SS,

Good day to you.  I've got a lot to respond to... thanks, man... :rolleyes:    I can see that you've definitely put some time and thought into this post (great post).  I might end up simply agreeing to disagree some issues.  I'll definitely discuss the proofs for several posts, though.

I might as well get to the fun one first - "The Impossible Faith".


Arguments for God's existence[/size]


ARGUMENT 1 -- The Impossible Faith

This is an argument that I really enjoy using.  As you could see, it actually takes the impossibility of the Christian faith existing and turns it around as evidence.  Let's go through the factors.

Factor #1

After reading your response to this one, and now, others, I notice you never directly responded to any of Holding’s arguments, so I’ll be offering quotes from him a lot.


The most logical thing to have happen would be what some Islamists posit: a "fake" Jesus being crucified or Jesus showing His true power and not dying such an unholy death.  This isn't a "glorious defeat" at all.

JP Holding writes,

"Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [263-4], crucifixion was a "status degradation ritual" designed to humiliate in every way, including the symbolic pinioning of hands and legs signigfying a loss of power, and loss of ability to control the body in various ways, including befouling one's self with excrement."

The questions still exists today: Why did Christ die such a shameful death, Why didn't He just kill them all, Why didn't He just disappear suddenly from the cross to show His divinity?  There are many people who don't believe today just because of this.  Even Celsus, an ancient pagan critic of Christianity, writes:

But if (Jesus) was really so great, he ought, in order to display his divinity, to have disappeared suddenly from the cross.

Those questions exist today, because no one wants a crucified savior - a savior who died such a horrible death and didn't show divinity when he could have easily.  How is this logical?  It isn't like LOTR or the Matrix in any extreme way at all.  This is a jump of a totally different kind.

It's a huge stumbling block for us, but an even bigger one for them back then.  I'll elaborate below.


Exactly Holding's point!  They wanted to prove that Jesus wouldn't save himself or defend himself and he didn't.  Holding writes,

"Hengel adds: "A crucified messiah...must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish." That a god would descend to the realm of matter and suffer in this ignominious fashion "ran counter not only to Roman political thinking, but to the whole ethos of religion in ancient times and in particular to the ideas of God held by educated people." (10, 4) Announcing a crucified god would be akin to the Southern Baptist Convention announcing that they endorsed pedophilia! If Jesus had truly been a god, then by Roman thinking, the Crucifixion should never have happened."

Factor #2


This isn’t a component for success at all.  The argument isn’t simply that Jesus was an outcast.  The argument is that everything about Jesus as a person was all wrong to get people to believe he was a deity.  Starting off with Jesus being a Jew, Holding writes,

“Bringing a Jewish savior to the door of the average Roman would have been only less successful bringing one to the door of a Nazi -- though the Roman may not have wanted to kill you; he would certainly have laughed in your face, slammed the door, …”

So, due to his being Jewish, Christianity shouldn’t have spread to the Gentile nations.  Holding presses forward with,

“The Romans naturally considered their own belief systems to be superior to all others.  They also believed that superstitions (such as Judaism and Christianity) undermined the social system established by their religion - and of course they were right. However, the point is that anyone who followed or adopted one of their foreign superstitions would be looked on not only as a religious rebel, but as a social rebel as well[/b]. They were breaking with the status quo, upsetting the apple cart, taking part in a 60s style rebellion against the establishment. They upset the Roman concept of piety and were thought to be incapable of it. In those days, things were not pluralistic or "politically correct" and there were no champions of diversity on the college campuses: Today, atheists and theists can debate in a free forum, but back then one of the camps would have the state (and the sword!) on their side - and in the time we're talking about, that wasn't the Christians!”

That’s why Paul mentions that he’s from Tarsus.  He does it to let the critics know he’s from a place which signifies a high honor rating - kind of like when some people say they‘re from the right side of the tracks.  Look at Jesus, on the other hand… he hails from Galilee.  This was a Jewish land and a place of much trouble.  Jesus wasn’t from the right side of the tracks, which is what the Romans looked at.  He was from a puny village that no one acknowledged.  

Holding adds,

“Not even a birth in Bethlehem, or Matthew's suggestion that an origin in Galilee was prophetically ordained, would have unattached such a stigma: Indeed, Jews would not be convinced of this, even as today, unless something else first convinced them that Jesus was divine or the Messiah. The ancients were no less sensitive to the possibility of "spin doctoring" than we are.”

How hard would it have been for the disciples to simply lie and say Jesus was from Sepphoris  Capernaum, which would still let them take advantage of the Prophetic birth message.  They could easily have given him an indisputable honorable birth.  It’s less likely that more people are going to notice one man in from a puny village.

Then there’s minor extensions like saying Jesus was a carpenter, which was considered a vulgar occupation and was compared to the work of slavery.

Factor #3

This is a really good one.

All the disciples had to do was teach that Jesus’ body was taken up into Heaven like Moses or Elijah.  This would’ve been much easier to sell to the Greeks and Romans “for whom the best "evidence" of elevation to divine rank was apotheosis -- the transport of the soul to the heavenly realms after death; or else translation while still alive.”  

So, teaching this to pagans would’ve been impossible.  Pheme perkins writes, that “Christianity’s pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metmpsychosis at best.  At worst, it seemed ridiculous”.  You’ve also got the pagan world being awash with beliefs like matter being evil and the root of all man’s problems.  So, a physical resurrection is the very last thing you want to preach.

Why bother preaching it and purposely making the road harder?  There’s only one logical answer -- they really had a resurrection to preach.


Factor #4[/i]


Holding gave sources for the first question you pose.  As for the rest, I wasn’t under the impression that Romans did that

The Roman world didn’t like change.  Why do you think so many early Christian martyrs died such terrible deaths?

This is a hurdle that Christianity shouldn’t have been able to make over -- not without some sort of proof.


Factor #5

You had me smiling until I read the last part

I don’t think the disciples were very good when concerned with persuasiveness.  They weren’t even concerned with being persuasive, but with being truthful (as you can see from all of the factors).  They weren’t merely wanting converts, but wanted the world to know the truth.


Factor #6[/b]


You’ve got to look at this factor with the other ones in mind… why would people want to convert to Christianity?  If it wasn’t preaching anything demonstrable or true, then it wasn’t inviting at all.  

Kinda like flat-earthers.


Factor #7


They didn’t maintain control at all.  Christianity jumped way beyond control.

Such a response isn’t too “weighty” as I’m sure you know (especially keeping in mind the other factors).  Why would the Romans want to create a religion that not only challenged their own beliefs, but proposed an entire knew belief system?  They were smart enough to create a religion that would have helped theirs out in the long run.  It requires complete idiocy to create a new religion, defend the new religion against themselves, create a religion that embarrassed themselves greatly… in the long run and short.  Why would they have done this and then argued with Christians about the religion (they hated and killed Christians)?

This is more than a fair point, it’s a very strong point.  There’s just no way to for Christianity to get past this unless it was preaching something terribly true.


Factor #8[/b]


Come on, SS.  You’ve got to realize the former is more likely, though.


Factor #9


The other factors show why Christianity shouldn’t have even been regarded by any of them.  This  factor simply increases the likelihood of it not only not making it out of the Jewish communities, but not converting many Jews, and not shooting ahead of the Jewish religion.  But Christianity did, so it had to have had something backing it up.


Factor #10


This isn’t like point 2, if that’s what you’re saying.  Some of these appear like others, but are divided due to minor differences, which need further elaboration.

This isn’t a perfect role for Jesus either.  Holding writes, “A merely human Jesus could not have met this demand and must have provided convincing proofs of his power and authority to maintain a following, and for a movement to have started and survived well beyond him. A merely human Jesus would have had to live up to the expectations of others and would have been abandoned, or at least had to change horses, at the first sign of failure.”

Jesus’ background won’t help him teach scriptures like 2Corinth. 5:12.  He had to teach that birth, ethnicity, gender, wealth, appearance, and charisma meant zip.  That’s a very radical message back in the ancient days, because they took their major identity from whatever group they belonged.  Jesus basically taught that was pure trash and unholy.  Like a wick slowly going out, the fire of Christianity should’ve been quickly put out just by this.

Women, back then, were on the same level as slaves or animals.  Who would’ve wanted to be equal with them?  Imagine all the rich and powerful people having to hear that their slaves are equal to them.  And you’ve got the people from the right side of the tracks being told they were equal to the ones on the left side of the tracks.  All of this would’ve definitely been met with swords and stone unless something incredibly great was backing it up.


Factor #11


This is another really strong one.  JP writes about women,

“women were regarded as "bad witnesses" in the ancient world. We need to emphasize that this was not a peculiarity as it would be seen today, but an ingrained stereotype. As Malina and Neyrey note, gender in antiqutiy came laden with "elaborate stereotypes of what was appropriate male or female behavior." [72] Quintilian said that where murder was concerned, males are more likely to commit robbery, while females were prone to poisoning. We find such sentiments absurd and politically incorrect today -- but whether they are or not, this was ingrained indelibly in the ancient mind. "In general Greek and Roman courts excluded as witnesses women, slaves, and children...According to Josephus...[women] are unacceptable because of the 'levity and temerity of their sex'." [82] Women were so untrustworthy that they were not even allowed to be witnesses to the rising of the moon as a sign of the beginning of festivals! DeSilva also notes [33] that a woman and her words were not regarded as "public property" but should rather be guarded from strangers -- women were expected to speak to and through their husbands. A woman's place was in the home, not the witness stand, and any woman who took an independent witness was violating the honor code.”

Women weren’t nearly in the same position they are in now.  It was a much different, more harsh world.  The disciples obviously wanted to share the truth no matter what.  They even stuck to the truth by using women as the main witnesses (and main converts) despite their terribly low place in society (and the fact that they weren’t to be regarded as credible witnesses).  They could easily have lied and put any of the males in their place to make the story more credible back then, but they didn’t.  Obviously, there was something backing them up which went above and beyond societal rules.  
Not only does sticking with this lend weight towards their credibility, but it also gives Christianity another stumbling block… that was overcome.


Factor #12


This goes beyond the burial story, but pretty much everything.  Matthew was a tax collector (hated people back then), Peter and John were dismissed based on social standings, and Mark was tossed aside also.  The only one left is Paul, but he wasn’t a witness.  It may be possible for them to overcome this major problem (credibility as witnesses), but it would be terribly hard… maybe impossible when keeping in mind the other factors.  

Christianity was always in the business of other religions due to its claims, so it could easily have been crushed by authority, but it wasn’t.  Why?


Factor #13


This has been discounted on three counts: (1) No hard evidence (2) It ultimately makes no sense and (3) It doesn‘t deal with the very early rise of Christianity.  So, there’s one other choice left.


Factor #14


Where do you get that from - that Jesus was sold as just a human?  

You’d think that people who are creating a deity would do a better job.  A God who is ignorant of certain things just won’t ring too many bells.  Maybe in the long run it will, but you’ve got to get through the short term first.


Factor #15

This one isn’t like 10 and 2.  It’s more related to 1 than anything.  It’s intention is to build on 1 by focusing on the events before and after his death, while 1 deals with his death alone.  This one points to facts that Jesus would’ve been seen as a prophet without honor.  Who would want to believe in something like that?  It seems like something helped push it all along.


