INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: There is easily lots of valid evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. For example, my post 3639 reasonably proves that the God of the Bible does not exist since he does not have free will.

No it does not. At best you can only challenge a single interpretation of a few scriptures. I cannot even think of what evidence there could even be against God.

My post 3640 on the same page reasonably proves that God does not provide reasonable evidence for everyone who has heard enough about the Gospels to be accountable, which reasonably proves that God does not exist since a loving God would be fair.

I have no memory of ever noticing any evidence that shows God does not have freewill. Your propensity to over evaluate your own achievement probably explains this. You can repost it if you want. I have never heard a single professional debate where either side even once suggested that God does not have freewill, out of thousands of hours of them. I can't even imagine an argument for that claim. Maybe you misunderstand freewill theologically. It means the power to chose hat which a being would will. God can't choose to for example become evil, no make square circles. He cant do illogical things. That is no barrier to freewill.

My post 3641 reasonably proves that it is just as possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter as it is that he is who the Bible says he is.

I remember this one and it only hinted at our ability to determine this not God's ability to enact it. I pointed out the premise of that argument is incoherent. If God is the locus moral truth whatever he did would be both good and right even if no one agreed.

We have discussed those topics before, but we need to discuss them some more in detail for at least several months. It takes a long time to adequately discuss some topics.

If you have not been able to make your point in the sea of words you have submitted time is of no help.

 

[1robin]

As I have told you at least several times, you have made a number of arguments in this thread that question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective. My position has been, and still is that you do not know enough about biology to question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.

Yes I have and those questions remain unanswered. Is there some problem with that?

Millions of American Christians reject common descent. According to even the majority of Christian experts, common descent successfully challenges, and adequately refutes the story of Adam and Eve as believed by millions of American Christians. It is obviously not necessary for Christians to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally, but many Christians, mostly conservative Christians believe that the story is literally true, and some of them would give up Christianity, or become liberal Christians if they one day believed that the story of Adam and Eve was not literally true. I once had some discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day believed that the Bible is not inerrant, he would give up Christianity. There are a lot of biblical literalists, and they believe that biblical literalism is very important. Many of them reject common descent entirely by faith. If you approve of that, please say so and we can forget about discussing science anymore in this thread as far as common descent is concerned.

It only refutes a single and very narrow interpretation. Long before the first person even hinted at evolution (he was a monk by the way), Maimonides and all manner of theologian had other interpretations that do not conflict with common descent. Inerrancy does not mean what you think? It has nothing to do with interpretations, and nothing to do with copies being perfectly accurate. Not to mention that other Christians conclusions are not binding on any other.

The best that you can do is not nearly enough to adequately question, or discredit common descent, and that goes for a large percentage of creationists who know very little about biology.

It is perfectly adequate to question it. It's ability to contradict it would be subjective.

If a person knows enough about biology, they obviously do not need to know the motivation of the writer. When papers are submitted for peer review, quite obviously the motivation of the submitter is irrelevant to whether or not the paper is accepted since it must be accepted or rejected entirely upon its scientific merits.

This is a perfect example of why no system is without corruption.

A large percentage of creationists do not know enough about biology to reject common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.

I agree. I have no idea why this matters.

Better stated, what most experts say is not knowable but in their opinion is probable. As Wikipedia says, many experts say that the scientific evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

Now this is more reasonable. I simply disagree or question what is more probable but grant they may have a better argument. I do not have anyway of knowing the totality of evidence hey rely on. I just know the part I am aware of is unconvincing to many.

Where did I reject a large consensus regarding common descent, or anything else? I told you previously in this thread that I usually accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts unless I believe that I know a lot about a topic. I do not know a lot about biology, so I accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts, and regarding common descent, the large consensus of experts who accept it is impressive since it consists of virtually all skeptic experts, and the majority of Christian experts.

I did not link your rejection to a subject. That was the point. You pick and choose what to reject based on preference.

It is you who need to decide whether or not to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts regarding common descent, not me.

I have no need of deciding that but did so anyway. Evolution is about the most useless theory ever devised even if true.

You would only be correct is there was not lots of credible scientific evidence that supports common descent, and you cannot reasonably prove that there isn't since you are only a mere dabbler in biology compared with the amount of knowledge about biology that it would take to adequately discredit common descent, but even creationist experts have been widely rejected even by the majority of other Christian experts who accept common descent.

No one can know the quantity o the totality of evidence on either side. I can only make determinations based on what amount I am familiar with.

As I told you, regardless of the theory, whenever a theory becomes widely supported, it is quite natural that a relatively few dissenters will be criticized, sometimes fairly, and sometimes unfairly, but I am not aware of any credible evidence that Michael Behe, and Ken Miller have treated creationists unfairly, not to mention many other supporters of common descent who have not treated creationists unfairly.

If I supplied some of the volumes of these occurrences what would be the result. I have to justify looking them up. You would never reach the end of the prejudices in the academic community and what has been sacrificed on it's alter.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Yes, and many Christian experts are still biased, and some even admit it. As you yourself said, it is often not possible to know who is biased, and who is not biased.

Agreed.

That is quite odd since the National Academy of Sciences does not accept or reject the existence of God, and the majority of Christian experts accept common descent. Are you claiming that the peer review process for scientific papers on common descent is unfairly ruled by atheists, and that college biology textbooks are unfairly controlled by atheists? I assume that most Christian experts who accept common descent would say no. It appears that you have committed another composition fallacy. Some atheists are unfairly biased, but so are some Christians. I suggest that you start a new thread at the Evolution vs Creationism forum and provide evidence for your assertions about atheists.

The academy of science has nothing to do with God. It is not a scientific concern, nor is the majority of what we believe and they as well. Your saying you could not measure God with a ruler. So? I am claiming that the exact same kind of corruption exists in academia as politics except maybe on a larger scale. Every form of prejudice and censorship imaginable has occurred. BTW that was also true when Christianity controlled science but my guess is on a smaller scale.

In most advanced Western countries, few Christians make as big a deal out of atheists as you do, and even in the U.S., the majority of Christian experts in biology, and tens of millions of Christians, have no problems with the current educational system, and accept the separation of church and state, which apparently you don't since teaching creationism, and intelligent design in public schools would violate the separation of church and state.

In what way are you qualified to know how atheists are treated in most western nations, or even in most counties of your own state. I do not even understand the "big deal" remark. There never was, never was the intention to have, and hopefully never will be any separation of church and state. There is a bible in the cornerstone of the Washington monument, scriptures carved into the capitals halls, there are even chaplains of each house. The only thing the founding others desired is religious freedom. No official religion controlled by the state in he way it was in England.

But it was never my position that you do not equal the average amateur's knowledge of evolution. I would never make such a claim since the average amateur does not nearly know enough about biology to have informed opinions about common descent. You once said that you know very little about biology, and even recently you said that you base some of your opinions on what creationist experts say even though you admittedly know very little about biology.

I know hundreds of times over more about the evolutionary theory than biology as a whole.

One thing for certain is that many creationists do not know enough about biology to have informed opinions about common descent.

True, yet many others do. This is also a repeat from above and a repeat from before.

Because of your complaints about atheists, I started a thread on May 1 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...st-ken-miller-discusses-science-religion.html that it titled "Biologist Ken Miller discusses science, religion, and faith." Please read the opening post, and make a post in that thread.

I am unaware of what complaints you refer. I usually only discuss atheism and almost never atheists person by person. I might at times use the opposite terms but when making generalized claims they are both valid. Even those without religious positions have noticed the virulence of the new militant atheism.

A Wikipedia article at Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows that Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," not an atheist. You have criticized Darwin for being an amateur naturalist, but even many Christian experts say that he was brilliant, and knew a lot about biology, and they greatly admire his work.

I have no idea how smart he was but he was not trained in biology to any meaningful extent but even he saw many problems for his theory which still have no solution. Even many of his own defeaters have been realized. My claim was not a complaint but merely a statement of fact. BTW a Christian monk beat him by many years in positing this theory.

Obviously not since you discussed common descent after you said that.

I don't recall making any declarative and emphatic statements about being done with it for good. Maybe for the day, maybe I was growing tired of it, maybe I am still tired of it. I never said anything similar to what I did about homosexuality.

Do you intend to discuss the Tyre prophecy any more? I easily won those debates, and you have not replied to a number of
my posts in that thread.

I have already replied. Why did you have the need to know this anyway. If I never posted again here then you have nothing to do. As with the boy and the wolf these constant claims to victory are producing the opposite effect. Those who know need not say, those who say do not know (the great Jackie Chan).

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: There is easily lots of valid evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. For example, my post 3639 reasonably proves that the God of the Bible does not exist since he does not have free will.

No it does not. At best you can only challenge a single interpretation of a few scriptures. I cannot even think of what evidence there could even be against God.

On the contrary, my post 3639 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-364.html reasonably proves that the God of the Bible does not exist, and you have not replied to that post.

My post 3640 on the same page reasonably proves that God does not provide reasonable evidence for everyone who has heard enough about the Gospels to be accountable, which reasonably proves that God does not exist since a loving God would be fair.

I have no memory of ever noticing any evidence that shows God does not have freewill.

Well of course you haven't since you do not know that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, perfect God could not possibly have free will.

Anyway, my post 3640 does not have anything to do with God not having free will, and has to do with God refusing to provide reasonable evidence to everyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable. You have not replied to that post.

Your propensity to over evaluate your own achievement probably explains this. You can repost it if you want. I have never heard a single professional debate where either side even once suggested that God does not have freewill, out of thousands of hours of them. I can't even imagine an argument for that claim. Maybe you misunderstand freewill theologically. It means the power to chose that which a being would will. God can't choose to for example become evil, nor make square circles. He can't do illogical things.

The fact that you have not heard my arguments before is irrelevant to whether or not they have merit.

An article by a skeptic at God Has No Free Will: 2 Proofs says that God does not have free will, but I was not aware of those arguments when I made my arguments. I prefer my own arguments to some of his arguments, and I like some of his arguments.

At http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/11/god-cannot-have-free-will/, a skeptic said:

"If God is morally perfect; perfect in every way, it follows necessarily that every choice that God makes must necessarily be the most perfect choice. Thus God does not have the ability to do other than that which is the most perfect, or at least the only choice can be made is if there are choices of equal perfection."

I agree with most of that, but I am not certain about "at least the only choice can be made is if there are choices of equal perfection." If there area choices of equal perfection, when God created humans, if that was the most perfect choice among other things, then God did not freely choose to do that since it was the most perfect choice, and God must always do the most perfect thing if anything is the most perfect thing.

When God created humans, if there were some other equally perfect choices, they all had to be good choices. God should not be complimented for making good choices since he must always make good choices. Without choice, morality has no meaning. If God is an evil imposter, he would not have free will, and it would be illogical for anyone to compliment, or criticize him for being evil since he must always be evil.

When God created humans, if there were some other equally perfect choices, then God would have been just as pleased if he had not created humans, and had chosen to do something else. from God's perspective, humans are expendable, and not necessary for any of his purposes.

Once that God promised to provide humans with eternal life, he has to keep his promise, and cannot lie about that, so he does not have free will regarding that issue. It would be illogical for anyone to compliment God for keeping his promises since he has to keep his promises.

It is you who do not understand God's free will theologically, not me. There is no need for me to restate what I said since all that you need to do is read my post 3639, and reply to it. However, if you wish, I can easily repost it since I have it saved as a Microsoft Word file.

My post 3641 reasonably proves that it is just as possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter as it is that he is who the Bible says he is.

I remember this one and it only hinted at our ability to determine this not God's ability to enact it. I pointed out the premise of that argument is incoherent. If God is the locus moral truth whatever he did would be both good and right even if no one agreed.

That does not sound anything like my post 3641 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-365.html, which is about the possibility that the God of the Bible being is an imposter, and not who the Bible says he is. You did not reply to that post either.

If God was an imposter, how would you be able to know that?

We have discussed those topics before, but we need to discuss them some more in detail for at least several months. It takes a long time to adequately discuss some topics.

If you have not been able to make your point in the sea of words you have submitted time is of no help.

The best that I can do is to reply to your posts, and I have done that. If you do not want to reply to them any more, that is fine. People can read my arguments, and your arguments, and decide for themselves whose arguments are best.

We have not discussed those three topics nearly as much as we have discussed biology, and the Tyre prophecy, which indicates that you know that many of my arguments are better than many of your arguments are.

It has become apparent that many of the issues that we discuss will end up with you being evasive, and falsely claiming that your arguments are better than my arguments.

You have refused to debate experts, but I am willing to debate my posts 3639, 3640, and 3641, and the Tyre prophecy with anyone. There is no way that William Lane Craig, and Ravi Zacharias can reasonably prove that God has free will, that God provides reasonable evidence for everyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable, and that God is not an imposter, and that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

 

[Agnostic75]

As I have told you at least several times, you have made a number of arguments in this thread that question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective. My position has been, and still is that you do not know enough about biology to question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.

Yes I have and those questions remain unanswered. Is there some problem with that?

Yes, there are problems with that, and you already know what they are since I have already stated them many times. First of all, you know that I do not know very much about biology, so what I do not know about what you said is not important. What is obviously most important is what people say who know a lot about biology, and you do not know anywhere near enough about biology to adequately question, or discredit common descent.

Second, your refusal to discuss the following evidence shows that what I quoted remains unanswered, and not adequately understood by you:

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - Michael J. Behe - Google Books

 

[Agnostic75]

As I have told you at least several times, you have made a number of arguments in this thread that question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective. My position has been, and still is that you do not know enough about biology to question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.

Yes I have and those questions remain unanswered. Is there some problem with that?

Yes, there are problems with that, and you already know what they are since I have already stated them many times. First of all, you know that I do not know very much about biology, so what I do not know about what you said is not important. What is obviously most important is what people say who know a lot about biology, and you do not know anywhere near enough about biology to adequately question, or discredit common descent.

Second, your refusal to discuss the following evidence shows that what I quoted remains unanswered, and not adequately understood by you:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - Michael J. Behe - Google Books

Third, you, and everyone else who has read your posts in this thread knows that you would easily lose debates with experts, which proves that you are only bluffing at this forum where you know that no one has a degree in biology. You know that many experts would not have any trouble debating anything about biology with you.

Since many experts could easily defeat you in debates about common descent, not to mention many knowledgeable amateurs, it is obvious that no skeptic laymen at this forum need to be any more concerned with the fact that they cannot adequately reply to some of your arguments than you are concerned with the fact that you could not adequately reply to what I posted, and could not adequately reply to experts' arguments if you debated them.

Millions of American Christians reject common descent. According to even the majority of Christian experts, common descent successfully challenges, and adequately refutes the story of Adam and Eve as believed by millions of American Christians. It is obviously not necessary for Christians to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally, but many Christians, mostly conservative Christians believe that the story is literally true, and some of them would give up Christianity, or become liberal Christians if they one day believed that the story of Adam and Eve was not literally true. I once had some discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day believed that the Bible is not inerrant, he would give up Christianity. There are a lot of biblical literalists, and they believe that biblical literalism is very important. Many of them reject common descent entirely by faith. If you approve of that, please say so and we can forget about discussing science anymore in this thread as far as common descent is concerned.

It only refutes a single and very narrow interpretation.

How do you define a "narrow interpretation"? Millions of Christians accept creationism, and the story of Adam and Eve literally, and reject common descent. That is a fact.

Long before the first person even hinted at evolution (he was a monk by the way), Maimonides and all manner of theologian had other interpretations that do not conflict with common descent.......

Nevertheless, today, millions of Christians accept creationism, and the story of Adam and Eve literally, and reject common descent.

Inerrancy does not mean what you think. It has nothing to do with interpretations, and nothing to do with copies being perfectly accurate. Not to mention that other Christians' conclusions are not binding on any other.

Nevertheless, today, millions of Christians accept creationism, and the story of Adam and Eve literally, and reject common descent.

Anyway, I am familiar with the Chicago Board of Inerrancy statement at Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Consider the following excerpts:

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

My use of the word "inerrant" is not any different from that. Regarding the millions of Christians who reject common descent partly, or wholly because of the Bible, those Christians believe that the story of Adam and Eve "in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy" to mean that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and did not have any genetic predecessors, and that they can understand any parts of the story of Adam and Eve that is "any essential element of the Christian faith."

Many conservative Christians believe that literally interpreting some things in the Bible, including the story of Adam and Eve is an "essential element of the Christian faith."

Anyway, my main interest is whether or not common descent is true, and you do not know enough about biology to question, or discredit common descent.

It is perfectly adequate to question it.

Not based upon your own personal knowledge of biology since you admitted that you do not know a lot about biology.

It's ability to contradict it would be subjective.

Not at all since you cannot adequately contradict that which you do not understand.

 

[Agnostic75]

A large percentage of creationists do not know enough about biology to reject common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.

I agree. I have no idea why this matters.

You said that you object to ignorance. I asked you if you object that millions of Christians who know very little about biology object to common descent. You said no since in your opinion there is no risk for Christians to wrongly believe that common descent if false even if it is true. Well, my position is that even if creationism is true, there is no risk for skeptics since an unknown God created humans. As soon as you use that kind of argument, you have gone from science to theology. I would first like to settle the issue of common descent from scientific perspectives, and then if you wish we can discuss common descent from theological perspectives.

Better stated, what most experts say is not knowable but in their opinion is probable. As Wikipedia says, many experts say that the scientific evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

Now this is more reasonable. I simply disagree or question what is more probable but grant they may have a better argument. I do not have any way of knowing the totality of evidence they rely on. I just know the part I am aware of is unconvincing to many.

In my opinion, the main issue is who probably understands common descent better, you, or the 99.86% of American experts who accept it, including the majority of Christian experts? I believe that reasonable laymen will accept the latter.

Where did I reject a large consensus regarding common descent, or anything else? I told you previously in this thread that I usually accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts unless I believe that I know a lot about a topic. I do not know a lot about biology, so I accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts, and regarding common descent, the large consensus of experts who accept it is impressive since it consists of virtually all skeptic experts, and the majority of Christian experts.

I did not link your rejection to a subject. That was the point. You pick and choose what to reject based on preference.

What picking and choosing are you referring to regarding common descent, or any other topic? We have been discussing common descent, and I have consistently referred to a large consensus of experts who accept it, and you have often referred to a small group of experts who reject it.

Evolution is about the most useless theory ever devised even if true.

Creationism is useless unless people know who God is, and if a God exists, no one knows who he is.

Since Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," he wrote that he believed that God used evolution to create species. If God has used evolution, then obviously evolution is not useless.

Christian experts, and theistic evolutionists Michael Behe, and Ken Miller, welcome the interest in biology of their skeptic colleagues. The search for truth is a noble enterprise, and skeptic biologists are searching for the truth.

Perhaps you meant that evolution is a useless theory for naturalists, in which case I am not an naturalist, and you have not reasonably proven that naturalism is not plausible.

As I showed in my post 3760, your attempts to use science to reasonably prove religion is not reasonable, and is rejected by many Christian experts, and laymen.

Please reply to my previous three posts.

 

[1robin]

That is false. Every specific thing that God does, and does not do, is dictated by his nature. God specifically must not lie, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific inaction. God specifically had to create humans, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific action. If God acted contrary to those two examples, he would not be God. You once said that God would be good even if he never did anything, but that has to be false since if God never did anything, he would not be God.

It is consistent with his nature not dictated by it. When I fix an electronic instrument my nature did not force me to do it. You might could say God can't do evil as a dictate but not creation. He obviously would not change over time and so his nature would have dictated an eternal creation or no creation at any time if it had the power to dictate creation to begin with.

John 3:16 says:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

If God had not given the world his only begotten Son, he would not be God, and such inaction would have been against his nature, which dictated that he give the world his only begotten Son. God cannot act, or refuse to act contrary to his nature.

He could still be God but that God would not have the merciful characteristics mine does. Actually I don't even think that is true. He could still be merciful and just use another method. Notice what that verse does not say: For God so loved the world, that he WAS FORCED to give his only begotten Son

That suggests that God giving the world his only begotten Son was optional, but it certainly was not optional since if God had not done that, he would not have been God, and quite obviously, God must always be God. Logically, in order for God to give the world his only begotten Son, he first had to create humans.

He would still have been God just not an identical God. Actually he could have been an identical God and just acted by other means.

God's omnibenevolent nature is always his only justification for doing things, and the only reason why he ever does anything.

How do get from he's good to there for he must create us. He would be just as good without doing so.

If God is never bound by specificity, then all of his actions, and inactions would be equal, and it would never matter what he specifically does, or does not do, but that cannot be true or God creating a small asteroid in a distant part of space would not be any different from him creating humans.

he might be bound by specific but not dictates to act. IOW he might not could make a totally evil world but he would not HAVE to make a good world.

William Lane Craig has said that God is the greatest conceivable being. J.P. Moreland, who is a distinguished colleague of William Lane Craig, has said that it is impossible for God to have his attributes to a greater degree that he already has them. That implies that if God could have done anything better than he already has done, he would have done it, and that when God does anything, it has to be the best that he can do, or he would not have done it. When God created man, and gave man his only begotten Son, that was the best that he could have done at that time. God's perfect, omnibenevolent nature dictated that he do those things.

