the right religion

[Agnostic75]

Yes, by implication. The Bible says that God is good, and its implies that he is fair, and moral. You cannot logically claim that not any Christians who where raised in South Korea would have been skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S. No good, fair, and moral God would destroy anyone after they died who rejected Christianity if they had lived in one place, and would have accepted it if they had lived in another place. So, by implication, the God of the Bible does not exist.

What it does not say is that you (especially being not of God) have the capacity to evaluate his character.

I said:

"You cannot logically claim that not any Christians who where raised in South Korea would have been skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S."

Do you agree with that?

 

[Agnostic75]

Please reply to my post #3868. In that post, I provided additional reasonable proof that the God of the Bible does not exist.

I have done nothing but reply to your posts all morning.

That is fine, you can reply to it whenever you wish. My arguments in that post reasonably prove that the God of the Bible does not exist.

This is too irrational for even your side. If a patient walks into a doctors office, the first thing he wants to know from that one single person alone is what they experienced. If they had X, Y, and Z symptoms, experiences, feelings. He can rightly assume what Germ exists in them that is responsible for their condition. That is only one person. I give you billions and you reject the exact same logic as non-logic. Why do you have a standard for everything else and another one for God?

Logic indicates that there is not a necessary correlation between the truth and how many people have similar emotional and spiritual experiences. If it did, that would mean that if a religion one day becomes larger than Christianity is, that religion is the one true religion.

Death of a thousand qualifications it is I guess. So if I have a being that always acts benevolently and offers X. By your strange logic what am I to do?

There is nothing at all that is strange about discussing good and evil supernatural beings since the Bible claims that they exist. My main intention in using these arguments is to try to show you that all that you have is faith, just like all other theists do. If good, and evil supernatural beings exist, there is not way that any mere human would be able to reliably know how powerful they are. In other words, logic, and reason, cannot reasonably prove that good supernatural beings are more powerful than evil supernatural beings are, or even that any good supernatural beings exist, that is, if you even have any use for logic, and reason.

 

[1robin]

Oh no, from a secular perspective, many of my arguments were much better than you just implied. Most anyone who has read my two most recent replies to you knows that that is true. You have made many invalid arguments in that thread. You are partly disgusted because you know that you are not able to logically refute much of what I have said.

Exactly what do you think the chances are that you would think your posts were terrible?

One of us is completely wrong. It is not 50 - 50.

The evidence suggests most theologies believe homosexuality is wrong.
History is evidence most people by far think it is wrong.
Most governments have considered it wrong (tolerated taboos are not an exception).
Nature appears to abhor it.

I feel pretty comfortable before even considering the arguments. After doing so I am certain I am on the correct side.

The only thing that has disgusted me is the repetition of the same things that failed over and over. I had no problem the first 2 or 3 times I had to show a claim was completely ineffective against my primary claims. After 10 or a dozen times it had become a bore. No, nothing you have said has caused me to be intimidated in the slightest. I can even wreck the one claim you made without God concerning homosexuality but can only defend heterosexuality in the context of that one specific group by using God. So you have never made an argument that overcame either point in my two primary claims. That is my sincere opinion as God is my witness.

 

[1robin]

That is fine, you can reply to it whenever you wish. My arguments in that post reasonably prove that the God of the Bible does not exist.



Logic indicates that there is not a necessary correlation between the truth and how many people have similar emotional and spiritual experiences. If it did, that would mean that if a religion one day becomes larger than Christianity is, that religion is the one true religion.

What? There is an undeniable correlation between how many believe X and the likelihood X is true. In fact most of academia is based on it. No, a comparable amount of people even of a meaningful fraction to Christianity of an experience with God does not exist. Very few other faiths even offer it, and most of those to only a select few Gurus or enlightened people living in trees or caves somewhere. I have tried and tried to get anyone to put me in touch with someone from another faith that claims to have been in God's direct presence. I have never been provided with one. Examples, number two faith I have never met anyone from it that claims it but does make an very ambiguous offer to a few, number three does not offer it except on a temporary basis to a rare few (and it is the same God anyway as I have), number four claims a few have but never produces them and claims they are very very few, etc..

