Total posts: 73
Posted in:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
Stage 2
1. The universe is the totality of all time space and matter.
2. Whatever caused time space and matter must be timeless, space less, and immaterial.
3. Therefore something immaterial, timeless, and space less caused the universe, and these properties are said of God.
4. Therefore we conclude God exists.
Obviously a lot to unpack and defend,
Created:
Does repeatedly blaspheming the Savior of humanity bring you meaning?
Clearly what Jesus told nicodemus WASN'T in secret, otherwise his disciples wouldn't have know about it and wrote it down for the bast majority of humanity to read 2000 years onward.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm more of a pudding guy, but I do like the occasional soft serve.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
"Almost all religions revolve around denying that death is inevitable "
Please forgive me being blunt, but, the ignorance of this claim is unbelievably astounding.
Are you at all familiar with the religions you speak on behalf of? Obviously I'm partial to Christianity, but this claim is patently false.
Islam: teaches its adherents that acts of warfare involving suicide are noble.
Almost all eastern religions: Teaches that death, more specifically, dying repeatedly through cycles of reincarnation is the means by which one can free themselves from the cycle.
Judaism: Teaches that mankind is literally the dust of the earth here for the briefest of moments and has a 613 law system that lives in light of this truth.
Christianity: Literally teaches the way to redemption is found in death, a brutal and bloody death of a Man on a cross. Literally teaches its adherents to "bear a cross" and "die to self", its earliest followers, as well as many today, saw its adherents wholeheartedly embracing the most gruesome of executions and tortures.
Buddhism: Teaches that life is suffering and the freedom from suffering is found in the extinguishing of all desire, a type of dying to self you could say.
The claim religion is based of off denying the inevitability of death rather than a resolute embracing of it is quite simply absurd my man.
I wonder if the Christians who were burned in Nero's garden for light felt the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
"Fine tuned for what? Because it isn't fine tuned for life, since most of it equals instant death."
This is simply not true. There are constants in the universe that are so precisely tuned it is truly alarming. The cosmological constant, the strength of gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force. Just a few that if altered by an infinitesimal number would preclude the universe from even existing in a fashion where life could even evolve to begin with
Created:
One of the most tragic things that can happen in a person's life is an unwillingness to pursue and seek out their Creator.
Skeptics can't see God not because there's no evidence, but because there's so much evidence they have shut their eyes.
Just my two cents
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Are you trying to tell me the Creator of the universe isn't obligated to follow my command for him to split open the sky or write his name on the moon for me personally or do some other such silly and arbitrary thing I tell people would convince me?
Nonsense!
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
"if you put in no effort to know Jesus, why should he reach out to you?"
OHHHH!!
(MIKE DROP)
Created:
Some of the qualities I have found admirable in the atheists I have met is their knowledge of science. It always seems no matter who I'm talking to, if they're an atheist their knowledge of science is on point.
I like their proclivity to debate as well. In a good way though. I'd rather spend my time discussing or debating with an atheist than someone in a cult or aberrant sect of some religion. Due to the fact the atheist is usually a far better debater
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If your post is in regards to the title of mine, I happen to agree with everything you said. I titled my post that as a parody of Stephen's "great Christian deception".
It was jocular more than anything else. Ultimately forums should, in theory, be a place where ideas are exchanged....but sometimes you got to have a little fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
"1. If some constant in some possible Universe could be changed to create a life preventing Universe;
2. Then, any number of constants could be changed to produce infinite possible life producing Universe's.
C: There are an infinite number of possible life producing Universe's."
And who or what is changing these constants? You can't have changing constants without a constant changer.
The constants in the universe are so unfathomably fine tuned. Occam's razor dictates the more likely explanation is one Designer as opposed to an infinite number of universes being pumped out by a universe generating machine
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"To say that they are dependent on a universal cognition is to say that this cognition isn’t bound by the laws of logic."
How? The laws of logic are universals and therefore, if the argument goes through, they are grounded in the universal cognition.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
"Do you think eternity has a beginning and only progresses forward? Think again"
No I think eternity is outside of our time space continuum.
