You decided to start multiple conversations all at once. Perhaps you're regretting it not, because you seem to have dug yourself into quite a hole.
Ha-haaa. . .I'm doing GREAT!
<-- This is me yelling.
You are, I think, taking this conversation more seriously than it deserves. I wouldn't say it's "FUN!!!", more light diversion
Then you're admitting that you can handle a lot more of it.
The Bible may call it death, but since you're still alive after it's over, it obviously isn't.
After what's "over?" You mean the 1st death? No one's arguing that the physical body never died, here.
Again: it's not speculation. It's simple logic.
Based on pure speculation. Problem??
You're mixing up the meanings of the word arbitrary. I'm not saying God changes his mind at random. I'm saying that if you say that morality is based on God's nature, then it could mean anything, because whatever it was, you would consider it to be moral.
God's nature isn't "it could mean anything," because it refers to God's own nature. His attributes, His Holiness, His purity, His perfection, His omnipotence, His justice, His grace, and His mercy. All of that refers to God's natural attributes, IOW, His nature.
You're confused about the meaning of the word "arbitrary."
Then it's even more important that you not be vague about it. Let's go!
Since I had to cut this post in half so it would fit - yes, I think you would benefit from trying to focus on one thing at a time.
Then you really need to stop trying to throw out red herrings and petty gotcha games. Of course, I know you won't take my advice, and since I'm playing defense I will have to address every-single-one the more you add to them, which makes the thread even more fun. You know, like competing in a tractor-pull.
I'm afraid that doesn't mean it works. In this case, it doesn't, as I've shown.
It works because you are forced to accept the existence of God or reject logic altogether.
It's not really me saying so. It's reason and logic saying so. When you use a flawed argument, that's what happens to you.
If you accept that reason and logic applies to both of us equally and universally, then PSR and modus ponens force you to accept that a universal logician exists. Boom, welcome to Deism, and atheism is falsified. Simple.
Sure. But that's because we all know that programs are written by programmers.
Thank you for your admission. I win.
We have no evidence that logic is a created thing. You are, I think, confusing prescriptive laws with descriptive.
If it is prescriptive that
"we all know" programs are written by programmers, then "we all know" universal logic is utilized by a universal logician.
“
Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. It is, in a way, the opposite of Chaos. It implies the deep interconnectedness of all things. It conveys awe for the intricate and subtle way in which the universe is put together.” ― Carl Sagan
“
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” ― Carl Sagan
Gosh, you really are all over the place here. You seem determined to cram in every apologetic argument you have ever heard.
No, it essentially runs on the same engine.
Either the media hype clouds that necessary detail, or Meyer, Behe, and Dembski forgot to include that little detail. Because "we all know" programs were written by programmers, etc.
The thing is this: we have enormous experience of things causing other things inside the universe. We have, however, absolutely no experience of the universe itself being caused by things.
Agreed. Because "things" don't ultimately cause "things" in an ultimate sense. <-- That would be circular reasoning. The axiom is "
ex nihilo nihil fit," or, "Out of nothing, nothing comes." Therefore, why is there something rather than nothing? Every-
thing in the universe is finite. Therefore, every-
thing cannot be contingent to another-
thing in-itself. The only rational option is sentience. IOW, it was not done randomly, but was done on-purpose.
All of our experience comes from inside the universe, and we have no experience of how things work outside of it.
Empirically speaking, yes. But empiricism has its own flaws and isn't as reliable as we'd like to think it is. In fact we do have experience of how things work outside of the material universe, because the universe is ultimately dependent on logic, order, and math.
This makes nonsense of the arguments of apologists saying "God must have caused the universe to come into existence because nothing else could have."
Because you're narrow-minded about only one category of experiencing reality.
1. Empiricism (sense experience) cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
2. Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy.
3. Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
4. Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.
^ These FACTS are irrefutable.
I think that's what you're trying to do, yes.
This has nothing to do with your subjective will. You either accept PSR, or you don't know if you even exist, because it cannot be determined whether or not you (the real you) is capable of expressing, emoting, reasoning, designing, or communicating to others.
I'm actually trying to do you a favor here.
Of course I'm not, and of course it doesn't.
Logic
or atheism. You can't have it both ways.
You're quite right. As soon as I see any evidence of any reasonable quality for God, I will be forced by it to change my mind, and I won't mind at all, because what I want is to know the truth.
