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

[Monotheist 101]

Once again, that is not my point. It is a silly exercise but let's say every command to kill the unbelievers, to lie in wait, and to lop of heads is a defensive command. Why are they stated so ambiguously that large groups of sincere Muslim's "wrongly" think they allow them to blow up their own people, us, Jews, or basically anyone that offends them in any way including their own daughters and cartoonists. Why couldn't Allah have been clear enough to avoid 1500 years of terror and the acquisition of land in his own name? Christianity has had people to appropriate Bible to justify violence, but not near as much. When the crusaders invaded it was because the Islamic Turks were killing pilgrims not because Christ said anything that allowed it. Actually they were not Christians at all but corrupt secular European lord’s, but adopted a Christian banner to justify the land and wealth they wished to steal. I unlike most Muslim’s after 9/11 condemn what the crusaders did, but they did not invade because Christ or the apostles ever made a verse that allowed it even given misused context, verses as violent as the vast numbers in the Quran simply do not exist in any form in the NT, they did so because the pope said they should not a single Biblical author. They claimed God wills it, but could not point to a single scripture in any context in the NT that allowed violence of any kind. That is the difference. The Quran is in large part surah’s about very ambiguous allowances for violence that are so unclear it allows this "mistaken" understanding to exist in vast segments of Islam. Even vast numbers of the "moderate ones" danced in the streets when 3000 innocent people were murdered in the twin towers. Even when Bin Laden (the guy who did it) was killed I did not dance in the street nor saw anyone who did, and that was not Christian retaliation, it was secular retribution and future terror prevention.

The problem isnt the verses...its lack of reading them on an individual level..I mean people go to...religious posers (terrorist leaders)..and because they dont know anything about Islam and how it specifically states in the Quran:

4.29. O you who believe! Do not consume one another's wealth in wrongful ways (such as theft, extortion, bribery, usury, and gambling), except it be dealing by mutual agreement; and do not destroy yourselves (individually or collectively by following wrongful ways like extreme asceticism and idleness. Be ever mindful that) God has surely been All-Compassionate toward you.

4.30. Whoever acts wrongfully through enmity (toward others) and by way of deliberate transgression and wronging (both himself and others), We will surely land him in a Fire to roast therein (the like of which you have never seen, and the degree of whose intensity none knows except God); that indeed is easy for God.

It is not the Quran or God messages fault that these people blow themselves up..they havent read anything by themselves..they hang on to the words of those they regard as more religious or learned then them...I think the person blowing himself is solely responsible for his actions not God or the Quran..

 

[Monotheist 101]

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.

You fail to see that anyone who kills an innocent or himself..has taken himself out of the fold of Islam..and cannot be considered a muslim..Personally I think the problem of Islam's name being used to commit acts of terror has a deeper lying purpose(propoganda).. Did you know that the US armed the same Taliban that blew up the WTC, in Libya..they had been locked up by Gaddafi because of their extreme views and support of Osama bin Laden..how did the Libyan rebels get brand new US military equipment? The Media is an effective tool when it comes to riling hatred against Islam..(The Russian Satellites couldnt see any violence in Libya..when the US channels were showing chaos on the streets of Libya) ..Unfortunately people like you lap that propoganda up...I have seen many WTC documentaries...those towers werent supposed to collapse...even after the planes crashed...contrast the towers falling with a video of a routine skyscraper demolition..

You say Osama bin Laden helped the US in Afghanistan and was paid handsomely for it..IMO he stayed on the payroll...how many countries has the US invaded (bases built) since the WTC tragedy started the "War on Terror".. Please look into the Bush family history..you will understand why an idiot like Bush Jr..can become President... I even found the circumstances of his win against Al Gore..suspicious..

 

[1robin]

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.

I am not defending the Catholic Church, which he was baptized into BTW. In fact if you want to contend with it I may want to help. I contending the claim that faith in a personal creator God is Nonsense by pointing out some of history’s most sensible people believed in him. A list of sciences who's who reads like a Christian roster. There is no merit whatever in suggesting faith is irrational or unjustified. Catholic Church history is a whole other matter.

 

[Monotheist 101]

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.

I think you misunderstood..or the way I type maybe confusing...

You just justified that you have to hate something evil...As a Muslim I dont have to hate evil rather avoid or protect myself from it..Allah doesnt command me to hate anyone..

Why was Isaac favoured over Ishmael...rewarded less can be considered punishment... is the glass half empty or half full?

 

[Monotheist 101]

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.

Dogs a beautiful Rottweiller.. about a year and half old.

Im actually an American international Student...grew up in Long Island NY..moved around quite a bit growing up..have lived in Saudi Arabia for 5 years in my teens

Look forward to sharing my scary spiritual experiences with you

 

[1robin]

[/font]

[/font][/font][/font]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.

I do not know what is going on with the formatting in your posts but format instructions by the score show up as text. Not that I mind that. By what method did he determine what three arguments may be used and why would that be true, binding on me, or binding on anyone. I (and billions of people) have perfectly justifiable and sufficient grounds for personal faith for two simple reasons. I (and billions of others) followed the Bible and received the supernatural experience it guaranteed and that did not use any of the arguments Kant mentioned. Philosophers in many ways superior to Kant hold to some or all of the arguments that I mentioned. William Craig, Ravi Zacharias, are but two and they, others, nor I am bound by Kant’s conclusions. Countless people claim to have witnessed God instigated miracles (some have thousands of witnesses, though I am very skeptical about these claims) and if just one person is right then that makes Kant’s already wrong argument into a worse one. I know what is next so let me head it off. Many people (but only the slightest fraction compared to miracles) claim to have witnessed UFO activity. I do not believe they have visited Earth though I do not deny they exist, yet I will not discount their claims without serious investigation and am open to them. [/font][/color]

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.

Not only is this not even possible in many cases, in others even things that have been overturned are still believed. There are currently a few cosmologists that hold to a modified steady state model. I have quotes somewhere where two indicated why they are doing so: They said the theological implication of the Big Bang are so distasteful they reject them. That isn't science. Admittedly there only a few. For multiverses in particular and dark matter possibly no potential evidence will be available to confirm or over turn the theory. Not to mention the evidence for God is massive and the evidence for multiverses is non-existent. Strings will probably never go away though currently they have achieved the status of a bad joke. However a bad joke was once referred to as cutting edge science and used in arguments against God. Abiogenesis is considered a for gone conclusion even in spite of the fact confirmation of it is nonexistent, no single example has ever been observed, and every test fails miserably. It survives on preference not evidence and preference will never go away. In contrast to what you claim I have already said an eternal universe would be a good argument against the Biblical God and I can list a hundred more so I simply reject you claim that I will not allow evidence to challenge faith.

 

[1robin]

I think you misunderstood..or the way I type maybe confusing...

You just justified that you have to hate something evil...As a Muslim I dont have to hate evil rather avoid or protect myself from it..Allah doesn’t command me to hate anyone..

I hate evil but I do not normally hate a person who does evil because I do as well on occasion. If you do not hate evil and the misery it causes then I regard that as a fault but that is certainly your right. Allah sure seems to hate or at least "love not" countless things. I do not have a problem with that unless it is unjust and that would depend on context. God hates evil for the same reasons I mentioned above, and in a verse or two he hated a person. I find nothing objectionable about that. It is a little inconsistent with the public (soft and sweet) perception of God but that perception is wrong. God hates the misery our rebellion and sin causes and he should. In Christianity we say that we hate the sin not the sinner.

Why was Isaac favored over Ishmael...rewarded less can be considered punishment... is the glass half empty or half full?

The blessing were not a reward and the degree of blessing was not punishment. God gave Isaac what he did because of what he was trying to accomplish and the fact that he was the true son of the Abrahamic covenant that looked forward to the nation of Israel. Ishmael merited nothing yet received many blessings. In what way can anyone complain? If you and another man are standing on the street and I gave him ten and you 5 dollars, neither one would merit the money and I have my own reasons for doing as I did. You and he received money you did not earn or have a right to. No one has any reason to complain or yell foul.


If you can comment on what you think was wrong about the blessings or in hating evil then I might be able to elaborate more directly within that context. I see nothing amiss in either context.

 

[1robin]

Dogs a beautiful Rottweiller.. about a year and half old.

Im actually an American international Student...grew up in Long Island NY..moved around quite a bit growing up..have lived in Saudi Arabia for 5 years in my teens

Look forward to sharing my scary spiritual experiences with you

Rottweiler’s scare me. I do not think I would have a pet that can potentially take me out.

What were they originally bread to do?

At what point and why did you adopt Islam?

