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

[1robin]

I still have a hard time understanding what Atheist mean by evil?

What do you have, an avatar rolodex? What does this one mean?

 

[Sha'irullah]

So is morality legislated by popular opinion? Is it simply specieism (whatever is good for humans)? Or is evil and good simply what a person likes or does not like. A conversation about moral apprehension is not very interesting. We both may apprehend that murder is bad. A God given conscience is about as perfect an explanation for that phenomenon as possible. A conversation about what grounds or founds what is actually right or wrong is where the weakness of the atheist's position lies. An atheist may be just as moral as anyone he simply can't sufficient show his actions are moral or "right" on atheism. The best atheists can do is a kind of almost arbitrary, majority approved, ethics. Nothing actually right or wrong has any meaning on atheism.

Morality is indeed legislated by popular opinion. It should not be so but most often people and especially secularist acquire their morality from popular opinion instead of reason. Morals are often created by personal thoughts of right and wrong and varying preferences held amongst a majority.
Morality does not abide by the classic Common Sense rule anymore and abides by government law and restriction. People have a bad habit in this day of age of confusing government law and morals as equivalents. This is where most atheists/secularist acquire their definition of morality.

 

[1robin]

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 propaganda up...I have seen many WTC documentaries...those towers weren’t supposed to collapse...even after the planes crashed...contrast the towers falling with a video of a routine skyscraper demolition..

Let's say you were right. Why would I adopt your view without knowing that, instead of the claims of thousands of more extreme Muslim's that do not consider you a Muslim. If it were one group a few hundred guys in one place doing this stuff that is one thing. It is leaders of nations, huge groups in many country’s, people who are so well funded that they have been pulling of very large operations for hundreds of years. It is like saying well the Baptists are all not Christian's. That is very hard for someone outside this faith to judge. BTW Muhammad killed all kinds of people, including raids for loot on caravans that did nothing against him. He killed a man who went around composing verse that many said were better than the Quran and he killed lady who child was stripped form her arms and then she was stabbed. Is he not considered a Muslim after that? What about his chopping off of feet and hands, not to mention heads, and then marrying their widows? There was no conspiracy about the WTC.

You say Osama bin Laden helped the US in Afghanistan and was paid handsomely for it..

Not exactly. He was not officially helping us, we were officially helping him. We supplied and traned the Muslims including Bin Laden (By the way watch Charlie Wilson's war, great acting and accurate history of that war). Yes we wanted to bloody Russia’s nose but this was not a war we chose so it is a little confusing. The point I was making is that if not for us the Russians would have run through that country in a week killing every Muslim that said boo. They then thanked us by using the money, weapons, and training camps to attack us and every other culture on earth. Strange way of thanking us.

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..

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting we paid him to blow up the twin towers so we could get bases in countries that are of no value to us? You are starting to sound like a whacko conspiracy theorist who alters history because the reality of true history does not meet his needs. I will grant you one possibility and I am a veteran and know better than most what went down . Bush was as fairly elected as any other president who takes money from deep pockets as donations. You can't buy tens of millions of votes. He was elected as fairly as any president. Neither he nor anyone in an official capacity ordered Osama or anyone else to hit the WTC. Now this is the one possibility I will give you. He might have decided to start with Iraq because Sadam had threaten his father's life. That is as far down the rabbit hole as I will go with your conspiracy's. They know everything there is to know about what went down concerning the WTC attacks. Our boys once they got going probably knew more about the attacks than Osama did. However no matter what the reason Bush hit Iraq it could not have worked out any better as a war on terror. We stomped the largest military in the reason into dust in about 10 days and once settled in for some reason the idiot terrorist thought they could worry us out of there with AKs, RPGs, and IED's. You could not have written manual on how to kill terrorists that would have worked any better. Instead of having to chase them through mountains, jungles, or caves. Those idiots were chasing us down. That is like a mouse chasing a saber tooth tiger down. Anyway that is enough war talk and I reject all conspiracies but might grant the possibility of Bushes’ hitting Iraq for the reason I gave. I served for 9 years during these wars and have worked ever since then in the military arms industry, in fact my boss is a two star who launched the second air war. There are few outside military intelligence, CIA, or a similar organization especially in a forum that would know more than I do about the general circumstances of both wars with Iraq and the one with Afghanistan.

 

[darkendless]

I think there was a miscommunication somewhere. I never said anything about the empirical quantity or quality of what argues for faith, I commented on your use or your seconding the word nonsense. We believe in a great many non-empirical things but only God is subject to the derision of a certain group and only they use "nonsense" to describe it. It is your burden of proof not mind. Also of course my faith is faith. We call it faith, we have the burden of faith and more than meet it. It is science that claims facts and yet makes conclusions (especially concerning things falsely used to counter God) that are based on more faith given less evidence that my beliefs require. It is the standards of science that are not being met not faith. I do not have time for hate. I have better things to do than debate with presence and a general dissatisfaction with reality. If you have an argument then present it. I have little desire to contend with emotion and the rhetoric it traffics in.

Why is the burden of proof on me? How convenient. I make no claims about divine powers, it's up to the believer to justify their faith.

I'm not making claims I cannot substantiate. Faith means nothing in a debate when trying to demonstrate anything to another person. I have faith in Tottenham Hotpur winning against FC Basel tonight but that's about it.

Science and faith are not reconcilable. Science does not try to disprove anything and anyone with credibility will tell you that you cannot analyse faith with science. I use the word nonsense because there is no more credibility for any major religious belief than the wooden horse of Troy which is considered a myth. The only thing that gives religion breath is weight of followers.

 

[darkendless]

I still have a hard time understanding what Atheist mean by evil?

Elitism at it's finest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your opinion is contrary to history. Give me one of Nostradamus prophecies (the best) I guarantee you I can superseded it in detail and accuracywith at least five. There are 350 plus for Christ alone. Where did Nostradamus match that?

350?

Tell you what: please give us the best one so we can see just how good it is. If the one you think is best doesn't pass muster, then we'll know we don't have to look at the other 349.

 

[1robin]

Morality is indeed legislated by popular opinion.

I think you missunderstood. I want to know why X is actually wrong or right not how law X was chosen. Morality may be chosen by opinion (actually that is impossible as well, your method produces what is legal not moral) but it can't become moral by voting for it. Let me show this. If voting made things morally correct then the persecution of Christ, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Ghandi was morally correct. A million people opinion about what is moral has no more power than one opinion to make it so. This is part of a modern secular moral chaos that is depressing to see being adopted. Let me give you a poem that illustrates what is actually happening. Not all of it would apply to you but I will bold the part that applies here.

"Creed” of the modern World
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44
I have never read anything that sums up the moral insanity that the absence of God produces that was more accurate and sufficient.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

It should not be so but most often people and especially secularist acquire their morality from popular opinion instead of reason. Morals are often created by personal thoughts of right and wrong and varying preferences held amongst a majority.

I talk about either moral perception or moral foundation. Epistemology and ontology. It seems you have found some strange hybrid "Epistontology" issue to discuss. Maybe I can make it more clearly by asking this. Show that the right and wrong exist as actual categories of truth without God. Or show that killing every human on earth is actually wrong without God.

Morality does not abide by the classic Common Sense rule anymore and abides by government law and restriction. People have a bad habit in this day of age of confusing government law and morals as equivalents. This is where most atheists/secularist acquire their definition of morality.

What you are describing isn't morality it is legality. People can make a thing illegal or legal by voting, what they can never do is make it wrong or right.
Let me clarify morality.
Religion justifies a belief in an objective morality that makes things right or wrong no matter who votes for what or who thinks what. Even if every human on earth thought raping a little girl was fine it would not be fine and they would are accountable for it even if not here. This is what everyone presumes exists but what only God allows.
Evolution allows for a morality based on survival. It isn't a moral morality, it is simply survival. Humans without God have no inherent worth or value, life has no sanctity or no equality. "morality" without God is arbitrary and has nothing to do with what is actually right or wrong but only what is preferred. Without God when humans demand that morality is whatever causes human flourishing it isn't morality it is specieism. When they say happiness is what drives morality, then why is morality mostly concerned with doing the opposite. When God is rejected actual morality is impossible and if posited anyway then since you have vacated the actual explanation and foundation for morality then everything and anything is forced into a vacuum it can't fill as a new explanation. Without God there exists no firm foundation for morality but again I want to make it clear that an atheist can perceive moral truth as I can but just can't explain it. This “problem” or deficiency is well known in professional circles and has been for thousands of years. It even existed in the Latin mallum en sea and mallum prohibitum concepts. If you want to really see the issues in stark contrast I suggest the Craig Harris “what grounds morality” debate.

Using your system if The Nazis would have won WW2 and converted or killed everyone that opposed them then eugenics and mass murder would be legal ethics and moral to you unless you abondoned your system.

 

[1robin]

350?

Tell you what: please give us the best one so we can see just how good it is. If the one you think is best doesn't pass muster, then we'll know we don't have to look at the other 349.

Hold the phone Mr. Penguin. I gave that challenge to Skeptical thinker (a misnomer) because he had the burden of proof in the context of our discussion. If you want to challenge the prophecies about Christ then that is fine but I will need to review who needs to prove what in our case. I am not sure your "conditions" are justified in my respect, and the prophecies were given strictly in a comparison with his assertion that Nostradamus was of like merit. BTW I have always wondered what is behind that penguin name you chose.

 

[1robin]

Why is the burden of proof on me? How convenient. I make no claims about divine powers, it's up to the believer to justify their faith.

You most certainly did. You said faith in God is nonsense. Prove it. Let me post what a far more informed and qualified scholar said on the issue.

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."

Or how about two of the greatest legal minds in human history Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst who both said the testimony contained in the gospels meets every standard of modern law and the historical method.

You are bucking some pretty heavy weight scholars here. Hope you invent some better explanations for it. When you have exhausted yourself with intellectual gymnastics to cough up inept and insufficient reasons to dismiss these guys I have plenty more so strap in.

I'm not making claims I cannot substantiate. Faith means nothing in a debate when trying to demonstrate anything to another person. I have faith in Tottenham Hotpur winning against FC Basel tonight but that's about it.

Faith is involved in every professional theology debate and most scientific debates. I think you grossly misunderstand the roll faith plays in everything. I can demonstrate that every single thing ever thought or determined is based on faith if necessary. My arguments establish faith in God as logically permissible and in some respects almost a logical imperative. I do not make well I believe so it is true arguments and that is the only type where faith is invalid.

Science and faith are not reconcilable. Science does not try to disprove anything and anyone with credibility will tell you that you cannot analyze faith with science. I use the word nonsense because there is no more credibility for any major religious belief than the wooden horse of Troy which is considered a myth. The only thing that gives religion breath is weight of followers.

Tell that to the idiots who invented the multiverse theory to get out of the very inconvenient God implicating actual universe we have. Reality is such an inconvenience to non-theists; it even drives many to sheer fantasy. The entire proposition of a multiverse exists on no evidence what so ever and what's worse it does not even have any potentiality for evidence. It requires more faith given les (NO) evidence that my faith does and is called science. If you wish to contend the presence of faith in science you have backed one sick horse. Faith is involved in abiogenesis, macro evolution, much of micro evolution, string theory, dark matter, the big bang, oscillating universes, in fact almost all of theoretical science as a whole.

 

[1robin]

Elitism at it's finest.

Who could possibly challenge scholarship of this caliber. Instead why don't you prove that killing everyone on earth is actually wrong without God or some transcendant standard?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who could possibly challenge scholarship of this caliber. Instead why don't you prove that killing everyone on earth is actually wrong without God or some transcendant standard?

How would God be any sort of standard, let alone a transcendent one?

If God exists, he's just another player in the game, and his commandments would no more define morality than the pronouncements of a human king would.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hold the phone Mr. Penguin. I gave that challenge to Skeptical thinker (a misnomer) because he had the burden of proof in the context of our discussion.

Yes, but you praised these 350 purported prophecies of Christ. I'd like to know how good these prophecies are.

If you want to challenge the prophecies about Christ then that is fine but I will need to review who needs to prove what in our case. I am not sure your "conditions" are justified in my respect, and the prophecies were given strictly in a comparison with his assertion that Nostradamus was of like merit.

Well, if it helps, I once read a book of Nostradamus' prophecies, and in general, I'd agree with Skeptical Thinker.

But what "conditions"? I haven't mentioned any conditions yet.

BTW I have always wondered what is behind that penguin name you chose.

It's a reference to a Douglas Adams book. I've explained it a few times over the years; here's one of them:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/956337-post178.html

 

[1robin]

How would God be any sort of standard, let alone a transcendent one?

What in the world was this? If there was any concept in human history more deserving of both labels I wish you would post it. God as a concept is the creator of the universe and all the natural law, time, matter and atheists it contains, he did not invent morality he is morality. Murder is wrong because his nature abhors it. There is not even a conceivable fantasy being that would be more deserving of these labels. The philosopher's God is a maximum in every great making characteristic. Either you misunderstood what I said or mistyped, or I misunderstood tour seeming simplistic response. Something did not make it through the mixer here. Unless you simply consider him so impossible that my making any positive claims about a possibility to you is invalid. NO, that isn't right either because the concept exist and justifies the labels even if God doesn't. I said all that to say what the heck are you talking about?

If God exists, he's just another player in the game, and his commandments would no more define morality than the pronouncements of a human king would.

This actually worse than the former statement you made. God as a concept created all the other "players" and exceeds every one of them by infinity in every great making property. God transcends nature himself. Something went very very wrong in your thinking here. I guess it is getting late.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What in the world was this? If there was any concept in human history more deserving of both labels I wish you would post it. God as a concept is the creator of the universe and all the natural law, time, matter and atheists it contains, he did not invent morality he is morality.

Please provide support for this claim.

Murder is wrong because his nature abhors it.

What makes you say this?

There is not even a conceivable fantasy being that would be more deserving of these labels.

In a way I agree with you, because I think that no being, including God, is capable of being the standard of morality.

The philosopher's God is a maximum in every great making characteristic. Either you misunderstood what I said or mistyped, or I misunderstood tour seeming simplistic response. Something did not make it through the mixer here. Unless you simply consider him so impossible that my making any positive claims about a possibility to you is invalid. NO, that isn't right either because the concept exist and justifies the labels even if God doesn't. I said all that to say what the heck are you talking about?

What I'm asking is for some reason why a pronouncement of God would define morality for us.

If you're arguing that God's wiser than us and has a better understanding of some external morality, I can kind of understand that... but I don't think that's what you're arguing, is it?

This actually worse than the former statement you made. God as a concept created all the other "players" and exceeds every one of them by infinity in every great making property.

So what?

I mean, all of that sounds very impressive, but how does any of that suggest that God has the power to define morality?

God transcends nature himself. Something went very very wrong in your thinking here. I guess it is getting late.

No, I think it's just that I'm questioning assumptions that are so ingrained in your viewpoint that you don't even realize that you're making them.

 

[1robin]

Please provide support for this claim.

I think you are confusing a burden of proof for a claim that God exists with one concerning what the concept of God would mean if true. That is what I thought was driving these strange claims you made.

What makes you say this?

Theologians, the most studied and cherished book in human history, theological philosophy, and common sense.

In a way I agree with you, because I think that no being, including God, is capable of being the standard of morality.

Then we do not agree. I was saying and you are more than smart enough to have understood that there exists no greater concept than God possible in this context not even in fantasy.

What I'm asking is for some reason why a pronouncement of God would define morality for us.

We are made in his image and to be accountable to him. IN what way are we not bound by his moral requirements? Look, you are justified in saying you do not think he exists. However what you are claiming about the concept of God is so absurd I keep thinking I am not seeing what I am seeing. We were specifically made and designed by a sufficient source to be subject to the sources requirements. Again in what way are we not?

If you're arguing that God's wiser than us and has a better understanding of some external morality, I can kind of understand that... but I don't think that's what you're arguing, is it?

That would be plenty and is a part. The other part is that he created for this roll and to be bound within his sovereignty and moral system and given more than sufficiency for that roll.

So what?
I mean, all of that sounds very impressive, but how does any of that suggest that God has the power to define morality?

God is not sitting around thinking "let's see is murder ok or not" Let's go with not for now. His very essence and nature makes murder abhorrent to that nature. IN no world, in no place, at no time is unjustified killing by us ever right. You might as well be asking what right does the sun have to make my pool water warmer. It is in the nature of the sun to warm, it is in the very nature of God to do X and not do Y. He did not create the goodness of love he is the goodness of love.

No, I think it's just that I'm questioning assumptions that are so ingrained in your viewpoint that you don't even realize that you're making them.

No, his existence is ingrained (by virtue of reason and evidence) but what his existence would mean morally is a logical necessity. It is not ingrained that the sun is warmer than "empty" space, it is a logical necessity of its nature to be. I actually waited around to see what went wrong here but I am not satisfied that I have any more information now so I will take another look tomorrow. Have a good afternoon your penguins.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you are confusing a burden of proof for a claim that God exists with one concerning what the concept of God would mean if true. That is what I thought was driving these strange claims you made.

No, for the purposes of this issue, I'm assuming for argument's sake that God exists.

Theologians, the most studied and cherished book in human history, theological philosophy, and common sense.

I have a dim view of most theologians, and I wonder whether you ever encountered the Euthyphro Dilemma in your study of theological philosophy.

Then we do not agree. I was saying and you are more than smart enough to have understood that there exists no greater concept than God possible in this context not even in fantasy.

Of course there exists a greater concept: a group of gods. If one god is great, more gods are greater... right?

Regardless, how does "greatness", or even maximal greatness, imply the ability to define morality?

We are made in his image and to be accountable to him. IN what way are we not bound by his moral requirements?

For argument's sake, let's say that God will punish us if we don't do what he tells us to do; what about this makes what he tells us to do necessarily moral?

Look, you are justified in saying you do not think he exists. However what you are claiming about the concept of God is so absurd I keep thinking I am not seeing what I am seeing. We were specifically made and designed by a sufficient source to be subject to the sources requirements. Again in what way are we not?

I really don't get your point here. What does any of this have to do with morality? Are you saying that as a general principle, creations have a moral obligation to obey the wishes of their creators?

That would be plenty and is a part. The other part is that he created for this roll and to be bound within his sovereignty and moral system and given more than sufficiency for that roll.

Again, I'm having trouble trying to figure out what you're saying here.

I get the idea that God might want us to do certain things. What I don't get is what makes those things necessarily good.

God is not sitting around thinking "let's see is murder ok or not" Let's go with not for now. His very essence and nature makes murder abhorrent to that nature. IN no world, in no place, at no time is unjustified killing by us ever right. You might as well be asking what right does the sun have to make my pool water warmer. It is in the nature of the sun to warm, it is in the very nature of God to do X and not do Y. He did not create the goodness of love he is the goodness of love.

I still don't see the reasons for the leap you're making. It seems like you're going from "God is what he is" (i.e. a tautology, or something that is by definition true but is useless for deriving conclusions) to "God is good". What goes in between?

Take your example of the Sun: some day, the Sun will use up its fuel and it will cease to be warm, but it won't cease to be the Sun. Warmness is not intrinsically part of the nature of the Sun; it is possible for the Sun to be cold. We can tell whether the Sun is hot or cold by measuring its temperature, and it's that temperature - i.e. a judgement of the Sun relative to an external standard - that lets us say that it's hot.

In a similar way, just as you need an external scale of temperature to define "warmness" to let you say "the Sun is warm", you would need an external standard of morality to define "goodness" in order to let you say "God is good".

 

[cottage]

Nope, it only exists in every religion in your head and that only by force. When Peter was said to have denied Christ three times was that vanity? When Christ washed the apostle’s feet (one of the humblest actions in human history) and the apostles allowed it to be recorded that in their spiritual blindness they recoiled from this necessary event. Was their allowing the story of their failure of God an act of pride or humility?

I’m not talking about an ancient tome, a story, or specific doctrines but the wider justification for religious beliefs. The vanity I’m referring to, and which you confirm by your response, is the belief that humankind have a special value, worth, or interest beyond that of the universe as a whole. Humans having a relationship with an All-sufficient Supreme Being, as well as being contradictory, is the height of human vanity. And Heaven too, is an example of vain self-regard. Why amongst all the other carbon-based life forms should humans single themselves out for reward and special consideration?

You want me to tell you what Simon Greeleaf said in a paper you read? I do not understand the context. He gave the actual methods by which evidence is judged reliable in law and examined the Bible using those means, I can't imagine what your asking for.

It is a very simple request. Just give me the argument, as you understand it, instead of constantly and fallaciously arguing to authority.

That is histories determination not mine, though I agree. No offense intended but until you co-found a Harvard law of your own or write the literal book on evidence then I will be going with his conclusions. If your position means you must tear down the Newton's, Greenleaf's, and Sandage's of the world you might want to rethink the position.

You are just name-dropping and not coming up with a single iota of substance. Just give me the argument, that’s all I’m asking.

I agree and since that is what I said then why bring it up. I can't read the third sentence and then continue to the third. That is as impossible as an effect arising without a cause. If this is your core argument then I would appreciate your posting it in response in its full glory as, as it is you say I missed something.

Excuse the typographical error. “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 (since the term ‘effect’ tautologically implies the term ‘cause’), and was unnecessary distraction when his argument had already demonstrated that cause was not necessary, since no matter of fact can 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.” Is that clear to you now?

Half of science involves extra-empirical claims, why is only faith (where these types of things belong) not permitted to make them. Cause and effect is not is not a phenomenon, it is an absolute brute fact that is not determined by natural law. It can be used to make a very valid argument (not proof) for God and has been for thousands of years and still is by very very competent scholars. I do not care what category or label or description you give it it is a very valid argument to consider and our academic betters on both sides do so in countless debates and discussions even if they ultimately disagree. See Lennox, Dawkins, Craig, Zacharias, Hitchens, Turek or even Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Kalam or hundreds more throughout history etc ad infinitum. It did however vary in form and substance over time. Whatever its faults, it is based on much better reasoning and on much more reliable observations that multiverses are based on. Yet the multiverse guys accuse the Cosmological argument guys of fault. What kind of reasoning is this and on what world is this logical?

What you refer to as ‘half of science’ are only metaphysical hypotheses, which cannot be settled by experimental reasoning. And in a single sentence you contradict yourself by saying cause and effect is a “brute fact not determined by natural law.” I shouldn’t need to keep explaining to you that all matters of fact are contingent, and that it isn’t a matter for speculation or opinion. If you cannot see the contradiction then your ‘brilliant scholars’, of any beliefs or none, will confirm it for you.
Almost any argument may be valid. For example:
All living creatures live on planet Zog
All humans are living creatures
All humans live on planet Zogg
The argument is valid given the logical necessity of the premises, but can only be sound if the premises and the conclusion are all true, which in this case they are not.
All matters of fact are contingent
Causation is a matter of fact
Causation is contingent
In this case the premises and the conclusion are true, therefore it is both valid and sound.

So far this is the only point you have made that has any merit IMO. I think it the central core that everything that you say is based on. It is also not something that applies to the arguments I use or at least I do not see how. I suggest you drop the rest and we peruse this alone as it is all that has potential at this point IMO.

So, you’re saying now that you agree with the argument from contingency, which is what Leibniz calls an argument from sufficient reason? So I will now turn it back on you once again to begin with a self-evident truth, which is to say that if the Supreme Being is All-Sufficient then he logically does not require to demonstrate what he is. And the attribute of omnipotence implies that he must do or has already done things, which is contradictory if he is All-Sufficient. His seeking a relationship with his creation is so evident an absurdity that it doesn’t even need explaining. So by the evidence of the world your God is not the Supreme Being. This is all simple logic.

My claim of brilliance is based on obvious qualification and consensus not authority. I use authority for what it is applicable to. I never said anything was true because X said so. I use authority to show it is intellectually valid even if contended only. If two people disagree then I know of no better grounds on which to add to the discussion than professional opinion. That is exactly what is done in court cases where death and life are in the balance and see no reason whatever it does not apply to theology. In fact theology depends on the capability and sincerity of its prognosticators. The very first response of most to claims that can’t be proven is oh yeah who says and it is the most valid question.

And what about all the ‘brilliant scholars’, including theologians, who disagree? Are their arguments not to be taken into account? I’m sorry but this is an utterly ridiculous way to conduct a debate. Okay so you want to add to the discussion by introducing ‘professional opinion’? So what is the professional opinion then: What exactly are those brilliant scholars saying?

 

[cottage]

No it is with me and what I rely on. Where and why I adopted an argument from is about as relevant an issue as possible if impassable person dissagreement has dead locked a discussion..

The discussion isn’t deadlocked; it is waiting for you to support your claims. Give me the argument you say you’ve adopted. If you know what the argument is then let’s have it?

Any complaints about my methods are eclipsed by the methods that resulted in strings or multiverses as legitimate scientific theories and God as not. Again I do not know why but every format instruction you employ shows up as text in your posts.

They are the same! All are metaphysical hypotheses that cannot be derived from experimental reasoning (induction) or from purely logical means (deduction).

 

[cottage]

I did not realize I used "stupid". Substitute whatever you actually said for stupid and re-evaluate. I bet it won't affect much of anything. Your argumentation counters an ontological argument I do not use. I saw no application to the cosmological argument sufficient to affect it. Please restate it if you think I missed something but I caution you I do not tolerate any insinuation that faith is the result of ignorance or stupidity. Not because it is offensive alone but mainly because it isn't true.

Now you’re just setting up a Straw Man. I have never, ever said or implied that faith is the result of “ignorance or stupidity.” And I will thank you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Read the quote that you are responding to! I said: “I have very clearly stated an argument that leads to a logical absurdity and, to demonstrate such, while it may show that a proposition is nonsense, it most certainly is not an ad hominem attack in any respect.” I’m very surprised that you don’t seem to know the difference between insulting or ridiculing someone for their faith and showing that a proposition or argument is nonsensical or absurd.