Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

So not only are you cherry-picking the Bible but you still haven't grasped what a devil's advocate argument is.

I am sure they can. But I have no idea what that has to do with you accepting an invitation to a debate.

I feel I am more than justified in using the quote. According to every atheist who I have questioned regarding their willingness to worship Christ, they have confessed that they would question what right Christ had to claim their allegiance and some have made it very clear that they would reject outright the opprtunity to love, worship, honor, and reverence Jesus Christ even if they did believe Him to be real.

I am glad. I would'nt either. No one is asking you to prove a negative. But you do have a view on certain things. Lets say for instance the topic: "Does God exist?" I am sure you have a position on that question that you could argue from? No?

Is a formal debate against policy? I have not read that it was. No one engaging in a formal debate here would be at odds with the rules and moderators of this site.

Mainstream science? Surely you are not talking about logical positivism?

I never said debate was a path to truth. However, debate is a much more conducive format for getting one's points across in a clear, concise, and orderly manner.

Dr. Craig has been debating high profile scientists and atheists for 20 plus years using the same five arguments as his base, and he still is the most well respected, most revered, Christian philosophical apologist and debater today. One atheist even confessed that he can put the fear of God in an atheist when debating. So I think you may be hesitant to debate me because you know I utilize much of his knowledge and teachings.

One line of evidence for the existence of God is presented in what is commonly called "The Moral Argument". The moral argument can be syllogistically represented as the following:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you

Fascinating. So you're saying that the bible IS a compilation of myths and legends? Didn't know that was your position.

Now, the fact of the matter is that god orders the Israelites to commit genocide; specifically, to annihilate the Amelekites, including the children and infants and women. Now, this is reasonably early on in middle-east history: women were not going about smiting Israelites, nor were children, nor were infants.

So god ordered the murder of innocents; he ordered genocide - ACCORDING TO YOUR HOLY BOOK.

I try not to resort to referencing the bible, as it has a demonstrable record for its inability to resolve differences of opinion.

But you may find this link of interest, where William Lane Craig attempts to get around the "genocide" issues by playing with the definition of “ethnic cleansing”.

"But if you want to argue it wasn’t technically genocide, consider this slightly broader definition that’s been given for “ethnic cleansing”: “the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous.”

Deuteronomy’s program is pretty clearly ethnic cleansing by that definition. And while “ethnic cleansing” was originally a euphemism used by those who committed it in Yugoslavia, it has since fallen off the euphemsim treadmill and–rightly–come to be seen as morally equivalent or at least near-equivalent to genocide."

William Lane Craig on being “the apologist who defends genocide”

That is amazingly sick. William Lane Craig claims that the people injured in genocide ARE THE SOLDIERS WHO COMMITTED IT?

That's the most nauseating thing I've seen in months. What a vile, hateful man.

That's the most nauseating thing I've seen in months. What a vile, hateful man.

I am sure they can. But I have no idea what that has to do with you accepting an invitation to a debate.



I feel I am more than justified in using the quote. According to every atheist who I have questioned regarding their willingness to worship Christ, they have confessed that they would question what right Christ had to claim their allegiance and some have made it very clear that they would reject outright the opprtunity to love, worship, honor, and reverence Jesus Christ even if they did believe Him to be real.



I am glad. I would'nt either. No one is asking you to prove a negative. But you do have a view on certain things. Lets say for instance the topic: "Does God exist?" I am sure you have a position on that question that you could argue from? No?



Is a formal debate against policy? I have not read that it was. No one engaging in a formal debate here would be at odds with the rules and moderators of this site.



Mainstream science? Surely you are not talking about logical positivism?



I never said debate was a path to truth. However, debate is a much more conducive format for getting one's points across in a clear, concise, and orderly manner.



Dr. Craig has been debating high profile scientists and atheists for 20 plus years using the same five arguments as his base, and he still is the most well respected, most revered, Christian philosophical apologist and debater today. One atheist even confessed that he can put the fear of God in an atheist when debating. So I think you may be hesitant to debate me because you know I utilize much of his knowledge and teachings.

That's terrific. However, I am not impressed. For even if you have been published in Nature and Science, you are still way out of your area of expertise in making assertions regarding Biblical Criticism.

For someone who does'nt belive in God, and for someone who believes the bible is simply a compilation of myths and legends, which I am assuming is your position, you sure do seem to think that the things the bible records actually happened!!!