"The problem with our treatment0 of infinite regression is that we cannot represent it graphically, and, therefore, think that it must have a beginning point, like the big bang."
The problem with infinite regression is that it is metaphysically impossible. An actual infinite number of things cannot be instatiated.
"If infinity goes forward, why can't it go backward?"
Because a forward "infinite" is a potential infinite, which means one more could always be added to the set. A past infinite would be actual, which is not instantiated.
"Why impose that on God. on any of them?"
Which god according to Mormonism created all things? If there is a never ending chain of gods reproducing and making more gods, who was the first god? Who set this in motion?
Why not worship the first deity that started the chain?
Created:
Posted in:
P1. If atheism is true, our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is, but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA.
P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth.
P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.
P4. Therefore if atheism is true, there is no justification for believing anything to be true.
P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.
P6. Therefore atheism is false.
Created:
No friend that is absolutely false. God plainly tells us in Scripture He is before all things and by Him all things consist. As sir anonymous pointed out there was no God before the Lord and there will be none after.
Also, it is impossible to have a coherent theology on mormon doctrine.
If God was once a man, he must have parents. If he had parents, his parents need parents.
This causes an infinite regress with no actual ground of being ever being reached.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I've come to give gifts to kids, and punch heretics, and right now, I'm all out of gifts
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"impregnated a virginto create his only son"
The council of Nicea would like to know your location
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I've heard about not eating meat to avoid excess sexual desires, do you think there's anything to that?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
How would it? If morals are subjective there's nothing objectively wrong with systematic racial murder
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Wrong, again - It could be true that torturing infants is wrong, but you ought to do it, it could be the case that torturing infants is right but you ought to not do it. It depends on your ethical standards."
Just so we're clear, you believe there exists a possible world where one has a moral obligation to torture infants for fun?
You also believe there is another possible world where torturing infants for fun is, in your words, "right"?
"It depends on your ethical standards "
And therein lies the problem with moral subjectivism.
Let's say my standard says there is no possible world where torturing infants for fun is morally acceptable.
Let's say another person's standard is that it is totally acceptable to torture infants for fun.
Which of those two standards is right?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Sum1hugme
Yes as sum1hugme pointed out, P1. might need some retooling.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"you simply want me to answer your false dichotomy - I don't answer fallacies."
The law of excluded middle states that a proposition is either true or false.
Calling a basic law of logic a fallacy when posed with a simple proposition your worldview cannot coherently answer tells me you are not discussing this in good faith anymore
Since, according to the laws of logic, my "dichotomy " is perfectly valid, I will ask you again, what is the truth value of this proposition?
"Torturing infants for fun is wrong, and ought not to be done. "
This proposition is:
A. True
B. False.
I await your selection.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Still haven't answered my question
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So why then would you reject solipsism in regards to the nature of reality but not reject "solipsism " so to speak in regards to the nature of morality? Why should just accept the (unproven) axiom that reality is real and objective but reject any axiom or moral epistemology that allows for objective moral truths?
I still await an answer to my question. Is the proposition true or is its negation true ??
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
On this epistemology I could just as well ask you how you know the proposition "the planets exist" are true independent of your mind?
Morals are ultimately boiled down to propositions that are either true or false.
Example, I would like to know your response to this question;
"Torturing infants for fun is wrong and ought not to be done."
Is this proposition true? Or is its negation true?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"morality is definitionally incapable of being objective"
Do you believe in objective truth? Because
"my argument isn't dependent on anybody's views." Just the definitions of words..
Sounds an awful lot like objective truth to me
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Perhaps a formal debate on the existence of objective moral values and duties is in order
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
This is a good point..... oh well, back to the drawing board
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Honestly curious, how do you cope with the unbearable sexual frustration that goes with the monastic lifestyle? I've been single and celibate for 25 years myself and I think I'm losing my marbles. God bless in your journey.
Created:
On a scale of convincibility I rate this bad boy pretty darn high, however if this argument has been floated before by someone else please let me know
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
"Assuming universals are dependent on some cognition, how to you plan on proving P1?"