Factor #16


Possibly, because the many drastically unusual customs he taught challenged everyone.  It’s not like today, where you can peacefully challenge.  

Wright adds,

“Wright concludes:
"This subersive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire. And yet they persisted against all the odds, attracting the unwelcome notice of the authorities because of the power of the message and the worldview and lifestyle it generated and sustained. And whenever we go back to the key texts for evidence of why they persisted in such an improbably and dangerous belief they answer: it is because Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. And this provokes us to ask once more: why did they make this claim?" (page 570)”

Not only why did they make it, but where is the response to this claim?


Factor #17


You provide an analogy, but no parallels with the Christian community.  What are they going to do to fool them?  I mean, the named historical figures which were around at that time, places which could be checked, witnesses who could be checked, and they even kept to the truth no matter what sort of absurdities (I.e. women) arose.

Holding concludes: “I propose that there is only one, broad explanation for Christianity overcoming these intolerable disadvantages, and that is that it had the ultimate rebuttal -- a certain, trustworthy, and undeniable witness to the resurrection of Jesus, the only event which, in the eyes of the ancients, would have vindicated Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death.”



ARGUMENT 2 -- Kalam Cosmological Argument

Your reply surprised me.  You typed,


You fail to provide any type of information proving a parallel to the Kalam.  You won’t be able to, because the Kalam is logically sound, while yours is logically fallacious (premise 1 and conclusion).  Most atheistic philosophers themselves agree with the entire argument, but debate with the theist on how to interpret the conclusion.  It’s nowhere near silliness, for the statements are recognized facts in various fields.

Let’s examine the premises closer:


Premise 1

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of it‘s existence

Premise 1 is self-evident.  C.S. Lewis writes,

"There never was a time when nothing existed; otherwise nothing would exist now."

This is intuitively obvious.  How can something come from literally nothing?  It’s like a serial killer’s dream defense

Traditional atheists would simply say “the universe has always existed”, but not lately (due to the Big Bang theory).  Check out what this well-known atheist, Quentin Smith, says,

“the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.”

Huh?  Try to imagine absolute nothingness, for me… how can something come from it?  There’s nothing there!  It’s much worse than magic.

You bring forth vacuum fluctuations, which I find very inviting,



That person probably got the quote ultimately from an issue of Discover.  It read,

“Quantum theory … holds that a vacuum .. Is subject to quantum uncertainties.  This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly….  Theoretically, anything -- a dog, a house, a planet -- can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation.  Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles … are by far th most likely creations and that they will last extreme Ely briefly…. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely.  Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way….  The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth’s prase, “a free lunch”.

First off, these “subatomic particles” are called ’virtual particles’ and are merely theoretical entities.  It’s not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.

The more important point is these subatomic particles, if they are real, don’t just come out of absolute nothingness.  This “vacuum” isn’t what you’re probably think of - it’s not absolute nothingness.  It’s a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.  These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.    So, nothingness isn’t the cause (if nothing can even cause something to exist), rather the quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles.

What about the quantum vacuum… where does it come from?  As William Craig says, “If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can’t legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself.  You need something transcendent that’s beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being.  Suddenly, we’re back to the origins question”.

I say we just leave this behind.  Even the famous David Hume, probably the most skeptical human to ever live, says, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”.


PREMISE 2

The universe began to exist.

This premise contains two sub-arguments:

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. [/I]

2.2 is actually easier to defend, but I always start with 2.1.  If that doesn’t work, then I’ll move on to 2.2.



Keep in mind that I’m speaking of an actual infinite, not a potential infinite.  I have no problem with a potential infinite existing in reality.  As far as mathematics goes, just so long as it stays in mathematics, it’s fine.  Once it gets put into reality situations all sorts of absurdities arise, though, as I’m sure you can tell (you seem well knowledged in math).  As Craig notes,

“the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds.  Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm.  However -- and here’s the point -- it’s not descriptive of what can happen in the real world.”

It also contains evidence from the Big Bang model of the universe.  I don’t think you’ll challenge that.  Pretty much everyone embraces it.

So, we’re to the conclusion


CONCLUSION

This is what’s so heatedly debated.  What caused the universe?  I believe we can extrapolate several key qualities about this ultimate first cause (whatever it may be).  

A cause of space and time must be an uncaused, beginning less, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power.  Now, all except the personal being should be agreed with, thus far.

The reasoning for this first cause having freedom of will is the simple question asking “how can an eternal cause create a temporal effect?”.  If it’s mechanistic, then an eternal cause should create an equally eternal effect.  The reason for it being personal is several:

(a) There are two types of explanations -- scientific and personal.  
Imagine you walk into a kitchen and you see a kettle boiling on the stove.  You as, “Why is the kettle boiling?” Your wife might say, ‘Well, because the kinetic energy of the flame is conducted by the metal bottom of the kettle to the water, causing the water molecules to vibrate faster and faster until they’re thrown off in the form of steam’.  That would be a scientific explanation.  Or she might say, ‘I put it on to make a cup of tea’.  That would be a personal explanation.  Both are equally valid, but simply explain that in question in different ways.

There’s no way the first state of the universe can have a scientific explanation, because, since it’s the first state, it simply cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to it.  So, it seems, if there is a first state, it requires a personal explanation.

(b) The same argument used in the “freedom of will” argument above.

©  Anthropic Principle

Even if it fails to be a personal first cause, I’ve still got the conscious first cause argument, which does the theist much favor still.


ARGUMENT 3 -- Teleological Argument[/b]


Yeah, that was a typo.  My apologies.  I believe the Teleological Argument is closely related to the Argument from Fine Tuning, so I’ll mix the two.

Just the very word “chaos” would make me question the relation between the two, which, you’re right, is almost non-existent.  I don’t think that’s a good parallel to design, though.  What do you think caused the seemingly designed structures all around us?

One thing I like bringing up is the cosmological constant.  One of the world’s most skeptical scientists, Steven Weinberg (atheist) has even admitted that it’s “remarkably well adjusted in our favor”.  The constant is part of Einstein’s equation for General Relavitity, which could have had any value, positive or negative.

Excuse the lengthy quote, but Weinberg is the famous guy on the issue who can explain it probably better than anyone.  He writes,

“if large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people.  If large and negative the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to collapse.”

Amazingly, this isn’t what has happened, though.  Weinberg continues on with,

“In fact, astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles.”

Physicist Robin Collins, a physicist and philosopher, says, “the unexpected , counterintuitive, and stunningly precise setting of the cosmological constant is widely regarded as the single greatest problem facing physics and cosmology today…  The fine-tuning has conservatively been estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.  That would be a ten followed by fifty-three zeroes.  That’s inconceivably precise”.

This would be like going out in space and throwing a dart at random towards the Earth.  The target would be a bull’s eye that’s one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter.  Which is less than the size of one solitary atom!  Lee Strobel describes it as “Breathtaking” and “Staggering”.

Collins concludes that “if the cosmological constant were the only example of fine-tuning, and if there were no natural explanation for it, then this would be sufficient by itself to strongly establish design”.

There’s other evidence for fine tuning.  If you increase the mass of the neutron by about one part in seven hundred, then nuclear fusion in stars would stop.  There would be no energy source for life.
If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life in the universe would be impossible.

Popular Intelligent Design proponent, Stephen Meyer, in Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe made a list of over 30 separate physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a life-sustaining universe.

The evidence for fine-tuning comes in ample amounts, so I’ll skip over it.  It’s led Discover magazine to admit,

“The universe is unlikely.  Very unlikely.  Deeply, shockingly unlikely.”

Yet, we are here.  Do you attribute such an unimaginable concept to design or chance?  Or necessity if it is even a choice?


Minor Issues


They simply define “fear” in a slightly different way than we usually do.  There is an English definition for “fear” at dictionary.com, which gives a definition of “Extreme reverence or awe
”.  There’s no problem for me here.  It all depends on whether or not you ascribe the right definition to the right passage.

Your parents couldn’t have taken that free willed decision away from you.  They can enforce penalties if you do that particular action, but you’ll always have the free will to do it.

A good father does that, correct, but a good father will also let the son  go once he  reaches a certain age.  The son now has to go and learn the rest about life on his own.  He is his own man and can act freely, but responsibly at the same time.  It’s all up to him.


Too long of an answer.  I don’t link Christiananswers.net usually, but they have a good summary here.  


Since one Creator is sufficient to explain the effect (the universe), it’s unwarranted to posit a plurality.  



Wow… I think I’m going to go to sleep for about 10 hours now.  Goodnight… err… afternoon.

Rug,

Unless I read wrong somewhere, you're 15, right?  If so, then much deserved credit is given to you.  I haven't met many people of that age interested in this area of discussion; in particular, any as smart as you are.

It seems like we're going nowhere, so I'm going to offer 2 or 3 more responses, then a concluding post followed by yours.  Simply agreeing to disagree is best at times.

In response to SBP's you type,


What if the law seriously disagreed with your opinion?  Say, what if it was lawful to kill those that are sick?  Would you consider that a good law or bad law?

Even if the law you're talking about is gone against, it doesn't make the man actually wrong, but lawfully wrong.  The law is based on SBP's also.  Maybe, now, you're beginning to see why I raised this issue to your question.  If everyone has preferences, which are based subjectively, then how can anyone be actually good or bad?  A simple answer will suffice.


I've already responded to that here:

"Take your example of the kid who got beat to death by his parent. It was all up to the parents. Granted that the kid went to Heaven, I'm sure the kid would realize who swung the fist or weapon and I'm sure the kid would realize God set up the system in such a way that the parents didn't have to do that. It was all up to them what was to be done.

The only ones irresponsible are the parent(s). The only one acting irresponsibly with the Jews was Hitler. They chose and will reap whatever judgments come their way."

So, my answer is "no" and that God gives us the power to stop it ourselves if we act responsibly and wisely.


I wouldn't go so far as to call it a stupid question.  It all falls down to you wanting to exclude them just because you feel or think it's the best way.  Once again, this is you arguing with an opinion just as I am.  We're going to have to agree to disagree, I guess.


Over here, what the Pope says doesn't have much of an effect (if any) on Christians.  A lot of Christians simply ignore him... as I do.  He'd probably get on my nerves, if I didn't.


LOL

Well, I believe punishment will simply be banishment (don't know about exact details, though), so there wouldn't be much to see.  I'd rather watch a Backstreet Boys video, probably.    

FragMaster,

I didn't take it the wrong way.  I realized you were using an English definition, so I went back to the original text in an attempt to show what "fear" means within that original text - further verified with examples from scripture.  It doesn't just mean what the Oxford dictionary reads (being afraid of something).


I'm sure you don't enjoy reading the Bible (if so, then my sincere apologies), but it lays out the groundwork for God - what He can or can't do.

Granted that God is omnipresent, omniscience, and omnipotent, what couldn't He possibly detect?  In accordance with the two defenses me and the other poster at DT gave, any responses to that question will be dealt with adequately.


It may be, but I don't feel like getting into that.  It's in the area of ontological status' and such, which would give me a headache attempting to summarize.  So, instead, I'll grant you that (which I did), then move on to how can one person be actually good or bad when it all falls down to subjectively based preferences?  One person may disagree with your preferences, which would just amount to them both clashing... not one coming out on top.
We seem to be agreeing here, though, right?  My entire point was just that the original question was misleading and incorrect.


If that's in reference to me following God, well, I'm simply placing hope in that which I reason to be true.  If this isn't what you're talking about, my apologies.

Rug,


Sorry, but I don't go to Sunday school.


As you can see, his quote was left unjustified and is based off of misunderstandings on how to look up the original language in a Concordance.

It's an ad hominem at best.


Red Herring.  I never said you have to worship my God to think the principles are right.  

I said your belief is founded on subjectively based preferences, so how can you say one man is good or bad.  Some other person may found his on SBP's also and disagree with yours (he may believe Hitler was right for what he did).  How can you prove his wrong?  You can't, because SBP's will merely be clashing with each other.  Therefore, according to your view, there is no such thing as an actual good or bad person.


Thanks for answering the question.

Why is it that minor things are fine?  I'm not being irrational at all, because I'm not seen basing most of my conclusions off of SBP's.  So, basically, 'serious things should be stopped, but not minor things, just cause I say so'?


Well, you've already granted God's existence during the discussion so we can discuss free will, yet you exclude it to escape a point?

With the Christian God's existence still being granted, He will punish those that do bad.  If you're going to exclude his existence, then why even par-take in the discussion, which granted his existence from the get-go?


You didn't have to re-state that, because I responded to it right in the area of the sentence you cherry-picked and snipped.  I typed:

"Take your example of the kid who got beat to death by his parent.  It was all up to the parents. Granted that the kid went to Heaven, I'm sure the kid would realize who swung the fist or weapon and I'm sure the kid would realize God set up the system in such a way that the parents didn't have to do that. It was all up to them what was to be done.

The only ones irresponsible are the parent(s). The only one acting irresponsibly with the Jews was Hitler. They chose and will reap whatever judgments come their way."

Basically, what you're asking for is life to be kind of like a play where we (as the actors) have to do whatever the script (God) says.


Once again, you cherry-pick and snip a sentence.  The full quote is thus:

"if God were to force us to do only that which is good (not kill or have the thought to kill), then it amounts to puppetry. [What we're doing, in itself, won't even be good, because we wouldn't be doing it, but God would be jury-rigging it.]

[Killing] should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will.  That's what happens with free will, though. It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will". Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished. You're taking out certain kinds of choices, which ultimately means taking choice, itself, out. With free will comes a big responsibility - the responsibility to choose what is right. It may be gone against a lot, but that doesn't make free will a bad thing. It's merely a beautiful thing gone bad in some aspects due to mankind."

Read what I typed after and before the sentence you snipped and respond, please.


The Christian movement/church didn't do that, but the corruptible nature of men did that.  Once again, it's like me citing examples of atheists who have done wrong, then say it was the "anti-religious movement that did wrong".  Sometimes, even most of the time, certain individuals will tend to corrupt the beauty of their belief.  That's not the belief's fault.

-Spawn

FragMaster,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.  

When defining a word from the Bible, you have to go back to the original language.  That's why I keep several Concordance's handy.  That's also why the Oxford Dictionary isn't meant to be a Concordance.

I gave the meaning in the original language, while you're still stuck on giving an English definition.  I also gave scripture where it is written "fear God", but meant in a worshipful, following way, which means your holding a groundless interpretation.   The interpretation your giving was only meant for those in opposition to God.


It appearing childish doesn't take away it's reasonableness.


I see no reason for there to be a sound that God can't hear.  The "God can't do anything that isn't logically possible" is very much valid and senseful.  Is there anything you find wrong with it?

Probably the greatest atheistic philosopher of the century, JL Mackie, didn't even concentrate on such arguments like that in his book The Miracle of Theism.  He concentrated on those that were more reasonable (i.e. argument from evil).


I digress that it's just as subjective, but I'll grant you that.  Even if it is, there still doesn't exist any actual good or bad person alive today, which means the question "Why does bad things happen to good people?" needs to be put in a much different way for it's misleading.


We all follow what others say at certain points in life.

-Spawn

Rug,


The definition for "consentual" doesn't seem to fit in line with the topic, so maybe you mean "consensual" (Involving the willing participation of both or all parties)?  

For the second time, you've skipped over this quote from myself: "Why? You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions. I'm taking it all away.  I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all."  

I understand that you're saying it's wrong God allows such things (like a parent beating his/her child to death) to go on, but this snaps right back into the Free Will Defense, which is in subject below:


Parents do that up to a certain extent, then they have no choice, but to allow the child to take what he/she has learned and act responsibility in the world (remember, free will is a great responsibility).  I think God does this also.  He has set rules and enforces punishments (though, not immediately) when we go wrong.  So, God doesn't just let us mess it up.  God allows us to either choose between messing it up or choosing to abide by His rules.  From then-on, whatever we do is by our own fault.

Take your example of the kid who got beat to death by his parent.  You're saying it's wrong for God to allow that to happen, but would you be questioning such an incident, if the parents raised the kid up to be good?  Indeed, it was just as possible for that to happen.  It was all up to the parents.  Granted that the kid went to Heaven, I'm sure the kid would realize who swung the fist or weapon and I'm sure the kid would realize God set up the system in such a way that the parents didn't have to do that.  It was all up to them what was to be done.

The only ones irresponsible are the parent(s).  The only one acting irresponsibly with the Jews was Hitler.  They chose and will reap whatever judgments come their way.

