s2a vs. SoliDeoGloria

[SoliDeoGloria]

Due to a recent comversation in another thread, I felt that it would be pragmatic to start another one on one debate with s2a over the Christian Theistic stance that a God, especially the Christian Monotheistic God, does indeed exist. The purpose, on my part, of this thread will be to show that:
1. There is a methodology to the Christian Theistic stance.
2. The methodology of the stated stance is analytic. (it can be analyzed)
3. After analysis of the stated stance, concluding that the methodology is "circular" is not a valid conclusion.
4. The stated stance can be successfully defended and proven to be a valid stance.

I also felt that it would better serve this thread to start out with some basic "First Principles" and then go from there to present an argument that best provides a defense for the existence of a God.

"First Principles"
1. Being is/ B is= The Principle of Existence (despite directly unaffirmable agnostic claims)
2. Being is Being/ B is B= The Principle of identity
3. Being is not Nonbeing/ B is not Non-B= The Principle of Noncontradiction
4. Either Being or Nonnbeing/ Either B or Non-B= The Principle of Excluded Middle
5. Nonbeing cannot cause Being/ Non-B>B= The Principle of Causality
6. Contingent Being cannot cause Contingent Being/ Bc>Bc= The Principle of Contingency (or dependency)
7. Only Necessary Being can cause a Contingent Being/ Bn->Bc= The Positive Principle of Modality
8. Necessary Being cannot cause a Necessary Being/ Bn>Bn= The Negative Principle of Modality
9. Every Contingent being is caused by a Necessary Being/ Bn->Bc= The Principle of Existencial Causality
10. Necessary Being exists/ Bn exists= The Principle of Existencial Necessity
11. Contingent Being exists/ Bc exists= The Principle of Existencial Contingency
12. Necessary Being is similar to similar Contingent Being(s) it causes/ Bn-similar->Bc= The Principle of Analogy

On a side note, I am prepared to defend the stance that these "First Principles" are either undeniable or reducible to the undeniable and self evident
or reducible to the self evident. I would also like to carify that self evident principles are either true by their nature or undeniable because the predicate is reducible to the subject. That the predicate is reducible to the subject means that one cannot deny the principle without using it in a possitive sense.

From these "First Principles" I will now present a demonstration of some of the basic tenets of the Theistic argument for the existence of God.
1. Something exists (e.g., I do) (No.1)
2. I am a contingent being (No. 11)
3. Nothing cannot cause something (No. 5)
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being (No. 7)
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being (follows from Nos. 1-4)
6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities)
7. Therefore, This Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy (No. 12)
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in it's being which would be a contradiction (No.3)
9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way.
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (A Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one being (since there cannot be two infinite beings).
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists.
12. Such a being is appropiately called "God" in the Theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a Theistic God.
13. Therefore, the Theistic God exists.

Due to The basicness of this post, I can hear the keys just a tapping away. While I anticipate a very detailed and interesting discussion due to what I have seen from you in the recent past, I chose to keep this post as basic as possible so as to not second guess what your response might be and put all of my "eggs in the same basket" . I am confident that you will not dissapoint in your response.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[s2a]

Unfortunate that you would choose to primarily parrot the arguments of those that have gone before you absent any due credit (as I shall detail and illustrate soon enough - noting such before you care to edit your initial thread posting as of 06-15-2006, 01:07 PM), but I shall attempt to gamely treat with such borrowed argument as my own original craft allows nonetheless.

I do so hope that you do not depend alone upon the apparent solidified convictions of others as being therfore irrefutable and beyond circumspectly pointed rebuttal.

I confess that I might indulge this thread only sparingly, for I deem such arguments for/against "proofs" of any existent god to be ultimately fruitless/pointless amongst any contingent company that values faith as tantamount to reason/fact.

In each and every previous instance in which I have bothered to engage such a debate with a person of faith-based sensibilities and motivations, the very best I have ever managed is concessions of unattainable satifactory proofs - in which the believer reiterates their unwavering faith despite any empirically compelling cause or rationale to the contrary.

At best, such dialogues have manifested a believer in doubt and imbued crisis of faith...acknowledging neither reason nor logic as failing measures of their beliefs. "Well, I still believe, no matter what you say" is the only "payoff" in immediate store for non-theistic counterpoints (though time may render a more solidified agnostic as result - not that I profit from such one whit).

Note that I retain neither interest nor motivation in disabusing others of their faith-based beliefs. There's no profit in the exercize of such efforts. As an avowed skeptic, I can only hope to promote freethinking, critical thinking, and reason - as the best ways to know and understand both the cosmos and ourselves.

Last time I checked, no god(s) of any theistic religion ever encouraged or rewarded adherents for their intellectual curiosity, sincere doubts, philosohical challenges, or methodological efforts to discover the "secrets" of either the cosmos at-large, or the very nature of the gods themselves. God(s) seem(s) to like his/their secrets, and to the best of my understanding, fail to reward those that expose such dieties as being impotently naked, insignificant, imaginary, useless, pointless, or meaningless to the human condition as it exists today.

*sigh*

With appropriate caveats both contextually and thusly put, I shall once more (perhaps for the very last time in my lifetime), tender rebuttal (as time, circumstance, and sufficient motivation allow) to the philosophically founded/derived (noting the typical lack of empirical evidences at the outset) arguments/"proofs" that argue for an existent theistic god or gods.

It won't be fun (for me), as there is neither personal ego to be placated nor vanity to be satisfied; for futility is foretold, and unlikely contrarian concession offers neither reward nor fruitful gain. A stalemate in chess is no victory, just as kissing your sister is no reward in celebration of triumph.

Here's hoping that at very least you have an attractively seductive sister to offer up as prize for either victor or vanquished.

*mwah*

Salient rebuttal to follow as time and motivation allow...

At your service,
s2a/Cal

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Unfortunate that you would choose to primarily parrot the arguments of those that have gone before you absent any due credit (as I shall detail and illustrate soon enough - noting such before you care to edit your initial thread posting as of 06-15-2006, 01:07 PM), but I shall attempt to gamely treat with such borrowed argument as my own original craft allows nonetheless.

I do so hope that you do not depend alone upon the apparent solidified convictions of others as being therfore irrefutable and beyond circumspectly pointed rebuttal.

Am I so pompous as to think that I, a high school drop out and ex-felon, can better those who have gone before me for centuries? I don't think so. But as far a "parroting" goes, there was a bit done by youself in our last conversation so hows about we leave that one alone eh? As I implied in the OP, I wanted to start out as basic as I could. I would like to think that I could add some original input as this conversation continues, but if Ecc.1:9 rings true, than that will probably not be the case. We'll just have to let the conversation play it's course and find out what happens.

I confess that I might indulge this thread only sparingly, for I deem such arguments for/against "proofs" of any existent god to be ultimately fruitless/pointless amongst any contingent company that values faith as tantamount to reason/fact.

Is this coming from the one who started a thread asking those that value faith to come up with disproofs for their faith based beliefs?! There seemed, at least to me, to be more than a "sparingly indulgent" effort put into that thread.

In each and every previous instance in which I have bothered to engage such a debate with a person of faith-based sensibilities and motivations, the very best I have ever managed is concessions of unattainable satifactory proofs - in which the believer reiterates their unwavering faith despite any empirically compelling cause or rationale to the contrary.

At best, such dialogues have manifested a believer in doubt and imbued crisis of faith...acknowledging neither reason nor logic as failing measures of their beliefs. "Well, I still believe, no matter what you say" is the only "payoff" in immediate store for non-theistic counterpoints (though time may render a more solidified agnostic as result - not that I profit from such one whit).

Note that I retain neither interest nor motivation in disabusing others of their faith-based beliefs. There's no profit in the exercize of such efforts. As an avowed skeptic, I can only hope to promote freethinking, critical thinking, and reason - as the best ways to know and understand both the cosmos and ourselves....

It won't be fun (for me), as there is neither personal ego to be placated nor vanity to be satisfied; for futility is foretold, and unlikely contrarian concession offers neither reward nor fruitful gain. A stalemate in chess is no victory, just as kissing your sister is no reward in celebration of triumph.

How noble and considerate of you. Well, being as how the Bible clearly states that faith is of God and not ourselves (Rom.12:3 Eph.2:8-9), I'll go ahead and leave that burden up to Him.

Last time I checked, no god(s) of any theistic religion ever encouraged or rewarded adherents for their intellectual curiosity, sincere doubts, philosohical challenges, or methodological efforts to discover the "secrets" of either the cosmos at-large, or the very nature of the gods themselves. God(s) seem(s) to like his/their secrets, and to the best of my understanding, fail to reward those that expose such dieties as being impotently naked, insignificant, imaginary, useless, pointless, or meaningless to the human condition as it exists today.

And yet at the same time The God of the Bible does not call those who adhere to to it to a faith based on ignorance (2 Tim.2:15) and maybe there is enough reward in doing as this God commands like being able to defend one's reasons for having such a hope and faith (1 Pet. 3:15).

Here's hoping that at very least you have an attractively seductive sister to offer up as prize for either victor or vanquished.

*mwah*

Sorry, no sisters. But I do have 3 brothers and have my suspicions about one of them, if you happen to swing that way. But let's keep that one between us eh .

With appropriate caveats both contextually and thusly put, I shall once more (perhaps for the very last time in my lifetime), tender rebuttal (as time, circumstance, and sufficient motivation allow) to the philosophically founded/derived (noting the typical lack of empirical evidences at the outset) arguments/"proofs" that argue for an existent theistic god or gods....

Salient rebuttal to follow as time and motivation allow...

I will be anxiously awaiting your response.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[s2a]

Hello SoliDeoGloria,

When I said:

Unfortunate that you would choose to primarily parrot the arguments of those that have gone before you absent any due credit (as I shall detail and illustrate soon enough - noting such before you care to edit your initial thread posting as of 06-15-2006, 01:07 PM), but I shall attempt to gamely treat with such borrowed argument as my own original craft allows nonetheless.

I do so hope that you do not depend alone upon the apparent solidified convictions of others as being therfore irrefutable and beyond circumspectly pointed rebuttal.

You offered:

Am I so pompous as to think that I, a high school drop out and ex-felon, can better those who have gone before me for centuries? I don't think so.

Is this to be argument by diminished expectations then? Believe me when I tell you that in matters of deliberative ideas and perspectives, I care not one whit as to claims of erudition, awards, or letters. In defense of my own stated views, I plead no especial exception (or exemption) from my more literate and learned counterparts, nor do lend especial consideration for those in supplication of deference to alluded diminished capacities. My counsel is the same to all: "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"; unless you feel really lucky...and/or have nothing to lose.

But as far a "parroting" goes, there was a bit done by youself in our last conversation so hows about we leave that one alone eh?

Nope.
Sorry....I just can't leave an open-ended, spurious allegation alone. I invite you to directly illustrate (from our last conversation, here) any aspect of "parroting" I evinced.

"'parroting'' - transitive verb:
To repeat or imitate, especially without understanding."
- Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

Hey, c'mon. It's just you and me here. Nobody cares how much bandwidth we expend in our discourse. No other members to therefore beg in indulgence of any lengthy, multi-post reply. No apologies required within the fullness of pointed expository exposure and divulgence. Take the time, expend the effort, to evidentially prove me the charlatan you allege - or else retract the unsupported allegation with expressed regret and apology for crafting spurious claims.

[Note: I promise to never "cut and paste" verbatim argumentation from another source without appropriately lending due credit for original authorship; providing ready reference of same. Cited quotations lent from authoritative/enlightened/informed sources does not constitute "parroting", nor any rapt plagiarism of unique ideas (or tendered "proofs") as being one's own.]

As I implied in the OP, I wanted to start out as basic as I could. I would like to think that I could add some original input as this conversation continues, but if Ecc.1:9 rings true, than that will probably not be the case.

Unfortunate...as I am an optimist, and inclined to operate within the motivation that new discovery and prospective scientific (or personal) revelation await every nascent sunrise - and content in the observation of that which is old...is just old (though perhaps wise nonetheless). One may retain both faith and hope (ie "wishful thinking") in both people and progressive ideals from a a purely emotional perspective, beyond any concurrently associative claims of "truth" or evidentially supportable "fact".

God-belief is not requisite (nor even necessary) to my "hope" that my grandmother lives to see her 90th birthday in relative good health and prosperity. I retain no "faith" that she will live to witness such a landmark, but I can "hope" that she may, just the same (in the full knowlege that my "hope" or "wish" that it might be so, won't make it so).

Understand that skeptics and unbelievers are neither devoid of primal emotions nor thoughtful optimistic hopes. Just know that skeptics and unbelievers can discriminate and reasonably act upon the differences between appeals to emotion, and assertions/conclusions of quantifiable/testable/measurable fact.

As Easton's Bible Dictionary defines..."Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true."

Such is the essence of faith (and it's associative belief-systems). What may be "true" (or "Truth") is a matter of self-validating emotional appeal (within one's own mind); not a matter of estimable, empirical fact.

God-belief plays to how one "feels" about the human condition; unbelief relegates itself to what can be known and understood about the human condition. "Feelings" are distinctly unique and personal. Estimable facts are universal and impersonal, no matter how one "feels" about what they may portend or suggest.

So, spare me the Ecclesiastical dogmatic liturgy that implies that "there is nothing new under the sun". The very concept suggests that inquiry, investigation, and prospective discovery of the unknown is but a fruitless and foolish exercize of vainglorious deceit and individually opportunistic gain.
I do not yearn for the "good 'ole days" of stone knives and bearskins as the "be all, end all" of human existence or potential. It would be like...basing an entire cultural civilization and system of beliefs of inescapable "truths" on some lone, singular written (and often revised) text of ancient "revelations", myth, legend, and folklore.
Why invent the candle, when we could just as easily fear and reverentially worship the darkness as some invisible entity of manifest fear, dread, and doom? The sun god will arise in but a few hours, and once again dispense with the demons of darkness! All hail the god of blinding light, and variable warmth, and sometimes reddened flesh!

We'll just have to let the conversation play it's course and find out what happens.

Indeed. FORE!

I confess that I might indulge this thread only sparingly, for I deem such arguments for/against "proofs" of any existent god to be ultimately fruitless/pointless amongst any contingent company that values faith as tantamount to reason/fact.

Is this coming from the one who started a thread asking those that value faith to come up with disproofs for their faith based beliefs?

No. It's coming from one asking if any definitive and evidential disproofs were [are] available/possible to cause a believer to reject (or otherwise recant) their faith-based beliefs. I asked for no ontological "disproofs" of any kind (beyond those of a personalized perspective). Please do not wantonly mischaracterize my inquiry to craft a strawman.

The question I originally put was merely a reflexive consideration to the inquiry of "What would it take for you to believe in God?". I acknowledged your reply to that premised reflexive inquiry (ie. "What would it take for you to NOT believe in God"), and simply noted that your reply was too vague and unspecific in any qualified way to be of considerable or definitive answer (and I thusly proceeded to illustrate why that was so).

There seemed, at least to me, to be more than a "sparingly indulgent" effort put into that thread.

Indeed. I was hoping to indulge specific and exacting answers to the premised question put. What resulted in reply...is self-evident.

 

[s2a]

said:
Note that I retain neither interest nor motivation in disabusing others of their faith-based beliefs. There's no profit in the exercize of such efforts. As an avowed skeptic, I can only hope to promote freethinking, critical thinking, and reason - as the best ways to know and understand both the cosmos and ourselves....

...It won't be fun (for me), as there is neither personal ego to be placated nor vanity to be satisfied; for futility is foretold, and unlikely contrarian concession offers neither reward nor fruitful gain. A stalemate in chess is no victory, just as kissing your sister is no reward in celebration of triumph.

To which you offered:

How noble and considerate of you. Well, being as how the Bible clearly states that faith is of God and not ourselves (Rom.12:3 Eph.2:8-9), I'll go ahead and leave that burden up to Him.

You are overly generous. I claim neither superior nobility, nor do I tender favored consideration of any particular faith-based rationales. Whether by works, or by some "bestowed grace", I deem all religious claims as equal bunk, regardless of attributed source of inspiration.
I can neither account for, nor measure, the sum of "faith" that you may feel that your god has bestowed unto you...nor would I presume to offer conclusively quantitative or qualitative measure of your personal piety. I remain both unimpressed and unconcerned with such personalized declarations and testimonies.
Claimants of alien abduction are bound by the same standards of credulity and proof as those that claim divine influence, interaction, and thusly inspired outcomes. Degrees of pious sincerity and earnestly personal conviction are virtually impossible to either quantitatively/qualitatively measure or evidentially prove/disprove, which is why I don't bother with such trivialities.

After I offered:
Last time I checked, no god(s) of any theistic religion ever encouraged or rewarded adherents for their intellectual curiosity, sincere doubts, philosohical challenges, or methodological efforts to discover the "secrets" of either the cosmos at-large, or the very nature of the gods themselves. God(s) seem(s) to like his/their secrets, and to the best of my understanding, fail to reward those that expose such dieties as being impotently naked, insignificant, imaginary, useless, pointless, or meaningless to the human condition as it exists today.

You said:

And yet at the same time The God of the Bible does not call those who adhere to to it to a faith based on ignorance (2 Tim.2:15) and maybe there is enough reward in doing as this God commands like being able to defend one's reasons for having such a hope and faith (1 Pet. 3:15).

Whether or not you accept that Ecclesiastes was of Solomonic authorship or not, it's not reckless to observe within Ecc. 1 (which you cited earlier in verse 9), which also offers in Ecc. 1:17-18...
"Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief."

One might reasonably infer (regardless of whom the author might have been) that in fact, extra-biblically derived knowledge and wisdom only hopes to inherit emptiness borne of folly and insanity. "Reap this, mutha******!", is not an especially insightful nor inspirational retort to the question at hand.

If you wish to refute my previously lent conclusion, you should point to Scripture that specifically invites pious adherents to openly question and challenge the very tenants of faith itself.

I jested in offering:
Here's hoping that at very least you have an attractively seductive sister to offer up as prize for either victor or vanquished.

*mwah*

You said:

Sorry, no sisters. But I do have 3 brothers and have my suspicions about one of them, if you happen to swing that way. But let's keep that one between us eh .

Dude. TMI, but thanks for sharing.

I'm very straight, as my wife of nearly 18 years ongoing will positively and assertively attest.

As I previously offered in summary:
With appropriate caveats both contextually and thusly put, I shall once more (perhaps for the very last time in my lifetime), tender rebuttal (as time, circumstance, and sufficient motivation allow) to the philosophically founded/derived (noting the typical lack of empirical evidences at the outset) arguments/"proofs" that argue for an existent theistic god or gods....

Salient rebuttal to follow as time and motivation allow...

You said:

I will be anxiously awaiting your response.

It is my intent to copiously and saliently relieve your anxiety within the next 48-72 hours. Referenced and cogent debunking takes time, and requires a tad more effort than facile rhetorical exhortations/exchanges such as these...

My apologies for tendering little more than qualified/personalized caveats at the outset of this thread. I only wished to clarify my motivations and interests in indulgence of such a prospective debate.

I promise not to underestimate your capacities in this regard, as I trust that you will not oversell or attempt to inflate my own capacities in some prospective handicap of leveled turf...

En garde...

;-)

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

My counsel is the same to all: "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"; unless you feel really lucky...and/or have nothing to lose...

I've always wanted to use this verse somewhere. Now and here seems like just as good of a place as any: 1 Kings 20:11"...Let not him who girds on his armor boast like him who takes it off."

I invite you to directly illustrate (from our last conversation, here) any aspect of "parroting" I evinced.

From post #38:

If space/time the cosmos) is infinite (a cyclical continuum - instead of a linear progression), does it then require a "first cause"? If no causation is required, then no "god explanation" is necessary.
If the cosmos (spacetime) is finite (with a beginning and end), then there is a point in which spacetime is (or was) non-existent. "Cause" (or causation) is itself a temporal concept (of time) - an instigating event (or "thing") that produces a result...over some measure of time. If there is no time, there is no existent cause (nor any need of one)...

We already know (in fact) that sometimes, some things can and do come from "nothing" (ex nihilo). Subatomic particles pop into and out of existence as virtual particles; unpredictable manifestations of a time-energy uncertainty principle. [Go ask a qualified quantum field theorist for expert details on this phenomena]. In essence, there is no attributable "cause" to either their temporary existence, or disappearance into non-existence. Does this phenomena prove that a god therefore exists...or that a god is completely unnecessary as a logical explanation of (first) cause and effect?

"'parroting'' - transitive verb:
To repeat or imitate, especially without understanding."
- Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

Given this specific definition of this obvious slang word, I can't help but wonder if you were merely accusing me of repeating or imitating in the OP or if you were also insinuating that I repeated imitated without understanding what I was repeating or imitating?

Take the time, expend the effort, to evidentially prove me the charlatan you allege - or else retract the unsupported allegation with expressed regret and apology for crafting spurious claims.
[Note: I promise to never "cut and paste" verbatim argumentation from another source without appropriately lending due credit for original authorship; providing ready reference of same. Cited quotations lent from authoritative/enlightened/informed sources does not constitute "parroting", nor any rapt plagiarism of unique ideas (or tendered "proofs") as being one's own.]

First off, I would like to clarify that I am not one of those Christians who believe that the "love" the Bible speaks of is this naive "pushover" attitude that renders regret or an apology just because someone asks for one. Nowhere in the NT is this attitude promoted or displayed. As a matter of fact, Jesus and His followers as recorded in the NT were, on occasion, hilariously rude when engaging in debates and offered not one apology for it. This is clearly displayed in the Biblically recorded responses of those they engaged in debates with.

Now to deal with the facts. First off, you clear what you meant by using the word "parroting" with it's actual definition, which I actually have no problem with, unless you are accusing me of "misunderstanding" but being as how the definition of the word clarifies that the "misunderstanding" part of it is not necessary by it's use of the word "especially", I'll go ahead and leave that alone for now. Then to defend yourself, you conveniently add all sorts of qualifications for the use of the word "parroting" that are not in the definition you originally posted. Until you can show me your official lexicography badge, can we please stick to the english language and leave the linguistic conventionalism out. I know what you meant and you know what I meant. If you can't take it don't dish it out. No regret is felt and no apology will be given due to the fact that there is no real basis for either.

Unfortunate...as I am an optimist, and inclined to operate within the motivation that new discovery and prospective scientific (or personal) revelation await every nascent sunrise...

Ah yes, like the Nov. 2004 issue of the National Geographic discovery of linguistic conventionalism in it's attempt to redefine the word "theory" as being just as much fact as a scientific law (lol). Nothing really all that new there. I'll be more impressed with the scientific discovery of the Sony Playstation 3 when it finally comes out.

No. It's coming from one asking if any definitive and evidential disproofs were [are] available/possible to cause a believer to reject (or otherwise recant) their faith-based beliefs. I asked for no ontological "disproofs" of any kind (beyond those of a personalized perspective). Please do not wantonly mischaracterize my inquiry to craft a strawman.

So let me get this straight, you wanted someone who adhere's to ontology to come up with a disproof by not using ontology. Once again, my assessment stand that it is like asking a person who claims to use "reason" for what they adhere to to not use reason is true. You may as well have asked a boxer to engage in a boxing match and win according to the rules without using any boxing skills at all.

And if that weren't enough, as I have quoted above from post #38, you then attempt to debate this, what you claim to be, purely ontological proof by other than ontological means which begs the question of, if causality is purely ontological, why would you even attempt to disprove it using other than ontological, what you believe it to be, evidence? And as far as being "definitive" goes, in the same post didn't you attempt to define causality:

1) If something exists...then "something else" must have caused that first something to exist.
2) Nothing can cause itself into existence.
3) A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause.

Indeed. I was hoping to indulge specific and exacting answers to the premised question put. What resulted in reply...is self-evident.

and predictable, I might add.

Claimants of alien abduction are bound by the same standards of credulity and proof as those that claim divine influence, interaction, and thusly inspired outcomes.

How ironic that you bring this up with the countless dollars spent by certain parts of the scientific community to find life on other planets like mars.

If you wish to refute my previously lent conclusion, you should point to Scripture that specifically invites pious adherents to openly question and challenge the very tenants of faith itself.

I'll stick with the verses I keep reffering to and worry about your flawed exegesis later. Right now I'm more concerned with existencial apologetics than comparative religion.

It is my intent to copiously and saliently relieve your anxiety within the next 48-72 hours. Referenced and cogent debunking takes time, and requires a tad more effort than facile rhetorical exhortations/exchanges such as these...

My apologies for tendering little more than qualified/personalized caveats at the outset of this thread. I only wished to clarify my motivations and interests in indulgence of such a prospective debate.

I promise not to underestimate your capacities in this regard, as I trust that you will not oversell or attempt to inflate my own capacities in some prospective handicap of leveled turf...

En garde...

;-)

I'll still be waiting.....

Game on.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[s2a]

Again I must forward apologies in favor to preferred substance, as encumbrances of personal responsibilities must take precedent in more qualified rebuttal.

Know that I am editorially amidst an (as yet) incomplete response, as I wish to construct a reply worthy of your estimation--with suitable referenced sources and valid support---that will provide not only a refutation of mere philosophical argumentation, but may also present a more valid, reasonable, and rational perspective to embrace on merits alone...absent any appeals to emotion or wishful thinking.
Note that I will succinctly illustrate that your tendered multi-part premise is "borrowed" without appropriate lent credit due on your part. This is not meant to suggest that such exposure alone invalidates a lent argument---only to illustrate that verbatim "parroting" of others in such arguments rarely (if ever) well serves the "cut and paste" copyist in the face of those willing to dig a little deeper into substance, and indulge and compose a manifestly unique referenced rebuttal in reply.

Ecclesiastes 7:8

;-)

s2a/Cal

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Note that I will succinctly illustrate that your tendered multi-part premise is "borrowed" without appropriate lent credit due on your part. This is not meant to suggest that such exposure alone invalidates a lent argument---only to illustrate that verbatim "parroting" of others in such arguments rarely (if ever) well serves the "cut and paste" copyist in the face of those willing to dig a little deeper into substance, and indulge and compose a manifestly unique referenced rebuttal in reply.

I was wondering if that is what you were really getting at. Why didn't you say so in the first place?! All you had to do was ask and I would've given it to you. Anyways, The source I primarily used for the OP is The Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Norman Geisler) under the section titled "First Principles". I have no clue how to get it off of the internet (sorry). I had to buy the book myself but I am of the belief that it was a worthwhile investment.

(EDIT)
The reason I did not give the source for the OP originally was to keep this discussion from turning into a debate over sources (i.e. "my dad is bigger than your dad"), which ends up being very unproductive, and more about the facts. Your constant insistance to want to know what the primary source used for the OP was is suspicious but none-the-less not buyond a reasonable request; hence why it was eventually revealed.(/EDIT)

BTW, no apology needed.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria