Your best argument that god exists

[Neo Deist]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

Because I choose to believe in a higher power that serves as the Creator, instead of random chance that single cell organisms magically decided to start swimming and walking.

 

[Skwim]

Because I choose to believe in a higher power that serves as the Creator, instead of random chance that single cell organisms magically decided to start swimming and walking.

Sorry, but your choice to believe is far from a convincing reason.

 

[leibowde84]

How about atheists give reasons why they don't believe in God. There is a good chance theists don't believe such a God exists either.

I would assume that they could honestly and reasonably say that there is an extreme lack of evidence. I think since theists make the actual positive claim that God exists, the burden is on us. That being said, I don't think it is possible.

 

[leibowde84]

Because I choose to believe in a higher power that serves as the Creator, instead of random chance that single cell organisms magically decided to start swimming and walking.

Why do you feel that it has to be one or the other? Isn't it possible that there are multiple other options that we merely aren't aware of yet?

 

[1robin]

It was misleading as you cited it as an argument for your position while the only position in common was what would now be known as the Big Bang Theory. Beyond that it did not agree at all.

My argument has two parts. a cosmological component which I use the BBT and the BGVT to establish that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Before that point there was nothing natural, not space, time, or matter. At least not space-time. Time could be related to something else before space began to exist. No one has a good word for that and so language gets clumsy when we talk about "before" the big bang. That is the first part. The second part is using philosophy to posit what characteristics the cause must have had based on the nature of the effect.

What I quoted contained the reasoning behind this. I even left in the half hearted counter claims for information's sake. BTW it was only a demonstration of what the argument is. It was not a full bore demonstration that it is true. The guy did not seem to understand the Cosmological argument so I simply gave him the first one I looked up that had the essentials. I do not know what your complaint it.

From the full article itself.



This is just evidence you didn't read what you posted, your source quote-mined or left out the complete article. It also shows Craig must use a leap of faith rather than his own argument to reach his presuppositional conclusion. Stills actually shows how and why Craig makes this leap.

Eternity and Time in William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument

I gave the entire article. I gave the link. I am not required to quote every parent article another article may use a portion of.

Of course there is a leap of faith, every claim to knowledge ever made about any subject is a leap of knowledge. The one exception being that we exist. Some are large leaps and some tiny but they are all faith based conclusions. The question was can I give an argument for God, not can I give proof of God. I gave one of the old and most robust argument there is for God. There are of course people who challenge it but I am not required to withdraw an argument because someone does not like it, especially for the flimsy reasons they gave for dismissing it. Instead of debating technicalities why don't you post why the argument does not argue for God and we can discuss them.

Which is why the argument fails as it invokes infinite regression only in order to arrive at the presupposition of choice. Yet a cause is identified by a spatial and temporal location. No space means not location, no time means there can not be an act as an act is restrict to time. Hence why having a god before the beginning of time and acting, which is within time, to create is nonsensical. If time is a property of the universe then there can not be a "before" nor an act within this "before" One can simple cut out god as an unnecessary assumption thus avoiding the issues with time Craig fails to resolve as he uses olddated Aristotle and Newtonian causation rather than modern ideas.

Now here you making a mistake. God gets rid of the infinite regression problem all together. God never began to exist and so he is the prime mover who required no cause. The cause and effect chain end with him and are therefore finite.

Talking about before space-time came into existence suffers because our language is too course to describe it. Craig goes to great lengths to explain what he means by "before the beginning". For myself I think time existed just not space time, time was related to something else maybe God. It is not that God requires to act. He exists independently of time.

Quoted and linked above

It seems like either you did not read what you linked or did not understand it.

The only thing you did was point out the clumsiness of discussing events that occurred independent of time. That is not much of a counter argument. Your trying to bind the supernatural with what little we know about the natural.

 

[1robin]

Nah. That's the best argument for a Whopper with cheese.

I know you are joking, but I don't get it.

 

[Skwim]

I know you are joking, but I don't get it.

You're presuming that in order for anything to exist there has to be a god. Nice I guess, but how do you know this?

 

[leibowde84]

You're presuming that in order for anything to exist there has to be a god. Nice I guess, but how do you know this?

Why does it have to be God. Couldn't it be a countless number of supernatural or natural possibilities we just don't know about yet?

 

[Skwim]

Why does it have to be God. Couldn't it be a countless number of supernatural or natural possibilities we just don't know about yet?

Of course, but 1robin says otherwise.

 

[1robin]

Summarize the main points.

Yahweh has a son, Allah is said incapable of having a son. Yahweh suggests he is a triune being, Allah does not only say he is not triune (he apparently think Mary is part of the Christian Trinity), the Bible (apart from about 5% known error has proven to be astronomically accurate where it can be verified, the Quran says it is pure Arabic but contains over 200 non Arabic words, gets dates wrong, names wrong, places wrong, and quotes from known heretic and gnostic source material. Yaweah said he paid my debt in full. He reached down to me because I could not reach up to him. Allah (and almost all other God's) demand man reach God by circling a building, holding a rock as an idol, standing under a magic drain pipe, praying 5 times a day at some point on the compass, etc,,,,,,,,,, but the only absolutely certain way to get to heaven is to die a martyr. Allah makes dozens of open ended (many unqualified) demands to kill unbelievers wherever found. There are no generalized demands for violence in the OT and no allowance for violence of any kind in the NT. Yahweh spiritually confirms our faith and promises every believer heaven the moment they believe. Allah provides neither.

‘By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.’”
Abu Bakr

That's a start I guess.

Considering how Christianity is a vastly common religion on western countries it is no wonder that a lot of people would find solace on it. Not to mention how well know it is for proselytism.
Add to that the social and psychological structure offered by the churches and christian communities and it is easy to see how this came to be. That requires no supernatural explanation.

I did not say they found a church, some comfort, or social fellowship. I said they claim to have met a risen Christ and to have been born again. Other faiths can offer the trivial satisfaction that comes with intellectual consent to a theological proposition. But only Christianity offer and demands of ever believer they meet Christ spiritually and are instantly changed as the entry point for faith. I have both been in very social churches and fit in very well with them for years, to have intellectually agree that the bible was true, and I have been born again. They are two very very different things and only Christianity lays vast claims to the latter.

Being born again is a miracle that hundreds of millions if not billions claim occurred to them, and 99% of them are Christians. Not proof but it is an argument for God.

Note: For those born again it is proof but that proof is not available for inspection and so we left with arguments instead.

And what I had in mind were not other gods when I said what I did. Let me clarify this point: This is not a deathmatch between gods. The true creator god could be part of no religion at all.

Sure it could. However there exists no evidence or reason to believe this creator God X exists. My argument is for a omni-max creator God, which does have mountains of additional evidence further justify faith in his existence which your mystery God does not.

We look at the effect to determine in general what the characteristics of it cause was (lets say that leaves us with 6, including your generic God, out of the millions of historical God's) then we narrow down candidates that match that description (yours is going to be at the bottom of the list because creative is the only characteristic you gave), then narrow down which candidate has the most evidence for their existence (your mystery God is out at this point given no additional evidence for him). Yahweh wins in all categories (perfectly matches the characteristics of the cause, matches not one or two but all of the necessary characteristics, has more evidence for his existence than any of the competitors). The only virtue your mystery God has is that it is not impossible that he exists.

I know there are interpretations other than the good old literal one. But like I have said, unless you can show me that yours is the most correct, I have no reason to accept it.

I spent almost a year with the intent of making up my mind whether the days in genesis are literal 24hrs or ages. I read book after book on exegetical methodology and both fit the standards. I finally gave up the whole effort because either way my faith is in Christ not how old the earth is. You brought it up as an argument so it is your burden both to know the intended meaning, until you do your only finding fault with one interpretation. Your faulting man not God.

I am also objecting to him being jewish, considering the subject we are talking about.
Since he is an orthodox jew, he clearly doesn't believe in the same creator god as you do.

That's absurd, per Capita Jews have done more of the best science in history and almost 80% of Nobel's are Christians. I do not believe evolution explains all of biological history and have debated it over a thousand times, not once did I dismiss an argument because it came from an evolutionist. I do not acknowledge the rejection of a source until that sources claims can be shown wrong. You want someone who knows the OT and science. What is better than a Jewish physicist? BTW he does believe in the same God I do, he simply does not believe the NT. Actually he might, he may be a Christian Jewish person (I can't remember).

And yes, in my opinion, the BBT does posit an absolute beginning of the universe.

Ok so at one point nature did not exist. So nature did not exist to create it's self. So something supernatural (beyond nature) is the cause. So by the rules of sufficient causation that cause must be unimaginably powerful, unimaginably intelligent, independent of space, independent of time, independent of matter, be intentional, rational (or lawful) and if you grant morality then moral. Etc........ Bronze aged men unfamiliar with the BBT, the BGVT, or sufficient causation gave the biblical God those exact characteristics. Plus that God has vast amounts of evidence, including in my cases (using the gospels as a road map of sorts and finding Christ just as they promised. Not objective proof for you maybe, but a good argument.

Greatest conceivable being ?

Yeah, this gets into modal being and great making properties and so far I am having trouble understanding it, but assume the philosophers do. They sure use it a lot in debate.

The one that Anselm talked about ?

St Anselm was a Christian but yes he did make the same argument that philosophers use for a generic God. I did not get that concept from him. I get it from atheists in debates. IOW if you argue about a thing you must first define the thing. The thing the atheist and theist agree to argue about is the existence of a being which no greater can exist.




Notice that Anselm's argument does not use scriptures of the bible but lays out a generic case for God's characteristics.

1. It is a conceptual truth (not what is true about a specific biblical God - my words) (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

BTW: Also in the above argument I would not grant that conclusion 6 follows from the premise. I hear very educated men make this ontological conclusion all the time as if was very powerful but I do not see much power to it. I only quoted it to show the parallel of the description not as an argument for God.

 

[Koldo]

I did not say they found a church, some comfort, or social fellowship. I said they claim to have met a risen Christ and to have been born again. Other faiths can offer the trivial satisfaction that comes with intellectual consent to a theological proposition. But only Christianity offer and demands of ever believer they meet Christ spiritually and are instantly changed as the entry point for faith. I have both been in very social churches and fit in very well with them for years, to have intellectually agree that the bible was true, and I have been born again. They are two very very different things and only Christianity lays vast claims to the latter.

Being born again is a miracle that hundreds of millions if not billions claim occurred to them, and 99% of them are Christians. Not proof but it is an argument for God.

Note: For those born again it is proof but that proof is not available for inspection and so we left with arguments instead.

Let me see if I got this right: You are talking about personal experiences that deeply change people.

Because 'being born again' is also a way to say that you have converted to Christianity, and that's how I thought you were using the term.

Regardless, such life changing personal experiences also happens on other religions. And even outside religion circles.

Sure it could. However there exists no evidence or reason to believe this creator God X exists. My argument is for a omni-max creator God, which does have mountains of additional evidence further justify faith in his existence which your mystery God does not.

Let me stop right here: An omnimax creator God might exist and yet not be the bible god.

We look at the effect to determine in general what the characteristics of it cause was (lets say that leaves us with 6, including your generic God, out of the millions of historical God's) then we narrow down candidates that match that description (yours is going to be at the bottom of the list because creative is the only characteristic you gave), then narrow down which candidate has the most evidence for their existence (your mystery God is out at this point given no additional evidence for him). Yahweh wins in all categories (perfectly matches the characteristics of the cause, matches not one or two but all of the necessary characteristics, has more evidence for his existence than any of the competitors). The only virtue your mystery God has is that it is not impossible that he exists.

I am afraid you are not quite getting what I am saying. It is not like there is one generic god out of there that you had not accounted for. It is more like there is an unknown number of possible creator gods that could possibly exist. Considering that you think the difference between the christian god and Allah is big enough to consider them as different gods then the number of creator gods that could possibly exist is absurdly large.

While I see no evidence that compels me to believe in their existence I also don't see any evidence that compels me to believe in the existence of the god you believe in. Otherwise I would be a christian myself.

