Which world is better: the world with no God or the world where the gospel is true?

MrsFoundit said:

A definition that applies very well to the contents of your own posts throughout this thread.

Click to expand...

Is this principle itself support by evidence? No, therefore it is self defeating.

Click to expand...

The evidence is demonstrated through using the principle. We know that explanations supported by evidence are more found to be true that explanations not supported by evidence. If you disagree with this then good luck finding truth.

What this demonstrates is that a correct explanation can be a thing not initially considered, it does not validate your conclusion.

Click to expand...

That is my point. This is why you cannot use the best explanation as the basis for a belief.

MrsFoundit said:

Justify your position as a moral adjudicator of anything, and then you will have a good point.

Click to expand...

Justify yours please. I have explained my basis for morals, just because you don't like how we find morals using logic and reason does not mean that your moral based on a god is true.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

It goes further than that.

If you're in Heaven, with the knowledge that people you knew and loved in your mortal life aren't there, that's going to cause you anguish. Which means it can't be Heaven.

If you're in Heaven, either without that knowledge, or with the knowledge but without the anguish because you've been 'made anew', then it's not you any more.

So either 'Heaven' isn't Heaven, or the person who actually goes there isn't you. In either case, no one goes to Heaven.

Click to expand...

Which seems to even further beg the question...

If you are no longer able to sin, but were a sinner before-hand, have your memory wiped, and/or maybe no longer carry the same type of feelings for your former unsaved relatives and loved ones, then why not just grant all to heaven?

Getting back to the OP, if one could (only) choose to either someday cease to existing, or, to have a perpetual watcher of all your actions for whom you also worship for eternity, seems as though the someday 'ceasing to exist' option might seem a little more desirable of the two...?

public hermit said:

Sin and evil are by nature destructive, they work against life. That which abides in destruction cannot last forever.

Click to expand...

Take 'Satan' for instance... Satan's existence could very well last 'forever.' It is up to God, to continue the status quo... Meaning, to create life, and watch if humans decide to follow Him, or to turn to 'evil' / Satan / other. Satan's realm could last forever, as long as God decides to allow it.

Furthermore, take 'hell' for instance... Doesn't hell's existence last eternal? Isn't hell a place for perpetual 'destruction'? If the Scriptures are accurate, a 'human' could burn forever.

public hermit said:

So, sin/evil are incompatible with everlasting life. Humans abide in destruction. As things stand right now, humans are not fit for everlasting life. This is what Christians refer to as the "sin nature."

Click to expand...

This seems to further strengthen my position... All humans inherit a 'sinful nature'. It is those whom choose Christ, that have any chance of redemption, according to Scripture. Which means, without belief, you stand no chance moving forward. See below...

public hermit said:

In World 2, the work of Christ opens the way for life (transcends the barrier of death and finitude) and provides the transformation needed so that humans are prepared for everlasting life.

Your main concern seems to be how faith works in World 2. As I stated earlier, faith is not mere belief. Faith is a whole life orientation towards life. Trusting in Christ is more than simply trusting that his death and resurrection are true. Faith is about embracing his way of life. And his way of life is oriented towards life.

Click to expand...

Please let me clarify... Without the belief in this specific deity, the rest does not follow. It's like the example I gave, either earlier in the thread, or maybe in another, I don't quite remember...

1). The Orthodox Jew, whom attempts to abide and follow Biblical law.
2). The 'Christian', whom attempts to abide and follow Biblical law.

Their values and 'morals' could parallel, but 1). does not believe in the same agent to 'provide' the path there-after.

Without belief in the correct agent, your deeds, acts, and intent are in the 'wrong' direction.

public hermit said:

Being merciful, gentle, a peace maker, gracious, generous, these are the qualities that makes one fit for everlasting life. Hatred, resentment, selfishness, violence, these qualities are destructive and not conducive to everlasting life.

Click to expand...

Sure, but Gandhi isn't in heaven, according to Scripture

public hermit said:

God is gracious and is willing to help us towards everlasting life if we repent and turn towards the way that leads to life.

Click to expand...

Right. As long as you acknowledge Him; as a prerequisite

I'll stop here for now. There is enough here to unpack for quite a bit...

public hermit said:

No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying your naturalism only allows for mere sentiment (i.e. your subjective experience) as a basis for your moral philosophy, whatever that might be.

Click to expand...