I am fascinated by spiritual events on both sides of the scale. I have no reason to doubt you but all of these issues are scrutinized by me in depth. However the Catholic Church (who gets little of anything right) I can applaud for their spiritual warfare efforts, but they are more skeptical that most non theists are, for liability reasons I imagine. I thought about investigating demonic activity officially but decided I did not want to risk that stuff following me home. I will get a one on one thread set up this weakend and let you know. I have been busy troubleshooting F-15 LRU's all day.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I am not defending the Catholic Church, which he was baptized into BTW. In fact if you want to contend with it I may want to help. I contending the claim that faith in a personal creator God is Nonsense by pointing out some of history’s most sensible people believed in him. A list of sciences who's who reads like a Christian roster. There is no merit whatever in suggesting faith is irrational or unjustified. Catholic Church history is a whole other matter.

Let me propose a hypothetical situation to show you why the list is simply not a valid means by which to attempt to support your position: Every single person on earth in the past, the present and the future are atheists, not one of them have ever considered the existence of a supernatural dimension and found it in the slightest bit one they could personally believe in. Would that mean that the case for god was diminished? Would simply the fact that no one believes in god mean the idea was false or foolish? Would it somehow magically make the unfalsifiable assertion of a supernatural order falsifiable? No.

So why would you attempt to point out that the reverse - that there have been people on earth who have made contributions to society who were believers in god (though some of those people I believe were not theists, some deists and so forth) as a way to attempt to support the notion as being valid. It certainly is not their belief (or lack thereof) in a god that they are remembered for or was their contribution to society... Bell's support of the practice of eugenics lends it no more validity than your claim (which i am not so sure on) he believed in god.

 

[1robin]

Let me propose a hypothetical situation to show you why the list is simply not a valid means by which to attempt to support your position: Every single person on earth in the past, the present and the future are atheists, not one of them have ever considered the existence of a supernatural dimension and found it in the slightest bit one they could personally believe in. Would that mean that the case for god was diminished? Would simply the fact that no one believes in god mean the idea was false or foolish? Would it somehow magically make the unfalsifiable assertion of a supernatural order falsifiable? No.

So why would you attempt to point out that the reverse - that there have been people on earth who have made contributions to society who were believers in god (though some of those people I believe were not theists, some deists and so forth) as a way to attempt to support the notion as being valid. It certainly is not their belief (or lack thereof) in a god that they are remembered for or was their contribution to society... Bell's support of the practice of eugenics lends it no more validity than your claim (which i am not so sure on) he believed in god.

That was quite odd:
1. I never said anything what so ever about God being true because a bunch of people or a large portion of scientists had or have faith.
2. I never suggested Christianity was true because Christians have contributed more than any other group to academics.
3. What I did say is that large numbers of brilliant, highly educated, men of science who had or have a greater ability to reason and investigate than most and who were by nature very thorough having faith, is an undeniable argument for the theoretical or personal sufficiency of the evidence.

It was a response to a claim that faith in the Biblical God was nonsense. When many of the top scholars in every field of study like law, physics, mathematics, and history have faith, it is certain that the evidence is substantial and not nonsense. God may be real or he may be false but there is more than enough evidence to justify faith, even if he did not exist. I have no idea why you countered claims I never made, nor would ever make, as arguments from authority and majority are fallacies.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Personal sufficiency yes - validity no; even were 100% of all people to believe a claim that does not mean it is not nonsense.

That is all I was indicating - that your use of the fact that some intelligent people have at times believed a claim to be true does not mean it is not a completely fallacious (not merely wrong) claim. Indeed especially when many of the people you claim to support the idea had extremely different theological positions yet you try to claim them as 'christians' such as (here are three in a row) Leibniz who suggested that jesus had no real role in the universe and didnt think he performed miracles, Smith who was a deist who thought people ascribed the unknown to gods out of superstition and Washington point blank refused to take communion and when the issue was pushed, refused to go to church on days when there was communion, did not request a christian minister at his death bed and explicitly refused to say one way or the other whether he was in fact a christian despite how willing you are to claim him as such - though I suppose you are less willing to hasten to claim some of the less undesirable (and indeed less mentally stable) christians in history to support the position.

But even were I to pretend to believe that each of these people were devout christians, the idea of using such a list to support a position is a fallacy, it does not indicate either that the position is valid or that it is NOT nonsense - only that these individuals for their own reasons, found practicing the religion to be helpful or desirable or an affirmation of their beliefs, that doesnt mean they were not engaging in a nonsensical concept.