I also typed this concerning free will:

"if God were to force us to do only that which is good (not kill or have the thought to kill), then it amounts to puppetry.  [What we're doing, in itself, won't even be good, because we wouldn't be doing it, but God would be jury-rigging it.]

[Killing] should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will. That's what happens with free will, though. It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will". Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished. You're taking out certain kinds of choices, which ultimately means taking choice, itself, out. With free will comes a big responsibility - the responsibility to choose what is right. It may be gone against a lot, but that doesn't make free will a bad thing. It's merely a beautiful thing gone bad in some aspects due to mankind."

Text within brackets was added to the original quote.


First off, I notice you're still saying things like "you have some good standards to live your life by" despite my argument:

"Those that don't accept any type of religious doctrine have a good bit to answer for when they call one man "good" and one man "bad". They aren't using any sort of objective standard to judge this. According to their position, who is "good" or "bad" all falls down to subjectively based preferences, which wrips apart any attempts at commenting on the subject.

Let's say I'm an atheist who holds certain standards which I use to judge between a good person and a bad person. What are these standards based on? It's inescapable that they are based subjectively, which amounts to a "moot" standard. Some other atheist may hold certain subjectively based standard which is completely opposite of mine (i.e. that Hitler was a good person). How am I to argue with him that his is wrong?"

I'd like a response from the anti-religious side as to how they can possibly consider one man actually good or bad?

In response to your quote, it really doesn't matter whether or not God exists when Moses claimed to have divine orders.  What matters is that Moses had some type of objective experience.  (It obviously was a worthy experience, because most societies/religions have abided by it).  

Even if I grant you religions base their morality from SBP's, you still have to deal with how one person can actually be good and one be actually bad/evil.


That's like me creating a long list of anti-religious people who've done terrible things, then saying I dislike the anti-religious movement just because of what those people did.  I wouldn't do that.  I respect the anti-religious movement and learn from it day in and out.


Understandable.  Do expect some threads up on proofs for God anyway... you don't have to respond, if you don't like.  I respect the fact that you have more fruitful things to engage in with your time.

Nahh... I prefer discussions rather than arguments and name-calling.  Also, I wouldn't claim being good at flaming people, for it's a rather pointless thing to do and brings whatever discussion taking place down to the level of elementary students arguing in circles over who's 'momma' is worse.


I was quite careful to put this at the top:

"Why? You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions. I'm taking it all away. I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all."

What if there are lethal cases like deaths, though, which have good outcomes?  For example, a man rushing into the street to push a kid out of the way from an oncoming car and taking the hit himself.  Should God just jury-rig the entire event to save the man's life, which he freely gave up?  This would amount to absolutely cancelling out free will in order to achieve whatever He prefers.


Thanks for providing that.  I ask this question, because it puts the anti-religious viewpoint in a rather "confusicled" state.  My reasoning is thus:

Religious people judge between good and evil as according to how their God or "force" does (and pretty much every major religion agrees with each other on this).  Those that don't accept any type of religious doctrine have a good bit to answer for when they call one man "good" and one man "bad".  They aren't using any sort of objective standard to judge this.  According to their position, who is "good" or "bad" all falls down to subjectively based preferences, which wrips apart any attempts at commenting on the subject.

You seem like a smart/well-knowledged guy, so I'm sure you see what I mean.  I'll put forth an analogy, though.  Let's say I'm an atheist who holds certain standards which I use to judge between a good person and a bad person.  What are these standards based on?  It's inescapable that they are based subjectively, which amounts to a "moot" standard.  Some other atheist may hold certain subjectively based standard which is completely opposite of mine (i.e. that Hitler was a good person).  How am I to argue with him that his is wrong?

So, I ask: according to your view, by what reason should I accept the above quote as true?  Without any type of God ("cosmic parent") involved, how can it be true?

I can admit that no good human being exists in this world.  If one does, then who is this good human, so I can talk to him?


They are very much relevant.  When someone gives me a link with a lot of information, before responding, I like to know who the link came from and the credibility of this person.  These are both honest questions used to judge the validity of the material.  

You picked Zindler's article, because (as you say) it "fitted the bill", but how do you know it does?  Do you honestly believe those claims from Zindler are valid when they don't even stand up to expert criticism?  You now know that Zindler doesn't put forth such arguments in debates and (according to his own peers) can't respond adequately to opposing arguments, which means you're putting blind faith in his material (unfounded trust).  Not only that, but you're bringing them forth as valid arguments in a debate, which they aren't (Zindler's own actions are evidence for this).  

I rarely do this, but I'll gladly respond to Zindler's article (and offer evidence in opposition to it) so we can discuss it in a separate thread.  I'm willing to point out the obvious major flaws in it, if you're willing to take part in the discussion?


One thing I am very careful not to do is twist people's words.  All I did was point out and respond to what you typed: free will is limited.  I then put forth a response saying that, if God were to force us to do only that which is good (not kill or have the thought to kill), then it amounts to puppetry.  It's definitely not a strawman attack at all.

It should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will.  That's what happens with free will, though.  It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will".  Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished.  You're taking out certain kinds of choices, which ultimately means taking choice, itself, out.  With free will comes a big responsibility - the responsibility to choose what is right.  It may be gone against a lot, but that doesn't make free will a bad thing.  It's merely a beautiful thing gone bad in some aspects due to mankind.

Let's cut straight to it: Why didn't God stop Hitler?  God didn't because of the free will Hitler had.  This doesn't mean Hitler gets off the noose, though.  He definitely will be judged and punished accordingly.  

-Spawn

Cheese and crackers... that's making me hungry.  Smores are better, though.  

Understandable.  I'm calling the details into question, though.  William Craig is probably the most well-known theist in the philosophical community, so everyone's wanting a piece of his evidences.  All Zindler had to do was challenge him with those type of details, but he didn't, and I'm wondering why.  All Zindler had to do, if his arguments are so worthy, was refute at least one of Craig's well defended "Arguments from Jesus' Resurrection", but he didn't (even the skeptics/Craig's critics recognize this).
Like I said though I'm willing to respond to the article and we can discuss it in a separate thread.

Hello, Frag.  You typed,


Me and omnimors responded to that type of question here.


Before I offer an answer, I disagree with the traditional definition of hell (place of fire).  I believe it will be banishment from God.

Fear, in english only rings of negativity (opposite of trust, and its synonyms are fright, dread and terror).  In Hebrew, it has other meanings - from negative (dread, terror) to positive (worship, reverence) and from mild (respect) to strong (awe) -- Prov. 9:10; Prov. 14:26-27; 1John 4:18; Deut. 10:12; .  Tverberg concludes,

"In fact, every time we read "revere" or "reverence", it comes from the Hebrew word "yareh", literally, to fear. When fear is in reference to God, it can be either negative or positive. The enemies of God are terrified by Him, but those who know Him revere and worship Him, all meanings of the word "yareh"." (Does God Want us to Fear Him?)


He's much more personal than that, I believe.  Like any good father who wouldn't want his kids listening to this other father's rules and that other fauther's rules, God wants us to obey and love Him alone.


Well, the influencing is inevitable.  Granted that God is the ultimate first cause, and wants to actualize people into existence, we've got a degree of influence from the get-go, for whatever situation God chooses to actualize will influence us.  This is a necessity, though.

I don't have much of a problem with a degree of influence, because I've been influenced all my life.  I still have the ability to choose whatever I want despite the influences.


No rush at all, man.

Thanks to Rug and SS.  I usually already get flaming responses by now... I think I'm liking this place more and more.


If Matt doesn't mind my jumping in on his discussion with SS...


Jesus claimed to be God and was worshipped as God.  The reason Jesus is worshipped is because the Father sent him to be worshipped.  I may be blind, but I don't see the problem.

The cross for some may represent the place where the crucifix took place.  There's nothing wrong with having one of these and it definitely does not amount to worshipping the cross itself.

Was Mary worshipped in the NT?  If not (trust me, she isn't), then people who worship her now are doing a blind act.  The offical Catholic site, I believe, doesn't say anything about Mary being worshipped.  I think people pray to her as they would a spiritual leader.  I'm not sure... not a Catholic.


Thanks for looking that up for me.  

I don't see any implications of people living there.  All I see is a bunch of land called Nod; in which Cain was banished.


Sorry for riling you... I'm a philosophy buff, so it's my next best friend.  What it states is that it's best and more logical to go with the simplest explanation rather than introducing unneeded complexities.  That's what a multi-God does.


As small as a summary as I can put forth:

Cosmological
–   Key Question “Why is there something instead of nothing?”
this entire argument rests on the question of how anything can exist without God.  Typically atheists have maintained that the universe existed eternally.  But this has some problems.  If the universe is eternal and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."

Astrophysics has made some remarkable discoveries in the last 50 years.   Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing. This is because, as you go back in time, you reach a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all." Thus, what the Big Bang model requires is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.  The universe began to exist.

3.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.  That cause must be beyond space, beyond time (since both began at the big bang) and powerful enough to have created this universe.  The creator was God.


TEOLOGICAL

P1. If the universe displays design, then it is designed.
P2. The universe is designed.
C. Therefore, the universe is designed.

This one doesn't really need any type of elaboration.  Note that I defend Swinburne's version, so it isn't as easily tossed aside as past "design" arguments.

This may get quite lengthy, so I understand if you want to pursue this at a later time.  One thing I do want to get into is a new argument for God's existence a friend of mine came up with called "Impossible Faith".  You can check it out here.  I'd like to see any responses to this.


If you're worshipping Jesus, you are worshipping God.


Not forcing at all.  The point still stands that true love really comes down to one person... that one person may not love back the same, but it matters not.  


Rug,

I skimmed through the article (already read several like it).  If you like, I welcome you to present any of the arguments from the link in a separate thread.  Or, if you like, I can take the time to reply to the link point-by-point and post it?  The flaws are plentiful, so it may be quite long, though.  Some of his points may already be refuted  or false tactics shown here by a good friend of mine.

I'm sure you're familiar with the most popular skeptic website online - infidels.org.  I find it ironic that you present an article from Frank Zindler while skeptics themselves recognize the beating Zindler got at the hands of William Craig (top-notch debater) in their debate (source.  
The irony is that Zindler never gave any of his arguments and never even refuted Craig's arguments (infidels and one of Zindler's biggest fans recognize this also).  So I ask: for what reason should I takin in Zindler's arguments when they (a) can't even stand up under expert review and (b) aren't even put forth in live debates, which leads me to question the validity of the claims?


You don't go in-depth as to how they are both bad.  All you have to do is present the criterian you use to determine the difference.  It would be of much help in moving forward.

Just obeying God's commandments doesn't make someone good.  Son of Sam does this while in jail, so he claims, so is he all of a sudden good?  That isn't at all what Christianity teaches (maybe, Islam).  


Limited in the sense that absolute God would control us (he will force us to do nothing but good).  You say this is a good thing?  If so, then I simply have to digress... I don't know about you, but I don't want to be a puppet.

The world isn't total chaos, because plenty of good exists in this world.


Why?  You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions.  I'm taking it all away.  I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all.

I've got a hypothetical, though (dont'cha love these?).  Suppose a guy gets intentionally run off the road by a drunk driver, gets paralyzed waist/down, ends up falling in love with a girl, and devoting his life to a new-found dream.  Then, in the end, thanks the wreck for ever coming out, because it led to all that he accomplished.  If you foreknew this would happen, would you wrip this guy of a great future just because it took a little harm to bring the good about?

As C.S. Lewis bluntly puts it,

"Haven't you been to a dentist?"

His point is simple.  Harm brings about good in some situations.  Some extreme; some not extreme.

 

I still await this criteria you use to determine whether or not someone is good.  You just type "a good person", which brings us right back to the starting point.  If you're saying a parent who beats their children is bad, then what if the parent responds with "That's not right, because Hitler is bad.  He killed millions, while I killed no one.  I just beat my child".  I still conclude that no "good" person actually exists.  

On your original question, I answered in good detail.  I summed it up with:

"1. People choosing bad upon themselves -- immature choices, for example.
2. People choosing bad upon others -- for example, intentional harm."

I gave the free will defense, of course.  You responded with these two quotes:



The fact that they don't get judged for their crime(s) now doesn't mean they never will.  

If your statement was put into effect, free will wouldn't exist.  People would absolutely be doing whatever God forced them to do, which amounts to puppetry.  
Let's have some fun witht he implications of the above: boxers harm others, football players harm others, so do video games (temporary emotional harm), paper factories harms others (paper cuts), paintball wars harm others, etc.

Sure, it's not great harm, but you weren't very exact.  Harm is harm, so should God also stop all of the above?  


Just so long as we both stay away from immature name-calling or [insert rude remark here], then I'll consider the discussion fruitful and will be continued.

 

SS,


"I am the only God" is throughout the Bible (throughout the NT especially), so just because it doesn't say it in that particular spot doesn't mean it's there.  It's just summing up a group of commandments.
Of course he's saying not to worship other Gods, because the worship will be false.  This is looking too much into the text in an attempt to pin-point an error.  I'm sure you realize the basic point of it - 'don't worship other Gods, because I am the One and Only'.  Combining that scripture with the Bible as a whole and the paraphrase seems justified.


What scripture are you referring to exactly in Genesis?


Firstly, because this goes against Occam's Razor.  Secondly, because of the biblical evidence which exists for Christianity (I can bring forth some, if you like) and philosophical evidence for a single God (Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological argument).


Jesus claimed to be God (John 10:33), so why isn't he to be worshipped?  Peopl worship him throughout Matthew (Mt 8:2; Mt 9:18; Mt 14:33; Mt 15:25; Mt 20:20; Mt 28:9; Mt 28:17).


I digress, but I'll grant you that partner love is a richer extension of family love, so I can make a point.  I have 5 brothers and 4 sisters.  I love them all to death, but my love for some is much closer than others - more on a personal level.  To go even further, my love for one surpasses them all, because of the closer relationship we have and keep.  If this is true, and it is equivalent to 'partner love', then that means I'd love one partner over all the others.  
It's rather simple, actually.  Any male saying they truly love 3 females can be introduced with a hypothetical where they had to choose one to live with forever.  Obviously, the one they choose must be their true love... the other ones are just loves.

 

Nice to finally meet you, Rug.  Can you sum up your position in a small paragraph, so I can more adequately respond - in particular, to the first question.


A very nice goodie.  There's so much I have to say to that... hopefully, I can sum it up so you won't have to read a book-in-a-post.

First off, by what criteria do you use to judge between whether or not a person is good?  I ask this, because I remain dubious that an  actual "good" person does exist.  Even if majority opinion says a certain individual is good that individual would more than likely point out why he/she isn't good (Ravi Zacharias, for example).  Seems to produce a complication.
A lot of people wouldn't consider David Berkowitz as being a good person, but I'm sure he'd respond to those accusations with: "Wait a minute; I'm not Hitler!   I didn't kill millions, I just killed a few" or "I wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer; I didn't eat my victims".  Zacharias concludes,

"We tend to do the kind of comparisons by which we always emerge better than someone else, and so we think we're good."

This doesn't mean bad things should happen to people, though.  I can chop it down a little with these two:

1.  People choosing bad upon themselves -- immature choices, for example.
2.  People choosing bad upon others -- for example, intentional harm.


I typed to Opper:

This isn't God's fault, but man's fault. I'm sure you're familiar with a writer by the name of Tolkien (creator of LOTR), well his best friend (the guy who converted him) gave an amazing defense to this. He said something along the lines of:

'It is men, not God who have produced racks, whips, prisons, slavery, guns, bayonets, and bombs; it is by human avarice or human stupidity... that we have poverty and overwork." (The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis, p. 86)

So, God allows it... has to allow it, because of free will.  With free will comes good effects (for example, choice), but bad effects arise also (war-mongers).

Saladin,

I agree.  A lot of the rules really amount to denominational (i.e. man-made) rules.  I'm speaking on rules like hair-length, clothing, tithing, speaking in tongues in order to get to heaven, rules for women (which angers me), etc.  I don't know why they came up with those rules... an example of enforcing subjectively based preferences objectively, I guess.  That's why us Christians argue so much.

It does something much worse than cheapen Jesus' message... it completely kills it.  This reminds me of a Tommy Tenney quote.  He writes something along the lines of, 'I've seen more of God in bars than I have in some churches.'

Hello, Ripper.


A lot of Christians, in particular younger ones like myself, are going to go through stages of hypocrisy.  A lot of my friends and my brothers are disbelievers or doubters, so I tend to act the way they do or not be the way I should be.  I'm a hypocrite, in this sense.  It's a problem I need to work out.

The best answer I can think of is the nature of men and women.  Most [at times] tend to fall away or want to fall away from that which they hold dearest.  I'm sorry that myself and others are like that.