Great question. I would argue p1. is true strictly because universals are dependent on a universal cognition. Does that make sense?
Created:
I cooked this little argument up at work the other day. Most axiological arguments tend to use the idea of objective morality to point to God, which is great. However I wanted to go a slightly different route and explore the idea of moral authority.
Please note this one is a little long so stay with me, and this is still VERY much in the baby stages 👶
P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority. (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)
P2. Human societies, generally speaking, dish out moral commands.
P3. Human societies at times command morally egregious things as though they were moral (i.e the orders of Nazi Germany, etc.)
P4. Therefore the innate "moralness" or "immoral-ness" of any particular moral command is not derived from strictly human authority.
P5. Since this is the case all moral commands should be unintelligible
P6. However there are intelligible moral commands
P7. Therefore they are derived from an authority higher than human beings.
P8. Any issuer of moral commands must be capable of reasoning and using intellect.
P9. A higher authority that issues moral commands to humans exists, and has the capacity to reason and make moral judgments. In a word, a mind.
P10. This issuer of commands cannot be subject to a higher authority, if said issuer were, for all we know, that authority's commands could contradict our intelligent issuer's commands, rendering them unintelligible, leaving us back to p5. But since there are intelligible commands, the one issuing them must be the highest authority.
P11. A rational mind that is not subject to a greater authority and issues moral commands exists. All men call this Mind God.
P12. Therefore God exists
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD"
Oh that's just terrible reasoning.
God is perfect because within Him there exist no potentialities. There is nothing that can or has acted upon Him to bring about any motion from one state to another because there is/was nothing preceding Him, logically or temporally. He is maxed out as it were, on all His attributes, and all His attributes are good.
The same cannot nor ever be said for a created world. If it was actualized by God, there was something bringing it from potential to actual, which means said world, no matter how good, cannot be perfect, because the mere act of creating it means it was improved upon (i.e. it is better to exist than to not)
When God actualized THIS world, He endowed His creatures with free will. Which, although opened the door to immense suffering (potentially) it made greater goods possible
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
"That is a nice try if you made that up yourself.
Thank you
"
I this case I suspect P1 is true because universals are independent from cognition. P3 on the other hand is true because universals depend on cognition.
Right but in this case there's two different cognitions in view here. Universals are independent of one but dependent on another
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
"My guess would be that the atheist is going to take issue beginning with P3, and tell you to support that claim and that cognition is not required for universal truths to exist. So while P4 and P5 and so on would be true you must first establish P3 before they are accepted. So if it were me, I'd tighten up P3 or add another component to make it more convincing.
Yes, I would agree wholeheartedly.
Created:
Posted in:
The question itself is incoherent.
Why would God, the locus and grounding of all truth command someone to lie?
Why would God, the One who created man to glorify and love Him command His existence be kept secret?
I might respond by saying what is the smell of blue?
Why would God, the locus and grounding of all truth command someone to lie?
Why would God, the One who created man to glorify and love Him command His existence be kept secret?
I might respond by saying what is the smell of blue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"(IFF) it is GOD'S nature to "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering" (THEN) GOD must "obliterate all evil actions and events and end all human suffering"
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to argue, 3ru7al. God cannot contradict His nature, that does not mean however all of His actions or inactions are determined. I'm just not clear on your point. God's nature does not consist of one specific action
Created:
Posted in:
I threw this argument together on a whim. Its my own little version of the argument from universals, or divine conceptualism... any thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
P1. There is no possible world where the truthfulness of universals are falsified (i.e. no state of affairs where 2 plus 2 equals 9, or triangles have four sides)
P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition.
P3. If they are not dependent on human cognition, they are dependent on another cognition. Namely a universal cognition.
P4. A universal cognition that apprehends the truth value of all necessary propositions (universals) can apprehend the truth value of all particular and contigent propositions.
P5. Any mind that apprehends the truth value of all propositions is omniscient.
P6. An omniscient mind exists.
P7. Therefore God exists.