Your making a huge fundamental mistake. Your confusing capacity with a mandate to act. That philosophy comes from great making properties. They are attributes not dictates. God may be restricted by what range of world he may create but he is not bound to make any world.

You have said that God would be good even if he never did anything. That is ridiculous. Even if all that God ever did was think, he would be doing something, and he cannot control his thoughts any more than he can control his actions. For example, God cannot lie. He is not even able to consider lying because of his perfect, omnibenevolent nature. God had to create humans since that was part of his nature. Obviously, he had to have thought about doing it before he did it since thinking about doing it is also part of his nature. Since God could not have avoided thinking about creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son, he could not have avoided creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son.

The completely obvious context was creation. You made all your claims in that context and mine were in it as well. God may be prohibited from lying by his nature but you cannot go from there to his having to create humans. They are two completely disconnected issues. Creation is not in any way part of his nature. Creation reflects attributes of his nature but it is not part of it. That is pantheism not Christianity.

No intelligent case could be made that God can control his thoughts since, for example, God cannot consider lying. In addition, no intelligent case could be made that God can control his actions. Since God cannot control his thoughts, he cannot control his actions either.

That is absurd. If it is true that God cannot lie he could still chose to create or not create. He could chose to create from an infinite range of passible creations even if some were off limits. He could interact with creation or not in any way he chose without ever being compelled. If he did not create he is no less God, even if he did not salvage the wreckage we create he would be no less God. If he made dolphins or unicorns his chief creation he is no less God. If he created a creation we have no ability to comprehend he is no less God.

That was obviously not a repeat since it was the first time in that post that I said that morality has no meaning without choice. An omnibenevolent God could not ask humans to love a being who cannot control his thoughts, actions, and inactions since that would be deceptive. Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist.

You have stated this claim about God's not being lovable since he has no choice time after time before. I believe I have wholly undone that claim. Whether you agree or not why would I keep restating it?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

That does not have anything to do with my arguments, and does not refute them. Let me try to make my arguments simpler for you. Let's say that John lived in South Korea. He grew up in a Christian home, had devout Christian parents, and attended church regularly, so he was sufficiently evangelized to be accountable. By age 18, John became a skeptic, and stayed a skeptic for the rest of his life. He lived in South Korea for his entire life. Most Christians would claim that John will not have eternal life. However, if John had been sent to the U.S. when he was a baby, and lived there for the rest of his life, it is reasonably possible that he would have become a Christian.

You made a switch here. I do not have the ability to examine sufficient evangelization criteria.

1. You must show that regional faith statistics are incompatible with God. You can't as they are perfectly compatible and even predicted by him.
2. I have no basis by which to evaluate levels of evangelization. I can only comment that the bible says we will only be judged by what we have received and that nature alone is enough for faith.

Let me put it another way. For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians. Let's call one of them Tom. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

First that is an impossible hypothetical. You cannot make an exact copy of anything. Second even if you could do it, it would not reflect reality as no two identical souls exist. Third even if those two were true no two sets of circumstances are identical. Your hypothetical justifies no response.

No, I just proved that they are to blame since there are not any doubts whatsoever that if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, John would have become a Christian. Since my arguments are irrefutable, you will have no choice except to complain about my hypothetical arguments, but hypothetical arguments are valid, and are frequently used by Christians.

It is irrelevant what would take place in this impossible world that has no relevance to reality. Analogies only work if they represent reality accurately. Yours is not even close. In actual reality sufficient evidence is given for the judgments enacted in every single case.

If you claim that John should not have eternal life, you have a problem since an exact duplicate of him, Tom, became a Christian. In addition, you have another problem since Tom not have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same conditions where John was raised. My hypothetical arguments have to be valid because it is a virtual given that if one million clones were made of a skeptic named John, who was properly evangelized, at least some of the clones would become Christians under certain circumstances.

I have no position on this fantasy. Why can't you use actual reality for your point?

There are not any doubts whatsoever that you would not have become a Christian under certain other circumstances, and even if you knew enough about the Bible to be accountable.

There is no way even theoretically you could possibly ever know that.

There is no need for semantics. Well of course the hearts of the clones would have made the choices, but many of the choices that they made were different because the circumstances were different. Thus, the circumstances dictated which worldview some the clones would choose.

It is a shame that when you went off the rails with this analogy you rode it into the ground. Most of your post here I can not even find a way to modify it to make it relevant. No circumstance has the capacity to prevent us from choosing to accept the truth we will be judged by.

For all practical purposes, John and Tom are the same person. Does Tom the clone deserve to have eternal life since he became a Christian? If so, why doesn’t John deserve to have eternal life since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same circumstances as Tom? If Tom the clone deserves to have eternal life, why don’t all skeptics who have been sufficiently evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances not deserve to have eternal life? How are they any different than Tom?

Tom and John do not exist. Even if they did I am not really in a position to judge all this stuff. The one person I do know about is me. I have never been in a position where circumstances dictated I would not accept the truth I could perceive. They may have made it harder or may have made it easier but they do not have any power to force a decision in my case. I have even tried to invent better hypotheticals than yours to examine this issue and failed myself. Tell you what. Find me a exhaustive and reliable biography of an actual person and make your case using it.

If Tom had been raised under the same circumstances as John, he would not have become a Christian, in which case, his circumstances would have dictated the choice that his heart would make.

I sure wish you had not used a flawed premise for this whole post. Once you went there 9I could not follow) and you never came back. So I am sure you will not find my response satisfying. I tried and tried to correlate your hypotheticals with reality but it was a bridge too far. Since there is no reason to think your hypotheticals ever occurred, ever could occur, or ever will occur what is their relevance. Maybe they do not occur because God saw the injustice in allowing them to.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is consistent with his nature not dictated by it.

If a being is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, quite obviously his nature would require all of his thoughts, and actions to always be good. That is just plain old common sense, logic, and reason, and it could not possibly be any other way.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans. That is debatable, but even if you are right, whenever God does anything, it has to be good. Even if God could choose among a number of equally good things to do, whatever of those things he chose to do would have to be good. No loving God would ask people to love a being who had no choice except to always do good things when he does things. As I have told you a number of times, without choice, morality has not meaning. I assume that you only admire some humans because you believe that they could choose to not be admirable if they wanted to.

 

[Agnostic75]

You made a switch here. I do not have the ability to examine sufficient evangelization criteria.

Yes you do since any child who grows up in a devoutly Christian home, and regularly attends church, and knows the Bible well is accountable. There is no doubt that some children like that who became Christians would not have become Christians under certain other circumstances, and that some of them who did not become Christians would have become Christians under certain other circumstances.

Naturally, there are more new Christians in predominantly Christian countries, but even though the U.S. generally has more Christian influences than South Korea has, it is probable that some skeptics who grew up in Christian homes in the U.S. became Christians when to South Korea, or to some other countries that have fewer Christian influences than the U.S. has. Every human is different, and is influenced by different things.

In other words, some Christians who live in countries other than the U.S. are able to influence the same skeptics who were not influenced in the U.S. American Christians are not the only Christians in the world who have the gift of persuasion, and sometimes Christians who live in other countries are better at persuading skeptics from the U.S. than American Christians are.

 

[1robin]

Why is that? Why must all possible Gods always tell the truth?

If God is the greatest conceivable being then truth is a great making property of that being. Lying is not a great making trait.

For purposes of these discussions, the main issue is whether or not the God of the Bible is who the Bible says he is. You have not provided reasonable evidence that he is not an imposter.

God is not an imposter until I prove him not to be. That is not how history or theology operates. In fact it is the exact opposite to how legality works. Testimony is considered valid until shown to be false. I only need to show that his not being an imposter is better attested than his being one. I do not even have that burden but took it up anyway. However thin the evidence may be, or how little of it there is in your estimation it is all in favor of his being what he says he is. Even using philosophy and it's principle of identity a things is what it acts like unless proven differently. It is really quite bizarre that your criteria is that men died to defend a lie unless I prove it impossible it was a lie. That reflects a bias so great I cannot identify with it o n any level.

Then what an evil God does is good or right because he is also the moral judge.

Yes, how could it be otherwise? I do not like this fact but I have no argument against it. If Allah exists I think he is evil compared to my moral standards but if he exist my moral standards are not the judge. I can despise and reject him, I have no standard by which to condemn him available.

At the other forum, you said that evil does not have great making qualities. It is up to you to explain your position, and you did not explain it.

It is not my position. I do not even understand it. I trust those who do understand it and have just stated what they do. If you introduce the philosophical concept of God it comes in that context whether I can explain it or not.

I read Craig's article that I quoted, and nothing in it logically precludes the existence of an evil God.

That is not the issue. It is not even coherent. How could you know an evil God is evil. What higher standard judges him? Not that that is relevant. Theological positions are not resolved to certainties, they are best fit conclusions. God's being good is the best fit.

If an imposter God can do things like heal sick people, predict the future, read people's minds, create planets, and create biological life, and is omnipotent, and omniscient, he would be able to successfully pretend to be the God of the Bible.

Not one word in those statements is an argument that that possibility is true. You need to show that better evidence exists that he is an imposter than exists that he is not. Again this absurd notion that perceptions are false until proven correct beyond the possibility of being wrong is a result of extreme bias.

Regarding item 1, quite naturally, an evil, omnipotent, omniscient God would easily be able to inspire the Bible.

I do not have to show it impossible to show it les probable and that is the only relevant issue.

Re

garding item 2, an evil, omnipotent, omniscient God would easily be able to trick anyone who he wanted to.

See the above. One of the reasons I tell you to limit what you post is that if your premise is wrong or invalid I have to wade through claim after claim basis on the flaw. When you go off the rails you stay there for quite some time and that mandates I must stay there and it is a waste of time.

Not at all. If powerful good, and evil supernatural beings exist, and the leader of one of the groups is a God, no logic requires that the leader be the God of the Bible.

Vast amounts of logic does in fact suggest that. When most other candidates come in self contradictory texts and with mutually exclusive claims the field of possible gets narrow very fast. I only need to show God is the best candidate not the only one.

Regarding item 1, Paul established uncertainty when he said that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. You cannot reasonably prove that Paul knew that it was not God who is masquerading as an angel of light.

I have absolutely no burden on need to. I only need to show it is more probable.

Regarding item 2, the only evidence that I need is that no logic requires that a God be good.

That is incoherent. How could whatever God is not be good if that same God is the moral standard? You never listen but I have said to think using the terms morally true or false instead of evil and good.

Regarding item 3, your claim that God is who he says he is is theoretical.

That is not true it is experiential and historical, etc... but even if true, So?

I said:



Please answer the question.

I need no proof. I need only a better fit. Just given that God's moral actions line up with a whole range of almost universally perceived Good is enough no matter how weak because you have exactly zero evidence on your side. I do not need to know, I need to have better reasons to believe than not. Now please drop the irrational standard that things are not what they appear until every possibility they are not is eradicated to a certainty because that flawed standard is taking up way too much time.

Do you assume your car is incapable of getting you to the store until you prove it is, before attempting it? If this is what you thought was so compelling you specifically requested I address it I am disappointed.

 

[1robin]

If a being is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, quite obviously his nature would require all of his thoughts, and actions to always be good. That is just plain old common sense, logic, and reason, and it could not possibly be any other way.

Even if I grant that, it does not in any way mandate he act. It only requires that if he act he not act in an evil manner.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans. That is debatable, but even if you are right, whenever God does anything, it has to be good.

Now your catching on Boyo.

Even if God could choose among a number of equally good things to do, whatever of those things he chose to do would have to be good. No loving God would ask people to love a being who had no choice except to always do good things when he does things. As I have told you a number of times, without choice, morality has not meaning. I assume that you only admire some humans because you believe that they could choose to not be admirable if they wanted to.

And you next you go off the rails again. By no logic is a thing that is only lovable incapable of being loved. Do we not even love evil, do we not love a whole host of things that have no choice about their identity, do we not love actions in a past tense? I admire humans without choice ever being considered. For example my family does not have to overcome anything to love me and I not only love them for that but whether they had a choice never occurs to me. I love a thing for it's nature, not for it's possibility of being the other way around. I had a friend who went through AA. I was reading their literature and they stated that an alcoholic not only loves alcohol but will suffer loss similar to losing a loved one when stopping, even though alcohol has no choice in what it does.

Instead of giving me a conclusion alone, give me the logical premise its based on. I can't love a totally good thing because ?????????

 

[1robin]

Yes you do since any child who grows up in a devoutly Christian home, and regularly attends church, and knows the Bible well is accountable. There is no doubt that some children like that who became Christians would not have become Christians under certain other circumstances, and that some of them who did not become Christians would have become Christians under certain other circumstances.

Naturally, there are more new Christians in predominantly Christian countries, but even though the U.S. generally has more Christian influences than South Korea has, it is probable that some skeptics who grew up in Christian homes in the U.S. became Christians when to South Korea, or to some other countries that have fewer Christian influences than the U.S. has. Every human is different, and is influenced by different things.

In other words, some Christians who live in countries other than the U.S. are able to influence the same skeptics who were not influenced in the U.S. American Christians are not the only Christians in the world who have the gift of persuasion, and sometimes Christians who live in other countries are better at persuading skeptics from the U.S. than American Christians are.

I meant that in a context where it is questionable. I have said over and over again that the unevangelised is not a subject I am qualified to discuss in detail. For most of us we will be held responsible for the knowledge of Christ. For the rest I have no idea. See Craig's book.

 

[Agnostic75]

If God is the greatest conceivable being then truth is a great making property of that being. Lying is not a great making trait.

That is absurd since you have claimed that God invented morality. If God is an imposter, and likes to tell lies, then lying is a great making property.

God is not an imposter until I prove him not to be.

Obviously not since no logic says that everything that is claimed is true until it is proven to be false.

That is not how history or theology operates.

There is not any widely accepted historical method for studying supernatural claims.

In fact it is the exact opposite to how legality works.

Obviously not since no court in the U.S. accepts supernatural claims.

Testimony is considered valid until shown to be false.

Same as before.

If you want to debate the vast field of biblical textual criticism a lot, I recommend that you go to a discussion forum at http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3 that I have told you about before, where there are lots of skeptics, and a few Christians who know far more about the Bible than you and I do. You would not be able to defeat some very knowledgeable skeptics there in debates about biblical textual criticism. One has a Ph.D. in philosophy, another has a degree in theology, and many of the skeptic members are fluent in New Testament Greek. If you briefly visit that forum, you will see that you know very little about many of the topics that are discussed there. You debate a wide variety of topics, but most of the members there specialize in biblical textual criticism.

There is no lack of academic expertise in the skeptic community. Many skeptics have doctorate degrees in various fields such as theology, ancient history, ancient Middle Eastern History, New Testament studies, Old Testament studies, etc., and a number of them are former Christians, such as Dr. Bart Ehrman, Dr. Robert Price, and John Loftus, who used to be a student of William Lane Craig. Regarding Christian theology, I am not aware of any important academic issues that are not honestly contestable. Debates about important issues by informed people typically go on for years, and get nowhere, and the general public often has no idea about how to adequately judge what is said from an entirely academic perspective. A person has to become a walking encyclopedia in order to adequately judge biblical textual criticism. Each debate leads to new issues, and many books, and many more speculations, and guesses.

I only need to show that his not being an imposter is better attested than his being one.

That is absurd since if God is an imposter, he caused the Bible authors to write what they wrote.

It is really quite bizarre that your criteria is that men died to defend a lie unless I prove it impossible it was a lie. That reflects a bias so great I cannot identify with it on any level.

Not at all since many non-Christians have given their lives for false beliefs.

If a God inspired the Bible, it is probable that he is an imposter since a moral God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes. Do you know of any fair, worthy, and just goal that a moral God would not be able to achieve without injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes?

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?

I need no proof. I need only a better fit.

Needless hurricanes, disease, and ignorance are not a better fit, and are the kinds of things that an evil imposter God would cause.

Just given that God's moral actions line up with a whole range of almost universally perceived Good is enough.......

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and deceives many people. What you called "God's moral actions" would merely be deceptions by an evil imposter God.

Do you assume your car is incapable of getting you to the store until you prove it is, before attempting it? If this is what you thought was so compelling you specifically requested I address it I am disappointed.

I assume that no God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent can have free will, and would ask people to love a being who must always be good, and that a moral God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goals without injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and that no moral God would refuse to provide the same quality of evidence to everyone.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have said over and over again that the unevangelised is not a subject I am qualified to discuss in detail.

Nonsense, any child who grows up in a devoutly Christian home, and regularly attends church, and knows the Bible well is accountable, at least in Protestant theology. I assume that the majority of conservative Christians would agree with that, including William Lane Craig, and Ravi Zacharias, both of whom you can contact about this issue if you want to.

Logically, no skeptic who would have become a Christian under any circumstances where other people became Christians should be accountable, including skeptics who would have become Christians if they had seen Jesus perform miracles. The New Testament shows several cases where people accepted Jesus because they saw him perform miracles.

 

[Agnostic75]

Even if God could choose among a number of equally good things to do, whatever of those things he chose to do would have to be good. No loving God would ask people to love a being who had no choice except to always do good things when he does things. As I have told you a number of times, without choice, morality has not meaning. I assume that you only admire some humans because you believe that they could choose to not be admirable if they wanted to.

I admire humans without choice ever being considered.

If so, you would still subconsciously consider choice to be an issue, but many people consciously admire other people, an example being cases where people admire rescuers who do not work for money who do not have to rescue anyone. You would not admire a robot who rescued people except to admire its technology, but yet you admire God when he does good things even though he can only do good things.

The people who you admire are not admirable at all if they do not have the choice not to be admirable.

I love a thing for it's nature, not for it's possibility of being the other way around.

Unless that which is loved has free will, it is illogical to admire it for being good since it has to be good.

The fact that some people choose to love a totally good thing does not necessarily mean that it is logical to do so, nor that God would ask people to do so since without choice, morality has no meaning. I would not be impressed at all with a being's morality if he always had to be good since he would not have any other choice except to be good. Even if God was able to choose among doing equally good things, he has no choice regarding doing good or evil things. Thus, his nature is not a choice even if some of his individual actions are choices.

I would only be able to admire a being who does good things, but has the option to do bad things. Logically, morality cannot exist without the option to be immoral. In other words, a being can only be moral if he chooses to be moral. Otherwise, he would have to be amoral.

If you are still not willing to discuss homosexuality, and the Tyre prophecy anymore, which are two debates that I easily won, I will soon not be willing to discuss any more issues with you. Regarding homosexuality, I conclusively proved that your two main arguments are composition fallacies, and that you have no moral basis to recommend that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since you said that some other high risk groups should not practice abstinence, and especially since you said that any deaths at all from AIDS is too many deaths. How can any deaths at all from AIDS be too many deaths, and yet some other high risk groups of people should not practice abstinence? That is an example of hypocrisy, and unfairness.

Regarding the Tyre prophecy, few historians would be impressed by an ancient prediction that a fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years, and few historians would say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel did not learn by ordinary means about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement. Even if Ezekiel was a slave in Babylon, it would be impossible for anyone living today to reasonably know whether or not he learned by ordinary means about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement.

You would never get anywhere discussing messianic prophecies since the Old Testament says that the messiah would be a ruler, and a conqueror, and Jesus did not become a ruler, and a conqueror. Therefore, even if Jesus did perform miracles, and rise from the dead, he was an imposter.

Wikipedia says:

Judaism generally views Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history. Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs. However, since the mainstream Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism.

Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth, and since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards, except for the return of many Jews to their homeland in Israel), he is not a candidate for messiah.

No one knows the Old Testament as well as Jewish scholars do, and the vast majority of them reject Jesus.

The Partition of Palestine in 1948 could not have been a fulfillment of Bible prophecy since the Old Testament says that God gave Abraham and his descendants all of the ancient land of Canaan as an everlasting covenant. The Partition of Palestine did not give Israel anywhere near all of the ancient land of Canaan, and today, Israel does not occupy, or control anywhere near all of the land of ancient Canaan, and there is not any credible historical evidence that Hebrews ever did. Even if ancient Hebrews did occupy all of the ancient land of Canaan, the covenant was not everlasting since today, Israel does not occupy, or control anywhere near all of the ancient land of Canaan.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I have finally decided to stop debating at this forum, maybe for a while, and maybe for good. It has nothing to do with your posts, but with making the best use of my time.

Some people think that I am a debating tiger, but actually, I am a very peaceful person, I do not like to debate. Even though I have often been hard on you, I know that you are honestly following what you believe.

I would like to thank the moderators for doing such a great job.

And there you have it, may you prosper, and be in good health.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: I have finally decided to stop debating at this forum, maybe for a while, and maybe for good. It has nothing to do with your posts, but with making the best use of my time.

Some people think that I am a debating tiger, but actually, I am a very peaceful person, I do not like to debate. Even though I have often been hard on you, I know that you are honestly following what you believe.

I would like to thank the moderators for doing such a great job.

And there you have it, may you prosper, and be in good health.

I did not see this until today. Keep debating somewhere. I think it the best format for these discussions. So did the Greeks and Romans. No one is going to meet God by debating themselves there but it does lay the foundation work to build faith upon. Good fortune to you and I never took any offense of any kind.