Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[SkepticThinker]

I have had to defend these verse quite a bit recently and have learned much about this prophecy. I have learned that there are three primary things used to dismiss it for convenience. If prophecies are not dismissed then that makes God so probable that anything must be used to do so. Only one of the three methods is semi valid. The other two are based on ignorance of the prophecy.

1. That (as you claim) Tyre should not be there. Explained below.
2. That the prophecy does not allow for Alexander (he and they confusion).
These are the two claims based in ignorance.
3. That it is possible the prophecy was written after the attack of Nebuchadnezzar.
This one is certainly possible however it is not possible that it was written after Alexander’s predictions. there is also no evidence it was written later than the first attack. It is possible, the evidence that it was written earlier could be stronger but all the evidence available puts it earlier. So this one is a partial and ineffective claim but possible.

As for your claim (#1) above. God was mad at the Phoenician’s not the geographical coordinates. He had no motive to render the place forever void of buildings. The prophecy is very specific. In every verse where he talks about wiping out the city and that it would not be built again he uses "you" or "this". He is referring to the fact that the Phoenician’s would never again rebuild Tyre. That is who he was mad at, not the stones or the land at the spot. This is not part of the prophecy, but in fact Phoenicia began a decline that ended them as a distinct culture from this attack. There is current no Phoenicia of any kind anywhere. He said over and over that "you", "it" and "this" city will not be rebuilt and it wasn't. Some other culture at a later date did build another city in that area but that city was never rebuilt. The Bible is meant to be read with common sense, the allowance for language use (like apocalyptic, romantic, poetic etc.), and in the context of the whole. It is not meant to be dissected and arbitrary meanings determined in order to serve an arbitrary purpose. There are literals, allegory, metaphor, and parable. In other words context and application must be included. I have noticed critics never ever do this. I can go through this prophecy line for line if you wish. It is one of my favorites and hauntingly accurate and I have done much research on it.

It seems like you have to jump through a lot of hoops to create a prophecy out of all that. I didn't get into any of those numbered points you made because it's not necessary.

Tyre was not destroyed, as it still stands today.

 

[1robin]

It seems like you have to jump through a lot of hoops to create a prophecy out of all that. I didn't get into any of those numbered points you made because it's not necessary.

Tyre was not destroyed, as it still stands today.

This is simply wrong. The Tyre that was predicted to fall was destroyed utterly. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city and part of the Island. Alexander destroyed the Island fortress. Even the Muslims re-destroyed it later on. It was a brutal siege made so because they hung Alexanders messengers from the wall. It also had to be demolished because that was the only way to breech the island fortress. He literally killed or enslaved everyone and left the place a heap of rubble. It might have been the greatest siege in history up until that time. The city that was prophesied to be destroyed was annihilated even if that is inconvenient for your world view. The city that exists today is not the same city and was not even built by the Phoneticians (the ones he was punishing). This is the worst rebuttal I have ever seen to this prophecy. If you intend to counter it you have not yet begun.

I have no need of hoops as the statements are black and white. They are correct in a level of detail that is startling. My original statements were to show the hoops used by your side are based primarily in ignorance and preference.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is simply wrong. The Tyre that was predicted to fall was destroyed utterly. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city and part of the Island. Alexander destroyed the Island fortress. Even the Muslims re-destroyed it later on. It was a brutal siege made so because they hung Alexanders messengers from the wall. It also had to be demolished because that was the only way to breech the island fortress. He literally killed or enslaved everyone and left the place a heap of rubble. It might have been the greatest siege in history up until that time. The city that was prophesied to be destroyed was annihilated even if that is inconvenient for your world view. The city that exists today is not the same city and was not even built by the Phoneticians (the ones he was punishing). This is the worst rebuttal I have ever seen to this prophecy. If you intend to counter it you have not yet begun.

I have no need of hoops as the statements are black and white. They are correct in a level of detail that is startling. My original statements were to show the hoops used by your side are based primarily in ignorance and preference.

This has nothing to do with my worldview and I don't care if it's the worst rebuttal you've ever seen. What you're saying is incorrect and the level of detail is not startling in any sense of the word, it's just inaccurate.

Tyre was never completely destroyed and still stands today. It was sacked several times but always continued to exist under the control of the victors who took it over. Nebuchadnezzar never breached it's walls and stormed Tyre; rather Tyre surrendered after years of siege and regained it's independence in 126 B.C.E. and retained it's commercial importance for many years. And again, still exists today.

Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ezekiel 26:7-9
“For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. ...

Ezekiel 26:14
I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. ...

Ezekiel 26:21

I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

 

[cottage]

Not at all however I do not know what chipping means.

‘Chipping in’ means offering opinion uninvited. It is just a (respectful) way of seeking to join the discussion.

I disagree though it may be more accurate to say philosophic principles outline how things function. The principle of cause and effect for instance has no known exceptions, not even in the quantum. In fact there are a set of logical laws that have no exceptions know. It is math for truth.

I’m not really sure what it is that you are disagreeing with, but metaphysics for example is purely speculative since no metaphysical hypothesis is demonstrably true. And I think you mean there is a set of empirical laws that know of no exception? Causation is not a mathematical certainty.

Not exactly. The principle involved here is cause and effect and the efficiency of causation. Only things that begin to exist must have causes. God as a concept did not begin to exist. It is true to say we do not know it to be fact that causation applies outside nature but there is no reason to think it doesn't. The other field that covers outside nature issues is theology and we find the same philosophy in the Bible.

If you insist that causation obtains beyond the natural world in order to argue to a deity that supposedly cannot fail to exist then you run into a direct contradiction, for it is logically impossible for cause and effect to be both necessary and contingent.

If denied it is denied in spite of what we know and not based on any evidence. Cause and effect is not a product of natural law, it is an independent concept. For example abstract concepts like numbers or morality are not determined by natural law.

Forgive me but that reply is utterly misconceived. What we know in experience is only based on what has gone before, and no argument from the past can be an argument to the future. To say that reality and existence must be dependent upon God is to say the world requires a further existence and reality for its cause. But that is an unjustified argument, since causality is just experience, an association of two events and part of the reality! Every scrap of contingent matter may be said to be absolutely dependent upon God, but God cannot be God without the concept of cause and effect, which is a feature of the contingent material world but not logically necessary! So if causation isn’t necessary then God is not intelligible, since believers are only able to reason to a God by assuming the universe was caused. Analytic or necessary truths are true because they cannot be false. ‘Petrol is highly flammable’ and ‘humans can’t exist without oxygen’ are only contingently true statements, but ‘God cannot not be God’ (whether or not God exists) is necessarily true just as a triangle has four sides is necessarily false. We cannot conceive of God to be sometimes not God or the Supreme Being to be lacking in power without uttering a self-contradiction, but there is nothing contradictory is conceiving of an object remaining stationary when struck, regardless of the power applied to it, or water bursting into flames. God cannot by definition be dependent upon any feature found in the material world. You could annihilate all the laws of nature and every scientific principle and God the Creator would not be in the least affected – with the sole exception of the law of causation! Annihilate causation and God is nolonger the Creator, which means God is not the Supreme Being.

God is not both. He is defined as necessary. In fact there is an argument (ontological I believe) for God that demonstrates that if God is possible then he exists because he is a necessary being. I have never liked that argument but some very respected scholars suggest it is fact.

The one thing it most certainly is not is a ‘fact’. Even if it were sound (and I will argue that it is not) it would still not demonstrate factual necessity. Please see my responses to Leibniz’ addition in the Ontological Argument to the existence of God thread.

There are many if by world you mean natural universe. A natural infinite is not known to even be possible. If time goes back into the past infinitely then how did we cross an infinite number of seconds to get to now? How could we cross an infinite number of past events to get to this one? Since reliable cosmology shows the universe is expanding at an increasing rate then if infinite it should be maximally dispersed. In fact it should have reached maximum entropy an infinity ago. It is only by science fiction these issues are said to be overcome. A natural infinity is a logical impossibility. There are others as well.

I note your careful use of the term ‘natural infinity’, due to your wanting to make the distinction that only God is eternal and infinite. In 1757 David Hume asked a question that is as relevant now as it was then. ‘Why may the world not be the Necessary Being since we know not all the qualities of matter’, and on which account there is no infinite regress. And nor can a special plea be made to an external being, for the one thing we do know is that the world, whatever the world is, actually exists. In other words it is exactly the same argument that you employ; and while necessity cannot be demonstrated in either case, ‘God’ is a purely speculative proposition whereas the world exists in fact. And contemplate this: Considered independently, neither the notion of God nor a self-existent (eternal) world requires a cause for its existence. But if God is proposed as the creator of the world then there must be sufficient reason or purpose for its creation, for if God is the Supreme Being then it cannot be said the world came about through error or an accident. And it cannot logically be the case that God created the world for his own benefit, since the Supreme Being by definition is everything and already has everything. And nor can it be said that God created the world for the benefit of mankind, since it is self-evident that a no-thing cannot benefit from being brought into existence! You will note thatnone of the above objections apply to a self-existent world.

The concept of God is always defined as a modal necessity.

God (which isn’t a proper name incidentally) isn’t defined into existence. And ‘There is no God’ involves no contradiction.

Not by using reliable logic and science. These claims lie in faith based fantasy, dressed in scientific garments. It also goes against the prevalent cosmology. The dominant cosmological models posit a finite universe that began approx. 14 billion years ago and there is no observable fact capable of overturning that at this time.

So that being the case, since no ‘observable fact’ or cosmological model, dominant or otherwise, confirms the world’s supposed beginning it follows that no ‘observable fact’ is capable of overturning its logically possible eternal existence.

 

[CG Didymus]

I hate to admit it, but I caught a cold this week and it sure made me appreciate good health. Was it God allowing the microbes to attack me? Or, is that the natural world doing what it always does?

 

[1robin]

This has nothing to do with my worldview and I don't care if it's the worst rebuttal you've ever seen. What you're saying is incorrect and the level of detail is not startling in any sense of the word, it's just inaccurate.

Tyre was never completely destroyed and still stands today. It was sacked several times but always continued to exist under the control of the victors who took it over. Nebuchadnezzar never breached its walls and stormed Tyre; rather Tyre surrendered after years of siege and regained its independence in 126 B.C.E. and retained it's commercial importance for many years. And again, still exists today.
Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ezekiel 26:7-9
“For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. ...
Ezekiel 26:14
I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. ...
Ezekiel 26:21
I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

What is it about the Bible that causes normally rational people to lose it. Let's see where to begin.
If Ezekiel had looked at Tyre in his day and had made these seven predictions in human wisdom, these estimates mean that there would have been only one chance in 75,000,000 of their all coming true. They all came true in the minutest detail.
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm
Of course these odds are not amazing to someone who believes life overcame 1 X 10^100s to arise on it's own and a universe created its self from nothing. Heck are there any odds science can't overcome with a wish.

1. Tyre was never completely destroyed and still stands today: What level of destruction is consistent with prophecies of this kind? Apparently it is always a little more than was accomplished for you. If one atom was attached to another it would violate your arbitrary standards invented for convenience and in a vacuum devoid of apparently any understanding of exegesis or hermeneutics. Not one building in tact at that time is currently intact. By any standard the place that was no longer exists. In what universe is a town city that no longer exists is not destroyed. What desperate person would look at modern day Babylon's rubble and a few columns and think it was never destroyed. Alexander pounded that city with more and bigger weapons that had existed until then. He hired and captured entire navies and created the first seafaring battering rams to systematically reduce an island fortress to rubble. Later some of it even sank into the ocean. The mainland city that was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar lay in rubble but even that wasn’t, enough Alexander even threw the rubble in the ocean.
2. The City that exists today is not and never was Phoenician. It was built be a separate people at a later date and had nothing what so ever to do with that prophecy. In fact the entire culture of Phoenicia declined from that point into nonexistence ."Behold,I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. "And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock"(verses 3,4 ). http://www.godrules.net/articles/tyreprophecy.htm

According to your ridiculous conclusion when God said "you" above he was saying he was against a either a cultural label, the name of a town, or a geographical location. I do not even for a moment believe you believe this. That is just too silly to contend. I am not debating against reason, facts, logic, and obvious language use have nothing to do with your conclusion.
3. By your absurd, unjustified, unqualified, and irrational determination of what violates a Biblical prophecy if any group of people at any time built any structure, inside any arbitrary and undetermined radius of the original Tyre and happened to call it Tyre then any city built at any time previous by any group of people whatever would at that time be rebuilt. Come on man.
4. The fact that the island of Tyre (the mainland city destroyed and on the bottom of the ocean) was rubble on top of a bare rock and was used to dry nets for centuries is a historical fact and not contend-able. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

This event can even be found in other books like Amos and Daniel:
International Standard Version (©2012)
This is what the LORD says: "For three transgressions of Tyre —and now for a fourth— I will not turn away; because they delivered the entire population to Edom, and did not remember their covenant with their relatives.

Is everyone that ever built a building in the general vicinity of old Tyre culturally guilty of these acts? There are much more significant challenges to this prophecy than this. Even this one has been made more justifiably. You have basically simply decided to assign a literal degree to a 2000 year old prophecy that you invented exclusive of any rules by which these issues are decided and in deference to common sense and reason for convenience.

(“Ancient Tyre...,” n.d., emp. added). Another report confirmed, “Uncovered remains are from the post-Phoenician Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab and Byzantine times.... Any traces of the Phoenician city were either destroyed long ago or remain buried under today’s city” (“Ancient Phoenicia,” n.d., emp. added).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

There is no longer A Phoenician nation, city, or distinct culture of any kind. If you rewound and started history again.

1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
http://www.biblemagazine.com/library/cry-of-the-prophets.pdf
1. Fact of history and even his invasion of Egypt and for the specific reason was predicted.
2. Fact of history.
3. Fact of history, if the obvious allowance for rubble and residue is allowed for by common sense.
4. Fact of history.
5. Fact of history and still visible.
6. Fact of history unless any city built by anyone in the general area at any time is a violation.
7. Fact unless stones and foundations are violations.
Add this in with another 2000 plus prophecies including what Alexander’s army would do next and then combine all that with the historical corroborations, spiritual experience of billions, etc…. adinfinitum and faith vastly more than justified.

 

[1robin]

I hate to admit it, but I caught a cold this week and it sure made me appreciate good health. Was it God allowing the microbes to attack me? Or, is that the natural world doing what it always does?

In the words of the wise Ulysses Everett McGill: Pete, the personal rancor reflected in that remark I don't intend to dignify with comment. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/O_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou?

 

[CG Didymus]

In the words of the wise Ulysses Everett McGill: Pete, the personal rancor reflected in that remark I don't intend to dignify with comment. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/O_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou?

Of course you don't, because you're beyond that. Yet, you commented anyway. Strange? But, let me ask you this: Before people knew of germs, what did people think was the cause of disease? Now that we know about them, is God controlling their activities? Or, does He let them do their own thing? In nature, what is the purpose of harmful germs? In the new Earth, will only good bacteria be able to survive? Did God create the mosquito and gave them a parasite that would cause malaria in humans? Will he do away with both in the new Earth?

 

[1robin]

‘Chipping in’ means offering opinion uninvited.

Very well.

I’m not really sure what it is that you are disagreeing with,

Well, what-ya got? Just kidding?

Causation is not a mathematical certainty.

Mathematics is not a mathematical certainty and exact science is not an exact science. Natural LAW is defined as principles that have no exception known. I would say that applies equally well to philosophy, maybe even more so. If an interaction behaves the same way every single time then is a reasonable basis to assume it always has if based on a large sample population? No it is not perfect, but it is one of the most common methods of concept resolution.

for it is logically impossible for cause and effect to be both necessary and contingent.

I do not believe I said cause and effect were non contingent. In fact they are inherently contingent. I said that God is a non-contingent concept. Cause and effect only covers what begins to exist. God did not begin and so cause and effect do not apply to his necessary existence but do to all derivative effects.

What we know in experience is only based on what has gone before, and no argument from the past can be an argument to the future.

All knowledge whether scientific, theological, philosophical, or whatever makes certain assumptions. One being that reality was not began 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (though that would not get rid of God it would get rid of science). Science alone operates on the assumption of the rational intelligibility of the universe. If you begin positing anything not impossible we are instantly mired in hopeless ignorance. We can't know that the speed of light is not different in every location except where checked (in fact that is known to be true in a way). All knowledge is based on some basic assumptions. If you wish to throw them out then any discussion of any type is pointless. However using only the most basic assumptions it is easily seen that matter is not moral. Morality lies within an abstract realm based on value that natural laws do not have any way of accounting for.

To say that reality and existence must be dependent upon God is to say the world requires a further existence and reality for its cause. But that is an unjustified argument, since causality is just experience, an association of two events and part of the reality! Every scrap of contingent matter may be said to be absolutely dependent upon God, but God cannot be God without the concept of cause and effect, which is a feature of the contingent material world but not logically necessary! So if causation isn’t necessary then God is not intelligible, since believers are only able to reason to a God by assuming the universe was caused.

The universe having a cause is a scientific conclusion as wel as a theological and philisophical one. I never suggested God is only true if all or any fact is known to anyone. God doesn't exist because there is a universe. The universe exists because there is a God. I do not understand your contention here. It seems to eat its self.

The one thing it most certainly is not is a ‘fact’. Even if it were sound (and I will argue that it is not) it would still not demonstrate factual necessity. Please see my responses to Leibniz’ addition in the Ontological Argument to the existence of God thread.

Then your argument is with Philosophy not me. I never use that argument and do not like modal being and ontological arguments of this type. I only mentioned as it exists as an argument.

I note your careful use of the term ‘natural infinity’, due to your wanting to make the distinction that only God is eternal and infinite.

That is not why I used it. I used natural to denote that an infinity is an illogical property within a material universe. Infinity is the water to the oil of reality. The two do not like to mix. My degree is in math and I can tell you when infinity appears math gets weird and illogical.

In 1757 David Hume asked a question that is as relevant now as it was then. ‘Why may the world not be the Necessary Being since we know not all the qualities of matter’, and on which account there is no infinite regress.

I think there is a misunderstanding in what necessary means in philosophy. In philosophy necessary means an entity which is non contingent. Matter according to the dominant modern cosmology began to exist. This by definition makes it contingent. Hume at one time said: If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume's_fork
The problem is that statement condemns it's self.
Are holding out for some steady state or eternal concept? If so that is easily dispensed with.

And nor can a special plea be made to an external being, for the one thing we do know is that the world, whatever the world is, actually exists. In other words it is exactly the same argument that you employ; and while necessity cannot be demonstrated in either case, ‘God’ is a purely speculative proposition whereas the world exists in fact.

The comprehension of a thing and a things factual nature are independent. You are getting your epistemology in your ontology. For example dark matter is a logical concussion given its effects but it cannot be detected.
Both God and dark matter are determined or posited using the same methods. Why is one allowed and the other fought like grim death? The same can be said for macroevolution, black holes, or asteroid belts. However the same can't be said for multiverses, eternal universes, or abiogenesis. The case for them is far worse than for God and some science even contradicts its self and logic. My main complaint is against the double standards. I can sympathize with non-faith but not inconsistency.

And contemplate this: Considered independently, neither the notion of God nor a self-existent (eternal) world requires a cause for its existence. But if God is proposed as the creator of the world then there must be sufficient reason or purpose for its creation, for if God is the Supreme Being then it cannot be said the world came about through error or an accident. And it cannot logically be the case that God created the world for his own benefit, since the Supreme Being by definition is everything and already has everything. And nor can it be said that God created the world for the benefit of mankind, since it is self-evident that a no-thing cannot benefit from being brought into existence! You will note that none of the above objections apply to a self-existent world.

If what you claim were true then all it would take is one example of matter, life, or energy arriving out of nothing. Where is it? God as a concept has no need of creation; in fact infinite causal regression is impossible. God or something like him was non derivative.

God (which isn’t a proper name incidentally) isn’t defined into existence. And ‘There is no God’ involves no contradiction.

Would that make him more or less likely? If I used Yahweh would that affect his existence? I do not believe I have said non faith is a contradiction though it may very well be. Until you can explain how nature created nature then it would some non-faith is at the least illogical. Do you believe morality is an actual concept or some kind of behavior result of evolution and therefore not actually moral (only preferred or not)?

So that being the case, since no ‘observable fact’ or cosmological model, dominant or otherwise, confirms the world’s supposed beginning it follows that no ‘observable fact’ is capable of overturning its logically possible eternal existence.

You state these things like it is a counter to a claim I made. God for some reason requires faith. Faith precludes evidence. As scholars have put it a hypothetical world based on the Bible alone would be identical to this one. God is not a provable fact nor is 99.9% of possible facts; however the facts we have are very indicative of a pre-existent God hypothesis. You are very articulate but I do not know if the logic used by you many times is as relevant and effective as you might suppose.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is it about the Bible that causes normally rational people to lose it. Let's see where to begin.
If Ezekiel had looked at Tyre in his day and had made these seven predictions in human wisdom, these estimates mean that there would have been only one chance in 75,000,000 of their all coming true. They all came true in the minutest detail.
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm
Of course these odds are not amazing to someone who believes life overcame 1 X 10^100s to arise on it's own and a universe created its self from nothing. Heck are there any odds science can't overcome with a wish.

1. Tyre was never completely destroyed and still stands today: What level of destruction is consistent with prophecies of this kind? Apparently it is always a little more than was accomplished for you. If one atom was attached to another it would violate your arbitrary standards invented for convenience and in a vacuum devoid of apparently any understanding of exegesis or hermeneutics. Not one building in tact at that time is currently intact. By any standard the place that was no longer exists. In what universe is a town city that no longer exists is not destroyed. What desperate person would look at modern day Babylon's rubble and a few columns and think it was never destroyed. Alexander pounded that city with more and bigger weapons that had existed until then. He hired and captured entire navies and created the first seafaring battering rams to systematically reduce an island fortress to rubble. Later some of it even sank into the ocean. The mainland city that was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar lay in rubble but even that wasn’t, enough Alexander even threw the rubble in the ocean.
2. The City that exists today is not and never was Phoenician. It was built be a separate people at a later date and had nothing what so ever to do with that prophecy. In fact the entire culture of Phoenicia declined from that point into nonexistence ."Behold,I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. "And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock"(verses 3,4 ). http://www.godrules.net/articles/tyreprophecy.htm

According to your ridiculous conclusion when God said "you" above he was saying he was against a either a cultural label, the name of a town, or a geographical location. I do not even for a moment believe you believe this. That is just too silly to contend. I am not debating against reason, facts, logic, and obvious language use have nothing to do with your conclusion.
3. By your absurd, unjustified, unqualified, and irrational determination of what violates a Biblical prophecy if any group of people at any time built any structure, inside any arbitrary and undetermined radius of the original Tyre and happened to call it Tyre then any city built at any time previous by any group of people whatever would at that time be rebuilt. Come on man.
4. The fact that the island of Tyre (the mainland city destroyed and on the bottom of the ocean) was rubble on top of a bare rock and was used to dry nets for centuries is a historical fact and not contend-able. Continued below:

I don't need to read a bunch of cut and pastes from apologetics sites.

In regards to this particular "prophecy" you said, "They are correct in a level of detail that is startling." But then when we look at the details, they actually aren't. Especially given the fact that Ezekiel says that Tyre will never be rebuilt and never be found again, when Tyre still exists to this day! You can find it on Google maps, very easily.

More specifically:
1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
Never happened. Tyre surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (he did not destroy it.)
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
Many nations will come against the USA. Many nations will come against England. I must be a prophet!
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
Tyre was never flattened like a "bare rock."
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
Fisherman will spread nets over the Atlantic Ocean. I'm a prophet too!
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
She still stands today!
7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
She still exists today!

Sorry, I'm not blown away by the startling accuracy of the details at all.

 

[tarekabdo12]

My explanation for this has always been that God created the universe, but gave people free will. This free will can cause evil people to do evil things, and god does not come down and intervene when say 13 children die. There are murders deaths and atrocities committed everyday throughout the world. People have their own free will, which we take for granted. As the question for why would a good god let evil things happen? It is exactly that. In the religious sense, the death of an innocent is not necessarily an evil thing. They are taken from their families and cause grief for others in their life, but they are in a better place now.

yes, it's a good point but not enough. God designed life not to be heaven but to be a test or exam for people , full of pain, crying suffering and also hreat pleasure. These contradicting fac5s create life with its different situations that we all are going to face and act upon.This will allow our different personalities to be emphasized. In addition, nothing goes away afterwards, life in relgion is just nothing compared to the afterlife and those who suffered whether the paents or the children will be paid for the misery they had seen and the culprit will be sentenced.

 

[1robin]

More specifically:
1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
Never happened. Tyre surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (he did not destroy it.)
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
Many nations will come against the USA. Many nations will come against England. I must be a prophet!
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
Tyre was never flattened like a "bare rock."
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
Fisherman will spread nets over the Atlantic Ocean. I'm a prophet too!
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
She still stands today!
7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
She still exists today!

1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
Never happened. Tyre surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (he did not destroy it.)

Wrong, he invaded the mainland, they retreated to the island. He destroyed the mainland and besieged the island that the Bible says he would NOT take. He eventually left and went exactly where he was predicted to and for the exact reason. Some say the Island surrendered but no one knows and it makes absolutely no difference what so ever. Apparently it is believed font and colors makes things less wrong.

2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
Many nations will come against the USA. Many nations will come against England. I must be a prophet!

If you can't get the past right, the future is beyond your grasp. If I said in 1935 that Hitler would attack the most prosperous port city in Europe and attempt to sack an offshore island but not prevail, then go to Egypt to make up for the profits he didn't get in the port city and then another nation would throw the rubble in the water and destroy the city and those people would never rebuild that city again plus a few dozen other details it might make your prophet hood more probable especially if the same source also made 350 predictions about a single person that no one could possibly fill naturally among 1500 more of various types.That is even if someone simply says history never happened in the future.

3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
Tyre was never flattened like a "bare rock."

The Island is a bare rock. The fortress was atop a bare rock. The fortress was battered into rubble and then cleared away for other uses. What other possibility exist outside historical revision and fantasy. The mainland which is not the focus here was pounded flat.

5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
Fisherman will spread nets over the Atlantic Ocean. I'm a prophet too!

If you say that Fort Knox will be destroyed by a named person and used to knit baskets in a few years and it happens you might be, once all the other conditions above were met as well. This is absurd monotony.

6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
She still stands today!

NO IT DOES NOT. Where is any fortress? Much of the island its self is underwater. The mainland city is all but gone from even archeology. Unless a few columns and hand drawn maps qualify, nothing of that time remains there. In fact its stones are almost all underwater or known to be in other buildings miles away. It was, for a time a quarry for actual existing cities. If you have got nothing better than a new city built years later by a different people is equivalent to always standing this is pointless. There are a hundred cities named after long vanished Indian cities in the US do they exist as well?

7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
She still exists today!

The same as Indian Casinos are long existent teepees. There is not any good ones but if you want an example of what a much better argument is concerning this prophecy you might want to visit the old Tyre thread. I imagine you won't.
What are you doing? This isn't an argument, its denial, and weird. BTW I said the details were startling, I did not say I listed them all or even a meaningful fraction of them. Have you ever read all of just Ezekiel’s prophecy?

 

[Monotheist 101]

This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

Why does God allow anyone to die? He must be really evil! Why doesnt he let everyone live forever and allow us to be Gods aswell? How unfair?!

I think a lot of factors affect infant mortality, it isnt only the fact that God is "allowing" them to die, It is the fact that the situation in which they were conceived did not meet the standards required to live....

Personally I have faith in our true Creator, I also believe that every baby that is born regardless of race/culture/religion is the same, an innocent being, and if an innocent person dies than the God I have learnt about raises them to Heaven. So the babies that die, score full marks on the test without even taking part in it I wish I was a baby that died

 

[CG Didymus]

Why does God allow anyone to die? He must be really evil! Why doesnt he let everyone live forever and allow us to be Gods aswell? How unfair?!

I think a lot of factors affect infant mortality, it isnt only the fact that God is "allowing" them to die, It is the fact that the situation in which they were conceived did not meet the standards required to live....

Personally I have faith in our true Creator, I also believe that every baby that is born regardless of race/culture/religion is the same, an innocent being, and if an innocent person dies than the God I have learnt about raises them to Heaven. So the babies that die, score full marks on the test without even taking part in it I wish I was a baby that died

Is it unfair if the Christian concept of needing a "saving" knowledge of Jesus to be allowed into heaven is true?

 

[cottage]

I do not believe I said cause and effect were non contingent. In fact they are inherently contingent. I said that God is a non-contingent concept. Cause and effect only covers what begins to exist. God did not begin and so cause and effect do not apply to his necessary existence but do to all derivative effects

But, with respect, your argument from God doesn’t get off the ground, for you are saying that the world began to exist. And if the world began to exist, brought about by God, then God’s necessity is dependent upon causation, a contingent principle. In other words a supposed first cause is logically dependent upon a single feature of the material world. The absurdity we arrive at is that God’s attributes are ‘omnipotence’ – and ‘causation dependence’! He cannot be the former without the latter. But if the latter applies then he cannot be the former!

All knowledge whether scientific, theological, philosophical, or whatever makes certain assumptions. One being that reality was not began 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (though that would not get rid of God it would get rid of science). Science alone operates on the assumption of the rational intelligibility of the universe. If you begin positing anything not impossible we are instantly mired in hopeless ignorance. We can't know that the speed of light is not different in every location except where checked (in fact that is known to be true in a way). All knowledge is based on some basic assumptions. If you wish to throw them out then any discussion of any type is pointless. However using only the most basic assumptions it is easily seen that matter is not moral. Morality lies within an abstract realm based on value that natural laws do not have any way of accounting for.

Yes, of course science operates on the basis that the universe is rationally intelligible. But we’re discussing the proposition (and religious belief is propositional) that a non-universe thing exists beyond our scientific knowledge. And so the proposition takes as its first premise the assertion that all worlds must be as this world, but if this world is contingent and need not exist then the argument to a necessary being falls flat on its face.
Morality is summed up in three words: survive or die. And that is nothing if not a natural law.

The universe having a cause is a scientific conclusion as wel as a theological and philisophical one. I never suggested God is only true if all or any fact is known to anyone. God doesn't exist because there is a universe. The universe exists because there is a God. I do not understand your contention here. It seems to eat its self.

Well, my contention is both simple and self-evident. Every argument to God is inferential, therefore we cannot logically speak of God without reference to the world, but we can speak of the world without the least reference to any deity.

I think there is a misunderstanding in what necessary means in philosophy. In philosophy necessary means an entity which is non contingent. Matter according to the dominant modern cosmology began to exist. This by definition makes it contingent. Hume at one time said: If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume's_fork
The problem is that statement condemns it's self.

Are holding out for some steady state or eternal concept? If so that is easily dispensed with.

Thank you but I’m actually quite familiar with Humean philosophy. Necessity is not restricted to the concept of entities, but also makes the distinction between necessary and contingent statements. For example a triangle must have its three angles if it is to be a triangle – that is a necessary truth. But there need be no triangles anywhere in the world, ie the triangle exists contingently, since no contradiction is involved in its denial. So we see there is no entailment from ‘God has necessary existence’ to ‘Necessarily God exists’. In other words Hume’s Fork is saying that ‘God Exists, for instance, is neither logically necessary (or what Hume refers to as merely the Relation of Ideas) nor factually necessary. And a God that is neither necessary nor factual is self-evidently no God at all!
Note that the phenomenon of cause and effect is factually necessary, but since no bridge can be built between factual necessity and other worlds (God), the arguments that attempt to do just that are clearly specious.

The comprehension of a thing and a things factual nature are independent. You are getting your epistemology in your ontology.

In fact that is your position! Belief in God contains the ontological concept and by definition an epistemological assertion - in either direction: If knowledge, then God; and: God, then knowledge.
But I don’t think you are quite following what it is that I’m saying. The ‘logic’ you speak of refers only to probabilities; however ‘The world exists’ is an anti-sceptical statement and contingently true, but ‘God exists’ is a purely speculative proposition.

If what you claim were true then all it would take is one example of matter, life, or energy arriving out of nothing. Where is it? God as a concept has no need of creation; in fact infinite causal regression is impossible. God or something like him was non derivative.

An eternal world no more stands in need of creation than an eternal deity. Your argument keeps returning to causation, which we know to be a feature of the world but which cannot be in the realm of God unless he is constrained by worldly phenomena, which leads to a contradiction for contingent being is not necessary being. So while God is logically impossible on those terms no such absurdity arises when we posit a self-existing world.

Would that make him more or less likely? If I used Yahweh would that affect his existence? I do not believe I have said non faith is a contradiction though it may very well be. Until you can explain how nature created nature then it would some non-faith is at the least illogical. Do you believe morality is an actual concept or some kind of behavior result of evolution and therefore not actually moral (only preferred or not)?

Again and again your arguments appear to be stuck on a causal concept that leads to an absurdity. I have made my objections on the grounds that in every way it is self-contradictory to make a necessary being contingent upon its creation. And my argument from morality is based, logically, and subjectively on the concept of the prior self. So I will argue that there is no objective moral code, and I will be pleased to hear your objections.

You state these things like it is a counter to a claim I made. God for some reason requires faith. Faith precludes evidence. As scholars have put it a hypothetical world based on the Bible alone would be identical to this one. God is not a provable fact nor is 99.9% of possible facts; however the facts we have are very indicative of a pre-existent God hypothesis. You are very articulate but I do not know if the logic used by you many times is as relevant and effective as you might suppose.

The point to be made again is that no inferential argument, whether causal, teleological, or moral is an argument to other worlds, but is merely descriptive of this, the actual world. The concept of Supreme Being is a metaphysical hypothesis: a belief-that. But religionists want go beyond the hypothesis and propose it as a doctrine, as a belief-in. And if no argument is allowed to count against the doctrine then that means it can no longer be held as hypothesis, for under those terms it becomes nothing less than a dogma.
And might I suggest we let the effectiveness of my arguments be judged by your specific answers to them?

 

[1robin]

Is it unfair if the Christian concept of needing a "saving" knowledge of Jesus to be allowed into heaven is true?

What grounds the concept of "fair" if God does not exist? Many of the objections to God are only objections if he exists in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong, he invaded the mainland, they retreated to the island. He destroyed the mainland and besieged the island that the Bible says he would NOT take. He eventually left and went exactly where he was predicted to and for the exact reason. Some say the Island surrendered but no one knows and it makes absolutely no difference what so ever. Apparently it is believed font and colors makes things less wrong.
If you can't get the past right, the future is beyond your grasp. If I said in 1935 that Hitler would attack the most prosperous port city in Europe and attempt to sack an offshore island but not prevail, then go to Egypt to make up for the profits he didn't get in the port city and then another nation would throw the rubble in the water and destroy the city and those people would never rebuild that city again plus a few dozen other details it might make your prophet hood more probable especially if the same source also made 350 predictions about a single person that no one could possibly fill naturally among 1500 more of various types.That is even if someone simply says history never happened in the future.
The Island is a bare rock. The fortress was atop a bare rock. The fortress was battered into rubble and then cleared away for other uses. What other possibility exist outside historical revision and fantasy. The mainland which is not the focus here was pounded flat.
If you say that Fort Knox will be destroyed by a named person and used to knit baskets in a few years and it happens you might be, once all the other conditions above were met as well. This is absurd monotony.
NO IT DOES NOT. Where is any fortress? Much of the island its self is underwater. The mainland city is all but gone from even archeology. Unless a few columns and hand drawn maps qualify, nothing of that time remains there. In fact its stones are almost all underwater or known to be in other buildings miles away. It was, for a time a quarry for actual existing cities. If you have got nothing better than a new city built years later by a different people is equivalent to always standing this is pointless. There are a hundred cities named after long vanished Indian cities in the US do they exist as well?
The same as Indian Casinos are long existent teepees. There is not any good ones but if you want an example of what a much better argument is concerning this prophecy you might want to visit the old Tyre thread. I imagine you won't.
What are you doing? This isn't an argument, its denial, and weird. BTW I said the details were startling, I did not say I listed them all or even a meaningful fraction of them. Have you ever read all of just Ezekiel’s prophecy?

Wow. Okay then. Some people will believe anything, I guess. You clearly see much more there that is not actually there. But hey, if you need to delude yourself this much to make yourself believe the Bible is true, then have fun with that.

Do you believe Nostradamus prophecies too?

 

[1robin]

But, with respect, your argument from God doesn’t get off the ground, for you are saying that the world began to exist.

Hello, cottage. This argument has been off the ground since the time of the Greeks. This argument is ancient and has survived much better criticisms that we could manage. It always baffles me when someone simply dismisses an argument I use, when that argument has and is deemed relevant by the greatest scholars on both sides in human history. You may argue it is ultimately incorrect, but dismissal is invalid and silly.

And if the world began to exist, brought about by God, then God’s necessity is dependent upon causation, a contingent principle. In other words a supposed first cause is logically dependent upon a single feature of the material world. The absurdity we arrive at is that God’s attributes are ‘omnipotence’ – and ‘causation dependence’! He cannot be the former without the latter. But if the latter applies then he cannot be the former!

Again cause and effect are not dependent on natural law. They have no exception in natural law but are not products of it. Many things in our universe cannot be linked with nature. Morality for one, certain constants for another, etc.... If you wish to say the argument God exists because of Cosmology is inconclusive I can agree, it however is consistent with all known facts. Can you give me another candidate or scenario for cosmology that is "comparable" with my God hypothesis? God is not dependent on causation, causation is derivative. You might argue the argument is dependent on causation but not God himself.

Yes, of course science operates on the basis that the universe is rationally intelligible. But we’re discussing the proposition (and religious belief is propositional) that a non-universe thing exists beyond our scientific knowledge. And so the proposition takes as its first premise the assertion that all worlds must be as this world, but if this world is contingent and need not exist then the argument to a necessary being falls flat on its face.

You seem to keep confusing what is dependent on what. I never made an argument that has anything to do with God based on a world being contingent. I have commented on modal being but have stated I do not like the argument and do not use it. Matter is derivative, the only likely candidate for a deriver is God at this time. You seem to say I suggested the "world" is contingent and necessary. I do not get that.

Morality is summed up in three words: survive or die. And that is nothing if not a natural law.

I will give you a chance to back out of this one. Morality is the issue that screams God the loudest and clearest. It is a slam dunk. Proceed at your own peril (just kidding). First please review the Latin concepts of Mallum in se and mallum prohibitum (spelling ???) to understand what context the discussion will be in if you decide to pursue it.

Well, my contention is both simple and self-evident. Every argument to God is inferential, therefore we cannot logically speak of God without reference to the world, but we can speak of the world without the least reference to any deity.

There is no negative here, unless a world must be assumed. Science and theology both look at existence and derive things that are not apparent like dark matter. Criticizing that method is meaningless and eats itself.

Thank you but I’m actually quite familiar with Humean philosophy. Necessity is not restricted to the concept of entities, but also makes the distinction between necessary and contingent statements. For example a triangle must have its three angles if it is to be a triangle – that is a necessary truth. But there need be no triangles anywhere in the world, ie the triangle exists contingently, since no contradiction is involved in its denial. So we see there is no entailment from ‘God has necessary existence’ to ‘Necessarily God exists’. In other words Hume’s Fork is saying that ‘God Exists, for instance, is neither logically necessary (or what Hume refers to as merely the Relation of Ideas) nor factually necessary. And a God that is neither necessary nor factual is self-evidently no God at all!
Note that the phenomenon of cause and effect is factually necessary, but since no bridge can be built between factual necessity and other worlds (God), the arguments that attempt to do just that are clearly specious.

I will avoid the exit ramp into Humeland. The death sentence of his statement is given by the most brilliant philosopher on Earth in my opinion.
As Ravi Zacharias has effectively pointed out, Hume's argument is self-contradictory and self-refuting:
His test for meaning has failed its own test. He is looking for the universal solvent but does not know where to store it because it dissolves whatever it is coming into contact with.2
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/01/02/Commit-It-to-the-Flames.aspx
You are overcomplicating things and obscuring my simple point to the point it gets buried underneath layer of articulate but useless qualifications. I will restate it in simplicity and you may simply tell me what is wrong with it.
1. There is no known exception to the principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. Cause and effect have no dependence known on natural law. It is a safe assumption.
3. The universe began to exist.
4. Natural law did not exist to create it's self and therefore the only two options known are mind and abstract concepts.
5. Abstract concepts are non-causal.
6. Therefore a mind with certain characteristics is the only known candidate at this time.
7. The God concept that existed in primitive ignorant men 4000 years ago matches perfectly with the above.
8. It is a reasonable basis for faith especially when combined with thousands of lines of reasoning and evidence. It is not proof but is a valid argument.
Where is the problem? Can you state it without needing to first obscure well known principles with philisophical rhetoric? It seems to be a modern phenomena to think ourselves into imbecility if a simple and reasonable arguemnt produces a result that is inconvenient.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

In fact that is your position! Belief in God contains the ontological concept and by definition an epistemological assertion - in either direction: If knowledge, then God; and: God, then knowledge.

I do not believe I made any argument concerning knowledge itself. Let me give another example. An atheist and a Christian may both know murder is objectively wrong. Only a Christians can explain or ground it sufficiently.

But I don’t think you are quite following what it is that I’m saying. The ‘logic’ you speak of refers only to probabilities; however ‘The world exists’ is an anti-skeptical statement and contingently true, but ‘God exists’ is a purely speculative proposition.

I agree that God is speculative and have said so many times. My point was that it is based on more lines of evidence and data than dark matter, multiverses, oscillating universes etc... Yet they are all accepted as valid theories and God met at the gate with a shotgun. Either throw out all speculation, throw out speculative theories at a certain evidence threshold, or allow them all. Scholars should not pick what truth is allowed based on theological preference. If multiverses are valid then God is.

An eternal world no more stands in need of creation than an eternal deity.

First get one and then that may be relevant. Not only is there no comparable evidence for an eternal universe it is a logical absurdity. These double standards are truly off the chart.

Your argument keeps returning to causation, which we know to be a feature of the world but which cannot be in the realm of God unless he is constrained by worldly phenomena, which leads to a contradiction for contingent being is not necessary being. So while God is logically impossible on those terms no such absurdity arises when we posit a self-existing world.

I was not positing God by all means available. I was using a specific argument, the core of which is causation so of course it always comes up. I have no idea why all of a sudden a principle with no exception is a unreliable basis for conclusion. Actually I do I just can never fail to be shocked by the lengths willingly undertaken to combat faith. You are again denying the derivative nature of causation. There is not one fact that is logically absurd concerning God. He contradicts nothing known. Eternal universes however contradict scientific laws and philosophy. It makes us cross what can't be crossed, it violates entropy, conservation of matter and energy, etc......

Again and again your arguments appear to be stuck on a causal concept that leads to an absurdity. I have made my objections on the grounds that in every way it is self-contradictory to make a necessary being contingent upon its creation. And my argument from morality is based, logically, and subjectively on the concept of the prior self. So I will argue that there is no objective moral code, and I will be pleased to hear your objections.

It is so absurd it has survived every challenge for 3000 years and is considered valid in today’s scholarly debates. You may disagree with it but dismissing it says more about you than it. Of course it comes up, it is an integral part of the one argument I have given. If you want others that have no causal dependence then I can supply more than you can respond to. There is no problem here.

The point to be made again is that no inferential argument, whether causal, teleological, or moral is an argument to other worlds, but is merely descriptive of this, the actual world.

Matter is non-moral. Atoms do not care if other atoms are destroyed or disassembled. Morality has no basis in nature. Ethics might though they lose all "right and wrong" relevance in evolution but morality is not moral on nature alone. Heck nature can't create nature. Natural law can't create natural law. If you weave a web that serves to dismiss the supernatural then you are left with gaping holes in reality which nature can't fill. This preference based argumentation dressed in philosophical language not logic.

The concept of Supreme Being is a metaphysical hypothesis: a belief-that. But religionists want go beyond the hypothesis and propose it as a doctrine, as a belief-in. And if no argument is allowed to count against the doctrine then that means it can no longer be held as hypothesis, for under those terms it becomes nothing less than a dogma.

I have and no one I have ever heard has said that no argument is allowed to exist that shines negatively on God. You must pick a God and a revelation to do so but it potentially could be easily countered by reality if God did not exist. You have attempted to dismiss principles that have no exception, posit any other explanation for events that can only have supernatural (non-natural) explanations, invented self-contradictory universes with no evidence and then assert that faith is biased against argumentation. I do not get it.

And might I suggest we let the effectiveness of my arguments be judged by your specific answers to them?

Again if the Bible alone was used to produce a model of reality it would be identical to this one. In what world is that not valid? You seem to use the most energetic intellectual gymnastics in order to stretch a lack of proof (which I agree with) into a lack of validity that nothing justifies. It is a valid argument and the most brilliant scholars for over 2000 years have recognized that fact. Alone it probably is not enough to justify faith, add in a thousand other lines of reasoning and it is vastly more than sufficient.