Created:
Posted in:
Let me start off by saying I am not a young earth creationist. However, to give you a good discussion, I will play that side for a while.
Evidence number 1. Dr. Mary Schweitzer's soft tissue findings:
Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek Formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently, Schweitzer and co-workers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria“Blood from Stone,” Scientific American (December 2010): p. 62–69.
If the earth were millions of years old this discovery simply wouldn't be possible.
Evidence number 2. Carbon 14 decay
Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly — with a half-life of only 5,730 years — that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils — supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old — ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon datingEven if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1998 alone, the scientific literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record, supposedly spanning more than 500 million years. All contained radiocarbon.Robert L. Whitelaw, “Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 7, no. 1 (1970): p. 56–71
Evidence number 3. Lazarus bacteria
In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates). In addition, the scientists were surprised to find that the DNA was still intact after the supposed 250 million years. DNA normally breaks down quickly, even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree that DNA in bacterial spores (a dormant state) should not last more than a million years. Their quandary is quite substantial. (From the AIG website)
Again I'm not a young earther, but hopefully this will make for a good discussion...
the truth is out there man!!
Ok I'll stop
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do we really need to search this hard for points of disagreement? 😀
I agree with most of what he said!! 😄
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Tradesecret
I would be interested in knowing how your view differs from the Calvinist.I want to hear that too.
So the molinist understanding of unconditional election is a bit complicated. But once you understand it I think it makes sense and is faithful to Scripture.
Let me just say not all molinists would affirm unconditional election as originally taught by Molina. Some Molinists have gone more arminian directions (William Lane Craig) others more Calvinist directions ( Congruism)
Nevertheless, I will try to give a brief summary.
My understanding is, Molina basically taught that for every possible individual, there exist three possible worlds God could have actualized (Molina understood election in possible world semantics, much like the modal ontological argument uses)
Possible world 1. Individual is saved.
Possible world 2. Individual is lost.
Possible world 3. Individual does not exist.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Molina was a staunch defender of libertarian free will. Yet he believed that whichever world God elects is totally and completely up to Him and His sovereign will. God does not elect a world and therefore and individual based on any foreseen merit (or even faith). He does so according to His good pleasure.
So two questions arise. 1. Where does that leave human free will and responsibility? 2. Where is any of this in the Bible?
In regards to question 1, that's where the molinist understanding of effectual grace comes in.
Molinism originally taught that God's prevenient or enabling grace was offered and actually acted upon every individual, all they had to do was not resist it, and it would bring them to salvation. However, if someone of their own free will resists it, that person then belongs to possible world 2. Where they will be lost. God sovereignly actualized the world in which they found themselves resisting His grace, but they actualized their damnation through freely resisting His grace.
So does God elect unconditionally? Yes.
Is mankind fully responsible for their damnation? Yes.
So where is this in Scripture?
I think the most startling revelation of this is Christ's statements of counterfactual knowledge in Matthew chapter eleven.
Matthew 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
The Lord here reveals a counterfactual statement. There was a possible world where the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon were saved. For reasons known only to Him, God did not actualize that world. However, the individuals of Tyre and Sidon freely rejected the grace and the light they were given, which would have been sufficient to save them anyway.
It's mindblowing to think about...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Tradesecret
Thank you for your reply, I would like to go through the five points one by one and assess them.
So in regards to total depravity I would take no issue with what you laid out. Calvinists usually say we're not as evil as we can possibly be. I would agree. I would also add, which many calvinists do not, that we are not as spiritually blind as we could be. But putting that aside I would argue there's not too much contention here.
Unconditional Election: God chooses his people unconditionally. In other words, there is nothing about any human that warrants salvation or mercy. No condition such as wealth, intelligence, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. including creed, is necessary or required for God to choose. It is a situation whereby God saves us not because of something better than someone else but entirely because of his mercy.
This is a really soft definition of unconditional election. Even the staunchest arminian would agree with this. I'm going to quote the WCF's definition of unconditional election:
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated to everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death.
"These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
Would you affirm that? In regards to the molinist view of unconditional election, I will devote a second reply to it because it'll take up too much space in this one...
therefore atonement is limited by definition.
Yes but limited in what sense? In its scope or its application? The non Calvinist would say limited in application. The Calvinist would say limited in its scope.
I'll phrase it this way, did Christ die for the sins of every person, or the elect only?
Once a person - sees Jesus for whom he is - cannot but fall in love with him and want to follow him.
I wholeheartedly agree! The question though is what brings about this change in view of Christ? The Calvinist would argue the entire person's will, heart, mind, and outlook on spiritual matters were brought about in such a way that the person could not resist.
Ironically enough, the molinist understanding of saving or effectual grace is closer to the Calvinist than arminian. I'll address that in my next post.
I would affirm perseverance of the saints as well.....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Tradesecret
Every True Christian is either expressly a Calvinist or is a closet Calvinist. They are but they just don't know it yet.
My, what a claim! May I ask for you to elaborate? I certainly wouldn't consider myself a closet calvinist. Ironically enough, Luis Molina, and myself being a molinist, affirm(ed) unconditional election. However the molinist understanding of unconditional election differs from the calvinist.
Calvin of course followed the teachings of Augustine, who followed Paul, who followed Jesus, who is very similar in thinking with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, David, Daniel, Moses and Samuel. Wow, it just amazed me of the historical unity between all of these people. And these are just the ones I thought of immediately. In fact as I look through the Bible I cannot find any one - well apart from the heathens and heretics who would not be consistent with Calvinist teaching.Prove me wrong.
Just so I have a general idea, what type of Calvinism do you affirm? Are you an infralapsarian or supralapsarian? Are you an Amyraldianist or do you affirm limited atonement? Would you consider yourself a compatibilist or a hard determinist?
Do you subscribe to the Westminister confession?
Whoop! Did I just hear a challenge?
I think so! This is exactly the type of fruitful discussion I was hoping for with this thread, I foresee this dialog turning into a formal debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I wouldn't say God acts by necessity or that His nature compels Him to perform certain acts. I would say though that God cannot act against His nature
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
It is also duly noted that you have gone to Tradesecret and ethang5's pseudo-christian school of "How to run away from disturbing biblical axioms, and to try in vain to remain intelligent looking in the aftermath." For this, I am truly sorry for you, because you will continue to be the Bible fool in this forum like Tradesecret and ethang5 have been easily shown.
Gone to the school?
I run the school.
I am the head instructor, and will go down as the greatest theologian in history.
I have trained an army of master theologians to DEBATE and EXPOSE your heresies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure I follow, motivates Him to do what?
Created:
Holy Bible authorized version
Created:
-->
@FLRW
So far you've offered I believe the best treatment of the argument. Would you mind giving me a reference to Plantinga's statements? I would like to read more of those for myself.
In regards to the reverse ontological argument:
1. No-maximality is possibly exemplified.2. If no-maximality is possibly exemplified, then maximal greatness is impossible.3. So maximal greatness is impossible.So Plantinga himself, tells us how his argument can fail.
In regards to premise 1
If there were a possible world where no maximal greatness was exemplified that could only be because maximal greatness is impossible. If it was possible it would be exemplified in every world.
The challenge then is how do you show maximal greatness to be impossible?
I don't believe you can. There's nothing in maximal greatness that would be logically or metaphysically incoherent or contradictory, like square circularity. If maximal greatness is not incoherent, maximal greatness IS possibly exemplified.
So when we get back to the reverse argument, premise one actually contains its conclusion:
"No maximality is possibly exemplified " (i.e. maximal greatness is impossible)
In other words, I don't think the argument goes through because premise 1 contains its conclusion, and maximal greatness would have to be shown to be metaphysically incoherent in order to establish premise 1. Not just assumed.
So I think the only successful version of the reverse ontological argument would be:
1. Maximal greatness is logically impossible
2. If maximal greatness is logically impossible it is not exemplified in any possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is not exemplified in any possible world
4. An mgb cannot exist.
This avoids the circularity issue. The issue is I don't believe premise 1 can ever be established
Created: