INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

They might believe before but they know he exists after they are saved. There is a difference in believing in a person and knowing the person.

That is debatable, but it doesn't matter since I reasonably proved in my post #1169 that it is illogical for anyone to love, admire, and respect God since he has no choice except to do good things. Please reply to that post, and to my most recent post in the thread on homosexuality.

 

[Agnostic75]

Species is a fertility barrier isn't it?

Would you like to discuss common descent online with a person who has a Ph.D. in biology, or how about several of them?

 

[1robin]

That is debatable, but it doesn't matter since I reasonably proved in my post #1169 that it is illogical for anyone to love, admire, and respect God since he has no choice except to do good things. Please reply to that post, and to my most recent post in the thread on homosexuality.

I do not see how that is debatable but as you say it does not matter. Your original claim about freewill got warped into the love thing (which is wrong in its self) so the responses are a little un-calibrated and it seems I can't predict what purpose you will use them for. I can also see my response are just ignored and the point restated so let me number them for effect.

1. God does have a choice at least in most areas. He did not have to create the earth, people, the wonders we find so inspirational in nature. He could have either not created anything, left us in our justified condemned state because of sin and rebellion, or even made a planet with no appealing features and still been good.
2. I do not believe any of your arguments against freewill are valid but even if they are they only apply to a few things. God still has vast areas where choice does exist.
3. We can love him "logically" love him for that alone and that would only be the tip of the ice burg.
4. You are incorrect in stating what can be loved logically. We can and do love things of no worth whatever and those that do would give you a laundry list of logical reasons for doing so.
5. Love is not even defined as only being applicable to merit or freewill. Love is a choice not a derivative.

Neither freewill nor the merits of love arguments work at all and I doubt even their premise's are true.

As I have stated the only current argument you have made with any teeth is your point about the sexuality of those heterosexuals over 40 and I will get to it but have been very distracted lately.

 

[1robin]

Would you like to discuss common descent online with a person who has a Ph.D. in biology, or how about several of them?

Hold the phone a minute, have I rejected any common descent claims? My comment was a question not an argument. What in that comment produced a response about my debating biologists? Debates take place between two people. They do not take place between one person and anyone another person can get on the phone. I actually would like to talk with them but I am not going to seek them out. I am very busy currently and have no idea what time I will have available.

 

[metis]

Personally, I have no reason to believe in an "uncaused cause". First of all, it seemingly violates what we see in the interrelationship of all, whereas everything appears to be interconnected in a universal spiderweb of cause & effect. IOW, what caused this creator-god?

Secondly, I question how a deity can change without being changed itself to a certain degree, and if it does change, what is encouraging or causing it to change? Yes, I do believe it possible there could be deities, but I tend to think that they're likely to be ever-changing as well.

And finally, I'm old at 68, but I ain't 13.7 billion years old, so I cannot say anything definitive about what caused the big bang. My favorite theological conclusion is "I don't know".

 

[1robin]

Personally, I have no reason to believe in an "uncaused cause". First of all, it seemingly violates what we see in the interrelationship of all, whereas everything appears to be interconnected in a universal spiderweb of cause & effect. IOW, what caused this creator-god?

This is a very easy point to show wrong.

1. Every effect has a cause. The universe is an effect which does not contain it's cause.
2. The cause of the universe (every natural thing known or unknown) was caused by something unnatural or supernatural.
3. Things of every nature must have an uncaused first cause. If you ask a friend for a dollar and he says he will ask someone else, and so on and on it goes. If no one ever actually produces a dollar you will never have one. If you have a dollar then at some point someone produced one. An infinite regression of causes will never produce an effect. If you have an effect you MUST have an uncaused first cause.
4. That uncaused first cause of the universe must have according to philosophers certain characteristics. It must be independent of time, matter, and space. It must be personal and powerful, intelligent, and likely benevolent.
5. How did ignorant men 500 years ago know what characteristics to fake to need a demand discovered thousands of years later?
6. There must be a first cause that is uncaused with certain characteristics. Only God meets these demands.

Secondly, I question how a deity can change without being changed itself to a certain degree, and if it does change, what is encouraging or causing it to change? Yes, I do believe it possible there could be deities, but I tend to think that they're likely to be ever-changing as well.

I am not sure anything is dictated by logical law or philosophy about change in your context. There exists no reason to think a being that is always good could not exist.

And finally, I'm old at 68, but I ain't 13.7 billion years old, so I cannot say anything definitive about what caused the big bang. My favorite theological conclusion is "I don't know".

Well I don't know is honest and correct. It can be proven God created the universe but it is very very logical to think he did. The same cosmological argument has stood since the Greeks and is still as valid today as it ever was. One of the greatest cosmologists in human history (Sandage) has confirmed the points I made above and the most prevalent cosmological model in existence (The Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe) is perfectly consistent with it.

 

[metis]

I would suggest quite the opposite is true. According to a recent survey, 92% of cosmologists are either atheistic or agnostic, the latter being by far more common.

And exactly how could one go about verifying in any way there was an uncaused cause that started our universe, plus how is it that it's not logical for somethings to go back into infinity, such as sub-atomic particles, but supposedly logical that a deity goes back into infinity?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But the problem with your assertion that the UNIVERSE is fine-tuned for life is that the universe is vastly lacking in life.

So? My backyard is lacking in objects to fill it. So what??

If you’re going to claim that the UNIVERSE is fine-tuned for life, then you’re going to need to demonstrate the existence of all this life you speak of.

Demonstrate the existence? You exist, and I exist, right?

Earth has life on it, sure, but there’s a hell of a lot more to the universe than earth.

And the Penrose number was calculated considering everything that is within the observable universe. So everything that is beyond planet earth is irrelevant if the low probability remains the same despite it.

And let’s say these cosmological constants didn’t exist or existed in some other form … well so what? Then no life would be here, or some other form of life may be here (on EARTH).

The low entropy conditions must have been an initial condition of the big bang itself. The precision that is needed is HIGHLY less probable than the contrary, so the only way these cosmological constants wouldn’t exist would be if the designer involved wouldn’t have allowed it to be the way it is.

Looking at life on earth doesn’t tell you much about the rest of the entirety of the universe. Other life does matter if you’re going to make the assertion that the UNIVERSE is fine-tuned for LIFE.

I don’t need to look any further than the life on THIS earth. The Penrose calculation applies to this life and this earth.

Penrose’s hypotheses and his objection to big bang theory are not accepted science at this point.

So are you denying the fact that in order for life to be permitted, certain conditions has to be met? No scientist disagrees with the fact that our universe had to meet certain specified conditions in order for life to be permissible, and by “specified”, I mean VERY PRECISE. The disagreement comes in to play when theists like to call this “fine tuning” the act of Design (I.D). No one is denying that the universe is fine tuned, there is just a disagreement over the EXPLANATION as we ask why and how.

His calculations regarding the probability of life forming in the universe (under the current set of physical properties), couldn’t possibly have taken into account the number of possible other universes that could have formed with different physical properties that could still lead to some form of life, never mind the fact that we have no other universes to compare any of this too.

I really don’t see the relevance. I mean, if I am walking through a field on a dark night and I see in the distance a huge UO (unidentified object), which looks like a space shuttle, and I see a door and go inside, and when I get inside I see all of this what LOOKS like technological stuff, big computer screens with some kind of writing of what looks like highly complex mathematical formulas and jibberish that looks like writing but of a different language, why am I not to assume intelligent design? Keep in mind that in this scenario, I didn’t even see aliens, but I am STILL going to include intelligent design. Why? Because, it would defy common sense to conclude that this UO assembled itself with all of its fine and complex parts and engineering.

I’m guessing that you agree with what he has to say because it reinforces your belief in god or something, which also explains why you reject all of the rest of science on the matter (presumably because it doesn’t reinforce your beliefs in your god). Obviously, I could be wrong.

I go where the science takes me. Contrary to what some make think, Christianity is compatible with science. I can maintain my Christianity while following the latest scoop in science. Science confirms what Christianity has been saying all along, that the universe began to exist, and that it was designed by a “super-mind”, or a “super-engineer). So as a Christian, I can go where the science takes me, and right now science points to a finite universe and a cosmic design.

On the contrary, ALL of the existing evidence points to common descent. Even without the fossil record, genetics alone demonstrates common ancestry. We have to follow the evidence, that is, if we’re looking for the facts.

I am genetically linked to my parents, but that is not the same as saying I EVOLVED from my parents. Our genetic makeup can just as easily mean common designer. Second, since there is no scientific evidence that life came from non-life anyway, to assume evolution is putting the cart before the horse.

Science isn’t about what makes sense to each individual. It is what is demonstrable, verifiable, and testable. And common ancestry is demonstrable, verifiable and testable. And if you disagree then perhaps you could explain how we can reliably determine paternity via DNA testing.

Demonstrable, verifiable? Testable? How can you demonstrate that every living creature share common ancestry with a creature of the past? How can you verify that a bat and a whale had the same great grandparents? This is adding your presupposition to the observation. And second, as I just said, I am genetically linked to my parents through DNA, but does this mean that I evolved from my parents? No it doesn’t.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

FYI: Abiogenesis and evolution are separate things. Evolution only deals with the diversity of life after it has appeared.

I am quite aware of this.

Right. So? That certainly doesn’t mean we had to be here.

And anything that didn’t have to be here, but is here, can only get its explanation from something that preceded it. Nothing in the universe had to be here, so therefore, the universe owes its existence to something that transcends it.

Of course it’s relevant when we’re talking about the UNIVERSE. The universe, apparently, is not all about US.

First off, the BGV theorems holds true regarding any universe, even those that are postulated in string theories and pre-big bang models. Second, the absurdities that would result in a past eternal universe isn’t negated if you presuppose a naturalistic cause. Third, you would still have both the entropy problem and thermodynamics problem. All of these problems apply to OTHER UNIVERSES AS WELL. So you can postulate other universes, but you are only pushing the problem back a few steps further.

But since you’re apparently only talking about earth for some reason, it needs to be pointed out that the earth is not a closed system

Actually our universe is a closed system. There is nothing outside it replenishing its energy and once the sun burns out the universe will suffer a “heat death”, and this is inevitable. Just like if you have hot coffee in a mug, if you let it sit there for 45 days, it will eventually get cold, trust me. Thermodynamics is one of the most understood things in science and it never fails.

(Also, entropy and disorder aren’t the same thing and entropy can actually be used to produce order, in some cases.)

So let’s use an analogy. Let’s say you have at your disposal a THOUSAND tiny pieces of paper, and on each piece of paper, there is a different number, with all numbers of paper numbering 1-1000, so no number is used more than once.

So you put each piece of paper in a big hat…and you cover the hat, and shake the hat, so all of the numbers are randomly scattered inside. The goal is for you to, without looking inside, put your hand in the hat and pull a number, and for you to pull the numbers in NUMERICAL order, from 1-1000. Each time you pull a number that isn’t in numerical order, you have to put all the numbers back in the hat, shake it up, and start all over again.

How long do you think it will take you to pick every number in sequence order from 1-1000?

Do you see what is going on here? Each number you pick has the same probability of being picked, which is improbable enough, but it is even more improbable for you to pull all the numbers in that specified sequence/pattern.

If the universe started off with a big bang, there are only two options; either it would be life prohibiting, or it would be life permitting. It is more improbable for it to be life prohibiting, because that would require the same specified order that you would need to pick numbers 1-1000 in the analogy.

But since we’re actually talking about the universe (or supposed to be) I should also point out that there’s nothing orderly or organized about a lot of things in the universe. Take black holes for instance. What’s orderly and organized about black holes?

Nothing is orderly and organized about black holes, but if those black holes were producing computers and automobiles, then that would be a different story.

Practically everything he says is either an outright lie or a distortion, which is why I generally refer to him as “Dr. Distortion.” He makes claims that have no bearing in science (including claims which are completely contrary to known science), he constantly and repeatedly misrepresents the intentions and findings of scientific papers and takes quotes completely out of context to give them meanings that were never intended by the person being quoted.

Well, he completely destroyed three evolutionists at one time, which is a video that can be found on youtube. He has debated evolutionists numerous times and has challenged any evolutionist to a public debate. So far, he has whooped everyone that has accepted the challenge. I don’t agree with him on everything, but when it comes to debunking evolution, he is the man.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

1. Every effect has a cause. The universe is an effect which does not contain it's cause.

Not necessarily; this is a fallacy of composition. The fact is, we have no idea whether universes have causes, or what sort of causes those might be IF universes "have a cause" at all. Of course, this is why this is mistaken-

2. The cause of the universe (every natural thing known or unknown) was caused by something unnatural or supernatural.

And contrary to contemporary physics as well, i.e. the zero-energy proposal. I'll take science, even speculative science, or unsubstantiated religious dogma every day of the week.

3. Things of every nature must have an uncaused first cause. If you ask a friend for a dollar and he says he will ask someone else, and so on and on it goes. If no one ever actually produces a dollar you will never have one. If you have a dollar then at some point someone produced one. An infinite regression of causes will never produce an effect. If you have an effect you MUST have an uncaused first cause.

This is misleading. If everyone asks someone else for a dollar, supposing that having no first person to "produce a dollar" means "you will never have one" is only true if we're applying the rules that pertain to a finite series. Since we're talking about an infinite series, this is irrelevant.

Thus your dogmatic assertion that "an infinite regression...will never produce an effect" is baseless.

4. That uncaused first cause of the universe must have according to philosophers certain characteristics.

And those philosophers have been shown to be mistaken on other matters, so they may well be mistaken about this. Especially since we're talking about philosophers who lived and died without ever having any knowledge of modern physics.

And once again, if I have to choose between science and the metaphysical speculations of men writing hundreds of years ago, and who subscribed to a physics which we now know to be false, I know which way I'm going.

It must be personal

No, not at all. Of course, for you to say it is God, it has to be personal- but as far as the actual requirements of the argument or the evidence, there's no reason it must be personal.

intelligent

And it needn't be intelligent either (except, of course, for the fact that these requirements are merely measured for the conclusion that God is the first cause)

and likely benevolent.

The opposite of what you just said is true. It needn't be benevolent, and if it has any moral quality either way (and again, there is no such requirement at all), the evidence points to it being hostile.

5. How did ignorant men 500 years ago know what characteristics to fake to need a demand discovered thousands of years later?

They didn't.

6. There must be a first cause that is uncaused with certain characteristics. Only God meets these demands.

Non-sequitur. At best, if we grant all of your false assertions above- just to be nice, or for the sake of argument- all you've got is that it could be God. No more. Claiming "only God meets these demands" is a textbook argument from ignorance. In fact, I'll likely save this link so I can use your post as an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy in the future.

It can be proven God created the universe

It can also be proven that God did not create the universe. It can also be proven that Martha Stewart is God. The question is, can it be proven from true or even plausible premises, and the answer to that question is a resounding "NO".

 

[1robin]

Not necessarily; this is a fallacy of composition. The fact is, we have no idea whether universes have causes, or what sort of causes those might be IF universes "have a cause" at all. Of course, this is why this is mistaken-

Before I get into this I think I have skipped a post of yours. Whether I remember to go back and respond or not I apologize. It would be a fallacy if we were discussing proof. I am discussing logical deduction, not certain knowledge. I will admit that I did not word my claims to address what I had no idea anyone would object to, but should have as technical semantic triviality is the method of choice for assertions against God. It is logical to conclude cars have tires even if it is a fallacy to claim they all do. You must remember my claims have the burden of faith not proof.

And contrary to contemporary physics as well, i.e. the zero-energy proposal. I'll take science, even speculative science, or unsubstantiated religious dogma every day of the week.

I am uncertain what your intention was here. The areas of science that would be used to oppose my claims is based on more faith given less evidence than mine are. You may prefer a title but I prefer accuracy.

This is misleading. If everyone asks someone else for a dollar, supposing that having no first person to "produce a dollar" means "you will never have one" is only true if we're applying the rules that pertain to a finite series. Since we're talking about an infinite series, this is irrelevant.

I am not talking about an infinite series because they do not exist in nature. If you are talking about one it is a hypothetical one and not one that has anything to do with what we are discussing. It is not that we have infinite pasts or finite pasts to choose from. We have a finite past that must be explained alone.

Thus your dogmatic assertion that "an infinite regression...will never produce an effect" is baseless.

Then please produce an example to illustrate your objection.

And those philosophers have been shown to be mistaken on other matters, so they may well be mistaken about this. Especially since we're talking about philosophers who lived and died without ever having any knowledge of modern physics.

Of course they could be, but when a set of characteristics are that obvious and that universal, which also was given to God 500) years ago (convergent confirmation that evolutionists love to gloat over but ignore if it posits God) it is a good bet they are not wrong and I was not speaking only of past philosophers and even stated so specifically. My claim is just as valid and rigorously discussed today. What kind of a response was this for you anyway. I fail to believe "well maybe they are wrong" is the best you could come up with.

And once again, if I have to choose between science and the metaphysical speculations of men writing hundreds of years ago, and who subscribed to a physics which we now know to be false, I know which way I'm going.

If I had asked you to accept the Bible's claims on the words of Moses alone or in a vacuum that did not also include just about every piece of cosmological evidence and philosophic principle known to man your response would still only be a preference not a logical deduction.

No, not at all. Of course, for you to say it is God, it has to be personal- but as far as the actual requirements of the argument or the evidence, there's no reason it must be personal.

It must be able to choose to act. That is my understanding of what makes an individual a person.

And it needn't be intelligent either (except, of course, for the fact that these requirements are merely measured for the conclusion that God is the first cause)

Neither is true. Intelligence is the only known source of information alone. Not to mention law and a thousand other things. Natural law can't create natural law. The non-rational can't encode rationality into nature. In fact nature can't actually create anything. There are at least ten thousand reasons to believe the first cause was intelligent but it is too obvious to post more than the few I have.

The opposite of what you just said is true. It needn't be benevolent, and if it has any moral quality either way (and again, there is no such requirement at all), the evidence points to it being hostile.

The evidence does not in any way point to that but it could have. Did you completely ignore the qualification I put on benevolent? I added likely to avoid this pointless contention because while it is reasonable to conclude he is benevolent it is not a virtual certain deduction like the rest of my claims were.

They didn't.

I can't even begin to know what inspired this claim.

Non-sequitur.

At best, if we grant all of your false assertions above- just to be nice, or for the sake of argument- all you've got is that it could be God. No more. Claiming "only God meets these demands" is a textbook argument from ignorance. In fact, I'll likely save this link so I can use your post as an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy in the future.

When you eventually find a fallacy that will stick to an argument I make then this may be worth discussing. Faith claims have the burden of logical plausibility and to not contradict known facts. Mine go way way beyond the burden I actually have and my case is practically infinitely justifiable (especially as even more modern cosmological information is know) even by modern standards and it is still being done today quite successfully. You remind me of a lawyer who tries to get a client he knows is guilty off by some technical impropriety instead of being interested in justice. I have no problem admitting a good argument when I see one and enjoy it. This is not one. The entire field of science and philosophy (my argument began in both fields) and even law is an exercise in exactly what I have done. Why is it only a fallacy to you guys when it makes God look more likely. My Lord fallacies are a much abused crutch.

It can also be proven that God did not create the universe. It can also be proven that Martha Stewart is God. The question is, can it be proven from true or even plausible premises, and the answer to that question is a resounding "NO".

The answer is yes. If simply asserting a conclusion last is the standard for argumentation then I win, do I not? BTW please provide either of these proofs if you can stomach the effort of doing something that silly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, it is not. Dogs came from non-dogs, yes. But there was never a day when a wolf gave birth to a dog or a Greyhound gave birth to a Chihuahua. What happened was, due to various environmental factors, some populations of wolves began to become domesticated, by necessity. Maybe there was a shortage of food for some reason, so the wolves had to start hanging around human camps because there was food there. The wolves who were better at interacting with humans (rather than being killed by them) would survive to pass this trait onto their offspring and so eventually you would end up with a population of wolves who would be comfortable around human beings (because the ones who wouldn’t interact amiably with humans were killed off by the humans or died from starvation or something else).

So what? What does domestication have to do with anything? A dog is a dog, whether domesticated or not. Due to the fact that I DON’T believe in evolution, I DON’T believe that dogs came from non-dogs. And I will even go a step further and tell you that I believe a wolf is a freakin DOG. A wolf is a dog. Plain as day. And I won’t allow a evolutionists with his/her presupposed theories to tell me otherwise.

That’s just the first “step” so to speak, and we’ve already got population changes. Indeed, DNA evidence indicates that dogs are direct descendants of the gray wolf (the dog genome has been completely sequenced). Humans stepped in at some point and started artificially selecting for the desired traits they were looking for which created greater changes in populations that further distinguished these animals from the original populations of wolves they came from and now we have cockadoodles, Chihuahuas, greyhounds, etc., etc., etc. that are no longer wolves.

That is the theory…but where is the observation? Yeah, dogs are descendents of the grey wolf, because they are the SAME KIND OF ANIMAL. You’ve told me your theory, so I will tell you mines. I believe that the grey wolf was the first of its kind…the “dog” kind. God may have created the grey wolf first…and it is through the grey wolf that all the others within the dog kind originated.

Just like all of mankind originated from Adam and Eve, who were the first of their “kind”. God made an original “kind” of creature, to which all other creatures originated from. That is why we typically have different variations within the kinds, but they will always be of that kind.

So that is my theory.

Check out an experiment done by geneticist, Dmitri Belyaev, where he attempted to breed tame foxes and within several generations ended up with a tamer fox that began to exhibit dog-like characteristics (floppy ears, spotted coats, tendency to bark and short snouts, for just a few examples.) A fox didn’t have to give birth to a non-fox for this to occur. A simple selection for “tameness” produced not only tameness but a variety of physical characteristics within several generations of foxes. This shows us that small changes at the genome level can have much larger effects on behavior and morphology. All of this happens without a fox giving birth to a non-fox. Small changes amount to larger changes over time. See how this is demonstrable?

So what? It is still within the dog “kind”. A different kind of animal is not originating. This is microevolution, which I fully endorse. This is not macroevolution.

Do you think wolves and dogs are the same “kind?” (What is a kind, anyway? It is not a scientific term.)

Yes, they are. You get a dog, a wolf, and a malamute in the same room, and stare at them. How you can look at them and not conclude that they are the same kind of animal is beyond me. Then you say kind is not a scientific term, well, neither is the concept of macroevolution.

I’m not a biologist, so my explanations are probably lacking. So if you still don’t understand this process, this site will walk you through it:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VADefiningSpecies.shtml

I want to see the observational evidence of macroevolution. That is what I want to see.

A dog did not come from a non-dog. Dogs came from dogs and over time and after various genetic changes, non-dogs emerged. Individuals don’t evolve, populations do. See above.

Wait a minute, in a few quotes above, you said

No, it is not. Dogs came from non-dogs, yes. But there was never a day when a wolf gave birth to a dog or a Greyhound gave birth to a Chihuahua.

And now you are saying that a dog did not come from a non-dog. Contradiction.

Dogs came from wolves. A dog did not come from a wolf. It’s an important distinction that I think speaks to the root of your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

My understanding huh lol.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Lol have you ever seen a wolf? They might be in the same family but not the same animal in the least.

Also it would make more sense to say that dogs are a wolf kind...not that a wolf is a dog kind...given that wolves did come first.

 

[Agnostic75]

Hold the phone a minute, have I rejected any common descent claims?

Yes, by implication. You said that all of macro evolution has problems, but according to about 99.86% of experts in the U.S., creationism, and intelligent design have far more problems than macro evolution does. If that many experts accepted creationism, it is a given that you would appeal to that in debates. William Lane Craig loves to appeal to scholarship, but only when it is on his side. He only uses scholarship as a convenience when it agrees with him, and so do you. If the Bible said that common descent is true, there is no way that you would be saying that all of macro evolution has problems. Therefore, your supposed scientific issues with common descent are not genuine.

You do not know enough about common descent to question it from an entirely scientific perspective. That is why I suggested that you discuss it with some experts who would quickly show that you do not know what you are talking about. If you wish to show how much you know about intelligent design, and irreducible complexity, please provide a detailed critique of all of Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun.

Surely over 90% of the people in the world would not have a clue about how to properly evaluate Miller's article. Why should they reject the opinions of a very large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian experts?

I do not know enough about geology to defeat a Christian geologist in a debate about the global flood, but I assume that you would not object that I accept the opinions of the vast majority of geologists who reject the global flood theory.

 

[Agnostic75]

God does have a choice at least in most areas. He did not have to create the earth, people, the wonders we find so inspirational in nature.

No, God must do everything that he does. God can only do the best possible things. Creating people was one of the best possible things that God has done. That was the result of God first wanting to do the best possible things. God cannot control what he wants to do since an omnibenevolent God would always want to do the best possible things. If God had not created people, he was have refused to do what he knew was one of the best possible things that he could have done. That would be impossible.

Even if God has options regarding doing good things, if he does anything, he has to do good things, so he should not get credit for doing good things since if he does anything, he has to do good things. Unless a being has a choice to sin, it would be illogical for anyone to love, admire, or respect him.

God promised to give Christians eternal life. Since he cannot lie, he has to keep his promise to give Christians eternal life. God did not have the option not to promise to give Christians eternal life, but even if he did, a promise is only valid if it is kept. Since a promise has two parts, the original promise, and the fulfillment of the promise, it would be illogical for people to love God for making the original promise since he does not have the option not to keep the promise.

I could hate [an evil God] and despise him and yes criticize him.

Consider the following:

It would be illogical to commend, or condemn any behavior as being right or wrong if choice is not involved. That is why some murderers who are mentally incompetent do not go to prison.

That deals with accountability to morality. The action was still bad or evil even if that person was not accountable in the traditional sense. That is why they were taken out of society. Morality is a condition of quality not choice. It only requires that a transcendent standard exists. As long as the standard exists God can be morally good even if he had no choice.

An evil God would have his own transcendent standard, so it would be illogical for you to criticize him.

The God of the Bible cannot exist since a moral God who did not have the option to sin would not ask people to love him for doing good things since he can only do good things.

 

[McBell]

one wonders if there will be any "INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)" before the 2000th post...

 

[1robin]

Yes, by implication. You said that all of macro evolution has problems, but according to about 99.86% of experts in the U.S., creationism, and intelligent design have far more problems than macro evolution does. If that many experts accepted creationism, it is a given that you would appeal to that in debates. William Lane Craig loves to appeal to scholarship, but only when it is on his side. He only uses scholarship as a convenience when it agrees with him, and so do you. If the Bible said that common descent is true, there is no way that you would be saying that all of macro evolution has problems. Therefore, your supposed scientific issues with common descent are not genuine.

Would it help if I said difficulties or things that have not been explained. Let me clarify.

1. I believe that evolution has occurred.
2. I believe there are very good reasons to believe that evolution alone can never produce the reality we observe alone.

I do not think that is an objection to common descent specifically.

You do not know enough about common descent to question it from an entirely scientific perspective. That is why I suggested that you discuss it with some experts who would quickly show that you do not know what you are talking about. If you wish to show how much you know about intelligent design, and irreducible complexity, please provide a detailed critique of all of Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun.

Surely over 90% of the people in the world would not have a clue about how to properly evaluate Miller's article. Why should they reject the opinions of a very large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian experts?

I do not know enough about geology to defeat a Christian geologist in a debate about the global flood, but I assume that you would not object that I accept the opinions of the vast majority of geologists who reject the global flood theory.

Since the rest was defense of something I do not remember attacking I will leave it alone.

Let me assault something you can defend. Where did life come from? Where did the universe come from?

 

[1robin]

No, God must do everything that he does. God can only do the best possible things. Creating people was one of the best possible things that God has done. That was the result of God first wanting to do the best possible things. God cannot control what he wants to do since an omnibenevolent God would always want to do the best possible things. If God had not created people, he was have refused to do what he knew was one of the best possible things that he could have done. That would be impossible.

You have not proven God does not have freewill in any area but you can't prove he does not have freewill in most areas. What forced God to make anything? What forced God to make man? What forced God to save man? What forced God to attempt to save me even when I did not want to be saved? What forced God to create a rainbow? What forced God to mandate the speed of light as 299 792 458 m / s? He could have done them all differently or not at all and would not have violated anything or any characteristic assigned to him.

Even if God has options regarding doing good things, if he does anything, he has to do good things, so he should not get credit for doing good things since if he does anything, he has to do good things. Unless a being has a choice to sin, it would be illogical for anyone to love, admire, or respect him.

Since the best thing would be to simply make redundant perfect God's why do we not have only that? What would prevent God from making a Hell (which even the Bible calls an evil, or at least that is the best translation). I can love God for choosing to create my soul alone. I could love him for creating such a beautiful universe instead on one with only our solar system. I could love him for saving me even though I deserved condemnation. He did not have to do a single one of these things.

God promised to give Christians eternal life. Since he cannot lie, he has to keep his promise to give Christians eternal life.

However he did not have to make the promise to begin with.

God did not have the option not to promise to give Christians eternal life, but even if he did, a promise is only valid if it is kept.

He most certainly did have the option. You are right he did not have the option once the promise was made but that is a reason to love. If he violated his promise that is a reason to not love. However love is not mandated by reason in the first place.

Since a promise has two parts, the original promise, and the fulfillment of the promise, it would be illogical for people to love God for making the original promise since he does not have the option not to keep the promise.

He had a choice in the first part. You can never win an argument along these lines. I would not keep it up. You have already been forced to make several statement that are simply wrong to sustain it.

Consider the following:





An evil God would have his own transcendent standard, so it would be illogical for you to criticize him.

I could criticize him but I could never show that he was wrong. I could still love him. Countless women love a husband they criticize constantly.

The God of the Bible cannot exist since a moral God who did not have the option to sin would not ask people to love him for doing good things since he can only do good things.

That is not the worst but it very close to the end of the scale where the worst argument against God ever made exists and can probably see it from where it is at. God can choose to do a good thing or not without violating any aspect of his nature. I can love him for choosing to act alone. I do not think any of your argument is credible but for simplicity I have given it credibility because it is still wrong even granting many of its premises.

 

[1robin]

one wonders if there will be any "INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)" before the 2000th post...

I see the great commentator has made an appearance. I have already conceded and clarified the proof issue long ago. Faith claims do not have the burden the thread assumed. Heck much of science does not either though it should.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Before I get into this I think I have skipped a post of yours. Whether I remember to go back and respond or not I apologize.

I think you did too, but I don't remember if it was on this thread or not. No big deal- either you get to it or you don't.

It would be a fallacy if we were discussing proof. I am discussing logical deduction, not certain knowledge.

And logical fallacies pertain to logical deduction, not "certain knowledge" (although I'm not entirely sure what this distinction is supposed to be)

I will admit that I did not word my claims to address what I had no idea anyone would object to, but should have as technical semantic triviality is the method of choice for assertions against God.

Fallacious reasoning is not a "technical semantic triviality".

You must remember my claims have the burden of faith not proof.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean-hopefully this isn't supposed to be an excuse for inconsistent reasoning.

The areas of science that would be used to oppose my claims is based on more faith given less evidence than mine are.

Um, no, the exact opposite is true; your claim is a metaphysical axiom (i.e. taken on faith), whereas the alternative is a credible scientific hypothesis.

I am not talking about an infinite series because they do not exist in nature.

You're mixed up. You were talking about an infinite series, i.e.

An infinite regression of causes will never produce an effect.

Then please produce an example to illustrate your objection.

My objection is that your universal statement that no infinite regression can ever produce an effect is unsubstantiated- because you've failed to either go through every infinite regression and show that each one fails to produce an effect, or give some reason why it would be logically impossible for an infinite regression to produce an effect.

Given the nature of my objection, asking for "an example" doesn't make any sense.

What kind of a response was this for you anyway. I fail to believe "well maybe they are wrong" is the best you could come up with.

Well, since one of your arguments for the claim that a first cause must have these characteristics was because certain philosophers said so, pointing out the credentials of these philosophers is eminently relevant. And as it happens, your claim was erroneous anyways- not all of the philosophers have attributed those attributes to the first cause. The attributes you listed are the ones which a handful of Christian apologists (many of them not really philosophers at all) have favored, and for obvious reasons since they are measured for the desired conclusion.

It must be able to choose to act.

But it needn't be able to "choose to act" to be a cause, so this is irrelevant.

Intelligence is the only known source of information alone. Not to mention law and a thousand other things. Natural law can't create natural law. The non-rational can't encode rationality into nature. In fact nature can't actually create anything. There are at least ten thousand reasons to believe the first cause was intelligent but it is too obvious to post more than the few I have.

There are too many reasons so you won't give any? Ok... And these vague claims here are not reasons for supposing that the cause of the universe or "first cause" would have to be intelligent or conscious. The first cause could have been a living thing but created the universe through instinct- or the first cause could have been non-living and done it via some other principle; the obvious fact of the matter is that we simply don't have a very good idea whether universes are caused, or what sorts of causes they could have. (and on that second point, science has better answers than religion, i.e. the zero-energy proposal and similar hypotheses)

The evidence does not in any way point to that but it could have. Did you completely ignore the qualification I put on benevolent? I added likely to avoid this pointless contention because while it is reasonable to conclude he is benevolent it is not a virtual certain deduction like the rest of my claims were.

And for the same reason we have no basis for supposing the first cause would have to be intelligent or personal, we have no basis for supposing it has any moral quality either way.

I can't even begin to know what inspired this claim.

Exegesis showing that one can read current science through the Bible, provided one can arbitrarily reinterpret anything to mean anything else ultimately establishes very little.

When you eventually find a fallacy that will stick to an argument I make then this may be worth discussing. Faith claims have the burden of logical plausibility and to not contradict known facts. Mine go way way beyond the burden I actually have and my case is practically infinitely justifiable (especially as even more modern cosmological information is know) even by modern standards and it is still being done today quite successfully. You remind me of a lawyer who tries to get a client he knows is guilty off by some technical impropriety instead of being interested in justice. I have no problem admitting a good argument when I see one and enjoy it. This is not one. The entire field of science and philosophy (my argument began in both fields) and even law is an exercise in exactly what I have done. Why is it only a fallacy to you guys when it makes God look more likely. My Lord fallacies are a much abused crutch.

Belly-aching about why fallacious reasoning isn't such a bad thing doesn't make a very good counter-argument... The proposition that the first cause COULD be God and that the first cause MUST be God are CLEARLY very, very different. Hand-waving won't change this. If all you are trying to say is that there could be a first cause, and it could be God- then sure, I suppose I can grant that; and I'll go on to say that although it could be, in fact it is not.

The answer is yes. If simply asserting a conclusion last is the standard for argumentation then I win, do I not?

The problem is, all I need to do is point to 2000 years of literature from people trying and failing to do just this in order to substantiate my claim. You... well, can try to justify fallacious arguments.

BTW please provide either of these proofs if you can stomach the effort of doing something that silly.

If the grass is green, Martha Stewart is God.
The grass is green, therefore Martha Stewart is God.

Proving something isn't difficult; proving it from plausible premises is the tricky part.