I spent almost a year with the intent of making up my mind whether the days in genesis are literal 24hrs or ages. I read book after book on exegetical methodology and both fit the standards. I finally gave up the whole effort because either way my faith is in Christ not how old the earth is. You brought it up as an argument so it is your burden both to know the intended meaning, until you do your only finding fault with one interpretation. Your faulting man not God.

You said you wanted to argument that the biblical god exists. If you can't compel me to accept that your interpretation of the bible is the correct one then I can't even accept that you are trying to argument over the existence of the biblical god.

If by 'biblical god' you merely meant to say 'my particular interpretation of the bible god', then I will require nothing else on this point. Otherwise, you have to convince me you have interpreted the bible correctly on regards to god.

That's absurd, per Capita Jews have done more of the best science in history and almost 80% of Nobel's are Christians. I do not believe evolution explains all of biological history and have debated it over a thousand times, not once did I dismiss an argument because it came from an evolutionist. I do not acknowledge the rejection of a source until that sources claims can be shown wrong. You want someone who knows the OT and science. What is better than a Jewish physicist? BTW he does believe in the same God I do, he simply does not believe the NT. Actually he might, he may be a Christian Jewish person (I can't remember).

Hold on. How can he believe in the same god as you do, and yet you don't belive in the same god as muslims ? There are also some remarkable differences between the jewish god and the christian god.

Ok so at one point nature did not exist. So nature did not exist to create it's self. So something supernatural (beyond nature) is the cause. So by the rules of sufficient causation that cause must be unimaginably powerful, unimaginably intelligent, independent of space, independent of time, independent of matter, be intentional, rational (or lawful) and if you grant morality then moral. Etc........ Bronze aged men unfamiliar with the BBT, the BGVT, or sufficient causation gave the biblical God those exact characteristics. Plus that God has vast amounts of evidence, including in my cases (using the gospels as a road map of sorts and finding Christ just as they promised. Not objective proof for you maybe, but a good argument.

I disagree on a lot of those attributes on the bold sentence.
For something to create the universe, it merely requires sufficient power to create the universe, nothing else. It doesn't require intelligence, power over other things ( not even within the universe ), and morality. It may not even have intended to create the universe.

That's not to mention how incredibly humanlike the christian god is, which is not at all required.

Yeah, this gets into modal being and great making properties and so far I am having trouble understanding it, but assume the philosophers do. They sure use it a lot in debate.

St Anselm was a Christian but yes he did make the same argument that philosophers use for a generic God. I did not get that concept from him. I get it from atheists in debates. IOW if you argue about a thing you must first define the thing. The thing the atheist and theist agree to argue about is the existence of a being which no greater can exist.

Notice that Anselm's argument does not use scriptures of the bible but lays out a generic case for God's characteristics.

1. It is a conceptual truth (not what is true about a specific biblical God - my words) (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

BTW: Also in the above argument I would not grant that conclusion 6 follows from the premise. I hear very educated men make this ontological conclusion all the time as if was very powerful but I do not see much power to it. I only quoted it to show the parallel of the description not as an argument for God.

Anselm is, as far as I know, the one who first proposed that argument. And since he was a christian, he was clearly talking about the christian god on this argument. This generic god you mention is the christian god.

 

[Shad]

My argument has two parts. a cosmological component which I use the BBT and the BGVT to establish that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Before that point there was nothing natural, not space, time, or matter. At least not space-time. Time could be related to something else before space began to exist. No one has a good word for that and so language gets clumsy when we talk about "before" the big bang. That is the first part. The second part is using philosophy to posit what characteristics the cause must have had based on the nature of the effect.

No its using a negative definition as a contrast to know we do have rather than by observations. It is assertions only. For it to be philosophical it must also be sound otherwise it is nothing more than speculation. Look up soundness.

What I quoted contained the reasoning behind this. I even left in the half hearted counter claims for information's sake. BTW it was only a demonstration of what the argument is. It was not a full bore demonstration that it is true. The guy did not seem to understand the Cosmological argument so I simply gave him the first one I looked up that had the essentials. I do not know what your complaint it.

The argument is a bad one that is why.

I gave the entire article. I gave the link. I am not required to quote every parent article another article may use a portion of.

That is not the point. The point is you ignored a major part of your source which argued against KCA but claimed it was for it. that is deceptive.

Of course there is a leap of faith, every claim to knowledge ever made about any subject is a leap of knowledge. The one exception being that we exist. Some are large leaps and some tiny but they are all faith based conclusions. The question was can I give an argument for God, not can I give proof of God. I gave one of the old and most robust argument there is for God. There are of course people who challenge it but I am not required to withdraw an argument because someone does not like it, especially for the flimsy reasons they gave for dismissing it. Instead of debating technicalities why don't you post why the argument does not argue for God and we can discuss them.

Nope. A leap of faith can not guarantee it's leaps are true thus it by definition can not be knowledge. Where as claims that have evidence can be considered knowledge. One is an assertion, the other is not. If an argument's conclusion is not granted as true then it is no deductive. You presented an inductive argument which no amount of verification can prove is correct.

I have no need of providing an argument against a view that has not established it's own claims as true.

Now here you making a mistake. God gets rid of the infinite regression problem all together. God never began to exist and so he is the prime mover who required no cause. The cause and effect chain end with him and are therefore finite.

Nope. God is an unnecessary assumption. One could be forward the universe is uncaused as well removing the need for God completely via Occam's Razor. If time stops at the singularity there is no before thus God as a cause is nonsensical. If there is a "God time" then by definition God is constrained by something greater than God thus by definition is not God. This reduces God to the level of the universe. As with any assertion one can produce a counter in which the universe or singularity is uncaused as pointed out above.

Talking about before space-time came into existence suffers because our language is too course to describe it. Craig goes to great lengths to explain what he means by "before the beginning". For myself I think time existed just not space time, time was related to something else maybe God. It is not that God requires to act. He exists independently of time.

No it suffered due to special pleading of theists and their horrible arguments by invoking God's attributes based on negative definitions rather than observation. Craig has no idea what he is talking about, Carol showed Craig has no grasp of physics, he spouts pure sophistry.

The only thing you did was point out the clumsiness of discussing events that occurred independent of time. That is not much of a counter argument. Your trying to bind the supernatural with what little we know about the natural.