No, that's not the 'only' basis of my moral philosophy. I still have an objective standard to predicate it on - harm vs wellbeing. This necessitates no invocation of a god, a 'transcendent good', or any other vacuous non-concept you care to imagine. A god could exist or not, and it would make no difference whatsoever in this regard.

With regard to value though, that is (once again) necessarily subjective, and you are in exactly the same position as me. Your value judgements aren't any more objective or 'transcendent' than mine. They are derived from your own subjective experiences, just as mine are from my subjective experiences.

Even if you think a god is imbuing you with those values, you are still making a subjective judgement as to their 'goodness', and the 'goodness' of the god imbuing them.

public hermit said:

But that basis does not capture the reality of human experience

Click to expand...

Yes it does. The reality of human experience is that I cannot, by all appearances, escape the subjectivity of my own experience. In fact, I have no choice to but to experience it. Neither do you.

Unless you think you have a reliable means of doing so, in which case, please share it.

BigV said:

I don't know how Universe began, and neither do you. So, that's not evidence of anything. Not knowing =/= evidence. Same goes for the fine tuning and the DNA.

Click to expand...

Here you stand at odds with EVERY atheist cosmogonist for the last 50 years.

A quick google search could have informed your opinion greatly.

Similarly, evolutionists since Watson and Crick have marvelled at how such a ridiculous amount of algorithmic specified complexity could have arisen gradually.

A quick google search could have informed your opinion greatly.

BigV said:

If there are objective moral values, then the Bible needs to be thrown out based on the objective moral values, for the Bible advocates death penalty for gathering sticks on a Saturday. (See Numbers 15). It requires that a rape victim marry their rapist, as long as the victim was a virgin before the rape and the father gets 50 shekels.

Click to expand...

Please look up "Moral arguments for God's existence," and you will not find any reference to the Bible. Or the anachronistic claims above attacking a strawman concept of God.

A quick google search could have informed your opinion greatly

BigV said:

I am not sure how you can confidently assert that there are NO atheists in the foxholes. I was born in the USSR where many of my people died during WWII. I'm not aware of too many theists in the foxholes.

Click to expand...

The claim is part of a larger group of transcendent arguments for God's existence, based on hundreds of accounts of Atheists crying out to God in times of great distress where they thought their lives were in peril.

A quick google search...

BigV said:

And if there is Hell, which, the theists are starting to argue against, that's an even bigger problem. Btw, I wonder if there are surveys or polls on the Christian understanding of Hell. Based on my conversations with Christians, majority of them believe in the Eternal Hell with conscious torment. Ironically, most, if not all of them will agree on God and objective moral values.

Click to expand...

Theist have argued about the nature of hell since second and third century. We don't determine knowledge in any area of knowledge based on surveys. That is called an appeal to masses and is fallacious.

However, I do argue that a detail discussion about the problem of Hell is important. Further that it has the potential to be a knockdown defeater of the coherency of Christian Theism. Theism per se could still be feasible, but if the Hell argument goes through for the Atheist, then an omni-benevolent (all-good) being would not be possible to assert!

As I have argued elsewhere, this problem, combined with the problem of evil and suffering are the atheists best argument.

As for the other statements above...

A quick google search...

public hermit said:

Are you a naturalist? Are you a physicalist/materialist? Do you hold that moral thought and action is a wholly natural phenomenon?

Click to expand...

As per the question in the OP, I tend towards believing in World1 (noGod, no afterlife). No need to add stuff (unless you are desperately trying to change your own topic).

Btw. you haven´t answered my question: Where, when, how and by whom have your assumptions about EFMs "metaphysical commitments" been verified?

public hermit said:

This is where I think you and I differ (correct me if I am wrong). I recognize that I am acting on faith in my commitment to theism and moral realism. You don't seem to recognize that you too have made an act of faith in being committed to naturalism and moral subjectivity. The fact that you say I am in the same position as you tells me you think you are not mistaken, that your position is not an act of faith.

Click to expand...

Neither of these require 'faith'.

I hold that subjective experience is inescapable, and that there is no positive indication of anything 'supernatural', nor any means of gleaning information about the 'supernatural'. These are banal observations of the universe I find myself in. At such time as they are proven to be wrong, I will adjust my beliefs accordingly.

And again, I am only subjectivist with regard to value, because there is nothing else to be. 'Objective value' is an oxymoron. Though you're welcome to present a case to the contrary if you have one.

public hermit said:

I think we are both being consistent in regards to our respective metaphysical commitments.

Click to expand...

I don't think you have a good understanding of what mine are, since you opened this exchange with a verbose fallacy of composition.

public hermit said:

But, you seem to be more certain, more dogmatic than I.

Click to expand...

That's possible.

public hermit said:

I know I could be wrong, do you?

Click to expand...

Yes.

public hermit said:

Eight Foot Manchild is a naturalist, as I assumed and he has stated. Are you reading the thread?

Click to expand...

You mean the only thing you said about his views in your legnthy post #485 was that he was a naturalist? Yeah right.

Uber Genius said:

Here you stand at odds with EVERY atheist cosmogonist for the last 50 years.

A quick google search could have informed your opinion greatly.

Similarly, evolutionists since Watson and Crick have marvelled at how such a ridiculous amount of algorithmic specified complexity could have arisen gradually.

A quick google search could have informed your opinion greatly.

Click to expand...

Please name one cosmologist who KNOWS how the Universe began. It should be very easy for you to do.

Uber Genius said:

The claim is part of a larger group of transcendent arguments for God's existence, based on hundreds of accounts of Atheists crying out to God in times of great distress where they thought their lives were in peril.

Click to expand...

Why would atheists cry out to Zeus when in distress? Thor?

Many people cry out to their mother too. Perhaps this is proof Virgin Mary is looking out for us all?

Uber Genius said:

Please look up "Moral arguments for God's existence," and you will not find any reference to the Bible.

Click to expand...

Well, there must be some confusion. How did you decide that God is the moral one? If not the Bible, what book are you using?

Perhaps we can just say that morality comes from XYZ and leave it at that?

cvanwey said:

I'm not asking you to actually concede an eternal universe. Not at all. I'm asking you to acknowledge that IF the universe is eternal, then asserting a creator becomes an illogical proposition;

Click to expand...

Again, all evidence points to the standard model, but "If the universe is not represented by that model, and a new model demonstrated a eternal universe,"

Use whatever term you like.

"In a completely hypothetical world."

But were running down a red-herring away from the real world and evidence. That we my point.

cvanwey said:

I don't find that Sean Carroll, Alan Guth, and others, would risk possible 'career suicide', shame, or embarrassment, by just overtly and blankly asserting the concept of an 'eternal universe' without first doing their homework. I'm fairly confident such scientists are smart enough to know what possible conflict they raise. And if you wish to challenge the concepts, by all means, perform your work, and collect your Nobel prize.

Click to expand...

LOL. Yet both boldly teach the standard model which includes the beginning of spacetime, citing both Penrose/Hawking, and Hawking Ellis argue for a beginning since the late 1960s.

https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Space-Time-Cambridge-Monographs-Mathematical/dp/0521099064

cvanwey said:

Great. Not that it was ever a 'good' one to begin with IMHO. But it would be nice to not hear the theistic population mention it anymore. But we both know that will never happen, no matter what, right?

Click to expand...

Again. In hundreds of debates, all online, you can see how atheists handle it. Professional philosophers, not internet infidels, unfamiliar with the whole of philosophy, get crushed.

But for our listeners pleasure I have attached a discussion of some of the internet infidel logic errors here:

Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up | Reasonable Faith

cvanwey said:

Again, I ask you the same fundamental question at the very top. You know, like the one posed to many unbelievers.

Click to expand...

Again, if you want to make up a hypothetical world that is eternal in order to falsify the 2nd premise in the Kalam

1. If the universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

So you can create a hypothetical world to delete the 2nd premise and all you do is suggest that in that hypothetical world we couldn't use the Kalam as an argument for God's existence, but we could use the Liebnizian argument from contingency, now if you want to take us through 2-dozen or so good arguments for God's existence in the real world and create a hypothetical world that one-by-one eliminates the truth value of one of the premises in each argument well by all means go right ahead.

But isn't the theist going to see past your ruse in 5-seconds?

public hermit said:

The post was based on the assumption that his metaphysical commitment is naturalism, yes. Look, as much as I appreciate your running commentary, I don't.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he seems to be really happy with your assumptions about his views.

public hermit said:

You should comment on this post as well.

Click to expand...

No, it´s not worth it.

Uber Genius said:

Again, if you want to make up a hypothetical world that is eternal in order to falsify the 2nd premise in the Kalam

1. If the universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

Click to expand...

Nowhere in this argument do you find god. Not in the premise and not in the conclusion. A transcendent cause does not equal god. That needs to be demonstrated.