority of them turn out to be heterosexuals.

I think I only said it is not proven that it is caused by genetics alone. That is quite different. Please find my statement you describe above.

It is well-known that identical twins generally have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. Such being the case, if your claim is correct, we would expect to find that the majority of the time, when one identical twin is a homosexual, the other twin would also be a homosexual, but the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual.

I do not believe I claimed that in the first place. I certainly do not know it to be true and do not normally claim as fact what I do not know is. I actually think genetics might make someone more susceptible to the practices but I have no reason to think we are genetically made to be gay. Some are more susceptible to being over weight, addicted to substances, or violent but that does not mean gluttony, drug addiction, or murder is ok.

There is no need for further clarification regarding those two issues since even the typical sixth grader could easily understand such simple arguments, and logic, evidence, and research are on my side.

I have no need to overturn what you have said to show that homosexuality is IMO a choice and in fact destructive in general.

At one time, you were very interested in debating homosexuality until you got into trouble. You like to debate, or you would not make so many posts at these forums. However, you only like to debate when you believe that you have the advantage.

Would you quit trying to tell me what I have done or why I have done it and taking arguments used for one purpose and putting them to another and claiming they are week. I am not interested in personal comments so inaccurate to begin with. If you review my record I have addressed that subject one in only one thread about it. I did so because my boss mentioned something he was doing on facebook and we were discussing what arguments are used concerning homosexuality. Since I debate other issues I thought I would find a thread on that one. I quickly saw I was dealing with emotional not logical bases for your side of the argument and lost interest soon after. I gave all the facts necessary to prove homosexuality causes great suffering and you have only attempted to mitigate the damage of those statistics since then. I believed I was wasting my time and went back to the issues I enjoy debating the most and have been confronted with you pet issue constantly since then. Your are not a very good psychologist and the motivations and conclusions concerning me or the issue are grossly inaccurate but IMO beyond remedy.

Unlike you, I do not mind debating experts when I believe that I have good arguments. Regarding the two issues that I mentioned, I will be happy to discuss them with any experts who you bring to this forum.

I am killing time at work and know what the experts say concerning the issues I debate and have no interest in your personal commentary. If you still believe homosexuality ok then have at it, I have proven it destructive and am not interested in the issue further. In fact I will not entertain the issue at all currently. Think what you wish, you will anyway.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

We are talking about one of two things here:

1. The Biblical God whom I defend and you need verses for.
2. Some generic God concept whom I do not defend and who is unquantifiable other than by arbitrary methods.

No, not any "generic God"- a contradiction to begin with, since God is a particular god-model- the conception of God presented by Christian theology is, as should be fairly obvious, an attempt to formulate what the Biblical God is supposed to be like, since the Bible generally only reports what God does, not what God is, or is like.

Thus, my comment that the two are purported to by the same entity, despite being distinct conceptions.

I like philosophy but when we over apply it we can actually think our selves into imbecility.

Oh, the irony...

Please confine your arguments to the one universe and finite time period we have some reason to believe exists.

I am. Possible-worlds semantics (talk about a possible world in which thus-and-such) is a way to talk about hypotheticals- we aren't positing actual universes.

This is just another way of stating omnipotence includes the capacity to self negate and that is a logical absurdity.

In itself, no, it is not a logical absurdity. There is nothing absurd about an omnipotent being having the capacity for self-destruction, or even actually self-destructing. It is only when omnipotence is combined with one of these other predicats that logical absurdity arises.

Which is, of course, the thrust of my argument here- that the predicates attributed to God are mutually exclusive.

No this is a bunch a philosophic rhetoric.

In other words, you disagree but can't say why. Gotcha. Claiming something is "a bunch of philosophic rhetoric" is not a counter-argument; if you can't say what about my claim is mistaken, you have no basis to reject it. And the point is eminently sound- supposing an entity is both eternal and omnipotent, or necessary and omnipotent, is self-contradictory.

He is respected as a philosopher and chairs and scholars are not paid for by respected schools based on debate skill.

Apparently they are.

Please see the link for his 200 plus published articles.

I'm aware of his publication history. It isn't relevant.

Why have I heard of Craig in every scholarly circle that applies and have not the slightest idea who Alvin is?

Because he is, as I explicitly pointed out, extremely popular. However, he doesn't even appear in the top 50 of most frequently cited scholars in the philosophy of religion. He's basically not even on the radar. Plantinga, however, appears in the top 5 of number of scholarly citations, and is widely acknowledged as a top-flight academic despite being a Christian theologian by trade.

And why should it be any wonder you don't know who Alvin Plantinga is, but you know who Craig is, if what I'm saying is correct, i.e. that Plantinga is a serious academic whereas Craig is a popular mainstream writer? How much familiarity do you have with academic philosophy? How many contemporary philosophers are you aware of?

In other words, is it any surprise you've heard of Craig and not Plantinga, or is this precisely what we should expect, given your interests and background?

There exists no foundation for claiming Craig is anything but a competent scholar

He is not a particularly competent scholar. His understanding of the philosophic issues surrounding his topics is relatively shallow, his tactics are disingenuous, and he has contributed absolutely nothing of novelty to any field.

I do not grant that necessity indicates a necessity of existence

That's what necessity means in this context.

I do not grant that God must or can accomplish logical absurdities and in these is the foundation of your argument.

Then you've misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying what God must do. I'm simply showing that the definitions of certain traits frequently predicated of God exclude one another.

Instead on using obscure and unknowable logical law can you instead explain why God can't simply be what he claimed to be?

"Obscure and unknowable logical law"? I'd say the principle of non-contradiction is neither obscure nor unknowable- in fact, if we can't know the principle of non-contradiction, then we cannot know anything whatsoever.

They are not testable and are dealing with things that can't be quantified or observed.

They are "not testable and are dealing with things that can't be quantified or observed" in the same sense that any logical or mathematical discourse is- we're talking about the necessary connections of logic, which has to do with entailment; i.e. what follows from what. Again, if we cannot be sure of our knowledge of basic deductive principles, then we may as well give up now because knowing anything about the world would be futile. Fortunately this is not the case.

Moreover, these conceptual arguments are only part of the story; there are some other very strong reasons for rejecting the existence of any god, and I've mentioned some of them here. One is simply the lack of sufficient positive justification for the existence of God- the lack of any evidence uniquely entailed by the existence of God. Then there are pragmatic epistemic concerns about knowability and falsifiability. If you don't accept the theological conceptions of God these conceptual argument's apply to, that's fine- these arguments are not pertinent for you. We can then focus on other arguments which are pertinent. But if you are going to completely reject theological formulations of the concept of the Biblical God, you're going to have to put something else in its place- as I said, the Bible gives us an insufficient definition of what God even is to begin with, which we need to have first before we can determine whether there is any such thing.

 

[1robin]

No, not any "generic God"- a contradiction to begin with, since God is a particular god-model- the conception of God presented by Christian theology is, as should be fairly obvious, an attempt to formulate what the Biblical God is supposed to be like, since the Bible generally only reports what God does, not what God is, or is like.

Thus, my comment that the two are purported to by the same entity, despite being distinct conceptions.

There are two distinct concepts of God that could be discussed in this case. The philosophers God or the Biblical God and they are not identical. Your arguments seem to be towards the philosophers God. I do not think philosophy (or that which you have used) would be binding on the Biblical God or even applicable. I do not think I ever use philosophy to quantify or define the Biblical God but do use it concerning nature and as a "likelihood" concerning things like causation outside nature.

Oh, the irony...

How come I never see the irony. I want to see the irony. Its unfair.

I am. Possible-worlds semantics (talk about a possible world in which thus-and-such) is a way to talk about hypotheticals- we aren't positing actual universes.

Agreed but hypothetical universes are so unquantifiable as to be virtually meaningless.

In itself, no, it is not a logical absurdity. There is nothing absurd about an omnipotent being having the capacity for self-destruction, or even actually self-destructing. It is only when omnipotence is combined with one of these other predicats that logical absurdity arises.

I will not comment on an eternal being in general but the Biblical God is said to sustain everything. If he stopped existing we could not be discussing his non-existence. I do not think his self destruction a component of revelation nor a required capacity of his character.

Which is, of course, the thrust of my argument here- that the predicates attributed to God are mutually exclusive.

What verse are you deriving these predicates from?

In other words, you disagree but can't say why. Gotcha. Claiming something is "a bunch of philosophic rhetoric" is not a counter-argument; if you can't say what about my claim is mistaken, you have no basis to reject it. And the point is eminently sound- supposing an entity is both eternal and omnipotent, or necessary and omnipotent, is self-contradictory

No I am saying that what is true of a bunch presuppositions, rationalizations, and the laws contrived by humans so faulty we can't get the weather right 48 hours in advance are insufficient to bind or dictate the nature of a concept like God. Dang near anything can be "proven" by statistics, a lawyer, or intellectual gymnastics. Especially not the argument used by respected philosophers and theologians for God.

Apparently they are.

There exists no argument that he is not a very capable philosopher possible even if he claims things inconvenient for some.

I'm aware of his publication history. It isn't relevant.

I guess only being published in the journals you like is.

Because he is, as I explicitly pointed out, extremely popular. However, he doesn't even appear in the top 50 of most frequently cited scholars in the philosophy of religion. He's basically not even on the radar. Plantinga, however, appears in the top 5 of number of scholarly citations, and is widely acknowledged as a top-flight academic despite being a Christian theologian by trade.

And why should it be any wonder you don't know who Alvin Plantinga is, but you know who Craig is, if what I'm saying is correct, i.e. that Plantinga is a serious academic whereas Craig is a popular mainstream writer? How much familiarity do you have with academic philosophy? How many contemporary philosophers are you aware of?

2 dozen. Did I win? Since Plantinga is a Christian he must not have found your argument as convincing as you have.

In other words, is it any surprise you've heard of Craig and not Plantinga, or is this precisely what we should expect, given your interests and background?

I can admit that I am far more familiar with who is making the apologetic debate circuits than who is cloistered in broom closet pouring over textbooks by that includes debates at the top schools in the world and their faculty. I must have seen thousands of hours and I have no reason to think that much time is enough to see the standard arguments as they exist. There are atheists who insist that philosophy is so unreliable that even cause and effect are not trustworthy, how much less is the realm you are commenting on. I and you can verify this do not even like the argument for Christianity made along the lines we have discussed. It is so extravagantly theoretical it is almost meaningless.

He is not a particularly competent scholar. His understanding of the philosophic issues surrounding his topics is relatively shallow, his tactics are disingenuous, and he has contributed absolutely nothing of novelty to any field.

I have gathered that is your opinion I have seen no reason to think it accurate.

That's what necessity means in this context.

Not according to every single atheist, theist, deist, or Christian I have ever seen use the argument and as I have said I have seen countless hours of professionals discussing it.

Then you've misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying what God must do. I'm simply showing that the definitions of certain traits frequently predicated of God exclude one another.

I do not have time today but I will make your argument a priority tomorrow or as soon as I can. I hate the argument even as it is commonly used for Christianity but will invest sufficient time judge your particular version of it as soon as I can even if it means discontinuing other debates.

"Obscure and unknowable logical law"? I'd say the principle of non-contradiction is neither obscure nor unknowable- in fact, if we can't know the principle of non-contradiction, then we cannot know anything whatsoever.

The principle is the application to a God is not. We do not even theoretically have the capacity to comprehend (to any meaningful degree) what a God can or cannot do. You might as well tell me how long an infinite ruler is or what math necessitates one second before the big bang. I am out of time but will try and respond to the rest soon and will spend more time on this argument. However I imagine I will end up thinking that time wasted. BTW what are your qualifications as a philosopher?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There are two distinct concepts of God that could be discussed in this case. The philosophers God or the Biblical God and they are not identical. Your arguments seem to be towards the philosophers God.

I've said as much, although it seems you want to switch out "theologian's God" for "philosopher's God", perhaps as an attempt to distance this conception from the Christian tradition- which is not appropriate. The God of the philosophers is the concept of God posited by Christian theology, not secular philosophy.

And as I said, you may reject this or that particular theological formulation of the concept of God, but it would seem you have to have some theological formulation, because the Biblical account does not give us enough detail. Thus some theology is necessary.

Agreed but hypothetical universes are so unquantifiable as to be virtually meaningless.

No, the opposite is the case. Because they are hypothetical, they have all and only the properties we stipulate- possible world semantics is simply a useful way to talk about modality. Try taking a glance at this intro/overview to possible world semantics- Possible Worlds Semantics

I will not comment on an eternal being in general but the Biblical God is said to sustain everything. If he stopped existing we could not be discussing his non-existence. I do not think his self destruction a component of revelation nor a required capacity of his character.

The Biblical report of God creating and sustaining the entire cosmos is likely what causes theologians to posit omnipotence, and necessity.

What verse are you deriving these predicates from?

The "verses" of Christian theologians, whom I've mentioned. And they in turn likely derived these predicates from specific Biblical verses. However, that's not my concern.

No I am saying that what is true of a bunch presuppositions, rationalizations, and the laws contrived by humans so faulty we can't get the weather right 48 hours in advance are insufficient to bind or dictate the nature of a concept like God.

Except we aren't talking about fallible, defeasible inductive rules, but rather a priori deductive rules like the principle of non-contradiction. We can be sure that the principle of non-contradiction won't turn out to be mistaken.

There exists no argument that he is not a very capable philosopher possible even if he claims things inconvenient for some.

Did I say anything about his claims being "inconvenient"? He doesn't claim anything novel anyways- and this is likely part of the reason why he's so far down the totem pole, he's devoted his entire career to rehashing and arguing for a set of arguments that have been around, and been acknowledged as faulty, for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.

And to say "there exists no argument that he is not a very capable philosopher" is to simply be in denial. There is such an argument, held by many, and its at least a decent argument.

I guess only being published in the journals you like is.

Well, since in any academic field there is usually one or two peer-reviewed journals which represent the pinnacle of the mountain, as it were- the most competitive, respected and difficult ones to get published in, which journals you are published in is of some relevance.

But my point was that how many articles one has published doesn't really indicate success or influence.

I can admit that I am far more familiar with who is making the apologetic debate circuits than who is cloistered in broom closet pouring over textbooks

Exactly.

I have gathered that is your opinion I have seen no reason to think it accurate.

Of course, because you're obviously fond of Craig, so you're not particularly receptive to the view that he is not all that he's cracked up to be. However, it is demonstrable that he does not appear anywhere in the list of most frequently cited in scholarly articles- a standard metric for influence/success of an academic, and its also basically demonstrable that his contributions are not in any way novel.

Not according to every single atheist, theist, deist, or Christian I have ever seen use the argument

Except for, you know, the extremely historically significant theologians I've mentioned here.

The principle is the application to a God is not.

All the worse for the concept of God then. This would signal a deficiency in the concept of God, not the principle of non-contradiction.

However I imagine I will end up thinking that time wasted.

Then why on earth would we want to proceed?

BTW what are your qualifications as a philosopher?

Well, I have a BA, as well as an intense personal interest, in the philosophy of religion for starters...

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

He demonstrated how the human eye evolved. Have you ever dissected an eyeball? I have, and it's pretty obvious that it evolved.

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

That's what the rest of the links were for.

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.

All of the questions you had are answered in the links I provided, I believe.
What is it you claim that I did not include?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think I only said it is not proven that it is caused by genetics alone. That is quite different. Please find my statement you describe above.

I do not believe I claimed that in the first place. I certainly do not know it to be true and do not normally claim as fact what I do not know is. I actually think genetics might make someone more susceptible to the practices but I have no reason to think we are genetically made to be gay. Some are more susceptible to being over weight, addicted to substances, or violent but that does not mean gluttony, drug addiction, or murder is ok.

I have a question then. How do you think a person becomes heterosexual?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am killing time at work and know what the experts say concerning the issues I debate and have no interest in your personal commentary. If you still believe homosexuality ok then have at it, I have proven it destructive and am not interested in the issue further. In fact I will not entertain the issue at all currently. Think what you wish, you will anyway.

No you haven't. At best, you've proven that irresponsible, unprotected sex can be a destructive act. That's about it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have not been arguing against a class or aspect of homosexuality but against the very act and what it produces.

About half of homosexuals are monogamous. What harm does their sexual acts cause?

Because one form or one aspect is less destructive than another is not an argument for the practice.

How is sex among monogamous homosexuals destructive at all?

That is indefensible unless it has some merit that justifies the loss and it does not.

Monogamous same-sex couples are justified because they are not harming anyone, and they enjoy having someone to share their lives with, including sharing sex.

Logic, and common sense, indicate that monogamous homosexuals are no more responsible for what promiscuous homosexuals do than monogamous heterosexuals are responsible for what promiscuous heterosexuals do.

You said that even monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence for life since they cannot guarantee that they will stay monogamous. Are you even including monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades? Some research has shown that homosexual couples in the U.S., Britain, and Denmark stay together longer than heterosexual couples do.

An article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz/divorce-marriage-rates-fo_b_1085024.html says that "the divorce rate is lower for same-sex couples than straight couples."

As a side note, in the U.S., Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do.

Regarding gay parenting, consider the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html

1/16/2012

Gay marriage, and especially gay parenting, has been in the cross hairs in recent days. On Jan. 6, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum told a New Hampshire audience that children are better off with a father in prison than being raised in a home with lesbian parents and no father at all. And last Monday (Jan. 9), Pope Benedict called gay marriage a threat "to the future of humanity itself," citing the need for children to have heterosexual homes.

But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.)

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

.......research suggests that gays and lesbians are more likely than heterosexuals to adopt older, special-needs and minority children.......

.......gays and lesbians are highly interested in adoption as a group. The 2007 report by the Urban Institute also found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the U.S. would like to adopt. That adds up to an estimated 2 million gay people who are interested in adoption. It's a huge reservoir of potential parents who could get kids out of the instability of the foster system, Brodzinsky said.

Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples — both adopted and biological kids — fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures.
In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.

"There's no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful" as children with a male and a female parent," Stacey told LiveScience.

There is very little research on the children of gay men, so Stacey and Biblarz couldn't draw conclusions on those families. But Stacey suspects that gay men "will be the best parents on average," she said.

The bottom line, Stacey said, is that people who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. While you do find broad differences between how men and women parent on average, she said, there is much more diversity within the genders than between them.

In fact, the only consistent places you find differences between how kids of gay parents and kids of straight parents turn out are in issues of tolerance and open-mindedness, according to Goldberg.

Children of gay parents also reported feeling less stymied by gender stereotypes than they would have been if raised in straight households. That's likely because gays and lesbians tend to have more egalitarian relationships than straight couples, Goldberg said. They're also less wedded to rigid gender stereotypes themselves.

"Men and women felt like they were free to pursue a wide range of interests," Goldberg said. "Nobody was telling them, 'Oh, you can't do that, that's a boy thing,' or 'That's a girl thing.'"

If same-sex marriage does disadvantage kids in any way, it has nothing to do with their parent's gender and everything to do with society's reaction toward the families, said Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, the author of "Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definitions of Family" (Russell Sage Foundation, 2010).

"Imagine being a child living in a state with two parents in which, legally, only one parent is allowed to be their parent," Powell told LiveScience. "In that situation, the family is not seen as authentic or real by others. That would be the disadvantage."
In her research, Goldberg has found that many children of gay and lesbian parents say that more acceptance of gay and lesbian families, not less, would help solve this problem.

In a study published online Jan. 11, 2012, in the Journal of Marriage and Family, Goldberg interviewed another group of 49 teenagers and young adults with gay parents and found that not one of them rejected the right of gays and lesbians to marry. Most cited legal benefits as well as social acceptance.

"I was just thinking about this with a couple of friends and just was in tears thinking about how different my childhood might have been had same-sex marriage been legalized 25 years ago," a 23-year-old man raised by a lesbian couple told Goldberg. "The cultural, legal status of same-sex couples impacts the family narratives of same-sex families — how we see ourselves in relation to the larger culture, whether we see ourselves as accepted or outsiders."

In a thread on homosexuality, you said that you had religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality, but all that you really have are religious arguments. That is because there are not any valid secular arguments against monogamous homosexuals.

Homosexuals do generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do, but they did not ask for their homosexual sexual identity, and in spite of their sexual identity, millions of them around the world are monogamous, and healthy as judged by any widely accepted methods of assessing physical and emotional health. Based upon your post #304 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html, it is no wonder that you believe so many false things about homosexuals. Some of it is true, but much of it is false, or poorly documented. Are you aware of any serious medical problem that pertains to the majority of homosexuals? I am not. Surely the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles, are not alcoholics, do not abuse drugs, and do not have HIV, or AIDS.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Regarding your claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life, even monogamous homosexuals, in another thread you claimed that millions of people have successfully practiced abstinence for life. What sources back up your claim? A good deal of scientific research has shown that long term sexual abstinence can cause lots of physical, and emotional problems. It is a given that having sex is normal, and that practicing abstinence for life is abnormal. There is a long, well-documented article about abstinence at THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.. It discusses some of the frequent problems that are caused by long term abstinence.

It would obviously be absurd for monogamous homosexuals to practice abstinence for life, and needlessly risk developing serious medical problems.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Pardon?