It is a good counter-argument as anything poorly defined is a nonsensical explanation. The supernatural nature is nonsensical as anything that interacts with nature is by definition part of it. Likewise you are creating the supernatural based on your lack of knowledge thus you create an assertion to support another assertion. All of which can be dismissed by the razor.

 

[1robin]

I hope we agree that those philosophers did not know what they were talking about. So, their explanation that this being is actually able to choose is not convincing at all.

The only question is whether being personal infers being able to chose. Fortunately it is irrelevant. If whatever created the universe could not chose to act then the universe would either be infinitely old or never have existed. It began to exist a finite time ago........ whatever created it chose to act.

BTW it later occurred to me the proper way to speak of God and time. God is independent of time as we know it.

And I think we did already go through this. All I have to do is to invoke relativity (and its still immature quantum version), spacetime, and the block universe it supports, to defuse any talk of beginnings and causation. But that would be like killing a little bird with a hydrogen bomb.

No that would be like dismissing a bird with a fantasy bomb.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Certainly Vilenkin has more awareness of the things you mentioned the you, and doubly for me.

BTW what in the world is a block universe. I sit around watching hours and hours of space documentaries. I have heard of the universe being everything from having umpteen dimensions to being a two dimensional hologram, but a block universe is a new one.

So, let's see how far we can go even accepting the outdated concept of time held by Craig and co. So, let's grant this, the PSR and the existence of one or more necessary things that do not require further explanation, just for sake of discussion.

I still do not see how you go from "pinciple of sufficient reason", to "personal/conscious/moral, and able to choose".

I said sufficient causation but I think we are talking about the same thing.

Suppose that I tell you that this necessary being is, in reality, a dumb and eternal random generator of zillions and zillions of possible Universes that just exists, a brute and ultimate fact of reality. How would you attack this?

We do have evidence of one finite universe, we do not have evidence of anything you mentioned. An argument based on only the fact that I do not know it to be impossible is not really an argument. It is like defending a guy in court for murder, by saying how do you know an alien did take over the mind of the killer for only that act?

You seem to make a whole lot of arguments who's only value is they are not hypothetically impossible.

I even think there is some problems with the characteristics of your hypothetical but it would take some time to evaluate them and since it is a purely hypothetical I can't spare the time. Actually I probably will think about it but I make no promises I will.

 

[1robin]

You're presuming that in order for anything to exist there has to be a god. Nice I guess, but how do you know this?

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe according to all the evidence began to exist. If nature began to exist it's cause had to be non-natural. If time began it's cause must be independent of time, if matter began to exist it's cause must be immaterial, if space began to exist it's cause must be no corporeal. Since I have explained this in detail several times previously I simply gave you the bare bones.

BTW this logical deduction has held up since Aristotle, comes in various types, and is relevant to many concepts of God, but may have been summed up best by:

The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself.
Cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

Let me see if I got this right: You are talking about personal experiences that deeply change people.

I have had all kinds of experiences that changed me. I have only had one that made me new. I was not an educated Christian at the time. I did not even like Christians. It's a long story how I got there but one night it suddenly Crystalized that needed a savior and I asked Christ to save me. I could empty the banks of English and never be able to describe it well enough. Anyway the next 3 days I was in a state of shock and people kept asking me what was different, I did not know how to answer and so kind of stayed clear of people as much as I could until I could figure out what had happened to me. I kept describing it to myself as I felt brand new, I only later learned that salvation is referred to be being born again. Eventually my head knowledge caught up with me spirituality and I can describe salvation but I can never do so to it's full extent. I have described it in detail here several times and it comes with actual events that nothing else can explain. You can search for them if you want but I will give you one as an example. My mother was slowly killed by cancer. I killed the pain of that by abusing alcohol and drugs. I tried me heart out to stop them and never could. The moment I was saved I lost any desire for either. It was not an epiphany it was an actual power.

Because 'being born again' is also a way to say that you have converted to Christianity, and that's how I thought you were using the term.

The bible uses the words born from above. Signifying that the power is supernatural, not like some kind of self help knowledge or intellectual consent we grant to something. Describing being born from above to someone who hasn't been is much harder than describing falling in love to a child.

Regardless, such life changing personal experiences also happens on other religions. And even outside religion circles.

I am referring to self experienced events of a miraculous nature. Actually only one type, but even if we add in all types Christianity has astronomically higher claims to miraculous experience.

Let me stop right here: An omnimax creator God might exist and yet not be the bible god.

Yes, he would be the philosophers God I mentioned. However the only virtue of this God is no one can prove he does not exist. The biblical God has a mountain of additional evidence for his existence, your God X does not.

I am afraid you are not quite getting what I am saying. It is not like there is one generic god out of there that you had not accounted for. It is more like there is an unknown number of possible creator gods that could possibly exist. Considering that you think the difference between the christian god and Allah is big enough to consider them as different gods then the number of creator gods that could possibly exist is absurdly large.

No debate can include all things that are not impossible. These debates take place concerning things we have good reason to believe could be true. To entertain all possible hypotheticals is impossible.

While I see no evidence that compels me to believe in their existence I also don't see any evidence that compels me to believe in the existence of the god you believe in. Otherwise I would be a christian myself.

Evidence can be defined in this context as data, the inclusion of which makes the probability of the conclusion more likely than it's absence. So my God does have evidence, you just do not find it persuasive. The same as there is evidence for Allah but I do not find it persuasive. Now that we know where we actually are we can move on to the evidence. There are at least 500 million people alive today that claim to have been miraculously born again using the bible as a road map of sorts. Now why is the not persuasive. Or this one. The majority of NT historians agree to 4 (among many) historical claims about Christ.

1. That he appeared in history claiming an unprecedented sense of divine authority. (They differ as to whether he had it but agree he claimed it).
2. That he was crucified and buried.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. That even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him post mortem.

Bonus: They even believe he carried out a ministry of the type referred to as exorcism.

Or one of my favorites. The apostles knew the actual fact of the matter. They knew for a fact whether he rose or not. Now why would they lie about it when doing so risked everything and cost some of them their lives, alienated their own families and nation and incurred the wrath of the world's greatest empire.

I can present evidence for days on end, how is it insufficient?

You said you wanted to argument that the biblical god exists. If you can't compel me to accept that your interpretation of the bible is the correct one then I can't even accept that you are trying to argument over the existence of the biblical god.

Whether the days in genesis were meant as literal or symbolic has nothing what so ever to do with the cosmological argument. Or any other argument I made. Why are you demanding that the only conclusion about God hinge on the interpretation of days?

If by 'biblical god' you merely meant to say 'my particular interpretation of the bible god', then I will require nothing else on this point. Otherwise, you have to convince me you have interpreted the bible correctly on regards to god.

There is no alternative to that, any reading of any text will produce a subjective conclusion that might or might not reflect objective fact. I am discussing Yahweh, and that would still be true even if I misinterpreted the days in Genesis. Why are your holding onto this days issue like grim death.

Hold on. How can he believe in the same god as you do, and yet you don't belive in the same god as muslims ? There are also some remarkable differences between the jewish god and the christian god.

He believes in Yahweh, I believe in Yahweh, Muslims believe in Allah. Beyond that I can only answer for me.

I disagree on a lot of those attributes on the bold sentence.
For something to create the universe, it merely requires sufficient power to create the universe, nothing else. It doesn't require intelligence, power over other things ( not even within the universe ), and morality. It may not even have intended to create the universe.

I already allowed for that. I think I specifically stated sufficient power, or unimaginable power. Since nothing natural is even a candidate that fits nicely with an omnipotent being.

That's not to mention how incredibly humanlike the christian god is, which is not at all required.

We are made in his image. We are moral agents which have freewill. Since I have no idea what your referring to I can't agree or counter it. The NT focuses primarily on Christ who intentionally adopted a role as a man to serve as an example. If he came as an octopus or in his full glory I don't think he would have made a good example for men.

Anselm is, as far as I know, the one who first proposed that argument. And since he was a christian, he was clearly talking about the christian god on this argument. This generic god you mention is the christian god.

I think Aristotle was the first, though I imagine it took a different form. Aquinas posed a prime mover argument, and it's most popular form was created by a Muslim named al-Ghazali. It exists in countless forms because it is a necessity and was debated in isolation for thousands of years. Great minds in many cultures and times have found it to be a logical imperative and it is one of the most robust theories I ever heard of. It has no defeater known to man. The only question was the one you asked, is the cause my particular God. I cannot prove it but do claim he is by far the best candidate.


The burden of faith is only the absence of a defeater. I however raise that bar to best explanation. I argue for the biblical God as the best explanation for a mountain of evidence. I do not argue to a certainty. If I did or could it would not be called faith.

 

[Koldo]

I have had all kinds of experiences that changed me. I have only had one that made me new. I was not an educated Christian at the time. I did not even like Christians. It's a long story how I got there but one night it suddenly Crystalized that needed a savior and I asked Christ to save me. I could empty the banks of English and never be able to describe it well enough. Anyway the next 3 days I was in a state of shock and people kept asking me what was different, I did not know how to answer and so kind of stayed clear of people as much as I could until I could figure out what had happened to me. I kept describing it to myself as I felt brand new, I only later learned that salvation is referred to be being born again. Eventually my head knowledge caught up with me spirituality and I can describe salvation but I can never do so to it's full extent. I have described it in detail here several times and it comes with actual events that nothing else can explain. You can search for them if you want but I will give you one as an example. My mother was slowly killed by cancer. I killed the pain of that by abusing alcohol and drugs. I tried me heart out to stop them and never could. The moment I was saved I lost any desire for either. It was not an epiphany it was an actual power.

The bible uses the words born from above. Signifying that the power is supernatural, not like some kind of self help knowledge or intellectual consent we grant to something. Describing being born from above to someone who hasn't been is much harder than describing falling in love to a child.

I am referring to self experienced events of a miraculous nature. Actually only one type, but even if we add in all types Christianity has astronomically higher claims to miraculous experience.

The fact that you claim that your experience had anything to do with the god that you believe in doesn't convince me that it did. Believers of other religions claim similar things. Read what mystics and hindus say, for example.

Yes, he would be the philosophers God I mentioned. However the only virtue of this God is no one can prove he does not exist. The biblical God has a mountain of additional evidence for his existence, your God X does not.

Not just the god that the philosophers mention.

No debate can include all things that are not impossible. These debates take place concerning things we have good reason to believe could be true. To entertain all possible hypotheticals is impossible.

Evidence can be defined in this context as data, the inclusion of which makes the probability of the conclusion more likely than it's absence. So my God does have evidence, you just do not find it persuasive. The same as there is evidence for Allah but I do not find it persuasive. Now that we know where we actually are we can move on to the evidence. There are at least 500 million people alive today that claim to have been miraculously born again using the bible as a road map of sorts. Now why is the not persuasive. Or this one. The majority of NT historians agree to 4 (among many) historical claims about Christ.

1. That he appeared in history claiming an unprecedented sense of divine authority. (They differ as to whether he had it but agree he claimed it).
2. That he was crucified and buried.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. That even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him post mortem.

Bonus: They even believe he carried out a ministry of the type referred to as exorcism.

Or one of my favorites. The apostles knew the actual fact of the matter. They knew for a fact whether he rose or not. Now why would they lie about it when doing so risked everything and cost some of them their lives, alienated their own families and nation and incurred the wrath of the world's greatest empire.

I can present evidence for days on end, how is it insufficient?

The fact that you are presenting evidence that has been presented before and that a lot of people still don't believe in such a god make it insufficient. It is not about quantity, it is about quality.

Jesus' ressurection is not established as an historical fact. It is not on any credible history book. So, how can you reasonably expect me to treat it as good evidence for your claim ?

Whether the days in genesis were meant as literal or symbolic has nothing what so ever to do with the cosmological argument. Or any other argument I made. Why are you demanding that the only conclusion about God hinge on the interpretation of days?

There is no alternative to that, any reading of any text will produce a subjective conclusion that might or might not reflect objective fact. I am discussing Yahweh, and that would still be true even if I misinterpreted the days in Genesis. Why are your holding onto this days issue like grim death.