There is nothing at all that is strange about discussing good and evil supernatural beings since the Bible claims that they exist. My main intention in using these arguments is to try to show you that all that you have is faith, just like all other theists do. If good, and evil supernatural beings exist, there is not way that any mere human would be able to reliably know how powerful they are. In other words, logic, and reason, cannot reasonably prove that good supernatural beings are more powerful than evil supernatural beings are, or even that any good supernatural beings exist, that is, if you even have any use for logic, and reason.

Of course it is faith. Depending on what criteria are used everything ever claimed to be true is faith. I have a reasoned faith based on about ten thousand lines of evidence. If you mention supernatural beings you are probably getting them from the Bible. The Bible places them squarely in a fixed context. You can look for inconsistencies, philosophical and logical absurdities, evidence given from what they have done, but in the end like virtually everything else you are going to have to conclude a reasoned belief. There are virtually no claims ever made about anything that if an irrational person wishes to he can not set the standards so high it will be impossible to meet them without violating anything directly except common sense and the ability to operate an imperfect sentient being who must make decisions in limited time. Your standards used here are extreme and inconsistent but are not wholly wrong in a technical sense.

 

[Agnostic75]

Exactly what do you think the chances are that you would think your posts were terrible?

But I already know that many of my arguments in this thread were not good arguments, but what matters most is that I made lot of good arguments that you were not able to adequately refute.

One of us is completely wrong. It is not 50 - 50.

I prefer discussing arguments that I have made rather than posturing like you often do. My argument speak for themselves, and you have refused to reply to some of them.

The evidence suggests most theologies believe homosexuality is wrong.

So what?

Most governments have considered it wrong (tolerated taboos are not an exception).

From a secular perspective, why is homosexuality wrong for all homosexuals, and what solution do you recommend?

Nature appears to abhor it.

Nature obviously prefers to consistently cause a minority of over 1500 species of animals, and birds to practice homosexuality, and nature causes all bonobo monkey to be bisexual. Nature also likes to create harmful viruses, so we are stuck with what nature does if naturalism is true.

I feel pretty comfortable before even considering the arguments. After doing so I am certain I am on the correct side.

Posturing is useless, and non-productive. If I have to, I will copy and paste my most recent replies from the other forum to this forum since that will prove to people at this forum that my secular arguments are much better than yours are.

The only thing that has disgusted me is the repetition of the same things that failed over and over. I had no problem the first 2 or 3 times I had to show a claim was completely ineffective against my primary claims.

But my two most recent replies to you in that thread, which you have refused to reply to, easily prove that my secular arguments are much better than yours are.

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes, by implication. The Bible says that God is good, and its implies that he is fair, and moral. You cannot logically claim that not any Christians who where raised in South Korea would have been skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S. No good, fair, and moral God would destroy anyone after they died who rejected Christianity if they had lived in one place, and would have accepted it if they had lived in another place. So, by implication, the God of the Bible does not exist.

What it does not say is that you (especially being not of God) have the capacity to evaluate his character.

I said:

"You cannot logically claim that not any Christians who where raised in South Korea would have been skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S."

Do you agree with that?

 

[Agnostic75]

What? There is an undeniable correlation between how many believe X and the likelihood X is true.

Not at all, if there was, then if any religion became larger than Christianity is, that religion would be the one true religion. I doubt that very many Christian Bible scholars would agree with that.

The majority of Christians used to accept slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women, and they were wrong. As recently as 100 years ago, the vast majority of Christians believed that it was immoral for women to wear bikinis at beaches, and they were wrong.

Islam has grown by about the same amount per year as Christianity has, and will probably eventually become larger than Christianity is.

"Argumentum ad populum" is a well-known fallacy. If you persist with this nonsense, I will start a new thread about this issue at the Religious Debates forum since there are more participants at that forum. No reasonable person would claim that there is a necessary correlation between the truth and how many people believe it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

But I already know that many of my arguments in this thread were not good arguments, but what matters most is that I made lot of good arguments that you were not able to adequately refute.

What do you want from me? I do not agree that any were good. One was valid but was no help. I come here for a challenge. I have looked very hard for the ones you and others claim are in that thread. I do not even know which ones you think were good. Some were less wrong, but I saw none that had the slightest capacity to even dent my two primary claims. I sincerely do not agree with you.

I prefer discussing arguments that I have made rather than posturing like you often do. My argument speak for themselves, and you have refused to reply to some of them.

There was nothing in my statement that was posturing. It was undeniable. Two mutually exclusive claims to truth have no possibility of both being true.

So what?

If you do not know, there is little help I can offer. If almost all of the systems that deal with morality more than others say X is wrong. It is a good indication it just might be.

From a secular perspective, why is homosexuality wrong for all homosexuals, and what solution do you recommend?

I have posted at least 2 thousands words on the former and have no burden concerning the latter. You post like a robot. When X is claimed respond with Y, whether Y works or not, whether it has been countered or not, or whether Y has been posted a dozen times or not. Say Y, it is inevitable.

Nature obviously prefers to consistently cause a minority of over 1500 species of animals, and birds to practice homosexuality, and nature causes all bonobo monkey to be bisexual. Nature also likes to create harmful viruses, so we are stuck with what nature does if naturalism is true.

None practice strict homosexuality. They are all a very great exception anyway. Probability never suggests what is true of the minority is true of anything by it's self.

Posturing is useless, and non-productive. If I have to, I will copy and paste my most recent replies from the other forum to this forum since that will prove to people at this forum that my secular arguments are much better than yours are.

I will not answer anything but these type of generalities. In fact I am not going to even do that in this thread any longer about homosexuality.

But my two most recent replies to you in that thread, which you have refused to reply to, easily prove that my secular arguments are much better than yours are.

Exactly where did I refuse that? I will get there. I said it was low on my priority list.

 

[1robin]

I said:

"You cannot logically claim that not any Christians who where raised in South Korea would have been skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S."

Do you agree with that?

I agree with that and I agree it is irrelevant. I can't prove anything about anything concerning those people. I have no idea what people your talking about. I have no idea how to prove anything about them even if I did. This is complete speculation and assumption. You are not right until I prove you are wrong. You have serious burden and methodology issues today.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Calm down Beavis. I only have two hands and a lab to run.

Umm... you're posting from work? Didn't you say that you work on military stuff?

Please tell me that my hard-earned tax dollars are not paying for you to post messages to this forum. I really couldn't bear that.

 

[Agnostic75]

I agree with that and I agree it is irrelevant. I can't prove anything about anything concerning those people. I have no idea what people your talking about. I have no idea how to prove anything about them even if I did. This is complete speculation and assumption. You are not right until I prove you are wrong. You have serious burden and methodology issues today.

I said:

"You cannot logically claim that not any Christians who where raised in South Korea would have been skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S."

Do you agree with that?

I agree with that and I agree it is irrelevant. I can't prove anything about anything concerning those people. I have no idea what people your talking about. I have no idea how to prove anything about them even if I did. This is complete speculation and assumption. You are not right until I prove you are wrong. You have serious burden and methodology issues today.

How can you agree with what I said, and then say that what I said is speculation and assumption? Just plain old common sense shows that I am right. It obviously does not matter which particular people I am referring to, only that sometimes, geography determines what some people believe. You must know that at least some South Korean Christians would have become skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S. My gracious, in one of my previous posts, I said that "in Utah, 78% of the people are Christians. In Maine, only 27% of the people are Christians. Surely at least some Christians who grew up in Utah would not have become Christians if they had grown up in Maine."

That is certainly reasonable proof that geography often determines what people believe. You cannot get way with claiming that all skeptics who grow up in Maine have not been properly evangelized.

Family, and gender are also factors. Research has shown that women are much more likely to become theists, and creationists, than men are, and the significant influence of family is well-known. There are not any doubts whatsoever that if 70% of Americans were women, the percentage of Christians would be much higher than it is.

All of this is very relevant to the existence of God, and to his morality. The Bible implies that God is moral, and fair. Geography, family, and gender often determine what people believe. No moral, and fair God would set up such a system, which reasonably proves that the God of the Bible does not exist. Even if the God of the Bible does exist, moral people would not be able to love a God who will destroy people merely because some of them grew up in the wrong place, and/or had the wrong gender, and/or were raised in the wrong family,

The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Tell that to the 3 out of every four people in history that have thought he made perfect sense.

What you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

William Lane Craig has said that God is the greatest possible being, and his friend, colleague, and noted scholar J.P. Moreland has said that God is so perfect that he cannot improve. A being like that would always think, and do the best possible things.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good things since all good things are obviously not equal.

Second, after God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

Whatever conditions or arrangements were justified before the fall were not after.

Justification is irrelevant to the valid argument that God has always had to do the best possible things before, and after the fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing. Even if he didn't have to create humans, after he created them he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

From a moral perspective, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things. The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being who always has to do what he does would ask people to love him is preposterous. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

 

[Agnostic75]

What do you want from me? I do not agree that any were good.

That would be best settled by discussing what I said in my two most recent replies to you in that thread. Anyone who is interested can read my posts #1707, and #1708 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-171.html and see for themselves that my secular arguments are much better than yours are.

From a secular perspective, why is homosexuality wrong for all homosexuals, and what solution do you recommend?

I have posted at least 2 thousands words on the former and have no burden concerning the latter.

Regarding the former, that is confirmation bias since you have misjudged all homosexuals based upon the poor physical health of an unknown percentage of homosexuals. From a medical perspective, there are not any doubts whatsoever that millions of homosexuals in the world enjoy physical, and emotional health that is comparable to the majority of heterosexuals, and that millions of homosexuals would be much better off having sex than practicing long term abstinence. It is well-known that having sex provides significant health benefits, and that long term abstinence has significant risks. I have posted proof many times, but you just ignore it. It is also well-known that many homosexuals who tried long term abstinence ended up much worse off than they were before. Logically, it is reasonable for those homosexuals to go back to having sex again, at least those who practiced safe sex.

Regarding the latter, you have recommended abstinence as a solution many times. I have told you numerous times that from a secular moral perspective, no practice is wrong unless there are better options. For many homosexuals, especially those who are monogamous, there are not any better options. As far as I recall, you claimed that the average homosexual monogamous relationship is somewhere around three years, but you do not have and valid statistics that say that. Anyway, there are certainly many homosexuals who are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for at least ten years.

As I showed in the thread on homosexuality, you unfairly do not recommend that some other high risk groups practice abstinence. I also showed that homosexuality is far less harmful than heart disease, cancer, and obesity, which are often preventable, especially heart disease, and obesity, and that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals, as proven by epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

Homosexuality is a problem, but not nearly as much of a problem as some other things are. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died from AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died from heart disease. That means that about 40 times more, or about 4,000% more Americans died from heart disease than died from AIDS. You have said that two wrongs do not make a right. That is true, but it is also wrong for you to fail to puts risks from all major causes in their proper perspective.

You have said that very few homosexuals love each other, but what about those who do? What is wrong with them?

You said that the majority of people have historically opposed homosexuality, but that is only because they did not properly understand it, and today, the majority of Americans accept homosexuality, and so do the majority of people in most advanced predominantly Christian countries.

Why do you suppose that some homosexuals are strongly committed to long term monogamy? How did they get that way? How did many of them achieve excellent physical, and mental health? Shouldn't you commend those homosexuals for beating the odds? Would you prefer that all homosexuals have poor physical, and emotional health?

Homosexuality is not a problem for all homosexuals since there is proof that many homosexuals are better off having sex than they would be if they practiced long term abstinence. Homosexuals did not ask for their sexual identity since sexual identity is not a choice. All that individual homosexuals can do is make the best choice for themselves, and for many of them, having sex in a monogamous relationship is the best choice.

What? There is an undeniable correlation between how many believe X and the likelihood X is true.

Not at all, if there was, then if any religion became larger than Christianity is, that religion would be the one true religion. I doubt that very many Christian Bible scholars would agree with that.

"Argumentum ad populum" is a well-known fallacy.

The majority of Christians used to accept slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women, and they were wrong. As recently as 100 years ago, the vast majority of Christians believed that it was immoral for women to wear bikinis at beaches, and they were wrong.

Islam has grown by about the same amount per year as Christianity has, and will probably eventually become larger than Christianity is.

