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

[Orias]

I have a better question, how come you allow your God to allow children to die?

Death is apart of life, it happens. From what I understood only a "devil" wants to be immortal, but how is that any different from a Christian thinking they will be immortalized in Heaven when they die?

My interpretation is this, God exists (no doubt) but he allows nothing besides freedom of the mind. Freedom of the body comes only in that one is accepting of their true nature, when one accepts their true nature they can excel and redefine their own will (and the will of nature and ultimately God).

More importantly, why do you believe in a God that does not allow you to fathom anything beyond what your mind currently limits you to believe? If we were created in the image of God, then can we not also see through the image of God? If we are apart of Him and the ultimate nature of the universe, what prevents us from becoming one with him in totality.

God exists in many forms, and he most often exists in the form of other Gods. They (He) allows us to see and define nature as we see it, as we live it, as we become it. Do not deny the possibility that perhaps, God is reflected in you and everyone and everything around you. Because of this, we chose to see or not see the exact nature of being.

 

[1robin]

So you reckon the bible hasnt been edited since the 8th century...I refuse to put faith in something that could so easily be edited..meaning skewed to fit human purposes(Jews claim that only their side of seed is good)..I will try and look for the earliest publication of Genesis..in Hebrew...I want to judge how this covenant isnt supposed to apply to Ishmael...I will get back to you in a few days regarding this..

I am quite sure a Bible or two has been changed since then probably quite a few. What definitely did not happen nor ever even possibly could, is the wholesale intentional alteration of the Biblical manuscript tradition. There is a vast difference between how the Bible was compiled and the Quran.


The Quran is:
1. Produced by one man, who did little in the way of proofs to think he was from God. If he was mistaken, evil, or misguided against his will every aspect of Islam and the Quran is wrong.
2. It was compiled from text fragments on leather, bark, bone, partial texts, and rocks. There is vast testimony by people who should know that many of these items disappeared long before the Quran was recorded.
3. Uthman made an "approved text" and burned everything else. Our knowledge is now dependent on the Character of yet another single man. BY the way these are contingent necessities, this is an "and" operation, not an "or" operation. If either man was deluded then all of Islam is wrong.
4. Anyway regardless of all that this is the point I wanted to make. The Quran has been strictly controlled and was not prolifically copied. I will explain why this matters below.


The Bible is:
1. The consistent whole was made by 40 plus authors who demonstrated in miracles and proofs the origin of their claims. Even if Paul was wrong I still have the rest, or if even every minor prophet was wrong I still have 30 plus authors. The Bible is not dependent on the character of either of two men who never proved their sources origin. If either one was wrong all of Islam is.
2. The Bible was recorded in textual form and there is little reason to think any (not one word) of the original was lost. It is likely a little more was added but none was lost. Some book do have an oral tradition that is less than desired but many are eyewitness accounts of multiple witnesses written during the lifetime of thousands of eyewitnesses and no contemporary contradictory claim exists. Not one.
3. No Uthman burned all of anything concerning the Bible. It exploded all over the Roman and Greek world and was copied feverishly. In fact the original may be determined with greater than 99% accuracy because of this proliferation. I will explain if needed.
4. Here is the actual point. The Bible unlike the Quran quickly went all over the place and was copied furiously. It was never institutionally mandated and existed in countless independent lines of transmission. It is impossible that anyone in the 8th century could have possibly changed what was recorded in tens of thousands of manuscripts that existed in homes, libraries, and churches in dozens and dozens of nations. Tens of thousands have been codified and cross checked, if anyone ever did attempt to add something into (let's say) a North African Coptic textual line it is easily found by comparing it to the 99% of textual lines that existed independently. IOW intentional corruption of the Biblical manuscript tradition after about 200AD was impossible to do and not be easily seen in the tradition. That is why a Bible has footnotes concerning every questionable passage (about 5%) and the Quran has none because there is no way to know.

Let me illustrate another way. If me and you existed in 1 and wrote 500,000 words a a certain faith. If yours was your product alone and you your followers later made an "official" copy and burned the copies and then strictly controlled the production of twenty more that now is all we have but they are all identical except for 5 textual error.

Now let’s say my text was in collaboration with 39 others who lived in places I could no access them in. I collected them up and hundreds and hundreds of copies were made and now we have 10,000 of them from various independent sources and cultures that have let's say even 5 thousand errors.
Which is more reliable a person today if the originals have disappeared? This takes some serious thinking.

BTW the Bible is 9 times as much information as the Quran and mentions Muhammad zero times.

 

[1robin]

He took part in 26 battles..

I have read in many secular sources it is over 60 battles with numerous raids, thefts, and assassinations but I will use your number. Tell me of another single man in history who ever fought even 26 purely defensive battles but no offensive ones. This appears to be a very desperate claim.

After Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam, hence now, the only valid reason for war is to end oppression when all other measures have failed..

We literally enabled Bin Laden to fight successfully the Russians in Afghanistan. The thanks we got was his taking billions to fund terror against us, training terrorists to fight almost every cultural group on Earth at one time or another, and ending up killing 3000 innocent civilians who never oppressed anyone and actually guaranteed actual oppression by the most powerful military in human history. Is that an example of what you claim? We condemned the KKK in our country for violence. Islamic terrorists kill a weekly average of people who are oppressing no one greater than the entire history of the KKK. Islamic terrorists kill innocent people at a yearly rate that dwarfs the deaths caused by the entire 350 plus year history of the condemned Spanish inquisitions and all the inquisitions combined. I would bet Muslims kill other Muslims at a rate greater than any other inter cultural violence in recent history. Who was Israel oppressing by accepting their old homeland back from the legal UN council and offering to give half of it to the Palestinians which they refused but instead demanded Israel be crushed. Israel did not oppress Egypt, Syria, Jordan, or Lebanon before they invaded. Israel was a day old country trying to eat. Today there are vast numbers of Palestinian Christians who suffer the same fate as their Islamic Palestinian neighbors yet it is only the Islamic Palestinians that shoot women, and steal children across the borders, and shoot rockets from hospitals targeting schools and then cry when the hospital/missile site is hit. Israel has never initiated a single one of the six wars they fought Islam since just 1948. History does not agree with you.

Jihad in the Quran that applies to me..is referring to the internal Jihad against the ego..People using Jihad as an excuse to fight do not understand that physically fighting does not apply to them rather only the spiritual Jihad against the Nafs (ego)..Only if people stop taking others advice and read it themselves maybe they will opt not to blow themselves up..the Quran mentions:

Jihad has several applications in the Quran. Some reasonable others violent and absurd.

5.32. It is because of this that We ordained for (all humankind, but particularly for) the Children of Israel: He who kills a soul unless it be (in legal punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind. Assuredly, there came to them Our Messengers (one after the other) with clear proofs of the truth (so that they might be revived both individually and as a people). Then (in spite of all this), many of them go on committing excesses on the earth

I am aware that there are peaceful verses in the Quran. Most were composed when Muhammad was outnumbered and powered by the populations he lived near. They became violent and brutal as his followers became stronger. I believe the violent verses outnumber the "peaceful" verses about 5 to 1 and were practical not moral.

The Quran does not support killing innocent people..The extremist leaders, play with Gods words(misinterpret) and play on Human beings emotions...

That might explain Bin Laden, that does not explain the thousands in the streets cheering the death of civilians and the utter silence at most times from Muslims asked to condemn terrorism. Nor does it explain the numbers of these "extremists".

 

[1robin]

Why would God punish Ishmael by not blessing him because of Abrahams sins?

I never claimed he did. In fact I claimed the exact opposite. I said he blessed him but unequally with Isaac despite Abrahams sins.

And in turn make the Muslims into a violent nation?( I think these ideas may have been brought in after the advent of Islam)...

They exist in pre Islamic Biblical manuscripts. In fact maybe a thousand years prior to Islam. I never said he made them violent. I said he knew they would be. If God predicts I will have a wreck today that does not mean he caused it. God is outside of time and knows the future.

Ezeikel 18:20:
The soul which does sin will be put to death: the son will not be made responsible for the evil-doing of the father, or the father for the evil-doing of the son; the righteousness of the upright will be on himself, and the evil-doing of the evil-doer on himself.

This is irrelevant since I never said he was punished and in fact said the exact opposite.

Why punish Ishmael’s seed by condemning them to be evil? I refuse to believe that God will ask human beings to hate anyone..

He didn't. When did I say he asked anyone to hate anyone? He may have or may not have; I never mentioned it either way. You should study my statements more slowly I think. There is not a single one asserted in this post, that I actually made.

 

[1robin]

Im driving upto sydney in an hour..couldnt get much sleep..dogs elbow dysplasia is acting up..taking him to vet in sydney..

No its not an official start..please create a thread and link me in...cheers

I will probably reply in 24 hours tho..

Have a Good day..

Sidney of what country? Never mind I looked and it is Australia. Are you a native? How did an Islamist wind up in a British penal colony? Just kidding. Good luck with the dog (is he a dingo?). I will create a thread tomorrow or the next day and let you know. You don't seem to read my claims sufficiently but you are civil and polite so I look forward to it.

 

[1robin]

I have a better question, how come you allow your God to allow children to die?

Death is apart of life, it happens. From what I understood only a "devil" wants to be immortal, but how is that any different from a Christian thinking they will be immortalized in Heaven when they die?

My interpretation is this, God exists (no doubt) but he allows nothing besides freedom of the mind. Freedom of the body comes only in that one is accepting of their true nature, when one accepts their true nature they can excel and redefine their own will (and the will of nature and ultimately God).

More importantly, why do you believe in a God that does not allow you to fathom anything beyond what your mind currently limits you to believe? If we were created in the image of God, then can we not also see through the image of God? If we are apart of Him and the ultimate nature of the universe, what prevents us from becoming one with him in totality.

God exists in many forms, and he most often exists in the form of other Gods. They (He) allows us to see and define nature as we see it, as we live it, as we become it. Do not deny the possibility that perhaps, God is reflected in you and everyone and everything around you. Because of this, we chose to see or not see the exact nature of being.

Was this aimed at me?

 

[Orias]

Was this aimed at me?

What do you mean by "aimed"?

And no, it wasn't meant for anyone, just a read for someone who wanted to answer some questions...potentially.

 

[cottage]

Hold the phone a second. Please post a single statement I have ever made that says "Because Dr X says Y is true then Y must be true" That being said there is much merit in giving the quality of scholarship behind a concept or claim. In thousands of courtrooms for thousands of years expert testimony is vital and valid. Why only with God are obvious and perfectly logical methods suddenly no longer allowed? If I said there is a planet behind Pluto because a drunk in an alley told me so would you consider it valid or reliable, if instead I said the Voyager probe sent data and Max Plank said it was accurate, would that not make any difference? I know it would in every single other aspect of your life, why not here. Of course authority does not equal truth but it certainly does affect credibility of a claim.

The point I’m making is that although I’m au fait with most of the arguments and apologetics, my discussion here is with you and therefore I expect to hear your argument, and not just be told there are X number of advocates who support your view. Only with religious faith, spiritualism, and ghosts we are expected to allow a special plea based on the number who advocate for the belief systems as being factual or in some sense true.
On the subject of a courtroom type of testimony, are you aware of Dr Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Apostles? This was where he argued to the Resurrection by means of Municiple Law? So in line with your comments above, would you support that as a means to provide compelling evidence?

It is quite useless to point out that something that exists is in the natural world. We, or I should say, science does not have access to anything else. What is the alternative to a cause for the universe? Whatever is made up is less evidenced than cause and effect. You may have a qualitative point but not a validity point. There is no known reason why cause and effect would not have applied to the creation. That might leave what we know less than proof (and I never asserted it was proof) but certainly not without merit. This also is a double standard. Science has posited all kinds of ridiculous theory about "Before" the universe claims and even though they are based on far less than cause and effect they are considered valid for consideration. Why is science so consistently hypocritical? Believing something does not pop into existence without a cause is an infinitely worse idea than that something caused the universe to begin to exist and the arguments used by the non-theist side all get worse from there. We may debate the strength of cause and effect, but what is certain is it is the best theory by far today. Even the great scholars on your side know this. I will not list any names since you dismiss doing so but they have insisted "they never claimed anything so ridiculous as that something came from nothing uncaused".

And in the main I agree with David Hume’s words that you quote - but then that isn’t my argument. Something coming from something (even if it is ‘nothing’) is still alluding to the concept of causation. Hume got himself bogged down and was diverted from his task by claiming something (an effect) could appear in experience without there being a cause, which is a doubtful proposition, and an unnecessary distraction when his argument had already demonstrated that cause was not necessary, since no matter of fact could ever imply a contradiction. In other words we can reject cause and effect as subject and predicate, together as per my earlier example of the triangle, which, although it must have its three angles necessarily, no triangles must necessarily exist.

No you are going too far. You may rightly assert I can't know for sure that cause and effect operated in the creation of the universe but you may not honestly then assert you know it did not. That is hypocritical. The claim that cause and effect was valid in the creation process is consistent with all known reality and there is reason at all to think it is a product of nature (in fact it seems to impose its self on nature). There is no reason whatever to insist it did not apply to the creation. You may only assert that it is not certain it did apply. That's it, and I am being generous. I think in fact good arguments exist to think it exists independent of nature. Nature does not create natural laws but have avoided contending so just yet.

There is a grave misunderstanding here that is continually being repeated, even though I’ve given you the argument in several different ways. And it is a very simple logical demonstration and not a question of what you suppose can be known or not known. And if “good arguments exist to think [causation] exists independent of nature” then I would be very pleased indeed to hear them! But anyway you are saying nothing where you begin with a premise that is the same as your conclusion, for it makes no sense to say: “Nature does/does not create (ie cause) natural laws (cause and effect), just as it is incoherent to say God is/is not the cause of the principle of cause. ‘Creation’ and cause are the self same thing and so you are merely uttering a meaningless tautology.
Your argument is the classic Cosmological Argument to the existence of God, specifically the Kalam version, where (it is claimed) that everything that begins to exist needs a cause. Another version of Cosmological Argument is the argument from contingency, which states that the world is a possible being, and thus it must answer to something that contains no possibility for being but contains possibility only for doing, and therefore cannot fail to exist. And this necessary being is God. Now ‘God’ cannot be other than what he is (A=A). And he cannot make himself weaker, undo what is done or re-write the past. So God is a logical concept. And self-evidently God must be necessary if he is to be the omnipotent, all-sufficient Supreme Being; otherwise we invite a contradiction. So the argument begins from a contingent principle (the world as a possible being), and informs us that a necessary being is the cause of possible being and that a necessarily existent being cannot be conceived to be non-existent, for its denial must imply a contradiction. But no contingent fact can ever involve a contradiction or other absurdity if denied, and there is no necessity in the principle of one thing being the cause of another (actually it’s just an association of two events) any more than there is in every action having an equal and opposite reaction. And yet a Necessary Being cannot be omnipotent without the contingent principle of causation, which is a contradiction, for if the latter is to apply then it is self-evident that he cannot be the Necessary Being.

 

[cottage]

Why is my opinion better than the scholarly wisdom of one of Earth's greatest administrative empires? I agree that it does not make it right but the sum total of knowledge of the Roman empire carries more weight than my word alone would to a secular person I would think. In no debate I have ever seen (and that is hundreds) have scholars and sources not been an integral part. If you debate me you are in effect debating many other scholars as that in large part is where I developed much of me understanding from. When they need a bridge built do they call you or an engineer? When they need a text examined is it me or a textual scholar they call? When medical testimony is needed in court do they call a doctor or a plumber? I will of course give mostly my own words but I do not agree to exclude scholarship. I lack the arrogance and faith to declare or find sufficient, only my own knowledge and ability.

Let’s be clear about something, because there seems to be a significant misunderstanding. I have no objection whatsoever to you referring to other people’s arguments, when in fact as you yourself say that is the way most debates are conducted. But I expect, not unreasonably, to see the argument stated and not merely alluded to. However, I don’t mean by that you should post links (or swathes of copy and paste as some people do) but give the essence or main points of the arguments so I can address them.

Science assumes natural law operates the same everywhere in most cases. They build fabulous theories and petition for grant money by the millions on that rational assumption. Why can they do this and yet the philosopher and the theologian not be allowed to? Inference is part of every discipline on earth. If any single subject should not be allowed to infer it would be science yet science does it more than any other and then faults theology for doing exactly what that field entails. I roundly reject these invalidity claims based on nothing beyond there is no proof. I said it was the best we have currently, there is no reason to think it wrong, but as proof is unavailable it is the next best method. Science does it constantly and I demand a single standard. Do we or do we not believe that reality was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age based on inference not proof?

I’m sorry I thought I explained my objection reasonably well but you are still missing the point of my disagreement with you, which isn’t a claim based on a lack of proof! With the benefit of experience we infer one idea from another idea and from any number of ideas we compound further ideas. As you say, ‘inference is part of every discipline on earth’ and that is the point exactly for we cannot go beyond that earthly experience. Every scientific principle and hypothesis is taken from and refers to the physical world. But you are claiming that there is another world, like this one. And while that is logically possible, the other world you conceive cannot logically be God. So do you see the problem? Your argument isn’t merely that a principle of nature might exist in other logically possible worlds; you’re trying to say the principle is a necessary one. It is perfectly reasonable to propose that cause and effect exists in other contingent worlds, since causation is itself contingent, but to claim that a contingent principle is a property of the Supreme Being is a self-contradiction. God is the problem, not causation.

 

[cottage]

Then what in nature dictates it's existence. There is no reason to think nature (which can't generate rationality much less law) created any law within it. How did a photon decide how fast it's maximum speed was? How did matter turn on its gravitational properties. If nature can't do x then whatever is doing X is by definition beyond nature or supernatural. A law is not dependent on its application. Murder would still be wrong given God if no one believed it or ever committed it. If God does not exist then even the rape of a child is at best a social taboo or inconvenient for survival not actually wrong. So you must either declare God exists and moral law is not natural or concede that any immoral action is only against a societal preference.

There is natural law based upon observation and repetition. There is no objective moral law instigated by the biblical God with its bloodthirstiness, vengeance and numerous contradictions. What we call ‘morality’ in nature is logically predicated upon the prior self. In other words, the acquired natural law of preservation and continuity; we do what is in our interest to do, singularly and collectively, for by induction we see that what harms others also harms the individual and we pass on our instincts through our genes.

You must first prove or at least attempt to show that is true. Nothing that begins to exist has ever been observed to do so without a cause and here you simply assert that it has. Not to mention it defies logical principles. If the "world" and I must assume you mean universe (no one believes the Earth is eternal) were infinite then it's past events are infinite.

No, it is you who must prove that “God exists” is a true statement, for that is the only way the matter may be settled. It isn’t lost on me that the reason you have to argue for the world having a beginning is not due to a genuine philosophical inquiry but to support your faith based beliefs by concluding the argument for God. But actually the world being eternal wouldn’t disprove God, according to St Thomas (Summa Theologica), who also said the eternity of the world could not be logically stated or refuted, which of course is correct. And thus while the world is a possible being, all empirical inferences to necessary beings are contradictory, and therefore impossible.
BTW the ‘world’ (phil) means everything there is; it does not mean the Earth. The term ‘Universe’ is generally used in materialistic way and has dogmatic connotations.

It is logically and physically impossible to traverse an infinite expanse of anything. How could an infinite amount of past events have occured in order to arrive at this one? How could a past number of seconds have ticked off to arrive at this one. Another would be, and this one and the others would all be true even if the oscillating universes or multiverse fantasies were true. Entropy means that give time matter and energy disperse evenly. We should have experienced heat death an infinite time ago. However very localized pockets of matter and energy all indicate a very young universe. So what you propose fly’s in the face of all kinds of science including current cosmology, mine is perfectly consistent with them all. Yours assumes an unintentional universe invented cause and effect. Mine assumes a mind created it. Yours also assumes a process which has no known exception cease to exist at some point. Mine assumes it did not. You also assert some kind of infinite causal regression which is of all these things the least likely to be true. In fact it is impossible.

Nothing in my view is infinite; everything stops somewhere, even God’s power and influence. We might say that whatever begins to exist exists from what already exists, causation being just a cyclical phenomenon that is observed in the world. But neither the world nor causation need exist at all. For if it were supposed otherwise it would be logically necessary, and we can show that it demonstrably is not. However, even the principle that things beginning to exist needing a cause of their beginning has no logical necessity, not even in this world for it consists only in matters of fact. So a thing can exist where before there was nothing, and with no contradiction, for it is only from experience, by means of induction, that we have the conviction that a thing must answer to a cause, and thus we argue from this empirical world to other supposed worlds and then back to this actual world from which we cannot escape. Therefore any causal inference is merely a futile exercise in circularity. Both the eternity of the world and God are metaphysical notions, and while there is no logical necessity in either case the world is possible (because it is actual) while God is just a metaphysical explanation that the forgoing has demonstrated to be illogical and therefore impossible on the terms outlined.
You say your argument is perfectly consistent with modern science and cosmology, and yet in the very next breath you assume a mind and speak of intentionality! An argument to a personal being is not science but metaphysics. And as I explained in an earlier post when they are considered independently, neither the notion of God nor a self-existent (eternal) world requires a cause for its existence. But if a personal being is proposed as the creator of the world then there must be sufficient reason or purpose for its creation. If God were the Supreme Being it would be an evident contradiction to say 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 therefore 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! The glaring exception here is that none of the above objections apply if the world is the Supreme Being.

 

[cottage]

I am not sure I get the question. 1. Independent of time. 2. Personal. I will add others as soon as the context is clear.

We can take it as given that the concept of God is not constrained by time, in the same way that Pegasus cannot be a horse without wings, but where is your ontological argument to demonstrate the existence of such a being? It does not follow from a definition of a thing that must also exist. And how can there be a personal God? It is unmitigated nonsense to propose an All Sufficient Being who supposedly seeks a relationship with his creation!

It did not say it was true because it was old. Fallacy dependence is the very worst aspect of a week argument. They are crutches (though I will give you credit for explaining the false claim). My point was that it being old and independent of the questions it answers gives it a high reliability factor. What are the chances that bronze age men would guess or lie the exact unique characteristics needed for what 4000 years later would be learned are needed for the cause of the universe? The most reasonable conclusion is that it is a valid argument in favor of God. The science based non theist has only two settings (though he violates them at every chance on his own claims): 1. Proof 2. Worthless. That is invalid scholarship. Historical and theological claims are evaluated by a analog probability method, not a digital proof or false method. It would not be so bad if the standard was consistently used but it isn't. God is a cumulative case and cosmology is a single argument from thousands.

My argument has little to do with the question of ‘proof’, and it isn’t about physics as science can never be demonstrably true. And Arguments from Other Believers, regardless of their provenance or number have not the slightest bearing on the logical impossibility that I’ve identified. I’m saying that to reason from a contingent principle to a supposed necessary entity is demonstrably unsound, since it must always lead to a contradiction.
But why are thousands of arguments to God necessary, when if he existed one should be sufficient?

You are turning into a fallacy machine gun. I do not think I have ever said since so and so said X then X is true, and it certainly did not happen in what you are responding to.

The red above is a perfect example of what I mentioned in the last paragraph. If God did Z and I find speculative arguments for Z then they are indeed evidence for God. What you did was redifine evidence as equal to proof and then evidence proof's test and declare that it failed. In fact evidence is a subjective thing in many cases so your argument could not be made even if true. Regardless before nature existed God is the only reasonable concept available. Not proof but evidence of ambiguous weight for the supernatural or transcendent. At best you have a quality disagreement.

No, I’m sorry, but just look again at what you’ve written, which I’ve highlighted in blue. You can’t seriously propose taking a metaphysical argument, speculate to its truth, and then presume to pronounce it as evidence? No, you most certainly cannot! Science as repeatable, experimental reasoning, means a thing can be shown to be inductively true in the sense of being probable, inconclusive, or simply incorrect as it applies to the world, but in any event without necessity, while logic can be applied to propositions to show where their premises are invalid, unsound or contradictory, but speculative metaphysics can never be falsified and therefore can never count as evidence. A metaphysical belief remains a speculative belief, no matter how many people attest to it.

The concept of God is not contingent so this is not a problem. I do notice that you are applying terms and concepts that have only a natural application (for you that is all there is) to God when you think it helps but deny my doing so even though my view allows it.

Then that is to entirely misunderstand the argument, because in fact you are saying God, the Supreme Being, is contingent since he must rely on a contingent principle, which is impossible. Once again under those terms God cannot be God.

 

[1robin]

The point I’m making is that although I’m au fait with most of the arguments and apologetics, my discussion here is with you and therefore I expect to hear your argument, and not just be told there are X number of advocates who support your view.

I became a Christian for reasons of experience and personal knowledge that would not be persuasive to you. I however went on to verify and re verify the intellectual permissibility of my faith in detail for over 20 years. In that time I have adopted arguments used by professional philosophers, theologians, historians, textual scholars, etc....because they have access to more stuff than I ever could. If you want me to tell you why I trusted Christ and what my salvation experience was like you will declare it subjective, if I gave you arguments I have derived you may say "Oh yea, who says". The proper ground for a non-evangelical defense of Biblical faith is scholarship but apparently that is out as well. Since you will declare Biblical arguments circular reasoning then there are no options left. The evidence that will convince a critic is specifically whatever evidence he does not have. Let's do this, ask me a question and I will answer it.

Only with religious faith, spiritualism, and ghosts we are expected to allow a special plea based on the number who advocate for the belief systems as being factual or in some sense true.

No, do not leave out science. Dark matter, multiverses, oscillating verses, abiogenesis, macro evolution, life on other planets, ufo's, or even the claim reality did not pop into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age are all faith based guesses, many times requiring more faith given less evidence that the Bible ever does. Faith is heavily involved in large gaping swaths of every field of study and thought ever contemplated. However we are the only group that will regularly admit it.

On the subject of a courtroom type of testimony, are you aware of Dr Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Apostles? This was where he argued to the Resurrection by means of Municipal Law? So in line with your comments above, would you support that as a means to provide compelling evidence?

Yes I have read it; it is a means to establish a level of credibility and intellectual justification. All these types of historical issues are decided on probability. What Greenleaf says is one method to add one probabilistic factor to a huge claim. I will add that he thought his argument conclusive and who is qualified to disagree with Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst who said the same. Credentials do not get any higher. If I started typing now I would never reach the end of claims that contribute to the probabilistic case for God. Greenleaf would require about 2 hours of those 60 years of typing. The reason I mentioned it, is that it lies in a field of common ground (law) and he is one of histories most gifted experts in it. Alone it is not conclusive, combined with a hundred thousand other lines of reasoning and we have many times over a sufficient basis for faith. I must find common ground to debate an atheist or agnostic. This naturally leads to scholars in secular fields of study.

And in the main I agree with David Hume’s words that you quote - but then that isn’t my argument. Something coming from something (even if it is ‘nothing’) is still alluding to the concept of causation. Hume got himself bogged down and was diverted from his task by claiming something (an effect) could appear in experience without there being a cause, which is a doubtful proposition, and an unnecessary distraction when his argument had already demonstrated that cause was not necessary, since no matter of fact could ever imply a contradiction. In other words we can reject cause and effect as subject and predicate, together as per my earlier example of the triangle, which, although it must have its three angles necessarily, no triangles must necessarily exist.

Hume was a brilliant wayward scholar. As with many they are truly brilliant but preference and presupposition have lead them to select the defense of subjects that even their eloquence and brilliance can't salvage. Unlike many this issue can be demonstrated. Please present one proven case of an effect arising without a cause. For clarity please stay out of the weird and little understood quantum world. That still leaves plenty of ground.

There is a grave misunderstanding here that is continually being repeated, even though I’ve given you the argument in several different ways. And it is a very simple logical demonstration and not a question of what you suppose can be known or not known. And if “good arguments exist to think [causation] exists independent of nature” then I would be very pleased indeed to hear them! But anyway you are saying nothing where you begin with a premise that is the same as your conclusion, for it makes no sense to say: “Nature does/does not create (ie cause) natural laws (cause and effect), just as it is incoherent to say God is/is not the cause of the principle of cause. ‘Creation’ and cause are the self-same thing and so you are merely uttering a meaningless tautology.

Brilliant scholars on both sides throughout history have considered that cause and effect concept very relevant to discussions about non-natural issues. Why would I abandon all their statements and assume you are right? Cause and effect are not derived by natural law. They exist as many things like morality, meaning, purpose beyond the scope of the natural. Abstract concepts like numbers do as well. There is no reason to think cause and effect does not exist outside of nature. If you want to say that I have no way to prove it does so, I can agree with that. Another way to view this is that nothing has zero causal potential and nothing known to begin to exist has ever appeared without a cause. While less than certain every indication is that something caused everything and the vast majority of scholars on both sides of philosophy, cosmology, physics etc.... concede this. They simply invent fantasies like multiverses to get out of its God indicating truth.

Your argument is the classic Cosmological Argument to the existence of God, specifically the Kalam version, where (it is claimed) that everything that begins to exist needs a cause. Another version of Cosmological Argument is the argument from contingency, which states that the world is a possible being, and thus it must answer to something that contains no possibility for being but contains possibility only for doing, and therefore cannot fail to exist. And this necessary being is God. Now ‘God’ cannot be other than what he is (A=A). And he cannot make himself weaker, undo what is done or re-write the past. So God is a logical concept. And self-evidently God must be necessary if he is to be the omnipotent, all-sufficient Supreme Being; otherwise we invite a contradiction. So the argument begins from a contingent principle (the world as a possible being), and informs us that a necessary being is the cause of possible being and that a necessarily existent being cannot be conceived to be non-existent, for its denial must imply a contradiction. But no contingent fact can ever involve a contradiction or other absurdity if denied, and there is no necessity in the principle of one thing being the cause of another (actually it’s just an association of two events) any more than there is in every action having an equal and opposite reaction. And yet a Necessary Being cannot be omnipotent without the contingent principle of causation, which is a contradiction, for if the latter is to apply then it is self-evident that he cannot be the Necessary Being.

You are treading treacherous waters here. Stating what God can or cannot do is a mine field. I would not venture beyond saying God can't create a logical impossibility like a round square but will venture no further. Nor do I think it meaningful to do so. We are finite minds and exceeding our grasp is pointless. BTW this is the ontological argument not the cosmological argument and one I never use.
If you are attempting to say the ontological argument is invalid. I will only say two things. First: brilliant scholars in philosophy disagree with you. Second, fine, because I do not like, fully understand, nor use this argument. I make no claims beyond what you rightly called the Kalam cosmological argument. Modes of being are not an argument I use.

 

[1robin]

Let’s be clear about something, because there seems to be a significant misunderstanding. I have no objection whatsoever to you referring to other people’s arguments, when in fact as you yourself say that is the way most debates are conducted. But I expect, not unreasonably, to see the argument stated and not merely alluded to. However, I don’t mean by that you should post links (or swathes of copy and paste as some people do) but give the essence or main points of the arguments so I can address them.

I have to manage my time well. Many factors go into the length of my posts. If you wish a larger clarification of an argument you need but ask. I rely heavily on scholars and mention them so often that to post their argumentation with every mention is impractical. I however will do so if requested.

I’m sorry I thought I explained my objection reasonably well but you are still missing the point of my disagreement with you, which isn’t a claim based on a lack of proof! With the benefit of experience we infer one idea from another idea and from any number of ideas we compound further ideas. As you say, ‘inference is part of every discipline on earth’ and that is the point exactly for we cannot go beyond that earthly experience. Every scientific principle and hypothesis is taken from and refers to the physical world. But you are claiming that there is another world, like this one. And while that is logically possible, the other world you conceive cannot logically be God. So do you see the problem? Your argument isn’t merely that a principle of nature might exist in other logically possible worlds; you’re trying to say the principle is a necessary one. It is perfectly reasonable to propose that cause and effect exists in other contingent worlds, since causation is itself contingent, but to claim that a contingent principle is a property of the Supreme Being is a self-contradiction. God is the problem, not causation.

So, I think you are saying that only the natural world may be contemplated because that is what science does, or that no evidence of a supernatural world may be obtained and there for no discussion about it is possible. Before I spend time countering, this time I want to make sure this is what you meant.

 

[1robin]

There is natural law based upon observation and repetition. There is no objective moral law instigated by the biblical God with its bloodthirstiness, vengeance and numerous contradictions.

I see that what is driving your contentions has made an appearance. Preference. None of this even if true has any bearing on the reality of objective morality. Bad morality is still objective and a mere assertion that it does not exist has no application. Harris went the opposite way in his debate on morality with Craig. He assumed just as you have it does exist even though he had no source for it.

What we call ‘morality’ in nature is logically predicated upon the prior self.

That's a new one. What is a prior self?

In other words, the acquired natural law of preservation and continuity; we do what is in our interest to do, singularly and collectively, for by induction we see that what harms others also harms the individual and we pass on our instincts through our genes.

For brevity let me sum up every term a non-theist as the source for morality in one word, opinion. Proving objective morality exists is a bit problematic. Showing the that ethics derived apart from God are not moral, sufficient, nor even consistent is quite easy. You basically same the same thing many non-theists do who to give you credit have the courage enough to illustrate the non-moral nature of your ethics. You say that humans use reason to establish things like survival, happiness, least harm as "moral". The problem is there is nothing moral about it. Human flourishing is speciesm without any justification. Our flourishing requires the non-flourishing of countless other beings that given no God are just as valuable as we are. You are simply redefining moral as human flourishing without any justification. What about happiness? Many of the greatest moral actions in human history produced misery, a soldier diving on a grenade is not happy to do it, in the split second he has to think he does not draw out equations about total happiness given this action verses that. Instead he appeals to objective worth and value associated with love and God and acts. Who's definition of happiness or flourishing do we use? Your or Hitler's. Why is yours better than his. The Nazis thought they would increase overall happiness and flourishing by killing anyone that was a drain on society. They thought it would be better in the long run to torture countless people today to save more tomorrow. Should we take a vote? That would have justified killing Christ, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Ghandi. Is self-preservation or interest going to convince 300,000 white men in the Northern United states to give their lives to free a group of slaves they never met. No, evolution promotes tribalism justified mass genocide, slavery, racism, and moral nihilism. It is incoherent, inconsistent, and impossible to apply. It does not save free Europe from Hitler and Stalin or free slaves, that requires adoption of objective values like, the sanctity of life, the equality of man, and the dignity of men. That is why that even though all groups have violence in their past the really diabolical genocides of history are mostly by atheistic regimes that have no basis for thinking humans are anything beyond biological anomalies with no inherent worth or value and life is nothing sacred.
If an alien race shows up this afternoon and suggests that using the exact same logic you did that we are now their food source if you are consistent you will willing allow you family to be eaten but I imagine that like almost everyone you will abandon your delusions and instantly revert to thinking we have a special significance and value only possible given God.

No, it is you who must prove that “God exists” is a true statement, for that is the only way the matter may be settled.

What matter? If the matter is does God exist then I agree. If the matter is what best describes or explains reality then I do not.

It isn’t lost on me that the reason you have to argue for the world having a beginning is not due to a genuine philosophical inquiry but to support your faith based beliefs by concluding the argument for God.

Nope that is the conclusion of secular men throughout the ages. They like me only assert that a concept identical to the concept of God is ate least the most likely candidate currently available, and probably the only viable one. This is more of an argument for the philosophers maximal God the way I use it, though the Bible's version of this is more detailed, comprehensive, and sufficient. The only burden for an inference is coherence.

But actually the world being eternal wouldn’t disprove God, according to St Thomas (Summa Theologica), who also said the eternity of the world could not be logically stated or refuted, which of course is correct. And thus while the world is a possible being, all empirical inferences to necessary beings are contradictory, and therefore impossible.

It seems that you start in many places and with varying terms but your only core claim is the last sentence above. I am unfamiliar with that argument. Can you state it simply until I get the jest of it. I think you are slapping a (necessary) label on God I never gave him. God is as the Bible indicates. It never uses the term necessary so I don't though scholars with more credentials than both of us do so constantly. BTW I notice you have no trouble in applying these philosophical concepts to a non-natural realm but deny me that right. I disagree with Aquinas a bit here. I think an eternal universe is a good argument against the Biblical God but does not have any meaningful effect on the philosopher’s or Spinoza’s God. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

BTW the ‘world’ (phil) means everything there is; it does not mean the Earth. The term ‘Universe’ is generally used in materialistic way and has dogmatic connotations.

I was just making sure. You may be perfectly right but that has not been my experience with these terms even in philosophy.

Nothing in my view is infinite; everything stops somewhere, even God’s power and influence.

What is a logical necessity of the former has no possible application known to the latter. God is not bound by time, size, or thermodynamics, mathematics etc. The universe is.

We might say that whatever begins to exist exists from what already exists, causation being just a cyclical phenomenon that is observed in the world. But neither the world nor causation need exist at all. For if it were supposed otherwise it would be logically necessary, and we can show that it demonstrably is not.

I do not claim God could not have created a universe without cause and effect but instead that he didn't do so in this one. It seems every point you make no matter where you start ends in necessity.

However, even the principle that things beginning to exist needing a cause of their beginning has no logical necessity, not even in this world for it consists only in matters of fact.

Matters of fact are where my argument's premise arises from. Only a critic or scientist derives a conclusion from a premise grounded in non-fact and counter fact.

So a thing can exist where before there was nothing, and with no contradiction, for it is only from experience, by means of induction, that we have the conviction that a thing must answer to a cause, and thus we argue from this empirical world to other supposed worlds and then back to this actual world from which we cannot escape. Therefore any causal inference is merely a futile exercise in circularity. Both the eternity of the world and God are metaphysical notions, and while there is no logical necessity in either case the world is possible (because it is actual) while God is just a metaphysical explanation that the forgoing has demonstrated to be illogical and therefore impossible on the terms outlined.

It is a modern phenomenon that we have become so smart that we are no longer Homo Sapiens but are now Homo sapiens sapiens. We are "wise" "wise" now and can therefore think ourselves into imbecility. The Bible predicted this many years ago:
Romans 1:22 professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
My argument is a simple deduction from things that have no exception known and concepts that have existed for 5000 years. You are borrowing necessity from an ontological argument I do not use and shoving it into a cosmological argument that is very simple. I concede the argument is less than proof but do not concede it is either irrational nor do we have any reason to think it invalid. No I was not calling you a fool, you are obviously intelligent enough to be able to do what many do: Think things into meaninglessness. I heard once that by physics a bumble bee should not be able to fly. I am sure dissertations could be written that prove they can't, but the simple sight of seeing one whiz by is enough to render the reams of data meaningless. In no subject is this truer than theoretical science.

You say your argument is perfectly consistent with modern science and cosmology, and yet in the very next breath you assume a mind and speak of intentionality! An argument to a personal being is not science but metaphysics.

Nope, cause and effect are reality and God is theology. It is the simple inference of a well-known and long standing concept posited to explain reality. You are really complicating the obvious and trivializing the momentous.

And as I explained in an earlier post when they are considered independently, neither the notion of God nor a self-existent (eternal) world requires a cause for its existence.

Yes nature does because unlike God nature began to exist. If you disagree then give me an example of an exception. Every fact known is on my side and all the philosophical gymnastics in the world can't change that. Your claim has a demonstrable proof. One example of a thing beginning to exist with no cause. If it can't be provided then consider my response to claims that the universe needs no cause to be answer by the request.

But if a personal being is proposed as the creator of the world then there must be sufficient reason or purpose for its creation. If God were the Supreme Being it would be an evident contradiction to say 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 therefore 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! The glaring exception here is that none of the above objections apply if the world is the Supreme Being.

Wow, If I was an omnipotent artist would I not enjoy painting more than making all paintings possible appear in front of me. I could argue against the reasoning here but it is unnecessary. You have claimed many times that I can't even posit concepts that have no known except and no dependence on nature to the supernatural but yet you have used the exact same methods and reasoning you condemned from me to even attempt to dictate what God must be. Now one thing is absolutely certain, if God exists whatever he is, is not fully comprehendible, unlike cause and effect he is bound by nothing certain beyond a very few concepts, and what a philosopher assign to terms if inadequate anywhere they are inadequate with God. I think academics has approx. 4 stages. The first stage (A) is incompetence. The second stage is competence but not mastery (B). The third is competence, mastery, and sufficient application and practicality(C). The fourth is delusions of grandeur, self-contradiction, and the assumption of a type of all-knowing not subject to anything (D). We do not fit into any one of these but I operate on a high B low C level and value high C level scholars. I think you operate in a low D level. Academics if pursued relentlessly and for their own sake eventually and irresponsibly end up at level D and that is worse than level A because they are given credibility. When in engineering schools my goal was level D and I went to many talks and presentations. I eventually became completely disillusioned by these D level folks and after many years consider them counterproductive and I see many of your arguments as coming from that type of scholarship. Thinking a thing into meaninglessness is a bad practice. That is why I work in application not theory, and why I never use the ontological argument. That was a clumsy way of saying I think some of your arguments inapplicable and operating in realms far bad reasons that you have made off limits for me even though mine are made for good reasons.

 

[1robin]

We can take it as given that the concept of God is not constrained by time, in the same way that Pegasus cannot be a horse without wings, but where is your ontological argument to demonstrate the existence of such a being?

Why must it be an ontological argument? Why not teleological, experiencial, moral, historical, testimonial, revelational, majority opinions, fine tuning, rationality, the existance of consciousness, the existance of information and decoding, transcendentals, meaning, identity, or a thousand others. If you can show that multiverses, strings, or even the much easier dark matter are more likely to exist than God then I will attempt what you request.

1. Dark matter can not be seen nor deteceted directely by natural means. Neither can God.
2. Dark matter and God are both propositions used to explain reality.
3. We have revelation potentially from God not dark matter.
4. people by the billions claim to have experienced God.
5. The vast majority of people have believed God exists not dark matter.
6. God explains a million aspects of reality much better than anything else, dark matter explains a few about cosmology. Convergent confirmation.
7. By the way God is every bit as "natural" as dark matter. He just operates in a realm beyond that "nature" we understand, as well as acting within nature that we do understand.
8. I have lists of miracles that if true are best explained as they have been. Dark matter (the nebulous, ambiguous, un quantifiable concept it is) has none.

In what way is dark matter (which I accept BTW) am more "legitimate" explenation for galaxy cohesion than God is for universe creation and a thousand other things he fits perfectly.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

It does not follow from a definition of a thing that must also exist. And how can there be a personal God? It is unmitigated nonsense to propose an All Sufficient Being who supposedly seeks a relationship with his creation!

I never said God is a concept and all concepts exist. Is that why the majority of people who ever lived have done just that. I can endure hyper-rationalizations, burdens of proof I do not have, and even double standards, but baseless criticisms of faith are getting close to the unacceptable thresh hold. People far smarter than you and much more capable to examine the justifications for faith have drawn the opposite conclusion.

Armand Nicholi, of Harvard Medical School, speaks of J. N. D. Anderson as "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law...He is dean of the faculty of law in the University of London, chairman of the department of Oriental law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London."
This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

It is unmitigated nonsense to propose an All Sufficient Being who supposedly seeks a relationship with his creation!

As well as the most brilliant curious and deductive among us, like:
Leonardo da Vinci
Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci [1452-1519] was an Italian scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, artist, architect, botanist, musician and writer
Nicholas Copernicus
Nicholas Copernicus [1473-1543] was the first astronomer to formulate a heliocentric - sun-centered - model of the solar system in which we live.
Sir Francis Bacon
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St. Alban [1561-1626] was an English philosopher, statesman, lawyer, jurist, scientist and author.
Galileo Galilei
Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei [1564-1642] has been described as the "father of modern physics," the "father of modern science" and the "father of modern observational astronomy
Rene Descartes
Rene Descartes [1596-1650] Was a French scientist, mathematician, philosopher and writer known today as the "Father of Modern Philosophy" whose works are required reading for students to this day.
Blaise Pascal
Blaise Pascal [1623-1662] was a French physicist, mathematician and religious philosopher.
Robert Boyle
Robert Boyle [1627-1691] was another brilliant man of note from the 17th century best known for his writings in theology, philosophy, chemistry, physics, and for his formulation of what became known as Boyle's Law.
Sir Isaac Newton
Isaac Newton [1643-1727] was an English naturalist, physicist, mathematician, theologian and alchemist who became one of the most influential men in all of history.
Gottfried Leibniz
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz [1646-1716] was a German mathematician and philosopher who occupies equally high positions in the history of both disciplines.
Adam Smith
Adam Smith [1723-1790] was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneer of political economy, one of the preeminent figures of the Scottish Enlightenment.
George Washington
George Washington [1732-1799] was a Virginia agrarian and plantation owner, surveyor, military general, politician and the first President of the United States, popularly known as "the father of his country."
Antoine Lavoisier
Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier [1743-1794] was a French nobleman and scientist known as "the father of modern chemistry."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe [1749-1832] was a German writer described by George Eliot as "...the last true polymath to walk the earth
Michael Faraday
Michael Faraday [1791-1867] was an English natural philosopher, chemist and physicist whose most notable contributions were to the developing fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.
Gregor Mendel
Gregor Johann Mendel [1822-1884] was an Augustinian priest and natural scientist whose contributions to the study of particulate inheritance earned his the title of "Father of Modern Genetics
Louis Pasteur
Louis Pasteur [1822-1895] was a French chemist and microbiologist best known for his contributions to the prevention of diseases caused by bacteria and viruses
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin [1824-1907] was a British mathematical physicist and engineer born in Ireland. He excelled at Cambridge in sports as well as mathematics, physics and the study of electricity, and devised a hypothesis of electrical images which became a powerful tool in solving electrostatics problems.
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Nicola Tesla
Nikola Tesla [1856-1943] was a mechanical and electrical engineer as well as a gifted inventor, an ethnic Serb born in Croatia who emigrated to America and became a U.S. citizen. Tesla's father was a Serbian Orthodox priest, his mother the daughter of another priest
Max Planck
Karl Ernst Ludwig Marx Planck, a.k.a. Max [1858-1947] was a German physicist considered to be the founder of quantum theory.
Henry Ford
Wright Brothers
Winston Churchill
Guglielmo Marconi
Marchese Guglielmo Marconi [1874-1937] was an Italian inventor best known for his development of a radiotelegraph system, for which he shared the Nobel Prize Physics with Karl Ferdinand Braun in 1909. He was baptized Catholic, but became a member of the Anglican Church by marrying an Anglican.
Niels Bohr
Niels Henrik David Bohr [1885-1962] was a Danish physicist whose contributions to developing quantum physics and atomic structure earned him a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein [1889-1951] was an Austrian-born British philosopher of logic, mathematics, language and mind. contemporary Bertrand Russell described him as the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense and dominating."
Michael Polanyi
Michael Polanyi [1891-1976] was a Hungarian-born British polymath who made significant contributions to the fields of physical chemistry, economics, philosophy, theology and epistemology.
C.S. Lewis
Clive Staples Lewis [1898-1963], a.k.a. C.S. Lewis, was an Irish academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, and novelist who went on to become the most famous and influential lay-theologians and Christian apologists of the 20th century.
Johannes Gutenberg
Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg [1398-1468] was a German goldsmith and printer who invented the first moveable type mechanical printing press
Enrico Fermi
Enrico Fermi [1901-1954] was an Italian physicist most notable for his significant contributions to the development of quantum theory, nuclear and particle physics and statistical mechanics. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938 for his work on induced radioactivity and is considered to be among the leading scientists of the 20th century
Allan Sandage
Allan Rex Sandage [b. 1926] is an American astronomer, a student of famed cosmologist Edwin Hubble and regarded during his active career as the pre-eminent observational cosmologist in the world. He published the first reliable estimate of the Hubble parameter in 1958, then advocated an even lower value that corresponds to a Hubble age of about 20 billion years. He is credited with the discovery of quasars in 1964. His spectral studies of globular clusters led him to estimate their age as at least 25 billion years, suggesting that the universe didn't merely expand, but expands and contracts with a period of 80 billion years - a still controversial speculation, as current estimates of the age of the universe hover around 14 billion years. Sandage also discovered jets erupting from the core of the M-82 galaxy and theorized that these jets are caused by massive explosions in the core that have been ongoing for at least 1.5 million years.
The 50 Most Influential Christians of All Time


To claim the faith these people thought had enough evidence to justify committin gtheir life to, and the intelligence to evaluate that in detail is nonsense says more about the one claiming that than faith. It may in the end be wrong but it is anything but stupid.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I like the fact that you start with da Vinci who was so terrified of the church that he wrote in code and had to hide his work on anatomy for fear of being burned at the stake.

 

[cottage]

Why must it be an ontological argument?

I am in agreement with Kant who said there are, and can only be, three arguments to the existence of God. They are the Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument, and the Teleological Argument (or Argument from Design or ‘analogy, if you prefer). The latter two are inferential arguments, ie inductive, and so can never be conclusive, since there is no indubitable first principle involved.

In what way is dark matter (which I accept BTW) am more "legitimate" explenation for galaxy cohesion than God is for universe creation and a thousand other things he fits perfectly.

Look, I’m sorry but you are not really keeping up with what I’ve been saying. Multiverses, strings, black holes, and dark matter are hypotheses in the same place as God, metaphysical explanations, but with an important distinction to be made. Whereas every cosmological theory can and will in time be overturned, or superseded by others, it is only God believers who dogmatically refuse to allow anything to count against their belief-as-faith.