Ponder about this for a moment. You have said that Allah is different from the christian god because it requires different things from his followers and because Jesus is not his avatar. A god that created the Earth and humans in a particular way, that caused a worldwide flood, that caused a sequence of plagues on Egypt, etc. must then be a remarkably different god from a god that did not.

He believes in Yahweh, I believe in Yahweh, Muslims believe in Allah. Beyond that I can only answer for me.

I suggest you read again what you have said about Allah and how it is different from the god you believe in. On Orthodox Judaism, Jesus is not God's son, God didn't pay your debt, and belief alone is not said to be sufficient to go to heavens. You mentioned these as relevant factors to establish they are different gods. According to your standards, you and that author don't believe in the same god.

I already allowed for that. I think I specifically stated sufficient power, or unimaginable power. Since nothing natural is even a candidate that fits nicely with an omnipotent being.

We are made in his image. We are moral agents which have freewill. Since I have no idea what your referring to I can't agree or counter it. The NT focuses primarily on Christ who intentionally adopted a role as a man to serve as an example. If he came as an octopus or in his full glory I don't think he would have made a good example for men.

I was saying that the christian god has more characteristics than necessary to create the universe. There is no unique 'perfect match', since a lot of other gods could fit in just as nicely ( or even better ).

I think Aristotle was the first, though I imagine it took a different form. Aquinas posed a prime mover argument, and it's most popular form was created by a Muslim named al-Ghazali. It exists in countless forms because it is a necessity and was debated in isolation for thousands of years. Great minds in many cultures and times have found it to be a logical imperative and it is one of the most robust theories I ever heard of. It has no defeater known to man. The only question was the one you asked, is the cause my particular God. I cannot prove it but do claim he is by far the best candidate.

Let me cut the chase: The reason why this generic god matches the christian god is no mere accident, nor a major finding. The reason behind that is simple: those philosophers either influenced our understanding of god ( and christianity ) or were influenced by christianity itself.

You are not making a comparison between concepts that never had contact with each other.

The burden of faith is only the absence of a defeater. I however raise that bar to best explanation. I argue for the biblical God as the best explanation for a mountain of evidence. I do not argue to a certainty. If I did or could it would not be called faith.

And I remain unconvinced by evidence presented so far.

 

[Skwim]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe according to all the evidence began to exist. If nature began to exist it's cause had to be non-natural. If time began it's cause must be independent of time, if matter began to exist it's cause must be immaterial, if space began to exist it's cause must be no corporeal.

Not at all. It's been established that our universe originated from the BB, whose origin may lay in the transformation of a previous state of being; a previous universe of some kind, or an expression of a meta-universe, or one of the iterations of the ongoing reincarnations of previous universes.

BTW this logical deduction has held up since Aristotle, comes in various types, and is relevant to many concepts of God,

So what? The notion that the earth is flat was the standard model for hundreds and hundreds of years.

but may have been summed up best by:

The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself.
Cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irrelevant.
Pulling god as the cause of the universe out of the black hat is no more justified than pulling out Turtles All The Way Down as its construction. Your assertion that it must have been a god of some sort because we have yet to identify a physical cause of the universe is hardly persuasive. Just so you know.

 

[1robin]

No its using a negative definition as a contrast to know we do have rather than by observations. It is assertions only. For it to be philosophical it must also be sound otherwise it is nothing more than speculation. Look up soundness.

I am sure Aquinas has forgotten more about soundness than both of us combined.

1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

And I know William Lane Craig understands soundness:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).

I have even seen every step of this argument with it's philosophical justification given, but it is a hard thing to search for. If I find it I will post it.

The argument is a bad one that is why.

Is that why it is still a respected theory after 3000 years of scrutiny. When given in the dozens of the debates where I have seen it used the professional atheist philosopher does not dismiss it as bad. Half simply admit they have no counter claim, the other have only attempt to show it less than certain and then to equate less than certainty with meaningless.

That is not the point. The point is you ignored a major part of your source which argued against KCA but claimed it was for it. that is deceptive.

I did not ignore anything. I copied the entire text from the link. I am not responsible for quoting it's parent article, then the parents parent article, then everything ever said by anyone on any point of the article. I left the counter argument in place. That is all anyone could ask. I am tired of debating this trivial point of order, as it is not true, uses non-existent standards, and does not matter. Pick on the argument not how it was presented.

Nope. A leap of faith can not guarantee it's leaps are true thus it by definition can not be knowledge. Where as claims that have evidence can be considered knowledge. One is an assertion, the other is not. If an argument's conclusion is not granted as true then it is no deductive. You presented an inductive argument which no amount of verification can prove is correct.

Your simply re-asking for proof of a faith based position. You cannot prove anything beyond the fact we think. Everything has an element of faith. If you deny faith (especially of the one who holds the faith position) you wipe out all claims to knowledge of any kind in the process. It is like you found a guy you did not like in Bahrain and to kill him you nuked the whole world. This argument comes in many forms if you deny it is deductive then try Swinburne's:

Richard Swinburne contends that the cosmological argument is not deductively valid; if it were so, “it would be incoherent to assert that a complex physical universe exists and that God does not” (1979, 119). Rather, he develops an inductive cosmological argument that appeals to the inference to the best explanation. Swinburne distinguishes between two varieties of inductive arguments: those that show that the conclusion is more probable than not (what he terms a correct P-inductive argument) and those that further increase the probability of the conclusion (what he terms a correct C-inductive argument). In The Existence of God he presents a cosmological argument that he claims falls in the category of C-inductive arguments. However, this argument is part of a larger, cumulative case for a P-inductive argument for God's existence.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I have no need of providing an argument against a view that has not established it's own claims as true.

I am not arguing to certainty, I am arguing to best explanation.

Nope. God is an unnecessary assumption. One could be forward the universe is uncaused as well removing the need for God completely via Occam's Razor. If time stops at the singularity there is no before thus God as a cause is nonsensical. If there is a "God time" then by definition God is constrained by something greater than God thus by definition is not God. This reduces God to the level of the universe. As with any assertion one can produce a counter in which the universe or singularity is uncaused as pointed out above.

Since no event ever observed lacks a cause, to assume that you know of one that does violates your own standard for certainty. My argument is consistent with every observation ever made, your inconsistent with it. To argue that you know of one exception (which you have no way of knowing) that counters trillions that are consistent is not the simplest answer. Positing a cause for this case which is consistent with every known observation is consistent. And a disembodied mind is the simplest cause possible.

No it suffered due to special pleading of theists and their horrible arguments by invoking God's attributes based on negative definitions rather than observation. Craig has no idea what he is talking about, Carol showed Craig has no grasp of physics, he spouts pure sophistry.

Talking about outside of time is not a physics issue, it is a philosophical issue which Carroll is unqualified to debate. However Carroll is the best debater on the non-theist side I know of. Craig is well published, has many degrees, sits on college boards, and is a research professor, and in his opponents own words "the philosopher who puts the fear of God" into an atheist. I think it was Harris who said that. I have also heard more than one say that their upcoming debate with Craig caused a flood of e-mails expressing hope they did not blow it that no other debater ever produced. Your dismissal of Craig says more about you than him. IMO the only living scholar more potent than Craig is Zacharias but Ravi does not debate.

It is a good counter-argument as anything poorly defined is a nonsensical explanation. The supernatural nature is nonsensical as anything that interacts with nature is by definition part of it. Likewise you are creating the supernatural based on your lack of knowledge thus you create an assertion to support another assertion. All of which can be dismissed by the razor.

However bad you think arguments about beings outside of time are, your counter claim was far worse.

So far you:
1. Have pointed out an incorrect and meaningless point of order about quoting parent articles.
2. Appealed to the occurrence of a thing which has never been observed and which contradicts every observed event.
3. And summarily dismissed scholars without cause.

This is not a debate it is having a word fit.

 

[viole]

Have you not read the NT or even watched the Passion of the Christ? I can sit through the Omaha beach assault in Saving Private Ryan a half dozen times without flinching. The second time I watched the Passion of the Christ I cried, turned off the DVD player, and will probably not watch it again. Your conscience must have been seared by too much secular TV and horror movies. Lets take another look at it.

Fig 3.Cross and titulus. Left, victim carrying crossbar (patibulum) (not the cross - my words) to site of upright post (stipes). center Low Tau cross (crux commissa), commonly used by Romans at time of Christ. upper right, Rendition of Jesus' titulus with name and crime Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Lower right Possible methods for attaching tittles to Tau cross (left) and Latin cross (right).

He did not carry the cross, he did not even carry the cross beam all the way. Simon had to help. My words.


Medical Aspects of Crucifixion

With a knowledge of both anatomy and ancient crucifixion practices, one may reconstruct the probable medical aspects of this form of slow execution. Each wound apparently was intended to produce intense agony, and the contributing causes of death were numerous.

The scourging prior to crucifixion served to weaken the condemned man and, if blood loss was considerable, to produce orthostatie hypotension and even hypovolemie shock.8, 12 When the victim was thrown to the ground on his back, in preparation for transfixion of the hands, his scourging wounds most likely would become torn open again and contaminated with dirt.2, 16 Furthermore, with each respiration, the painful scourging wounds would be scraped against the rough wood of the stipes. 7 As a result, blood loss from the back probably would continue throughout the crucifixion ordeal.

With arms outstretched but not taut, the wrists were nailed to the patibulum.7,11 It has been shown that the ligaments and bones of the wrist can support the weight of a body hanging from them, but the palms cannot.11 Accordingly, the iron spikes probably were driven between the radius and the carpals or between the two rows of carpal bones, 2,10, 11,30 either proximal to or through the strong band like flexor retinaeulum and the various interearpal ligaments (Fig 4). Although a nail in either location in the wrist might pass between the bony elements and thereby produce no fractures, the likelihood of painful periosteal injury would seem great. Furthermore, the driven nail would crush or sever the rather large sensorimotor median nerve (Fig 4).2, 7, 11 The stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms.7, 9 Although the severed median nerve would result in paralysis of a portion of the hand, isehemie eontraetures and impalement of various ligaments by the iron spike might produce a claw like grasp.2, 5, 8, 11, 30 It is likely that the deep peroneal nerve and branches of the medial and lateral plantar nerves would have been injured by the nails (Fig 5). Although scourging may have resulted in considerable blood loss, crucifixion per se was a relatively bloodless procedure, since no major arteries, other than perhaps the deep plantar arch, pass through the favored anatomic sites of transfixion. 2,10, 11

The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion, beyond the excruciating pain, was a marked interference with normal respiration, particularly exhalation (Fig 6). The weight of the body, pulling down on the outstretched arms and shoulders, would tend to fix the intercostal muscles in an inhalation state and thereby hinder passive exhalation. 2, 10, 11 Accordingly, exhalation was primarily diaphragmatic, and breathing was shallow. It is likely that this form of respiration would not suffice and that hypercarbia would soon result. The onset of muscle cramps or tetanic contractions, due to fatigue and hypercarbia, would hinder respiration even further.11

Adequate exhalation required lifting the body by pushing up on the feet and by flexing the elbows and adducting the shoulders (Fig 6) 2 However, this maneuver would place the entire weight of the body on the tarsals and would produce searing pain.7 Furthermore, flexion of the elbows would cause rotation of the wrists about the iron nails and cause fiery pain along the damaged median nerves.7 Lifting of the body would also painfully scrape the scourged back against the rough wooden stipes. 2, 7 Muscle cramps and paresthesias of the outstretched and uplifted arms would add to the discomfort. 7 As a result, each respiratory effort would become agonizing and tiring and lead eventually to asphyxia. 2,3,7,10, 11

The actual cause of death by crucifixion was multifactorial and varied somewhat with each ease, but the two most prominent causes probably were hypovolemie shock and exhaustion asphyxia.2,3,7,10Other possible contributing factors included dehydration, 7, 16 stress-induced arrhythmias,3 and congestive heart failure with the rapid accumulation of pericardial and perhaps pleural effusions. 2, 7,11 Crucifracture (breaking the legs below the knees), if performed, led to an asphyxic death within minutes.11>

Death by crucifixion was, in every sense of the word, excruciating (Latin, excruciatus, or "out of the cross").

Crucifixion of Jesus

After the scourging and the mocking, at about 9 AM, the Roman soldiers put Jesus' clothes back on him and then led him and two thieves to be crucified.1 Jesus apparently was so weakened by the severe flogging that he could not carry the patibulum from the Praetorium to the site of crucifixion one third of a mile (600 to 650 m) away.1, 3, 5, 7 Simon of Cyrene was summoned to carry Christ's cross, and the processional then made its way to Golgotha (or Calvary), an established crucifixion site.

Here, Jesus' clothes, except for a linen loincloth, again were removed, thereby probably reopening the scourging wounds. He then was offered a drink of wine mixed with myrrh (gall) but, after tasting it, refused the drink.1 Finally, Jesus and the two thieves were crucified. Although scriptural references are made to nails in the hands,1 these are not at odds with the archaeological evidence of wrist wounds, since the ancients customarily considered the wrist to be a part of the hand.7,11 The titulus (Fig 3) was attached above Jesus' head. It is unclear whether Jesus was crucified on the Tau cross or the Latin cross; archaeological findings favor the former 11 and early tradition the latter.38 The fact that Jesus later was offered a drink of wine vinegar from a sponge placed on the stalk of the hyssop plant1 (approximately 20 in, or 50 em, long) strongly supports the belief that Jesus was crucified on the short cross.6

The soldiers and the civilian crowd taunted Jesus throughout the crucifixion ordeal, and the soldiers east lots for his clothing. 1 Christ spoke seven times from the cross. Since speech occurs during exhalation, these short, terse utterances must have been particularly difficult and painful. (He was not happily chatting) At about 3 PM that Friday, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, bowed his head, and died.1 The Roman soldiers and onlookers recognized his moment of death.1

Since the Jews did not want the bodies to remain on the crosses after sunset, the beginning of the Sabbath, they asked Pontius Pilate to order erueifraeture to hasten the deaths of the three crucified men.1 The soldiers broke the legs of the two thieves, but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.1 Rather, one of the soldiers pierced his side, probably with an infantry spear, and produced a sudden flow of blood and water.1 Later that day, Jesus' body was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb.1

Fig 7.Spear wound to chest. Left, Probable path of spear. Right, Cross section of thorax, at level of plane indicated at left, showing structures perforated by spear. LA indicates left atrium; LV, left ventricle; RA, right atrium; RV, right ventricle.
The Physical Death Of Jesus Christ, Study by The Mayo Clinic

Now if your not impressed by a divine son willingly feeling every ounce of pain of the above and separation from his father (which was much worse), so we do not have to ourselves, then I would hate to see what amount of suffering and sacrifice you do consider impressive.

Biblically speaking there are two deaths. The first is physical, the second death is separation from God. Jesus tasted both so his followers need not taste the second.

The apostles were Jews. Jewish beliefs were that no one would be resurrected until the end times. Between being taught that and the cryptic ways Jesus spoke of his resurrection it is understandable. I think we (me) included look back with 2000 years of hind sight, 4 written gospels, the most scrutinized text in history, and hundreds of millions who have been born again and judge the apostles to harshly. How important is it how quickly the apostles came to faith. What matters is that cowardly unbelieving self interested men had an experience in the upper room that changed them into lions who lost everything and faced death but did not flinch.

It is almost never discussed but I think one of the most powerful arguments for the resurrection is that the apostles knew the fact of the matter without any doubt. It is possible a man may endure suffering for something he believes but does not know whether it be true or not. It is rare to find a band of men who lost everything (some even their lives) for what they would have known was a lie if it had been. They faced their own nations scorn and the wrath of the greatest empire on earth and gained nor tried to gain in worldly treasure for the effort. One of them even went from being one of Judaism's greatest scholars to one of Christ's greatest apostles. He knew what happened on the way to Damascus. Why give up everything and attempt to gain anything earthly for a message you knew was false.

Well, at least we agree on something. I also cried when I watched the Passion of Christ and I will never watch it again. But probably for reasons different from yours. It just bored me to tears.

And like less boring Monty Python would say: at least Cruxifictions take place in the open air

I am sure that cruxifitions are very painful. But I am sure that Jesus was not the first to feel that. But He was the first to know that all this will not end in death, or at least in definitive death. So, from a psychological point of view, He must have had an edge. Everybody would be readier to submit to pain if they knew with absolute certainty that they will come back as the airborne Master of the Universe after a couple of days, instead of vanishing and rotting in a grave after that ordeal.

So, my question is: why do you guys insist in saying that Jesus died for our sins? It would be more precise to say that He took a couple of days off, for our sins. Don't you think?

So, still unimpressed, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

We do have evidence of one finite universe, we do not have evidence of anything you mentioned. An argument based on only the fact that I do not know it to be impossible is not really an argument. It is like defending a guy in court for murder, by saying how do you know an alien did take over the mind of the killer for only that act?

You seem to make a whole lot of arguments who's only value is they are not hypothetically impossible.

I even think there is some problems with the characteristics of your hypothetical but it would take some time to evaluate them and since it is a purely hypothetical I can't spare the time. Actually I probably will think about it but I make no promises I will.

Let me skip the Vilenkin theorem for the moment, for the sake of focus. We have already been through that, and if you want to resume it, let me know. We can go through the details of the theorem, the inflationary and relativistic premises, his book and all that, in a separate thread, if you wish.

And for what concern the block universe, I propose you read S. Carroll, B. Greene, L. Smolin, P. Davies and others. I think there is a cool youtube video of B. Greene about the subject. I think He uses the analogy of the Universe as a loaf of bread, or something like that. Again, let me know if you are really interested.

Now. Back to DRUG, the Dumb Random Universes Generator. I would not bother researching it, since I just made it up. It is amazing how easy it is to make up metaphysical explanations about reality.

Your rebuttal, is not a rebuttal. True, we have no evidence of other universes except this one. But we have no evidence of conscious beings living outside this universe, either. So, I do not see how your explanation can be superior, unless you think that special pleading is an argument.

So, how is DRUG not a viable, unconscious and necessary explanation of reality? What does your conscious first cause has, that DRUG does not have?


Ciao

- viole