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

[cottage]

Once again I do use authority but never to prove anything is true. I use it to support its intellectual permissibility. I am tiring of these invalid accusations.

It is fallacious! You are contantly using an appeal to authority to make your case, to say it is more reasonable to believe that "brilliant schollar" X is correct in what he says, but not because of what X says but because X is 'brilliant." That is the classic example of an appeal to authority.

You betcha:

This is an unmitigated rant not supportable on any level.

It's hardly a rant, is it? Now look at post 1020 and give me your comments.

 

[roger1440]

I have noticed this is a very active thread. There are over 1000 replies. As far as I can tell, no one has asked a very simple question. To quote Voltaire, “Please define your terms.” What do you mean by “children”? Is this a person under the age of 21 or maybe 18 or perhaps under 12? Once we determine what age God uses then we have to determine what calendar God uses. Does God use the Gregorian calendar or maybe the Julian calendar? Maybe God doesn’t use any solar calendar. It could be God uses a lunar calendar. This is important. When was George Washington born? The answer depends on who you ask. During his life time we had switched from Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. This is a difference of two weeks. Funny thing is some people actually thought at the time of the switch they would live two weeks less. How would God calculate someone’s age if that person was born February 29th? February 29th occurs only once every four years using our current calendar. During non-leap years is there birthday February 28th or March 1st? About 153,000 people die every day on the planet. That amounts to about 1.78 deaths per second. If it took you only a minute to read my reply to your post, over 100 people had died. Also, some children mature faster than others. How would God fit that into the equation? I could go on and on, but I think I made my point. Again, define “children”?

 

[1robin]

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.

I think you have got a horse and a cart problem here. We find the Biblical God to be true and therefore we are special. Not the other way around. Let me illustrate how many things have to be mixed up just in this single context to deny faith.
1. You have to suggest that vanity is the justification for faith. That is not even a valid theory. Christianity is founded on the most humble admissions and action even theoretically possible. To apply vanity to that is about the most desperate thing possible.
2. Even the false label of vanity based on "your chosen" evaluation of a doctrine is invalid. Whatever "specialness" exists in Christianity is derivative not causal.
3. When I was born again by accepting Christ it was for the exact opposite reason than you gave. It was the realization that I had utterly failed and needed forgiveness. Nothing could possibly be more humble than that.
4. Atheists adopt the exact same principle in their ambiguous efforts to validate morality but given no source. Atheism claims that human flourishing is the goal of morality. That is about the most vain concept possible especially because their is no justification for why our flourishing is more important that cow of tree flourishing is. It simply assumes vanity. My faith however gives a foundation, reason, and comprehensive justification for our worth and value which allows no vanity possible because the worth has nothing to do with me.
Vanity is one terrible excuse to dismiss biblical theology. The Bible cover to cover is filled with maximal humility by almost all characters. The few exceptions where vanity arises it is punished by God. A religion the indicates that pride is one of the most diabolical of all sins is not based in vanity.

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

You actually want me to list the hundreds of reasons why Greenleaf indicated the gospels meet legal standards? I will give you a few only:
1. It meets every standard of the principle of embarrassment. The Apostles constantly recorded their own failures. Failures of a type that is impossible to surpass for shame and humility.
2. It meets the sincerity standard. They suffered a life time of misery, poverty, and hardship including jail and death for some for a message they knew was a lie if it actually was. They gained no worldy reward worthy of the label.
3. It has multiple attestation.
4. The documents bear all age parkers appropriate to their time frame.
5. There exists not a single contemporary counter claim. They were written within the lifetimes of thousands of witnesses to the events recorded within them. Not a single "I was there and X did not happen" claim exists.

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.

Since I believe you have already read Greenleaf's testimony of the apostles and Newton wrote more on God than science and since Sandage has been called the greatest cosmologist off all time and his works on theology are available everywhere then instead of posting 5000 pages of texts I gave the names only. If you do not like that it is your problem not mine. Besides the point the names were used for needed only the names and not all their combined works.

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?