Of course, since you haven't managed to present any evidence, I haven't yet changed my mind
Which proves that you value your persuasive incredulity more than the truth. Deductive logic = absolute truth.
A bad workman always blames his tools; and a poor speaker always blames his audience. It's not his fault nobody was convinced. They just didn't want to recognise how right he was.
^ More evidence you recognize incredulous will over absolute truth.
And yes, I'd say this is typical atheist behavior. Confronted by poor arguments, we do tend to poke holes in them.
Any truth you hate is labeled "poor."
No, the burden of proof hasn't been met.
^ argumentum ad lapidem.
Congratulations. It's very nice you got to tell yourself that you won.
You can't magically
proof by assertion my failure into existence. At worst, I remain unrefuted because you hate logic.
Oh boy, did my opponent do something. He filled a page and a half with every flawed argument he'd ever read.
Because you magically assert "flawed." *applause*
That's what you're trying to do, of course
No, modus ponens is a deductive rule of inference which you failed to directly and objectively refute. Just like you failed to objectively refute PSR. Lazy hand-waving "nuh-uhs" don't count. It doesn't matter how much faux-certainty you're fronting. That's not how rational debate works.
Simply put, Holmes was wrong. Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, may be the truth - or perhaps, the truth is something else that you never knew about.
Which either has or has not been eliminated yet, thus Holmes still applies. It's not based on what you speculatively don't know. You're simply asserting "it could be something(!)," without specifics. Thus, you're conflating induction with deduction. Induction allows for unknowns. Deduction is a priori. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
And that's the answer to the Cosmological Argument. We simply do not know how things work "outside" of the universe, so saying "it must have been God" is just silly.
We know a minimum of facts of how things work "outside" of the universe. A tiny handful. Fortunately, deductive logic "stacks."
Given that Big Bang Theory falsified Steady State theory, the universe (nature) did have a cause from outside itself.
Thus, cause
rationally supersedes nature. Or is simply known as "supernature."
To account for ultimate cause,
the only options* are as follows:
- Chance
- Intent
- A material cause.
^ The latter invokes an infinite regress, which is completely irrational. "Turtles All The Way Down" applies equally to cosmological claims as it does to theistic claims.
"Chance" is not a thing-in-itself. Voltaire argued that chance is a placeholder for "we don't know." You need material dice to actually roll them to begin with. Thus, chance is eliminated.
Thus, deductively speaking, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -AC Doyle
Conclusion: It was done intentionally on purpose. Q.E.D.
*Until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.
Bottom line: It has ^ been deductively proven that it was done on-purpose.
Goodness me. Don't you realise that when I was speaking of strawmen I was just speaking about my general experience in talking with Christian apologists?
Without specifics. I'm a bit protective of my family here, problem?
I'm just amused, that's all.
This isn't confirming or denying that you are in-fact an activist.
No, you go for it! You take on that burden of proof!
Still waiting for you to stop denying that I alrady did so, and address it objectively. Again, one the burden of proof is met, no matter how poorly, it's on you to take up the burden of refutation and objectively refute me. Lazy hand-waving isn't gonna cut it.
Not really an important distinction.
It is the single-most important distinction. Your opponent doesn't get to re-define your own positive claim, and then strawman it as-if it were your own definition of the thing you claimed. <-- That's full blown intellectual dishonesty. Naturally,
Hanlon's Razor should be applied for the sake of generosity, but the more my opponent pushes the point, the less generous I can be with either his intelligence or his charity.
The important point is, when you want someone to believe something, you have to provide a reason for them to do so.
Which is why I chose reason itself. If you reject reason as an objective thing-in-itself, then you are a hypocrite. If you accept reason as an objective reality, then the proof of God is not only valid, but also sound. Since reason (logic) is math-based.
Russell's Teapots and Sagan's Dragon are doing exactly the job they were designed for. It's a trap, and I'm afraid you've fallen into it.
It's a purely empirical trap. God is never an empirical claim. I'm good.
Paul isn't correct. Good, that was easy.
It's an easy assumption to make when you're just assuming Paul is wrong. Epistemological naturalism cannot support itself,
because nature is dependent on the super-nature of math instead. Math is unfalsifiable. Surprise!
Oh, I'm very predictable. I'd love to be spontaneous and pushing new boundaries, but the sad truth is that Christians just keep using the same old flawed arguments, and we just keep pointing out the mistakes.
And yet you've never heard of the simulation argument. And I'm a Christian. And you are suddenly allergic to 5 min or less videos on it. Strange.