Such a list neither enhances nor detracts from the validity of your position, it might serve to enhance or detract from your argument - but either would be a fallacious effect because the list is immaterial to the position's validity.

 

[cottage]

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.

What evidence is there to show that religious belief is anything other than human vanity, since human vanity is present in every aspect of religious faith?

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.

Would you like to give me what you consider to be the thrust of Dr Greenleaf’s arguments and the main points of what he believes should count as evidence? For if you maintain he is one of history’s most gifted experts then you might want to see read my objections? We will be specifically discussing his Testimony of the Evangelists.

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.

This has nothing to do with quantum physics and it seems you’ve not read what I actually wrote in that paragraph! Please read the third sentence and then continue to the third, which sums up the argument that I’ve been making throughout.

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.

'Brilliant scholars' apart, whatever you say cause is – and it is you who are proposing purely speculative assertions, not me – it remains the case that it is not a logical phenomenon, and that is all I’m saying. But you are making extra-empirical claims that you cannot support.

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.

It seems we are in agreement as to God’s limitations; he can only do what is logically possible.

And I have to tell you that argument from contingency is an accepted and essential part of the Cosmological (or causal) Argument because if the world need not exist (and every scrap of contingent matter can be conceived not to exist) then, according to the argument, we can only account for its existence when we arrive at its cause. In essence this is no different from saying that everything that begins to exist, ergo, being contingent, need a cause for its existence, which cannot itself be contingent and so has always existed. And this cause, or so the argument goes, will be God a personal being who makes free choices. It is not an ontological argument; it is a causal argument, in other words it argues (cosmologically) from the perceived structure or origin of the universe.

From the things you say it seems your understanding of ‘brilliance’ appears to be based on deference and an argument from authority rather than the arguments themselves? And if you want to argue from authority then you should know that ‘brilliant’ scholars’, both theist and sceptic, such as Aquinas, Bertrand Russell, Immanuel Kant, and Paul Tillich et al have also rejected the ontological argument - but even my saying this to you is ridiculous, for in every case an argument from authority is no argument at all.


]

 

[cottage]

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.

My discussion is with you and not with a third party. Although on forums such as this one we often just articulate the overall premise of the argument. But we don’t need to be told an argument is sound because such-and-such said so. An argument is to be judged by what is expounded, not by the reputation of its author.

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.

I’m not grandly ordaining what may or may not be discussed. Science self-evidently can only concern itself with the natural world because that is what science is. But we need to remember that science is a series of probabilities founded on what is known to have gone before, and can never be logically certain. And if it is argued that we can venture beyond experience I believe it is entirely reasonable to enquire how exactly that is to be done.

 

[cottage]

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

Theists claim that God gave us our moral code. If human existence is a fact, then something must account for the continuity of our species and our survival in the face of countless threats to our continued existence. That something can be thought of as composed of a necessary self-regard together with the phenomenon commonly known as the law of cause and effect. And where does this law of cause and effect come from? Experience. We learn that fire burns and water suffocates. Without the benefit of experience we would have no way of knowing whether a leaden object might be buoyant and float upon water and whether a feather might sink. Similarly experience teaches us that theft and murder are wrong, wrong not because of an absolute moral law but because those things are harmful, and what harms one human can self-evidently harm all humans.

There is no Universal Moral Law, only instinct and the lessons of cause and effect, and where every action is predicated upon the prior self. And it evidently works very well indeed. But if this assertion (that the self is prior to all human action) is in doubt, there are two ways in which it can be tested, the empirical method and the logical method. First the empirical method, which is simply this: identify even one human action that doesn’t have a selfish motive? The logical argument is that whatever action a human takes it must be the case that the consideration of the self is necessarily prior to the action
taken, whether it be bringing a child into the world, belief in God, or the decision to commit suicide. To demonstrate the point, you cannot for example believe in God unless you first believe that you yourself exist (this should not be taken to mean that the term ‘you’ represents an actual metaphysical entity). Further, if there were a Moral Law then it would be an objective standard, a set of principles that are demonstrably true. Whereas, in fact, the moral standard varies with the needs of the individual (the self), governments, religions, sects and nations etc. There is no absolute moral law that cannot be overturned, ignored,modified or adapted to suit what is agreeable or useful to the party or parties involved. A belief that something is done for the ‘right reasons’ is therefore subjective, and demonstrates at once that moral ‘law’ isn’t objective. We do what we do because it works, and if it doesn’t work we don’t do it. Undeniably there is always the element of self-interest involved.

Of course there is nothing wrong in our pleasing or helping ourselves as a by-product of helping others. All I’m saying here is that our instincts and reactions are necessarily self-centred. Even those with the most fervent and devout beliefs will at times find those beliefs tested by an element of doubt. But the greater good that can never be doubted is an abiding self-interest common to all people. And if we should think otherwise it is but a simple matter to prove, for to doubt is to reflect upon and give consideration to the prior self. And this abiding self-interest is certainly more elemental and necessary than any religious belief. In any action, event, thought or conception the self is absolutely prior. Even those who give up their lives for their God, or gods, are first giving consideration to the prior self. God must logically come second. There can be none who believe in God who do not, at times, allow themselves a small element of doubt, and there will be those who have their faith severely tested at times. But in the case of abiding self-interest there can never, ever, be any cause for the smallest measure of doubt. Even doubting itself is reflecting upon and giving consideration to the self.Every thought or action having an element of selfishness, underpinned by a logical imperative, self-evidently rejects the argument that there is a moral code given to us by God for some greater purpose.
[/quote]

 

[cottage]

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.

"Baseless criticisms". I've have given you proper logical demonstrations, none of which you'e refuted. You've simply ploughing on with arguments from or to authority, as you've done again at the foot of the page.

And exactly what do you mean by "getting close to the unacceptable threshold"? Surely your faith isn't so fragile it cannot stand examination by unbelievers? And 'far smarter than me'! I don't claim to 'smart', while you seem to be constanly on the verge of wanting to insult me for my views.

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:

 

[cottage]

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 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.

Why are you using emotional terms like "stupid", which is not a term attributable to me? I have very clearly stated an argument that leads to a logical absudity and, to demonstrate such, while it may show that a proposition is nonsencal it most certainly is not an ad hominem attack in any respect. It is clear to me that you are not familiar with this form of agumentation and take offence on behalf of others as a result.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It might perhaps be useful to note that nonsensical and nonsense are very different terms, the use of the term nonsensical while apt at times can cause quite a bit of ire due to the association many people make with the term nonsense which is often used as a value judgement or dismissal while nonsensical describes the characteristic of a claim or statement etc where it is not readily understandable, that it is difficult (or even impossible) for sense to be made of the statement by the respondent.

 

[cottage]

I do not know what is going on with the formatting in your posts but format instructions by the score show up as text. Not that I mind that. By what method did he determine what three arguments may be used and why would that be true, binding on me, or binding on anyone.

Actually I’ll give you my reasons for the above as I go somewhat further than Kant’s statement. Now although Kant said there are three arguments to the existence of God, it is obvious that the two inferential arguments cannot be stated without reference to causation. The cosmological argument speaks for itself and the Argument from Design implies a designer by analogy, which is to say a designer caused the world to be what it is, a further example of an effect requiring a cause. It is the case that whatever argument is employed to reason to God it can only be by means of a causal explanation, since in all cases cause must be a necessary factor, or an ontological demonstration from pure logic may be used. And if those arguments can be used to argue to deities then of course the contrary of those arguments can be used to deny them.

I (and billions of people) have perfectly justifiable and sufficient grounds for personal faith for two simple reasons. I (and billions of others) followed the Bible and received the supernatural experience it guaranteed and that did not use any of the arguments Kant mentioned. Philosophers in many ways superior to Kant hold to some or all of the arguments that I mentioned. William Craig, Ravi Zacharias, are but two and they, others, nor I am bound by Kant’s conclusions. Countless people claim to have witnessed God instigated miracles (some have thousands of witnesses, though I am very skeptical about these claims) and if just one person is right then that makes Kant’s already wrong argument into a worse one. I know what is next so let me head it off. Many people (but only the slightest fraction compared to miracles) claim to have witnessed UFO activity. I do not believe they have visited Earth though I do not deny they exist, yet I will not discount their claims without serious investigation and am open to them. [/font][/color]

But of course you and your billions can justify your personal faith. Far be it from me to tell what you may or may not believe! My spat with you is about the arguments, not your right to believe whatever you wish.
You make assertions that you never support, such as ‘Philosophers in many ways superior to Kant’ and ‘Kant’s already wrong argument.’ If you’re stating that they’re inferior or wrong it is incumbent upon you to show how his arguments are inferior or wrong. Please stop making those sweeping statements.
If ‘aliens visited the Earth’ is a serious claim then indeed it would warrant a serious investigation, the observers to be interviewed and a search undertaken at the places they identified and if aliens were found then it is the case that aliens are not just possible but actually exist. But a claim that aliens visited the Earth 2000 plus years ago might be difficult to substantiate, and if it was claimed that it was a particular alien, the son of a superior alien who created the Earth, then I think we would have to reasonably conclude that such a claim was in the realms of mythology – or fantasy.

Not only is this not even possible in many cases, in others even things that have been overturned are still believed. There are currently a few cosmologists that hold to a modified steady state model. I have quotes somewhere where two indicated why they are doing so: They said the theological implication of the Big Bang are so distasteful they reject them. That isn't science. Admittedly there only a few. For multiverses in particular and dark matter possibly no potential evidence will be available to confirm or over turn the theory. Not to mention the evidence for God is massive and the evidence for multiverses is non-existent. Strings will probably never go away though currently they have achieved the status of a bad joke. However a bad joke was once referred to as cutting edge science and used in arguments against God. Abiogenesis is considered a for gone conclusion even in spite of the fact confirmation of it is nonexistent, no single example has ever been observed, and every test fails miserably. It survives on preference not evidence and preference will never go away. In contrast to what you claim I have already said an eternal universe would be a good argument against the Biblical God and I can list a hundred more so I simply reject you claim that I will not allow evidence to challenge faith.

There is no actual evidence for a metaphysical notion, whether that is for the biblical God, the eternity of the world, or dark matter, and nor can there be ‘evidence to challenge faith.’ There can only be arguments in either case. The ‘evidence’ you speak of is nothing more than a willingness to believe that what is argued or stated is true, but the only truths are those that are self-evident. If God presented himself to the world in a way that no living person could possibly deny as the Supreme Being, then that would be evidence for the truth of what is claimed. And it’s a wholly reasonable argument to make, for isn’t that what a Supreme Being is supposed to be: a God of the world, of all people?

 

[cottage]

It was a response to a claim that faith in the Biblical God was nonsense. When many of the top scholars in every field of study like law, physics, mathematics, and history have faith, it is certain that the evidence is substantial and not nonsense. God may be real or he may be false but there is more than enough evidence to justify faith, even if he did not exist. I have no idea why you countered claims I never made, nor would ever make, as arguments from authority and majority are fallacies.

With respect, you have made arguments to or from authority in the following posts: 899; 900; 914; 952; 957; 958; 963, and 966.

And please would you state where in any of the posts you are responding to you have seen the term 'nonsense' used?

 

[cottage]

Personal sufficiency yes - validity no; even were 100% of all people to believe a claim that does not mean it is not nonsense.

That is all I was indicating - that your use of the fact that some intelligent people have at times believed a claim to be true does not mean it is not a completely fallacious (not merely wrong) claim. Indeed especially when many of the people you claim to support the idea had extremely different theological positions yet you try to claim them as 'christians' such as (here are three in a row) Leibniz who suggested that jesus had no real role in the universe and didnt think he performed miracles, Smith who was a deist who thought people ascribed the unknown to gods out of superstition and Washington point blank refused to take communion and when the issue was pushed, refused to go to church on days when there was communion, did not request a christian minister at his death bed and explicitly refused to say one way or the other whether he was in fact a christian despite how willing you are to claim him as such - though I suppose you are less willing to hasten to claim some of the less undesirable (and indeed less mentally stable) christians in history to support the position.

But even were I to pretend to believe that each of these people were devout christians, the idea of using such a list to support a position is a fallacy, it does not indicate either that the position is valid or that it is NOT nonsense - only that these individuals for their own reasons, found practicing the religion to be helpful or desirable or an affirmation of their beliefs, that doesnt mean they were not engaging in a nonsensical concept.

Such a list neither enhances nor detracts from the validity of your position, it might serve to enhance or detract from your argument - but either would be a fallacious effect because the list is immaterial to the position's validity.

A fair and non-partisan analysis, which I believe is entirely accurate, summarised succinctly for us in the final paragraph.