It has been clear "what" you are saying from Go. What is still unclear as "why". Once we have a triangle then it's mode of being is irrelevant. Once we have a universe then we need a cause. I do not care if the universe is contingent, necessary, or any other term applied to it to obscure a simple principle. We have a universe and we require a cause the universe does not have within it.

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.

I do not care what label you slap on these issues. Scientists claim they are science and they are pure fantasy. That would not be objectionable by its self if it were not for their classifying faith based assertions even when the evidence infinitely exceeds the no evidence they have for their claims as invalid. That is where the crap must stop. They may fantasize all they wish and even suck up millions in grant money in the process but at least consistent standards should be expected.
Brute facts and more precisely laws are things which have no known exception. Cause and effect are of this type. These semantic gymnastics are wearing this. There exists no reason whatever to suggest the universe is causeless no matter what terms are spun up. As for the brilliant scholar how about one from your side.
David Hume, (1711-1776) the skeptic admitted, it is absurd to deny the principle of cause.
“I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.”[3]
http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Godlogical3/
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

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.

Then give me a single example out of the virtually infinite of test cases available where an effect did not require a cause. Until you can then my claim is consistent with facts without exception and all the linguistic gyrations in your quiver will that any less significant or reasonable.

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.

Nope it's all simply wrong. You have basically pulled God out of the Bible by his ears and brushed the entire context away and then re dressed him in a context that you have chosen for a purpose. God can make a relationship with man anytime he wishes. He could create us as automatons which have no choice. That is not his purpose though it's seems that you think so. He wished to create a being with freewill who through love can choose to establish a relationship with him. It is easy to see the stupidity of the former and the worth of the latter. God is also personal meaning he can chose to act. He is not a brute force that must either have always produced all effects it is capable of or never have. He is also not obligated to produce a maximal world in any respect. What you say might apply to some natural force currently unknown of a theoretical concept dreamed up for some reason it most certainly has little to nothing to do with the concept of God in the Bible.

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?

I debate as I see fit, it has worked for years. I have become aware of so many arguments by so many people and have so limited time that I must gauge when and where I expand them. If you claim faith is nonsense, then all that is necessary to show the claim is nonsense is to give the names of a sufficient number of experts in certain fields who held faith to prove it. Does not make faith true but does make it intellectually permissible. For this argument and the one above only the names are necessary and BTW every single professional debate with have lists of scholars who agree or disagree with either side. If you want to get beyond the names and into the argument than make claims that it requires their arguments to counter and not simply their names. If I said Newton, Einstein, and Sandage all believe X that is enough in any arena to make X a viable proposition. To make it true or the most logical explanation then that needs their argumentation.

 

[1robin]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
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?

There was no specific argument associated with your original claims and my response. This was a complaint you made about my mentioning scholars in general.

They are the same!

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

You seem to operate on the assumption that you can redefine a concept out of existence. These concepts: strings, multiverses, abiogenesis are all derived by scientists are discussed in scientific academic setting and used as evidence or counter claims against God by non-theistic scientists and atheists is forums. They are considered viable theories and have no evidence what so ever of any kind. One in fact is contrary to every piece of evidence in existence. Now science is supposed to be the field where empirical concepts and facts are most at home yet these theories are alive and flourishing and meet neither demand. God has mountains of evidence consistent with his reality and yet faith in him is called nonsense. You can't redefine your way into this being a consistent or even reasonable standard. It just isn't, it's an inconsistent standard that defies reason on the basis of preference.

 

[1robin]

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.

I believe this all began because of the claim: "To posit a personal God who cares about us is nonsense". Then inescapable conclusion being that all who do so are not able to distinguish nonsense from an argument so well evidenced they wagered their soul on it. It is also not a very big leap to think these people must also be stupid or ignorant. However that is not my problem with these hyperbolic statements made for effect and devoid of merit. My problem with them is they are completely false and have no value in a debate. Claiming that, besides defying mountains of evidence and hundreds of the most brilliant scholars in history, has absolutely no effect on anything. They are of no more worth than a child saying I know you are but what am I. They aren’t an argument, they are color commentary founded on no good motive even possible. If you were not the one who said that statement (I may have you confused with another emotional atheist that showed up the same time you did) then simply ignore what I said.

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]

It is fallacious! You are contantly using an appeal to authority to make your case, to say it is more reasonable to believe that "brilliant schollar" X is correct in what he says, but not because of what X says but because X is 'brilliant." That is the classic example of an appeal to authority.

I will explain this one last time. Claiming Einstein, Newton, and Sandage saying dark matter true is evidence that it is true is invalid an fallacious. Claiming without a suffecient counter arguement that because Newton, Eisnstein, and Sandage believe dark matter is true means that dark matter is an intellectually permissable concept is perfectly valid. In the hundreds of hours of professional debates I have seen I do not believe one did not contain the statements of scholars on both sides for this exact same purpose, it is used in court, it is used in science and history. In fact it was used in all research presentations done at both universities by secular scientists. Unless I use authorities for claims of fact (and that is the actual fallacy BTW) I will no longer explain or entertain your complaints.

It's hardly a rant, is it? Now look at post 1020 and give me your comments.

You lost me on this one and I have actualy responded to that post so there is no need.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it was not.
"The modern city of Tyre is of modest size and is near the ancient site, though not identical to it. Archaeological photographs of the ancient site show ruins from ancient Tyre scattered over many acres of land. No city has been rebuilt over these ruins, however, in fulfillment of this prophecy." (Dennis and Grudem, “Tyre,” The ESV Study Bible)
In point of fact, the mainland city of Tyre later was rebuilt and assumed some of its former importance during the Hellenistic period. But as for the island city, it apparently sank below the surface of the Mediterranean…All that remains of it is a series of black reefs offshore from Tyre, which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia b.c., since they pose such a threat to navigation. The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander’s causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place; and we have no evidence at all that it ever was built up again after Alexander’s terrible act of vengeance. In the light of these data, then, the predictions of chapter 26, improbable though they must have seemed in Ezekiel’s time, were duly fulfilled to the letter—first by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century, and then by Alexander in the fourth." (Archer, “Tyre,” Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)
You know what there is no point to this. Anyone this wrong is being so on purpose. Facts have no power over preference. I leave you to the reality you have constructed.

Umm, you just told me that it wasn't rebuilt, then followed it with a paragraph explaining how it was rebuilt.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have explained this several times and if this was discussion with anyone who actually cared about truth, evidence, and fact it would have been enough. I have no reason to bang my head against a wall of intentional obfuscation but I will explain this one last time. God was not angry with the name Tyre, the landscape of the area, nor the geographical location. He was angry with the Phoenician people that occupied Tyre because they rejoiced when they took the trade control of the area away from Jerusalem (or maybe another Israel city, it isn't important which). He pronounced a judgment on them and THE CITY THEY HAD BUILT.

1. The prophecy says over and over again that YOU will never be rebuilt, that THIS city will be destroyed.
2. It never says any city that happens to be named Tyre built in the general area.
3. That does not make any sense what so ever. The people who later built a different city in a slightly different location were not who God was angry with. Why would he care? Why would he have made any predictions about them?
4. It is PERFECTLY logical and consistent with history and the Bible that God promised to destroy the Phoenician’s and the city they had built and actually uses those words. He additionally added they would never build a new city there. Not only did that very thing happen the entire Phoenician empire collapsed from that point. The entire Phoenician culture ceased to exist as a distinct society.

This will not be gone through again. I can't fight intentional misunderstandings of plain facts and logical confusion that has no merit, used to promote plausible denial. Believe what you want to, you will anyway, and reason and facts have no power to alter that. This is what I have always claimed, it is what the prophecy has always said and in specific language, and what the concensus among scholars concerning the interpretation of it has been.

I deny they're facts at all since I don't think your god exists. So, your attribution of anthropomorphic characteristics to the god you believe in, doesn't fly to begin with (neither do the actual facts). Tyre wasn't completely destroyed and there exists in basically the exact same location, a place named Tyre.

I know you want to believe it, but I see no reason to believe it any more than I see reason to believe in Nostradmus prophecies which some people claim to have come true also. Nor do I believe in any prophecies contained within the Koran (same as you on both counts, I think). You want to believe this particular one for obvious reasons, I think.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope.

Faith is not required for any of those things.

 

[1robin]

Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope.

Faith is not required for any of those things.

Since you want to be difficult then you have called down the thunder. Prove that the belief that reality was not created 1 second ago with the appearance of age is true beyond simple faith. Since that period incorporates all claims of all types then the rest follows. Since that is a waste of time and you can't answer it then how about this.

1. Since string theory has now taken on the quality of a joke then what was it ever based on that was not faith or false (which makes it faith to begin with).
2. Prove that life arose from nonlife with facts or any fact at all. Since we know every experiment has failed and every observation ever made is against it then on what actual thing is the theory claimed to be fact (and it is all the time).
3. This is boring so only one more. Prove the universe is one among many or that it has oscillated in the past through multiple big bangs. Both of these claims have no (NONE) evidence of any kind nor can they ever have any even if true. So give my anything beyond faith or in this case pure fiction by which these issues are worthy concepts of considering being likely or even possibly true.

 

[cottage]

[/b] I will explain this one last time. Claiming Einstein, Newton, and Sandage saying dark matter true is evidence that it is true is invalid an fallacious.

I’m sorry but I can’t make sense of that.

[/b] Claiming without a suffecient counter arguement that because Newton, Eisnstein, and Sandage believe dark matter is true means that dark matter is an intellectually permissable concept is perfectly valid.

Why are you stating the obvious when “Intellectually permissible” cannot be used on its own as an argument? I’m very surprised that you cannot see that.
Your argument from authority is deferential and circular and it is saying nothing at all other than the brilliant scholars works are intellectually permissible and you know that to be the case because they’re brilliant scholars.

[/b]In the hundreds of hours of professional debates I have seen I do not believe one did not contain the statements of scholars on both sides for this exact same purpose, it is used in court, it is used in science and history. In fact it was used in all research presentations done at both universities by secular scientists. Unless I use authorities for claims of fact (and that is the actual fallacy BTW) I will no longer explain or entertain your complaints.

Statements by scholars are perfectly correct and acceptable. You could say in a debate about the soul, for example, that Descartes argued to mind/body dualism, that the two things were distinct and therefore his non-corporeal mind could survive the death of his body. But having said that, it isn’t then the end of the matter, unless you’re saying Descartes’ argument isn’t a matter for dispute? If you’re using a scientist or philosopher to make a point then you do so by giving their argument, which isn’t I have to tell you beyond challenge. Surely you must know this?
Just tell me what exactly is the purpose of drawing up a whole shopping list of names, as you did in one post, if it is simply to say that their arguments are “intellectually permissible”? For by that reasoning a list of names of those who take the opposite position may also be awarded the same heading of “intellectually permissible.” No, it was always the fallacy of Authority.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since you want to be difficult then you have called down the thunder. Prove that the belief that reality was not created 1 second ago with the appearance of age is true beyond simple faith. Since that period incorporates all claims of all types then the rest follows. Since that is a waste of time and you can't answer it then how about this.

What does this have to do with your earlier post, which I was responding to?

1. Since string theory has now taken on the quality of a joke then what was it ever based on that was not faith or false (which makes it faith to begin with).

String theory is still in its infancy, and is not treated as fact at this point in time. That's the thing you keep missing here (even though it has repeatedly been pointed out to you). It's not believed on faith. And, take note:

Physical reality of string theory demonstrated
String theory: the link between black holes and superconductivity

2. Prove that life arose from nonlife with facts or any fact at all. Since we know every experiment has failed and every observation ever made is against it then on what actual thing is the theory claimed to be fact (and it is all the time).

We've been over this one so many times now, it's getting kind of sad at this point. Every experiment has NOT failed, quite the contrary in fact: it has helped scientists glean a ton of significant information. Thanks to these experiments (and there are many of them) we now know that it is theoretically possible that life could have arisen from non-life, despite your protestations to the contrary. There is evidence for this. Whether you personally wish to accept it or not is inconsequential.

No faith required here, again.

3. This is boring so only one more. Prove the universe is one among many or that it has oscillated in the past through multiple big bangs. Both of these claims have no (NONE) evidence of any kind nor can they ever have any even if true. So give my anything beyond faith or in this case pure fiction by which these issues are worthy concepts of considering being likely or even possibly true.

Why did you skip over the claims you made about evolution? Evolution is demonstrable and accepted as fact, given that there are mountains of evidence supporting it. Biology doesn't make any sense without it. That includes the distinctions you make between macroevolution and microevolution, which don't really exist, with really the only major difference being the timescale involved. No faith is required to accept evolutionary theory.

Oscillating universes are not accepted as fact yet either. Again, the point you keep missing when you bring up these hypotheses. This is not accepted on faith either.

And once again, we don't prove things in science. We provide evidence for them.

So are you done trying to equate religion with science yet?

 

[cottage]

I believe this all began because of the claim: "To posit a personal God who cares about us is nonsense". Then inescapable conclusion being that all who do so are not able to distinguish nonsense from an argument so well evidenced they wagered their soul on it. It is also not a very big leap to think these people must also be stupid or ignorant. However that is not my problem with these hyperbolic statements made for effect and devoid of merit. My problem with them is they are completely false and have no value in a debate. Claiming that, besides defying mountains of evidence and hundreds of the most brilliant scholars in history, has absolutely no effect on anything. They are of no more worth than a child saying I know you are but what am I. They aren’t an argument, they are color commentary founded on no good motive even possible. If you were not the one who said that statement (I may have you confused with another emotional atheist that showed up the same time you did) then simply ignore what I said.

There is a general agreement on forums and message boards that in debates one may attack the post but not the poster. I am and have only ever been interested in the arguments and not what you or anyone else believes as a matter of faith. And I’m sorry but you are very mistaken, quite wrong in fact, to make the assumption that the demonstration of an illogical or nonsensical conclusion implies that a contributor is stupid or ignorant.

 

[cottage]

I think you have got a horse and a cart problem here. We find the Biblical God to be true and therefore we are special. Not the other way around. Let me illustrate how many things have to be mixed up just in this single context to deny faith.
1. You have to suggest that vanity is the justification for faith. That is not even a valid theory. Christianity is founded on the most humble admissions and action even theoretically possible. To apply vanity to that is about the most desperate thing possible.
2. Even the false label of vanity based on "your chosen" evaluation of a doctrine is invalid. Whatever "specialness" exists in Christianity is derivative not causal.
3. When I was born again by accepting Christ it was for the exact opposite reason than you gave. It was the realization that I had utterly failed and needed forgiveness. Nothing could possibly be more humble than that.
My faith however gives a foundation, reason, and comprehensive justification for our worth and value which allows no vanity possible because the worth has nothing to do with me.
Vanity is one terrible excuse to dismiss biblical theology. The Bible cover to cover is filled with maximal humility by almost all characters. The few exceptions where vanity arises it is punished by God. A religion the indicates that pride is one of the most diabolical of all sins is not based in vanity.

All humans are of course selfish (prior-self argument) and religion is an extension of that. Salvation and the forgiveness of sins, the prospect of eternal life, Divine support, peace of mind, freedom from fear, and Pascal’s argument (the worst argument for the existence of God by far), have all been given to me as reasons to believe in God.
But the number one slot goes to the logically absurd belief that the Supreme Being would seek a relationship with his creation. The lack of logic in that suggests to me a vainglorious and self-regarding viewpoint, or perhaps a more natural desire for a divine father figure who will ultimately take care of us. In either case there is the belief that we are deserving of special treatment. A theist friend once observed, not entirely tongue-in-cheek, that “if God didn’t exist we would have to invent him.”
However there could of course be a lesser God, one who isn’t the Supreme Being, and in which case the above conclusion wouldn’t apply.

4. Atheists adopt the exact same principle in their ambiguous efforts to validate morality but given no source. Atheism claims that human flourishing is the goal of morality. That is about the most vain concept possible especially because their is no justification for why our flourishing is more important that cow of tree flourishing is. It simply assumes vanity.

No, it isn’t a ‘goal’ but an observed fact. Humans are part of the world, and ‘humans flourishing’ is no more important than the cow or the tree. A cow feels pain and will avoid hazards to stay alive, and by staying alive it may reproduce, and the willow tree that is felled produces new shoots both from its stump and the felled trunk, and is thus rejuvenated and continues to grow and produce more seeds. There is no vanity in instinct and genetic material. Humans may be higher order animals but that term ‘morality’ is simply reducible to survival and continuity.

It has been clear "what" you are saying from Go. What is still unclear as "why". Once we have a triangle then it's mode of being is irrelevant. Once we have a universe then we need a cause. I do not care if the universe is contingent, necessary, or any other term applied to it to obscure a simple principle. We have a universe and we require a cause the universe does not have within it.

But you are misunderstanding the principle itself and the logical consequent. Although an eternal or self-existent world are logically possible suppositions there is no contradiction in conceiving the possible non-existence of the world together with everything that occurs within it; and whatever the world is it cannot answer to a Supreme Being that is dependent upon the world and everything that occurs in the world, which includes the principle of causation. So there we have it: a contradiction twice over! There are no labels but just things that are true because they cannot logically be false.

I do not care what label you slap on these issues. Scientists claim they are science and they are pure fantasy. That would not be objectionable by its self if it were not for their classifying faith based assertions even when the evidence infinitely exceeds the no evidence they have for their claims as invalid. That is where the crap must stop. They may fantasize all they wish and even suck up millions in grant money in the process but at least consistent standards should be expected.

Brute facts and more precisely laws are things which have no known exception. Cause and effect are of this type. These semantic gymnastics are wearing this. There exists no reason whatever to suggest the universe is causeless no matter what terms are spun up. As for the brilliant scholar how about one from your side.
David Hume, (1711-1776) the skeptic admitted, it is absurd to deny the principle of cause.
“I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause

I suspect you’ve rushed off a response seemingly without properly understanding what I have written. The argument has nothing to do with scientists’ claims. And this will be the third time I’ve explained that Hume’s empiricism is correct! For if we hold to the principle of causation, as we must with all things in experience, then an effect implies a cause. But, as Hume showed, cause isn’t logically necessary; or in the simplest terms it doesn’t exist beyond the natural world. Every person, theist or sceptic, must agree that if God is the Supreme Being then he cannot fail to exist. That is the plain logical truth of the matter. And that being the case then God cannot be the author of the world’s existence dependent upon a natural feature of the world that can fail to exist. You can’t accept a self-evident logical truth on the one hand and then deny it on the other because it doesn’t favour your beliefs. And once again you cannot presume to argue from things that have no empirical exception to things that have no known instances, whether they are empirical or metaphysical.

 

[roger1440]

As of yet, no one has attempted to explain what are "children".

 

[1robin]

I’m sorry but I can’t make sense of that.

Let me type slower. Just kidding. If I said X believes Y is true and that since X believes it then Y is true is a fallacy and not what I have been saying.

Why are you stating the obvious when “Intellectually permissible” cannot be used on its own as an argument?

Intellectually permissible means sufficiency of grounds for faith. God has more than enough evidence to justify faith. That is the only burden I have.

I’m very surprised that you cannot see that.
Your argument from authority is deferential and circular and it is saying nothing at all other than the brilliant scholars works are intellectually permissible and you know that to be the case because they’re brilliant scholars.

What a great many of history’s greatest scholars all believed in common is justification for faith in it. The steady state theory was intellectually permissible in 1925 even though it turned out to be completely wrong as well as every cosmologist. God may turn out to be false (though I can't possibly see how) but until then it is intellectually justified as a concept. It is certainly more justified than multiverses and abiogenesis.

Statements by scholars are perfectly correct and acceptable. You could say in a debate about the soul, for example, that Descartes argued to mind/body dualism, that the two things were distinct and therefore his non-corporeal mind could survive the death of his body. But having said that, it isn’t then the end of the matter, unless you’re saying Descartes’ argument isn’t a matter for dispute?

If Given a few dozen Descartes’s it would be the end of the matter as far as intellectual justification for belief is concerned.

If you’re using a scientist or philosopher to make a point then you do so by giving their argument, which isn’t I have to tell you beyond challenge. Surely you must know this?

Of course I know this and that is why I have never used an argument as proof. Why can't YOU get THIS? I must have said this a dozen times in half a dozen ways. The logic is absolute and everyone on Earth including you acts consistent with it.

Just tell me what exactly is the purpose of drawing up a whole shopping list of names, as you did in one post, if it is simply to say that their arguments are “intellectually permissible”? For by that reasoning a list of names of those who take the opposite position may also be awarded the same heading of “intellectually permissible.” No, it was always the fallacy of Authority.

This is not so. The case to show something is intellectually permissible is far far easier than showing it isn't. Science regards multiverse theory as intellectually permissible yet in no category whatever is the case for it even close to the one for God. There is no case for it yet I will not call it nonsense (no-sense might be better) The Burden of proof for the claim there might have been a predator twice as big as T-REX less demanding than the claim there was not or that the original claim is nonsense. Thousands and thousands of the best scientists in history believing in something is valid reason to conclude that at this time it is anything but nonsense, in fact it makes perfect sense. I will not cover this again.

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
What does this have to do with your earlier post, which I was responding to?

You said something so absurd "science is not based on faith" that I showed you that every belief, fact, and conclusion is based on faith using something as equally absurd but much more conclusive.

String theory is still in its infancy, and is not treated as fact at this point in time. That's the thing you keep missing here (even though it has repeatedly been pointed out to you). It's not believed on faith. And, take note:
Physical reality of string theory demonstrated
String theory: the link between black holes and superconductivity

If so it is dyeing in the cradle. It has become a joke and people are jumping jump lately. I do not care enough to post proof but will if necessary.

We've been over this one so many times now, it's getting kind of sad at this point. Every experiment has NOT failed, quite the contrary in fact: it has helped scientists glean a ton of significant information. Thanks to these experiments (and there are many of them) we now know that it is theoretically possible that life could have arisen from non-life, despite your protestations to the contrary. There is evidence for this. Whether you personally wish to accept it or not is inconsequential.

My claim and the goal, prove life can come from non-life. No life has ever been produced from non-life. FAIL.

No faith required here, again.

It has never ever been observed yet is constantly claimed to have occurred. What about that is not faith?

Why did you skip over the claims you made about evolution? Evolution is demonstrable and accepted as fact, given that there are mountains of evidence supporting it.

I have already admitted that evolution is a fact (or at least natural selection is) the Bible said that thousands of years ago, and there exists nothing to contend about its existence. I think what you are talking about is that I said macro-evolution is faith based and it is. No one ever has seen a species evolve into another one. It is believed they did based on evidence (not proof) the same as God.

Biology doesn't make any sense without it. That includes the distinctions you make between macroevolution and microevolution, which don't really exist, with really the only major difference being the timescale involved. No faith is required to accept evolutionary theory.

I imagine macro evolution is possible but since species have mating barriers it is not that simple. This is not a meaningful issue either way to the Bible. I used it to show yet one more of the millions of scientific "facts" that are believed not proven.

Oscillating universes are not accepted as fact yet either. Again, the point you keep missing when you bring up these hypotheses. This is not accepted on faith either.

No it is you that miss it. Oscillating universe have infinitely less evidence that God yet are viewed as intellectually permissible even though the Bord Guth Velankin theorem almost rules them out, and I have no problem with it just allow the much more evidenced faith the same right.

And once again, we don't prove things in science. We provide evidence for them.

Which is the exact definition of faith or at least reasonable faith and exactly what you deny for faith. Either quit relying on faith within a discipline that demands fact derived conclusions or allow faith to exist in both realms since it already does in science anyway and many times to a vastly greater level than theology.

So are you done trying to equate religion with science yet?

Never would have been necessary if science did not demand that faith be evaluated by a standard it does not have and that science actually does but ignores. I am not equating, they are quite literally the exact same things many times. In no category is multiverse theory equal to the concept of God yet one is taught in school as a possible explanation and the other held out at gun point in order apparently to make enough room to pass out condoms, bullets for school shootings, and drug related gang activity. However there should have already been enough room with all the drop outs and failing students despite the fact we spend more on education per person than anyone on Earth by far, and under no circumstances admit the mistake. Yippy secular progress.

I have about had my fill of arguing about arguments instead of discussing the actual issues.

 

[1robin]

There is a general agreement on forums and message boards that in debates one may attack the post but not the poster. I am and have only ever been interested in the arguments and not what you or anyone else believes as a matter of faith. And I’m sorry but you are very mistaken, quite wrong in fact, to make the assumption that the demonstration of an illogical or nonsensical conclusion implies that a contributor is stupid or ignorant.

What I claimed was absolutely inescapable whether intended or not, but was never the point. I do not let the ignorant statements of others offend me very often. My primary complaint against your statement is that it is absolutely unjustified, it also just happens to be insulting, if allowed to be. My main disappointment with rhetoric like this is that it gives me good reason to conclude that I am once again arguing against a preference and/or an emotion. What the Bible calls the spirit of this age or man's wisdom.
1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";
NET Bible (©2006)
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
1 Corinthians 2:5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power.

It tells me no evidence no matter how solid will be actually considered and no argument so undeniable that it won't be anyway. I have for many years understood very well that dismissal of faith has precious little to do with any facts but rather the condition of the heart and comments like this confirm this and saddens me a bit. I know this very well because I did this very thing for 27 years.

 

[1robin]

All humans are of course selfish (prior-self argument) and religion is an extension of that. Salvation and the forgiveness of sins, the prospect of eternal life, Divine support, peace of mind, freedom from fear, and Pascal’s argument (the worst argument for the existence of God by far), have all been given to me as reasons to believe in God.

That was a prior argument for a condition that can be cured and was meant in general anyway. Men may act selfless and it is more often than not a Christian who does so in my experience though it is present in most. The Apostles are remarkable for being exceeding selfish until they EXPERIENCED God and then acting completely contradictory to that with a consistency that has no explanation outside of God. There are billions of examples of the exact same thing though they differ in degree. Pascal's wager in its common form is a terrible argument for the existence of God. However modified a little and it is very meaningful. Let's say that every single argument concerning God has a 50% chance of being right. It would be right in every sense to come down on his side. There is only gain to be had. However I do not think true "born again" faith may arise from this kind of default reasoning but I think you can see what I meant. There is only loss associated with always choosing the negative regardless of how strong the arguments are for God.

But the number one slot goes to the logically absurd belief that the Supreme Being would seek a relationship with his creation. The lack of logic in that suggests to me a vainglorious and self-regarding viewpoint, or perhaps a more natural desire for a divine father figure who will ultimately take care of us.

You mean a father figure so convenient he condemns us all at birth. If I was to lie I could do much better that Hell or claiming that he ruthlessly prunes those whom he loves, or to follow a lie I invented that provoked the wrath of the greatest empires in history. Wish fulfillment is the worst argument for the Bible in human history next to Dawkins central argument.

In either case there is the belief that we are deserving of special treatment. A theist friend once observed, not entirely tongue-in-cheek, that “if God didn’t exist we would have to invent him.”

That was from Voltaire. Who also said this:
One example: (and this is the one I like the best) The noted French infidel, Voltaire who gave his life in France for the eradication of all Christianity was quoted as saying (he died in 1778), "Within 100 years of my death, Christianity will be swept from existence and will have passed into history." But what happened? Voltaire has passed into history while the circulation of the Bible continues to increase, carrying blessing where ever it goes. Concerning the boast of Voltaire on the extinction of Christianity and God's Word, only 50 years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society purchased Voltaire's house in France, used his own printing press to produce stacks of Bibles. That is just an irony of human history. Please understand, the Bible has been preserved by Almighty God from the attack of man and time.
http://www.faithchapelchurch.com/Articles.html
I do not think Voltaire a worthy idol.
Maybe the Titanic being so well designed that God could not sink it should be your next claim. God has made a career of discrediting his critics in many cases.
Continued below: