INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

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.

You keep clarifying one from the other but the issue is which you are using. They are not identical.

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.

I define God as the Bible does. Before any time is invested in dissecting what that is I need you to understand that I have no need of defending a God outside of that scope. I do not think any other type of God exists but the subject is not one I debate. I will defend the God of the Bible alone (as well as critique the God of the Koran, Baha'i, Hinduism etc..)

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

The fact they have the characteristics we invent independently from any observation is why they are irrelevant. The reasons to consider any random universe would also mandate we consider everything that is not logically prohibitive. That is an endless and futile undertaking.

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

Actually I have heard debates where atheists say that the only requirement of God is sufficiency not omnipotence. I think God all-powerful but the only necessity from cosmology alone is sufficiency.

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.

I do not think the term omnipotence as applied to a generic philosophers God and the Biblical God identical, but I also think the difference not one in need of much commentary.

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.

I would have no problem with philosophical principles applying beyond the nature in most cases but I was pointing out that your side very often does. If they are rules that can be used to make God less likely then they are absolute to an atheist if they are consistent with then we can have no idea if they apply or not. It was a side note on consistency not an argument. I see this type of thing constantly from non-theists though I do not think it has occurred with you as of yet.

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.

I would have to agree that Craig sticks to the arguments he has used for years for two reasons. They still work and they are what is necessary for his purpose. Arguments known from the time of the Greeks and ever since like causation are still around for a reason. I think philosophy and theoretical science among others have thought themselves into areas where they are more fantasy than academic and regard the timeless arguments by far the most profound and relevant. IMO somewhere in the 1900's we started to think ourselves stupid. We have invented cell phones and at the same time have declared the right to kill unborn children a sacred one. We have advanced in medicine yet are now capable of wiping out all life as we know it and apparently still stupid enough to have almost done so at least twice. I have nothing but derision for the idea that newer = better.

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.

Let me clarify and say I have never seen any such argument.

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.

I can grant some relevance however the in club and the cliques ruin whatever merit that relevance has.

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

That was not your original point. It may be the one in response to what I claimed however.

Exactly.

I also find the philosophers who will risk their ideas to public scrutiny the far more relevant and the standing room only at Harvard, Oxford, etc at those debates suggests academic agreement.

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.

Let me state what I think in a way that may stop this sidebar. He is the best I have ever seen in the environment where these issues are publically debated.

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

I have no capacity to judge that. The facts of what I claimed have merit. The only open issue is degree. A body of knowledge that includes the argumentation of Flew, Wilder, Craig, Zacharias, Hitchens, Dawkins, Kalam, Ali, Chesterton, Lewis, De Souza, Augustine, Calvin, Wolpe, Aquinas, Descartes and a few hundred others may not impact dry and pure philosophy to a great extent but they do have a great impact on the issues that surround debate on God. If we can I would like to get back to the arguments instead of comparisons between our individual exposure to scholars.

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.

I will address your claims in general separately as promised.

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

You have a BA in philosophy? Ravi says the difference between a large pizza and a doctor of philosophy is that a pizza can feed a family of 4. What do you do with a BA in philosophy? I have a degree in math but wished I had gone into history. I will clarify your arguments as I view them below and then once clarified give you the response I promised.

I believe you made two main arguments.
1. Omni benevolence and omnipotence is inconsistent with a God who refrains from acting. I gave what I believe was at least a clear reason to not think so but I did understand your argument. The second is less clear.
2. You said God's omnipotence and necessity means the capacity to destroy himself and given infinite universes he would have done so in at least one and that is contradictory.

a. Why are you positing an argument based on silence? There is no meaningful evidence that other universes exist. We are not to include all theoretical possibilities are we. I disagree that God is a theoretical concept. His existence is theoretical not the Bible's description of him. We have a quantifiable concept in God.
b. Why would anything have to exist?

Are 2 and 2a correct if not please clarify and then I will give my contention.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You keep clarifying one from the other but the issue is which you are using. They are not identical.

I've said as much several times already. I've also been explicitly clear that the arguments we've been hitherto discussing apply to the God of Theology, not the God of the Bible, per se- since these two conceptions are admittedly not identical (although they purportedly coincide).

I define God as the Bible does.

But, as I said, you can't simply leave it at that. The word "God" appears in so many contexts and usages in the Bible that one cannot discern, from the Bible alone, what this word means in any clear way. Moreover, the Bible really only relates what God does, not what he's like- and so one must do some deduction (i.e. of what God must be like from what he does) from the Biblical accounts before one can even begin.

Thus, if you don't want to defend traditional theological conceptions of God, you're going to have to provide one of your own.

Before any time is invested in dissecting what that is I need you to understand that I have no need of defending a God outside of that scope.

Then why have you spent time addressing arguments specifically directed at the Theological God, rather than simply saying "I don't subscribe to that belief, so that doesn't apply to me" and moving on? We could have saved some time here if you were serious, but something makes me suspect you want to have your cake AND to eat it as well.

The fact they have the characteristics we invent independently from any observation is why they are irrelevant. The reasons to consider any random universe would also mandate we consider everything that is not logically prohibitive. That is an endless and futile undertaking.

Before I respond to this tell me, did you look at the link?

I would have to agree that Craig sticks to the arguments he has used for years for two reasons.

His reasons for doing so are irrelevant. The fact remains that he has not conributed anything novel to the field of philosophy of religion or theology, and he has a fairly low h-index (the number of scholarly citations) relative to others in his field (last time I saw I think he was like #14 overall, in a relatively niche field)

They still work

But not really, because all of the arguments are either invalid or question-begging, by necessity... He obviously has a very low standard for what "works".

Let me clarify and say I have never seen any such argument.

You obviously have, since you're responding to one right now.

I also find the philosophers who will risk their ideas to public scrutiny the far more relevant

Relevant to who???

I have no capacity to judge that. The facts of what I claimed have merit. The only open issue is degree. A body of knowledge that includes the argumentation of Flew, Wilder, Craig, Zacharias, Hitchens, Dawkins, Kalam, Ali, Chesterton, Lewis, De Souza, Augustine, Calvin, Wolpe, Aquinas, Descartes and a few hundred others may not impact dry and pure philosophy to a great extent but they do have a great impact on the issues that surround debate on God.

And included in the above list are several of those who have argued that God exists necessarily.

You have a BA in philosophy? Ravi says the difference between a large pizza and a doctor of philosophy is that a pizza can feed a family of 4.

Ok... Good for him. And?

I believe you made two main arguments.
1. Omni benevolence and omnipotence is inconsistent with a God who refrains from acting.

No, the classic problem of evil includes omniscience as well. God could be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and still allow evil which he is unaware of. Omniscience excludes this possibility.

2. You said God's omnipotence and necessity means the capacity to destroy himself and given infinite universes he would have done so in at least one and that is contradictory.

No, not that "given an infinite (amount of) universes he would have done so in at least one"- I'm NOT speculating about what God would or wouldn't do. This is why I provided the link on modal logic since it seems you're misunderstanding possible-worlds semantics, which is the basis of the argument.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

"You can use whatever evidence you like" But all the would be evidences that history and tradition have offered are of human intellectual origin. In principle, the only true and rational proof of God would be one, not of human intellectual origin, in which the reality of God responds directly to an act of faith by an act of His own omnipotence. We have all been conditioned by theological traditions to presume that such a truth is not possible. And of course such a literal proof could put existing religious teaching between the proverbial rock and a hard spot. Only because they don't have one to offer or never ever went looking for one. But now somebody has!

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. titled: The Final Freedoms. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'Promise' of a precise, predefined, and predictable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search to discover His 'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that may be the question soon to confront us all.

 

[1robin]

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

How did he do that? He did not have a single eye or even a picture of one. BTW I am going by the example I saw of him doing this in a debate, I do not know if we are speaking of the same event. I have gutted many life forms and have dissected things in biology and there is no advantage (evolutionary wise) is doing that compared with looking at clear and clean exploded diagrams of organs. I have no idea what can be viewed in a organ that would make evolution obvious. However we are discussing what he did and he drew pictures. maybe he was right and maybe wrong but his drawing pictures made neither more likely. I do not even understand the contention. I have never claimed evolution did not occur.

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


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?

Which link led to a film of the eye evolving? Not to say it didn't.

 

[1robin]

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

Choice.

 

[1robin]

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

That is not even a little bit accurate. I showed that the practice of homosexuality spreads disease at a much greater rate than heterosexuality. I never said that all forms of heterosexuality are "good' either.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Choice.

You can't be serious...
Could Scientists Have Found A Gay Switch? | Popular Science

 

[SkepticThinker]

How did he do that? He did not have a single eye or even a picture of one. BTW I am going by the example I saw of him doing this in a debate, I do not know if we are speaking of the same event. I have gutted many life forms and have dissected things in biology and there is no advantage (evolutionary wise) is doing that compared with looking at clear and clean exploded diagrams of organs. I have no idea what can be viewed in a organ that would make evolution obvious. However we are discussing what he did and he drew pictures. maybe he was right and maybe wrong but his drawing pictures made neither more likely. I do not even understand the contention. I have never claimed evolution did not occur.

I'm referring to the Youtube video I posted for you. Are you referring to something else? Why?

I think there is an advantage to dissecting something yourself over simply viewing pictures of the thing. You can actually get in there yourself and see what's going on, all the individual bits and pieces and how they've been cobbled together, used and re-used over the course of their evolutionary history. Genetic studies give you an even closer and clearer picture.

I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand. You said eye evolution was a problem for evolutionary theory. It isn't.

Which link led to a film of the eye evolving? Not to say it didn't.

I'm referring to the list of 5+ links I provided for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Choice.

You can't be serious.

Did you choose to be heterosexual?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Choice.

LOL!

He's obviously putting us on... I mean, "choice"? There's no way he's actually retarded enough to mean that seriously...

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Homosexuality can be defined as same-sex actions, or as same-sex orientation. The former is a choice. The latter is not a choice.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not even a little bit accurate. I showed that the practice of homosexuality spreads disease at a much greater rate than heterosexuality. I never said that all forms of heterosexuality are "good' either.

It's very accurate. Every time someone discusses homosexuality with you, you end up discussing the results of promiscuous, irresponsible, unprotected sexual acts. You refuse to acknowledge, for some reason, that the same behaviors result in the same consequences when heterosexuals engage in promiscuous, irresponsible, unprotected sexual acts, as though only gay people contract AIDS and other STDs. Heterosexuals are really good at spreading sexually transmitted diseases which have been around for centuries, although you seem to think they're a new thing for some reason.

You may have never explicitly stated that all forms of heterosexuality are good, but at the same time you never acknowledge that monogamous homosexual relationships can be on par with heterosexual relationships in terms of "goodness."

You really haven't shown what you think you have.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But you have created a strawman argument since most experts acknowledge that homosexuals generally have more serious medical problems than heterosexuals do, and in some cases, a lot more serious medical problems than heterosexuals do. However, a lot of homosexuals are generally healthy as judged by any widely accepted methods of assessing physical, and emotional health. In the U.S., about 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. In addition, the majority of them are not alcoholics, are not drug abusers, and are not pedophiles. Are you aware of any serious medical problem that the majority of homosexuals have? I am not.

Sexual identity is not a choice. Homosexuals can only do the best that they can do with the cards that they have been dealt, and for most of them, your suggestion that all of them should practice abstinence for life is not the best that they can do.

Statistics can easily be misleading if they are not interpreted correctly. For example, let's assume that hypothetically, a study showed that 10% of a group of heterosexuals were alcoholics, and that 25% of homosexuals were alcoholics. Only 15% of those homosexuals were alcoholics "because" they were homosexuals since if they had been heterosexuals, about 10% of them would still have been alcoholics. So, instead of comparing 10% to 25%, it would be more fair to compare 10% to 15%, which is obviously much different.

Another important issue is that many studies do not apply to the general populations of heterosexuals, and homosexuals, but only to people in both groups who have serious medical problems. The percentages of homosexuals who have HIV are much higher than the percentages of heterosexuals who have HIV, but in the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV.

The percentage of homosexuals who have a certain medical problem might be 50 times higher than among heterosexuals, but only apply to less than 5% of all homosexuals. That is why we also need statistics that show the percentages of all homosexuals, and heterosexuals, who have serious medical problems. I am not aware of any serious medical problem that the majority of homosexuals have.

I proved in my previous post that you do not really care about what percentage of homosexuals have any serious medical problem since you would still be opposed to homosexuality even if homosexuals were generally healthier than heterosexuals are. Your primary objections to homosexuality by far are based upon religion, even though in another thread you disapproved of some conservative Christian experts (Stanton Jones, and Paul Yarhouse) doing the same thing. They both have a Ph.D. in psychology, and wrote a book about homosexuality. In that thread, I quoted them as follows:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero it was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

You basically said that they (and Henry Morris) are not people who you have confidence in, but why not since your biblical, and scientific positions (regarding that paragraph) about homosexuality are largely the same as their's are?

At least Morris, Jones, and Yarhouse come right out and admit that their primary bias is religious, not scientific.

I would go further and question the reasoning for these higher rates of sexual disease in Homosexuals.

1. Those who may be involving themselves in these acts may not actually consider themselves as Homosexuals.

2. Misinformation on how disease is spread.

3. Also it is presumed that majority of gay men have anal sex, which will of course increase the risk of transmission as there is tearing involved. But we should also take a look at these risk among women who engage in anal sex as well.

4. Also does this study that claims homosexuals have higher risks of Sexual Transmitted disease also include lesbians?

 

[Agnostic75]

I would go further and question the reasoning for these higher rates of sexual disease in Homosexuals.

1. Those who may be involving themselves in these acts may not actually consider themselves as Homosexuals.

2. Misinformation on how disease is spread.

3. Also it is presumed that majority of gay men have anal sex, which will of course increase the risk of transmission as there is tearing involved. But we should also take a look at these risk among women who engage in anal sex as well.

4. Also does this study that claims homosexuals have higher risks of Sexual Transmitted disease also include lesbians?

I think that most experts will say that among people who consider themselves to be homosexuals, they generally have more serious medical problems than heterosexuals do. That certainly applies to cases of HIV/AIDS in the U.S.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think that most experts will say that among people who consider themselves to be homosexuals, they generally have more serious medical problems than heterosexuals do. That certainly applies to cases of HIV/AIDS in the U.S.

Which I would say is more related to number 2 and 3 and are easily remedied situations.

As for number 1, I had done a research project back in college where we focused on MSM (Men having sex with Men), a lot of this began with men who were in jail, but when they left jail they would at times still engage in sexual intercourse with other men, but they did not consider themselves homosexual, and because of that they were spreading diseases around to both women and other men outside of the jail system. So I was wondering what factors that played into? The big issue with MSM was that some of these men were attracted strictly to men, but downplayed their attraction for fear of social stigma, sot hey engaged in these "down-low" activities.