Even the Bible says that only a few people will get saved. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 7:13-14

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Paul says that in the last days, many will turn away from the faith.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe that I do not live my life that way and I do know what is behind the words.

I believe this is revealing that self can be considered Christ.

I believe there is safety in mumbers. There is a cloud of witnesses who have had the same experience as I. I believe a person stuck on himself can sometimes have weird thinking that strays very far from the truth.

That's how you see it, but its not the way I see it, and that's great, that's how it should be.

 

[Agnostic75]

God most certainly does direct hurricanes everywhere that they go since he originally supernaturally created the weather, and most subsequent weather events have been due to the way that he originally programmed the weather.

He left creation to its own laws. He no longer supervises nature as he once did. Hurricanes go where natural law dictates.

If you are right, that makes it even worse since God injures or kills humans, and innocent animals indiscriminately, without any possible beneficial purposes for himself, or for humans. The Bible says that God killed lots of people, for example, the flood, at Sodom and Gomorrah, and all of the firstborn males in Egypt.

If any being ever had any right to kill it would be God. However your side of the aisle grants it to humans in the case where the one killed did not deserve it.

Who does not deserve to be killed? If you are referring to abortion, many non-Christians oppose it. In addition, if God is ultimately in control of the universe, and is moral, and fair, aborted babies will ultimately be just as well off as they would have been if they had been born. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Those babies would have been better off if they had been aborted. I am not necessarily suggesting that such a practice should be legalized, but there are no doubts that babies who are born with serious birth defects, and suffer a lot for a few days, and then die, would have been better of if they had been aborted. Further, it is not clear when human life begins.

This is so inconsistent as to render that person devoid of the credibility to comment on that issue. You must show God did not have morally sufficient reasons to kill to have a point.

No, you must show that God has a legitimate purpose in telling Christians to give food to hungry people, but refusing to give food to starving people, refusing to tell people about the Gospel message himself instead of allowing millions of people to die without hearing about it, indiscriminately killing people with hurricanes, and creating harmful viruses, including the AIDS virus which was probably accidently transferred from monkey to humans. You have no evidence that God has legitimate purposes for doing those things, you merely accept that he does by faith.

It is interesting that most Christians will go to great lengths to avoid the same things that they claim God has legitimate purposes for.

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. That is true since the God of the Bible does not exist, but the Bible is definitely confusing, and there are thousands of examples that prove that. If you wish, we can spend a few years discussing some of them. We can start with the creation of humans, and the flood. Then we can discuss divorce, tithing, the role of women in the church, and the death penalty.

Please reply to my two previous replies to you when you have time.

 

[1robin]

Umm... you're posting from work? Didn't you say that you work on military stuff?

Please tell me that my hard-earned tax dollars are not paying for you to post messages to this forum. I really couldn't bear that.

If you have any earned money Obama has made you a minority. I do not work for the military directly. I used to be in the Navy. Now I work for a company that builds military attack aircraft. So yes in a way you pay me to defeat your arguments. Kind of ironic I guess. Actually I work many hours that I do not get paid for so it all works out in the end. Unlike Obama's minions in the Government proper. I think for the first time in history the Government after he added to it by over 20% is now the largest employer, there are 49% of Americans who are on Government assistance, debt has topped 17 trillion, unfunded mandates used to buy votes have reached an amount of money larger than exists all combined on earth, our credit record has been down graded, the people who bankrupted Medicare and SS have taken over health care and can't even get the website to work, our reputation over seas has hit an all time low, and more money has been spent to less effect that at anytime in history. So I am pretty low on the pecking order if you wish to clean up waste.

 

[1robin]

Who does not deserve to be killed? If you are referring to abortion, many non-Christians oppose it. In addition, if God is ultimately in control of the universe, and is moral, and fair, aborted babies will ultimately be just as well off as they would have been if they had been born. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Those babies would have been better off if they had been aborted. I am not necessarily suggesting that such a practice should be legalized, but there are no doubts that babies who are born with serious birth defects, and suffer a lot for a few days, and then die, would have been better of if they had been aborted. Further, it is not clear when human life begins.

Yes those babies will be. The people killing them do not believe in the God that will make them so when making their decisions however. We may have aborted the person who would have cured cancer, aids, or actually stopped our runaway debt situation. We can't know the future of who we kill for our sins. God does know the future of lives we have taken. Yet we are so morally insane on the left we grant the finite beings right to take life for selfish reasons (that he did not create) but deny that right to an infinite being, who does know that life's future, and who created that life and has complete sovereignty over it. That is moral hypocrisy and schizophrenia. However the point concerned God's right to take life not ours.

No, you must show that God has a legitimate purpose in telling Christians to give food to hungry people, but refusing to give food to starving people, refusing to tell people about the Gospel message himself instead of allowing millions of people to die without hearing about it, indiscriminately killing people with hurricanes, and creating harmful viruses, including the AIDS virus which was probably accidently transferred from monkey to humans. You have no evidence that God has legitimate purposes for doing those things, you merely accept that he does by faith.

God chooses to act through his people. You must show that it inconsistent with God. God has never promised to do meet every need to the rebellious, sinful, wayward human race. He in fact says we will suffer and die. He only promised to make it right in the end for those that will admit the mistake and repent. You have yet to show a single burden God actually has he did not meet. You for some reason insist he is bound by the burdens you assign to him by arbitrary means. This methodology will not work, never has worked, and will not end well.

It is interesting that most Christians will go to great lengths to avoid the same things that they claim God has legitimate purposes for.

Yes we give God the sovereignty his status, nature, and capacity merits. We deny ourselves the actions or actions reserved for him. I do not see your point here.

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. That is true since the God of the Bible does not exist, but the Bible is definitely confusing, and there are thousands of examples that prove that. If you wish, we can spend a few years discussing some of them. We can start with the creation of humans, and the flood. Then we can discuss divorce, tithing, the role of women in the church, and the death penalty.

This is a repeat of a repeat. You must be at the end of your copy and paste check-list and are having to start over.

Please reply to my two previous replies to you when you have time.

I will try.

 

[1robin]

How can you agree with what I said, and then say that what I said is speculation and assumption? Just plain old common sense shows that I am right. It obviously does not matter which particular people I am referring to, only that sometimes, geography determines what some people believe. You must know that at least some South Korean Christians would have become skeptics if they had been raised in the U.S. My gracious, in one of my previous posts, I said that "in Utah, 78% of the people are Christians. In Maine, only 27% of the people are Christians. Surely at least some Christians who grew up in Utah would not have become Christians if they had grown up in Maine."

I agree with the principle. It can't be applied or assessed but is based in reason. You have not shown how your stats are evidence God did not meet a standard he actually has. I could claim that if a benevolent God existed I would be driving a Porsche. I have no reason to say that but I can say it and claim it means no God exists.

This is just another version of your well worn false optimization fallacy.

That is certainly reasonable proof that geography often determines what people believe. You cannot get way with claiming that all skeptics who grow up in Maine have not been properly evangelized.

Dirt never produces what people believe, nor do coordinates, nor do elevation or climate. What does determine or influence it is the cultural decision of its people. Lets pretend there are four people on earth. Two couples. One pair decides to serve God, one rejects him and they get far from each other. As long as they are not gay the have many children on either side of the globe. One side has many people of faith, and the other almost none. Now was it geography of the parents decision and the corporate judgments of God that explain this? If a culture embraces darkness, little light will penetrate.

Family, and gender are also factors. Research has shown that women are much more likely to become theists, and creationists, than men are, and the significant influence of family is well-known. There are not any doubts whatsoever that if 70% of Americans were women, the percentage of Christians would be much higher than it is.

You are confusing correlation with causation. Women are less prideful than men and have less peer pressure to be self sustaining than men. Now is it because of their chromosomes or mindset that more are Christians? Many demographics are derivative not causal. You must really know what your doing with statistics to use them correctly.

All of this is very relevant to the existence of God, and to his morality. The Bible implies that God is moral, and fair. Geography, family, and gender often determine what people believe. No moral, and fair God would set up such a system, which reasonably proves that the God of the Bible does not exist. Even if the God of the Bible does exist, moral people would not be able to love a God who will destroy people merely because some of them grew up in the wrong place, and/or had the wrong gender, and/or were raised in the wrong family,

None of that has anything to do with how likely it is that God exists. If every person on earth rejected him, or if every person accepted him it would not make him any more existent or less existent.

What you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

William Lane Craig has said that God is the greatest possible being, and his friend, colleague, and noted scholar J.P. Moreland has said that God is so perfect that he cannot improve. A being like that would always think, and do the best possible things.

Craig discusses two types of God. They are very similar but not identical. One is the philosophers God, the other is the Biblical God.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good things since all good things are obviously not equal.

I have already answered this in depth.

Justification is irrelevant to the valid argument that God has always had to do the best possible things before, and after the fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing. Even if he didn't have to create humans, after he created them he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

This is an extrapolation from the faulty premise above.

From a moral perspective, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things. The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being who always has to do what he does would ask people to love him is preposterous. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

I have already responded to this. For some one who demands so much attention you sure do everything you can to discourage it. Please be more concise, less repetitive, and read more slowly.

 

[1robin]

That would be best settled by discussing what I said in my two most recent replies to you in that thread. Anyone who is interested can read my posts #1707, and #1708 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-171.html and see for themselves that my secular arguments are much better than yours are.

They had no effect on any argument I made. However this is not the homosexuality thread. When I want to debate it I will go to it and do so. I will find slightly modified or unmodified repeats of the same things I have pointed out the serious flaws in yet again. I have all but given up that an effective argument exists for homosexuality.

Regarding the former, that is confirmation bias since you have misjudged all homosexuals based upon the poor physical health of an unknown percentage of homosexuals. From a medical perspective, there are not any doubts whatsoever that millions of homosexuals in the world enjoy physical, and emotional health that is comparable to the majority of heterosexuals, and that millions of homosexuals would be much better off having sex than practicing long term abstinence. It is well-known that having sex provides significant health benefits, and that long term abstinence has significant risks. I have posted proof many times, but you just ignore it. It is also well-known that many homosexuals who tried long term abstinence ended up much worse off than they were before. Logically, it is reasonable for those homosexuals to go back to having sex again, at least those who practiced safe sex.

Wrong thread.

Regarding the latter, you have recommended abstinence as a solution many times. I have told you numerous times that from a secular moral perspective, no practice is wrong unless there are better options. For many homosexuals, especially those who are monogamous, there are not any better options. As far as I recall, you claimed that the average homosexual monogamous relationship is somewhere around three years, but you do not have and valid statistics that say that. Anyway, there are certainly many homosexuals who are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for at least ten years.

As I showed in the thread on homosexuality, you unfairly do not recommend that some other high risk groups practice abstinence. I also showed that homosexuality is far less harmful than heart disease, cancer, and obesity, which are often preventable, especially heart disease, and obesity, and that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals, as proven by epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

Homosexuality is a problem, but not nearly as much of a problem as some other things are. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died from AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died from heart disease. That means that about 40 times more, or about 4,000% more Americans died from heart disease than died from AIDS. You have said that two wrongs do not make a right. That is true, but it is also wrong for you to fail to puts risks from all major causes in their proper perspective.

You have said that very few homosexuals love each other, but what about those who do? What is wrong with them?

You said that the majority of people have historically opposed homosexuality, but that is only because they did not properly understand it, and today, the majority of Americans accept homosexuality, and so do the majority of people in most advanced predominantly Christian countries.

Why do you suppose that some homosexuals are strongly committed to long term monogamy? How did they get that way? How did many of them achieve excellent physical, and mental health? Shouldn't you commend those homosexuals for beating the odds? Would you prefer that all homosexuals have poor physical, and emotional health?

Homosexuality is not a problem for all homosexuals since there is proof that many homosexuals are better off having sex than they would be if they practiced long term abstinence. Homosexuals did not ask for their sexual identity since sexual identity is not a choice. All that individual homosexuals can do is make the best choice for themselves, and for many of them, having sex in a monogamous relationship is the best choice.

Wrong thread.

Not at all, if there was, then if any religion became larger than Christianity is, that religion would be the one true religion. I doubt that very many Christian Bible scholars would agree with that.

Only if that belief concerned a verifiable event. What Christianity claims is unique. Every actual Christian in history became such by having an experience with a risen God. Now if you first find a religion that even offers this to all followers and it also is larger than Christianity then yes, the number who believed it is evidence it is true as long as there are no close seconds. Let me illustrate since you are not getting it.

Which group is the more reliable for determining the existence of aliens.

1. 2 million people who claimed to have been on a space ship and talked with aliens. Their stories are consistent and no reason exist to term them as known to be lying.
2. 1 million people who do not believe they exist on principle.

Positive claims to knowledge mean more than claims in principle. It is not proof it is evidence.

"Argumentum ad populum" is a well-known fallacy.

Yes and it is even more well known for being misused. The fallacy applies to absolute claims to truth. If I had said that Christianity is a proven fact based on how many believe alone it would be a fallacy. I said having billions of claims concerning experiences with what is under discussion is good evidence it is true. Not proof. You know the same rational that is the basis for democracy, jury systems, scientific conclusions, constitutional conventions, etc... Fallacies are crutches used by non-theists.

The majority of Christians used to accept slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women, and they were wrong. As recently as 100 years ago, the vast majority of Christians believed that it was immoral for women to wear bikinis at beaches, and they were wrong.

No they did not. The rich planters did. There was 100 poor Christian workers and farmers for every slave holding plantation owner. In fact 300,000 Christians died to free them, a Christian reverend fired the first shots, a Christian president more than anyone on earth freed them, the Biblical God more than any human was looked for by slaves for their freedom. Bikini's, your just making it up as you go along. I personally have no problem with them but two things are absolute facts. You do not know they are morally right, and the exposing of the female body has produced immorality as much as anything ever has. The one thing posters do that erodes their credibility with me more than any other, is claiming to know what they can't possibly know. That plus double standards, and hypocrisy are the non-theistic unholy trinity.

Islam has grown by about the same amount per year as Christianity has, and will probably eventually become larger than Christianity is.

It might just do it. However you left out 100% of the context and as the famous Chesterton has said you only do that if you use facts dishonestly.

1. Islam counts all new born's as Muslims at birth, Christianity does not.
2. Despite being very poor Islam out produces the more responsible Christian west about 2 - 3 to 1.
3. To be a Muslim you do not have to know anything about it is true. You only have to state agreement to a few propositions. Christians become that way by experiencing God directly. A God must exist to make a Christian. No God is necessary to create a Muslim.
4. In many nations it is illegal to leave Islam at risk to your life.

In spite of all of this Christianity is still larger and more universal.

Even the Bible says that only a few people will get saved. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 7:13-14

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Paul says that in the last days, many will turn away from the faith.

I agree. There are 2 billion Christians but that is in 6 billion people. IMO many of those a Christians in name only and have never been born again, however since that is impossible to know I have not included it. Our modern secular drift and the untold damage it is causing is proof of Paul's words. I did not say Christians were a majority, just that many exist. So many and based on what is claimed they constitute evidence almost impossible to deny.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Hi DaveyCrocket (cool name)
I respect your freewill and you have the right to worship a soup can if you want. In my opinion though I don't think your philosophy has enough justification or evidence to warrant a wager in which my soul depends. What do you use to justify your faith in your position? Who is this God you worship and why do you believe he exists? If you will read my response to 9westy9 you will find some of your points addressed indirectly.

God Bless

Hey I know this is digging up a really really old post but I wanted to respond.

I am not necessarily defending "my God" directly. I am offering what seems to me a logical explanation for why people of widely varying beliefs and religions have similar mystical experiences. I believe God will work to help his sincere children seeking light and truth wherever they are.

As for the God I worship, I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of heaven and earth, the father of us all. I don't understand very much about him. But what I DO understand is incredible! Why do I believe he exists? Because I have to! There is no other explanation for events and experiences in my life. I am as sure that he exists as I am sure that I exist. I learned about him from scriptures and words of prophets. I tested the truths taught to me. I experienced the results first hand. And now he blesses me every day of my life. And I seek ever to learn more about him and his ways. "For my ways are not your ways neither my thoughts your thoughts. For as the heaven is above the earth so my ways are above your ways and my thoughts your thoughts."

My goal is to live in such a way that I will be able to defend Jesus Christ and expound his gospel. He is my hero and my best friend.