"Is There Really a War on Christmas?" by Link2Eternity

teufelhunden 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Wow that was very well put. Thanks.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

There is no war on God; only an acknowledgement that he doesn't exist. Society is increasingly realizing that religion is nothing but a means to control people, and is rightfully jettisoning it from public discourse.

I'm not even going to get into the ample evidence and logical arguments against the existence of your or any other God or gods, but I do pose this question: why should the government pay homage to Christianity? There are many Americans who are not religious, and many others who practice religions other than Christianity, yet everyone has to pay taxes to the same government. Why should atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews have to pay taxes to support overtures to Christianity?

The United States has always been, and should continue to be, a secular country. Religion has no legitimate place in the public sector or, really, in human society.

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

I'd be very interested in entertaining your "ample evidence" for God's nonexistence.

Tony

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

So do you have an actual argument for government patronage of religion, or are you just diverting?

As far as evidence against the existence of god, off the top of my head…

-- The sheer number of religions that exist in the world is evidence against the existence of God. Each religion has wildly different views of spirituality and divinity. Some believe in one God, others believe in many, and still others believe not in gods but in abstract spiritual forces. If there really were a God, she or he would presumably provide the same revelation to every culture. The fact that each culture has its own unique religion, one clearly suited to that culture and inconsistent with other religions, implies that religion is just a faculty of the human imagination.

-- God is on the losing side of history. There are many phenomena that were originally explained by divine providence but are now explained by math, science, logic, or closer historical study. Take mental illness: originally, people believed that mental illness was the result of demonic possession, but now we know that it comes from psychological trauma and chemical imbalances in the brain. On the other hand, there is nothing that was ever explained by science, math, logic, or history that is now explained by religion. This indicates that religion is not an independent source of truth, but rather a story that people make up to explain strange phenomena until real explanations become available.

This, of course, is evidence against the existence of any God. When it comes to the Christian God, the case is even stronger. There is evidence against the existence of any God, but it is logically impossible for the Christian God to exist for the following reasons:

-- The Christian God is defined as a being that is both all-powerful and all-knowing. If God were all-knowing, however, he would know exactly what he was going to do tomorrow. But if that were the case, he would not be able to change what he was going to do tomorrow. If there was any possibility of his doing differently than he had foreseen, his foresight would be imperfect, and he would not be all-knowing. Either God is not all-knowing or he is not all-powerful; he cannot be both, but if he is not both, the Christian concept is wrong.

-- The Christian God is said to exist outside of time, yet makes decisions. Without time, however, decisions are impossible. To make a decision, it is necessary that there is a point in time in which I do not know what I am going to do, and then later that changes. Either God does not make decisions (and is thus an automaton), or he exists within time.

I could go on, but this message is too long already. Send me an email if you want to continue at greater length: soboeiro@live.unc.edu

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey man,

Thanks for responding. I didn’t think you would.

You said:

"So do you have an actual argument for government patronage of religion, or are you just diverting?"

My Answer: No diversion here. I have never believed that religious patronage should be mandatory, but I do believe that the "free exercise" should not be stifled as it is in growing instances. I just think the "evidence" against God's existence if more important than what we think about politics. After all, one's view of ultimate reality dictates one's view on government and its limits as well as morality, don't you think? Hence, I will take each paragraph and answer if you will do the same for my questions to you - agreed?

I will answer the issues note here in this public forum, in one post at a time, and you can answer a set of questions I will ask here as well. Then we will go to the email discussion you mentioned, if you like.

I look forward to the interaction - in any venue.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Fair enough, though I disagree that belief in God determines morality. That will probably come up later, so no need to rehash those arguments right now.

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hello Andrew,

To begin, I never said that "Belief in God determines morality." I said that "one's view of ultimate reality determines one's view of morality." That means that even an atheistic materialist like Richard Dawkins believes that people "dance to their DNA." This means that his view of reality, dictates his view of morality. As he sees it, morality as such has only to do with one's predetermined DNA. Thus, his worldview, his view of ultimate reality, rules out the existence of human volition.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Ah, I must have misread your comment. Never mind :)

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hello Andrew,

You said,

As far as evidence against the existence of god, off the top of my head… The sheer number of religions that exist in the world is evidence against the existence of God. Each religion has wildly different views of spirituality and divinity. Some believe in one God, others believe in many, and still others believe not in gods but in abstract spiritual forces. If there really were a God, she or he would presumably provide the same revelation to every culture. The fact that each culture has its own unique religion, one clearly suited to that culture and inconsistent with other religions, implies that religion is just a faculty of the human imagination.

Andrew, the issue you raise here is no more an argument against the existence of God than the existence of an infinite number of wrong answers to 2+2=4 annuls the existence of a right answer.
And just because we conclude, logically, I might add, that all of the exclusionary claims can't all be true, it does not preclude the possibility of one being true.
Hence, your argument does not qualify as evidence against the existence of God.

I will post other answers either tonight or in the morning as I have time to get to them.

Tony

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hello again Andrew

You said,

"God is on the losing side of history. There are many phenomena that were originally explained by divine providence but are now explained by math, science, logic, or closer historical study. Take mental illness: originally, people believed that mental illness was the result of demonic possession, but now we know that it comes from psychological trauma and chemical imbalances in the brain. On the other hand, there is nothing that was ever explained by science, math, logic, or history that is now explained by religion. This indicates that religion is not an independent source of truth, but rather a story that people make up to explain strange phenomena until real explanations become available."

But.....

Which phenomena were explained as "divine providence" that has now been explained by "science?" Concerning the idea that "people thought mental illness was the result of demonic possession", I'm not sure what "people" you mean.
Remember, just as a large number of religions do not nullify the possibility of one of them being true, the fact of misdiagnosis does not mean that some mental illnesses might be caused by demonic possession or oppression.

Tony

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

We will deal with these issues first, Andrew, and then we will move on to your other "arguments." I await your response to the above comments. It is very easy to overload the readers in this kind of forum with too many discussions going on at a time.

Thank you for the interaction.

Tony Watts

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

"[Regarding inconsistent revelations] the issue is no more an argument against the existence of God than the existence of an infinite number of wrong answers to 2+2=4 annuls the existence of a right answer"

But the difference is, every culture in the world does not have a separate answer for the question "what does 2 plus 2 equal?"

The point is not that there are many different religions but rather that cultures that are separated from each other each have different and contradictory religions.

If there really were a god, it would presumably exist everywhere and not be limited by physical barriers. Thus we would expect every culture to have a similar concept of the divine, since it would all come from the same source.

Think of it this way: let's say that there God fits the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept (i.e.- there is only one god, and he is all-knowing/all-loving/all-powerful). If that were the case, why is it that until the Muslim invasion, India did not have any religions that taught this concept? It's not just that there were polytheistic religions in India; it's that there were NO monotheistic religions there. If there really were a god, don't you think he would have had some presence there?

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

The people to whom I am referring are the population of medieval Europe. It was common to assume that people who were experiencing visions were either being possessed by the devil or were receiving messages from God. Modern psychologists have read accounts of these people's experiences and their general disposition and have concluded that the people were almost certainly schizophrenic.

Now, this isn't an absolute proof against the existence of God. As you say, it is possible that some people have had visions and so forth that were explained by science as mental illness, but were in fact visions from God or possession by Satan. The point, however, is that there is no recorded EVIDENCE of this. If there really were a God, we would expect this to happen all the time. It is possible that we will later find out that it does happen often, but there is no reason to assume this. Thus it is unlikely that there is a God.

Think of it this way, if a scientist makes a hypothesis, runs tests, and finds that the hypothesis does not fit the evidence, she is encouraged to abandon the hypothesis. It is possible that she will later find more evidence that proves her hypothesis is correct, but she has no reason to assume this will happen. Thus she should assume that her hypothesis is untrue unless and until she finds more evidence. Similarly, we should assume that God does not exist unless and until we find clear, demonstrable examples of divine providence.

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hello Andrew,

1st, The point I was making was that any number of wrong answers do not annul the possibility a right one, and in the case of God's existence, just because a number of contradictory claims are available, it does not exclude the possibility that one of the views or even another view is actually true.

2nd, Even the existence of various religions, by people separated geographically, offers no evidence that God does not exist. If anything it is evidence of his actual existence as indicated by the innate and universal God consciousness of humanity at large. Even mainline atheists concur with this universality and innateness.

Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, for example, concede the troubling universality of the dualistic/theistic slant of human beings universally and innately. Referring to a "dualistic" view of the mind, both men concede this troubling reality when, according to their materialistic atheism, No such reality exists. Of course, if they concede the actual existence of mind as a separate non-physical entity from the physical brain, then that would point to an immaterial first cause, namely, God.

(Dennett, Consciousness Explained. p 37) (Dawkins, The God Delusion. p 179)

Even the former atheist of atheists, Antony Flew has conceded this universal and innate "natural" bent of the human race as evidence of God's existence. Here I quote a very small excerpt from the book I am currently writing, "The Miracles of Atheism,"

"Antony Flew concurringly noted the validity of this argument. i.e. the universality of knowledge of the divine, as “By far, the headiest challenge” to atheism. Referencing Alvin Platinga’s idea that “theism is a properly basic belief,” along with other basic beliefs about things like “other minds or memory” challenging. He also refers to the “Thomist Philosopher, Ralph McInerny” who declared belief in God to be natural. “So much so,” said Flew, 'that the idea of God is almost innate, which seems like a prima facie argument against atheism.'” (There is a God, p 55)

3rd, the very real possibility that sinful men pervert the universal and "consistent" revelation made available to them exists. In fact, that is the explanation that the Apostle Paul gives (Romans 1). The revelation, as you say, is consistent, but man "does not like to retain God in their knowledge" and changes it to make it more palatable than the actual knowledge available to them.

So, actual and universal knowledge of God exists but when perverted by a rebellious race, it would rise in the many and various forms you cite.

Tony

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hello Andrew,

I hear this all the time. I have "ample evidence against the existence of your or any other God or gods," and I'm just not seeing it. Per your own words again, "Now, this isn't an absolute proof against the existence of God." So which is it? Is there ample evidence or not? Even your acclaimed dependence upon "evidence" assumes the human ability to consider a certain body of material and/or facts and then make an unbridled and "reasonable" decision as to which claim is true or false. The problem being, of course, is that the kind of reality you endorse, a godless, i.e. purely naturalistic universe, binds the "mind" of man. It reduces it to the sum of its total parts as merely physical and chemical reactions. It is determinism in its scariest form. Each thought, or decision, then is the product of prior physical and chemical conditions and nothing else.
So, your assumption regarding "evidence" itself, assumes something about the human mind that your atheism, consistently held, does not allow.

Any attempt therefore, to posit evidence is to borrow the assumptions inherent to a theistic universe rather than the materialistic one you endorse. In an atheistic universe, the mind and brain are synonymous and that idea spawns some very serious problems - among which is the elimination of free will. So, how can you follow the evidence if the means to do so is abolished.

Finally, the assumption that Science is the only valid source of knowledge is naive. Knowledge is possible via historical investigation, reason, as well as intuitively, i.e. the universalistic knowledge of God you mentioned earlier. Science, in fact, is also unable to determine moral decisions. Scientist may created the "Bomb," but it cannot determine if or when it should be used. Neither can science verify reason because reason is an assumed reality rather than something that can be subjected to the scientific method.

Tony

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

OOOPS... Not sure why the outline appears as it does above. The final number "1" was supposed to be number "3."

I tried to fix it, but was unable to.

Oh well, I'll just await your response, Andrew.

Tony

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

@link2eternity:

You're missing the point again. The multiplicity of religions does not exclude the possibility possibility that there is a god, but it is evidence against that possibility. If there really were a god, we would expect to find a similar concept of that god everywhere; it wouldn't necessarily be accepted by anyone, but it would at least be available to them. Instead, different conceptions of god are limited to specific geographic regions. The Aztecs, for example, had no concept of the Christian God until the Spanish arrived in the 16th century; if the Christian God really existed, don't you think there would have been at least some Aztecs who believed in him before?

"[The multiplicity of religions] is evidence of his actual existence as indicated by the innate and universal God consciousness of humanity at large."

You're conflating the universal existence of religion with the universal belief in god. Many religions do not teach the existence of anything that could be called a god. Buddhism, at least in its original form, teaches that there are abstract spiritual forces, but no personal beings that could be identified as gods. Some cultures and religions believe in gods; others do not. There is no "universal God consciousness."

As far as the opinions of Dawkins et. al., well, they're wrong about this. Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, but that doesn't make him an expert on the history of the world's religions, and he is apparently unaware that non-theistic religions (such as Buddhism) exist. That's his problem; it doesn't change the debate.

"the very real possibility that sinful men pervert the universal and "consistent" revelation"

But the point is that it could never have been perverted because it never existed in the first place! Again, I'm not just arguing that there are many conceptions of god; I'm arguing that each conception is absent from many cultures. If any particular god existed, we would expect to find some people who believed in it in every culture. But there is no god or concept of god that is this universal.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Clearly you don't understand the difference between evidence and absolute proof. Evidence against a position means it is unlikely that it exists; absolute proof demonstrates that it is impossible that it exists. The arguments that I made against the general existence of god (i.e.- inconsistent revelations, losing side of history) are evidence; they don't absolutely disprove god's existence, but they show that it is unlikely. The arguments I used against the Christian God, on the other hand, are absolute proofs; they show that it is logically impossible for the Christian God to exist.

You're claim that atheism = determinism is laughable. The fact that the human mind is made up of chemicals and atoms does not at all demonstrate that a "will" does not exist. We may not know exactly how the mind makes decisions or how all those chemicals and atoms work together to form thoughts, but to assume that they must work together in any particular way or form any particular decision is absurd.

For that matter, it is Christianity, not atheism, that makes free will impossible. If, as Christians believe, God knows everything that will happen at any point in time, God knows exactly what I will do tomorrow. But if God knows exactly what I will do tomorrow, that means I won't be able to choose to do anything other than what God already knows I'm going to do. Thus if your God exists, I have no real choice.

And when did I say that science was the only valid source of knowledge? I was merely using the scientific method as an example of why we shouldn't accept ideas if the evidence is against them. I absolutely agree that there are other forms of knowledge, such as historical analysis, literary criticism, philosophy, and ethics, that are every bit as valid as science. Don't put words in my mouth.

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hello Andrew, I'll try to keep this to one post at a time for the readers to make it easier to follow.

1st, Just how does the "multiplicity of religions" argue against the existence of God, Andrew. The die-hard darwinists believe it is a difficult hurdle to their atheism. Your view opposes modern scholarship on the matter. After all, as I Antony Flew noted, it seems to be one of the most difficult arguments against atheism.

2nd, In regard to non-theistic religions, If you will note my post, I included "dualistic/theistic," as parts of the universality. The reason is simple. I am fully aware of the "non-theistic" religions where the idea of a higher and universal "consciousness" emerges. But dualism poses the same problem for the modern atheist. It still introduces a "non-material" substance to reality, something that the consistent atheist does not accept in his view of reality.

3rd, in regard to free will, you are in a vast minority to say that actual free will exists in an atheistic world, because to be free in a materialistic world, human "decisions" would have to break with the physicality to which they are logically bound.

Atheist Michael Shermer, editor of skeptic magazine, has this to say about the "freedom" of the human will in a materialistic world, “Along those lines,” he writes, “here is one that works for me; maybe it will work for you: free will is useful fiction. I feel ‘as if’ I have free will, even though I know we live in a determined universe…You do the same. Since the problem may be an insoluble one, why not act as if you do have free will, gaining the emotional gratification and social benefits that go along with it?”

In "Black Holes and Baby Universes," Stephen Hawking says the same. "We feel subjectively that we have the ability to choose who we are and what we do. But this may just be an illusion” (p. 132).

The intrinsic desire for freedom as human beings makes it difficult to accept a worldview, atheism, that abolishes its logical possibility. We very desperately desire, in fact, demand that which a world without God does not logically afford.

4th, Theologically, I'm sure where you get your information, Andrew, but divine foreknowledge does not nullify the existence of free will. I pretty much know the argumentative direction you will take on any number of issues but I am pretty sure you will claim to have freely constructed them. My foreknowledge does not abolish your ability to choose.

Tony

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Just thought this presentation by Professor John Lennox might interest you, Andrew.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

"Just how does the "multiplicity of religions" argue against the existence of God"

I've explained this to you three times: if there were a God, that God would exist conceptually in every culture. Instead, there are different religions with different cultures, each with different concepts of the divine and some that don't believe in gods at all. Do I really have to keep making this argument every post?

"As Antony Flew noted, it seems to be one of the most difficult arguments against atheism."

All this demonstrates is that Antony Flew has never studied Buddhism.

"Dualism poses the same problem for the modern atheist. It still introduces a "non-material" substance to reality, something that the consistent atheist does not accept in his view of reality"

You're conflating atheism with materialism. Atheism, to use Webster's, is "disbelief in the existence of a deity." It is materialism, not atheism, that denies the existence of anything but the physical. One can be a "consistent atheist" without being a materialist; it is perfectly possible for an atheist to believe in abstract and impersonal forces, such as karma or samsara. You really should get these concepts straight before having debates like this.

To be clear, I don't believe in impersonal spiritual forces, but my reasons for not believing in them are different from my reasons for not believing in God. I began this debate to discuss whether there is a God, not to discuss whether anything beyond the physical exists. Specifically, I said there were "ample evidence and logical arguments against the existence of your or any other God or gods;" at no point did I mention spiritual forces. Please stop trying to change the subject.

"In regard to free will, you are in a vast minority to say that actual free will exists in an atheistic world"

Since when?! Have you taken a poll? You've quoted me exactly two atheists who don't believe in free will; out of the millions of atheists in the world, that hardly constitutes a majority.

The mere fact that human beings are made up of atoms and energy, which do not themselves have free will, does not demonstrate that free will itself does not exist, because aggregations are greater than the sum of their parts. The atoms that make up my body are not alive, but I am alive. Similarly, the atoms that make up my mind do not have free will, but it is still possible that when they come together to form a brain, they form something that has free will.

(continued)

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

There are, of course, many atheists that believe in free will. Take Stefan Molyneux, a respected atheist and host of FreeDomainRadio, one of the most popular philosophy talk shows in the world. Molyneux says that "the major problem I have with determinists is that they want to have their cake and eat it too; they want all of the certainty and tidiness that comes from an atomic and deterministic, dominos-falling produces the illusion of free will viewpoint, but at the same time they want to rescue virtue and choice and responsibility."

For more on Molyneux's position on free will, go to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR6k0L...

The debate between free will and determinism is complex, involving arguments from physics, biology, and philosophy, and it is far from complete. There are atheists on both sides of the debate, and the issue is not resolved with the realization that there is no God.

What we do know, however, is that if the Christian God is real, free will certainly does not exist, and any Christians who claim to believe in free will have clearly not examined their own beliefs. You could perhaps reconcile free will with other religions that don't teach there is an omniscient God, but not with Christianity.

"divine foreknowledge does not nullify the existence of free will. I pretty much know the argumentative direction you will take on any number of issues but I am pretty sure you will claim to have freely constructed them"

This comparison is completely specious. You're conflating your own, fallible inferences with the perfect, timeless knowledge that your God supposedly has.

To be clear, you do not know which arguments I will use, and you certainly don't know the order in which I will use them or how I will phrase them. Rather, you infer that I will use those arguments on the basis of other debates you've had, things I've already said, and things you've read. Your inferences, however, are imperfect, and it is entirely possible (however unlikely) that I will surprise you. I am capable of defying your expectations, and thus have free will.

By contrast, your God is said to have perfect foreknowledge, to know what will happen without any possibility of being wrong. This means that I am incapable of doing anything other than what your God foresees. If I am incapable of making other choices, I certainly don't have free will.

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hello Andrew,

Watched the video, and Stefan is pretty fun to watch. His arguments are fairly typical when he makes the same logical leap that so many of such persuasion make. He jumps from explaining the impossibility of life and free will springing from mere atoms and then jumps to the "creation of life" by those same inanimate atoms. He offers absolutely no explanation for the emergence of life other than the conglomeration of atoms "being more than the sum of their total parts." He rightly notes this as a reality, because human beings do indeed see themselves as more than the sum of their total parts, but Stefan offers no sufficient cause for this "moreness."

He then proceeds to use this "life" as his foundational premise for positing free will without touching on the origin of its miraculous emergence in the first place. This is a tremendous leap.

He ignores the unbelievable amount of information in the human genome and fact that such information requires a knowledgeable source. This was the straw that broke Antony Flews allegiance to atheism. The amount of information in the human genome couldn’t have, according to him, emerged without an intelligent designer.

Hence, Stefan overlooks the law of first cause and the first cause of life must be living, and the first cause of information must be intelligent.

I agree that there are atheists are on both sides of the issue and in my work I address that fact, but the real issue is consistency. A real contention exists between dehumanization and the fact that we are indeed human. We cannot live like the machines we think we are "scientifically." Hence, the scramble to find a purely naturalistic explanation for life and free will, because we know intuitively that we posses consciousness, mind, freewill, and morality.

Again, your understanding of omniscience isn't at all correct. Foreknowledge of an act does not absolutely determine the act in any scenario.

And no I'm not conflating my "own fallible inferences." I've just talked to enough atheists to know the typical arguments. And just because I may not know which argument you will use in any particular order eventually you will use the ones that I have dealt with in the past. Knowledge is still knowledge, whether gained via reading, experience, etc, and then categorized for identification. Further, that is my point. No amount of foreknowledge determines your actions - you do have free will. I am only saying that freedom is not a logical part of the materialistic equation.

Oh, by the way, since we seem to be at an impasse here, would you like to discuss the historical resurrection of Jesus as evidence for God's existence? Tony

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Also, Andrew, Take a look at William Lane Craigs address of God's foreknowledge and free will.

God's Omniscience and Man's Free-will (William Lane Craig) by drcraigvideos

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

You're missing the point. Molyneux is not arguing that because life exists, free will must exist. His reference to life is illustrative. He is making the point that though the atoms that make up a living cell are not alive, the cell that they form is alive. Thus it is possible, in biology, for the whole to be more than the sum of its parts. By the same token, even though the human mind is made up of particles that do not have free will, we cannot rule out that the human mind as a whole does have free will, because the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

In short, Molyneux is not arguing that free will does exist in a materialist world; he is arguing that it could exist, that the absence of the spiritual does not necessarily preclude the existence of free will.

As to the issue you raise of the origin of life, I am not a biologist and am not competent to explain it. What I will say, however, is that even if we cannot yet explain the origin of life, it does not follow that there is a God who created it. As I explained before, the tide of history is against God. Many times humanity has used God to explain things (mental illness, for example) and later learned that there were scientific, philosophical, or historical explanations that did not depend on God. Never in history, however, has there been a documented case of something that was explained by science, but later turned out to be divine providence. Thus even if we cannot explain the origin of life, the appropriate response is to say "we don't know; let's wait until we find out." It is entirely inappropriate to say "God did it."

The "law of first cause" argument is absurd, and no rational person takes it seriously. It falls victim to its own premise, namely, that if everything that exists must have a cause, and God exists, than who created God? It's not enough simply to say that God is exempt from these rules; if we're allowed to make exemptions, I may just as well say that the universe is exempt.

At any rate, even if we concede that the universe needs a "first cause," there is no reason to assume that it is a deity. Causes can be personal or impersonal, and it is just as possible that the universe was created by some impersonal force (such as the "abstract spiritual elements" we discussed earlier) as to assume that it was created by a god.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

"Foreknowledge of an act does not absolutely determine the act in any scenario."

It does if it is perfect foreknowledge. I have free will despite your "foreknowledge" precisely because your foreknowledge is imperfect. You don't absolutely know what arguments I use or how I will use them; you can only infer. It is my ability to surprise you that proves I have free will; I may do something different from what you have foreseen.

Your God, no the other hand, is said to have infallible foreknowledge. This means that he ipso facto cannot be surprised, and it is impossible for me to do anything other than what he has foreseen. If I cannot make any but one set of choices, then by definition, I do not have free will.

And lol, William Lane Craig's example is even worse than yours. A barometer measures the weather, which, unless you believe in Aeolus, certainly does not have free will. If God is truly an "infallible barometer" of my actions, then I have no more free will than the wind or the tide!

"[W]ould you like to discuss the historical resurrection of Jesus as evidence for God's existence?"

I would much rather see you address the arguments that I've made but you've ignored. Specifically, there's the fact that God is on the losing side of history (which you briefly addressed but then dropped) and there's the logical argument against the Christian God (i.e.- if God exists outside of time, how can he make decisions of be a personal entity?) Once you've satisfactorily answered those, we'll talk about moving on to other points.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago

"A real contention exists between dehumanization and the fact that we are indeed human. We cannot live like the machines we think we are 'scientifically.'"

What?! How does positing that humanity and human behavior have naturalistic and scientific origins make us less human? We've discovered that humans are made of physical particles and evolved from lesser animals. This doesn't change the experience of being human; it simply allows us to put human existence within a biological, historical, and philosophical context.

Let's take the issue of emotions: biology and psychology teach us that emotions are the result of chemicals in the brain, and I accept this. But that does not in any way make the emotions less powerful or less real. I still feel joy, anger, sadness, affection, and heartache as much as anyone else. Knowing the biological cause of emotions does not prevent me from experiencing them; it simply allows me to answer a number of academic questions.

You claim that if there is no God, humans are machines, but this is exactly backward. A machine is something that is designed to accomplish a specific purpose. Without an intelligent designer, you do not have machines; you have phenomena. Thus it is theism, not atheism, that makes humans into machines.

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Hello Andres, More to come after this post, trying to keep it as simple as possible.

"Never in history, however, has there been a documented case of something that was explained by science, but later turned out to be divine providence."

Contrary to what you said previously, namely that there are other valid sources of knowledge, you place the ultimate authority on science. In fact, here are your words, Now, I could be wrong, because as you said, my knowledge is not perfect, but you do lean a little more on science than you first led me to believe. Science dose, in fact, seem to be your primary explanatory agent.

The problem with such a statement is that you would have to know every event, every illness, and every explanation in order to make such a statement. How do you actually know that such has "never" been the case in history?

Andrew, the issue here is ontology, actually, and not epistemology. Even when atheists invoke the Heisenberg Principle, (Uncertainty Principle) of quantum mechanics, in their defense, they leap from ontology to epistemology. In short, they interpret the fact that just because they cannot know what will happen means that they are free. Knowledge, however, has nothing at all to do with the issue. Reality determines whether or not we are free, not our knowledge of said reality.

So, not knowing the cause or answer and attributing it ultimately to God is no different than your attribution of the same unknown ultimately to nature. The ultimate issue is which model offers the most logical explanation and predictability of our current world.

In other words, positing an only natural world, necessitates a world run by only natural laws and there is nothing in the current explanatory repertoire that allows something to escape ultimate reality. Bruce Little has noted, and rightly so, that one cannot escape that which he/she deems ultimate reality. Hence it is an ontological issue and the logical implications of said reality, not epistemological as such.

More coming...

Tony

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

One more to come, Andrew,

You said, "You claim that if there is no God, humans are machines, but this is exactly backward. A machine is something that is designed to accomplish a specific purpose. Without an intelligent designer, you do not have machines; you have phenomena."

Call it what you will, Andrew, machines, phenomena, etc. but when you compare the two views of origins, naturalistic and theistic, the theistic model makes all of the phenomena we know about our world thus far logically predictable. There is order in the universe not chaos, there is intelligent life, there is rationality, there is morality, all predictable "phenomena" if a living, personal, intelligent, rational, and righteous creator exists. These "naturally" flow from a supernatural worldview. As GK Chesterton noted on one occasion, "man seems more supernatural as a merely natural creature than he is a supernatural one."

Atheism, on the other hand, posits that with the explosion of inanimate, impersonal, non-rational, amoral, and purposeless matter design emerged from chaos. From the big bang, the chance driven conversion of certain physical chemical combinations, the happenstance assembly of certain perfectly placed amino acids, proteins etc. emerged. These, then, eventually self-programmed themselves with an unbelievable amount of information, and with the help of certain environmental conditions that no longer exist, formed into some prehistoric life form. From said life form and via other inherent mutations and environmental conditions climbed the ladder of complexity until - presto - living, personal, intelligent, rational, and moral creatures arise.

Sounds like disconnect in the sufficiency of a logical ontological cause.

link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago

This will do it for now, Andrew...

I'm glad that you insisted on the historical, Andrew.

You said, "I would much rather see you address the arguments that I've made but you've ignored. Specifically, there's the fact that God is on the losing side of history (which you briefly addressed but then dropped) and there's the logical argument against the Christian God (i.e.- if God exists outside of time, how can he make decisions of be a personal entity?)

Since you brought it up that "God in on the losing side of history," let me interject a historical issue here . Jesus was an itinerate preacher of the first century, as you well know, and known as one who was crucified by the Roman government, according to eyewitness accounts deemed credible by major historians.

Here are the 12 historical facts that testify to the interaction of the eternal God with His creation, involving all of the Christian traits of God that you contest. These facts also deny any consistent naturalistic explanation, as noted by Gary Habermas. 1. Jesus died due to the rigors of crucifixion. 2. Jesus was buried. 3. His disciples doubted and despaired because His death challenged their hopes. 4. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later. 5. The disciples had real experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus. 6. The disciples were transformed and were even willing to die for the truth of these events. 7. This gospel message, including the resurrection, was the very center of preaching in the early church. 8. The gospel was even proclaimed in Jerusalem, the city where Jesus died. 9. The Christian Church was firmly established by these disciples. 10. The primary day of worship was Sunday—the day Jesus was reported to have risen. 11. James, Jesus’ previously skeptical brother, was converted when he believed he saw the resurrected Jesus. 12. Paul, a leader in the persecution of the Church, was also converted by a real experience he believed to be the risen Jesus. According to Gary Habermas, these 12 facts militate against any naturalistic explanation of the empty tomb, and argue, quite successfully, for a supernatural one.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

Honestly, I just say "science" because it's easier to type just that than "science, historical analysis, philosophy, psychology, &c." I will happily type all of that if it will make you drop these diversions.

"How do you actually know that such has "never" been a case in history?"

I didn't say that I know there has never been a case of it; I said that there has never been a documented case of it. You really need to read my comments before "refuting" them.

The point is that if divine providence were a real force, we would expect to find many documented cases of it occurring independently from scientific, historical, psychological, or philosophical processes. Yet we find no such evidence. This doesn't mean it's absolutely impossible that divine providence exists, but it does mean that unless and until the evidence appears, we should assume that divine providence, and by extension God, does not exist.

If an historian proposes that a certain person existed, but cannot produce any evidence of that person's existence, her fellow historians assume the person did not exist. If a scientist creates an hypothesis but cannot substantiate it through experiments, her fellow scientists assume that the hypothesis is false. By the same token, if there are no documented cases of divine providence, we must assume that divine providence does not exist.

"Knowledge, however, has nothing at all to do with the issue. Reality determines whether or not we are free, not our knowledge of said reality."

You imply a disparity that does not exist. Knowledge is awareness of reality. If I have perfect knowledge that you will go to HarrisTeeter tomorrow, then by definition the reality is that you will go to HarrisTeeter tomorrow, and thus you are not free.

"not knowing the cause or answer and attributing it ultimately to God is no different than your attribution of the same unknown ultimately to nature"

I never said that, given an unknown, we must attribute it to naturalistic explanations; all I said is that we should not attribute them to God. Take the origin of life: I am perfectly prepared to accept that life originated from processes that are not understood by modern science and philosophy. It's totally possible that there is some force outside of our current understanding that explains the origin of life, but that does not mean we should make any assumptions about what that force is. Until we have evidence of that force's existence, we should reserve judgement. To attribute it to God, on the other hand, is to assume that the unknown force has specific qualities (i.e.- that it is a personal being), and this is not warranted.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

"There is order in the universe not chaos"

Compared to what? Terms like "ordered" or "chaotic" are comparative statements. If I say, for example, that Afghanistan is "disordered" or "chaotic," that does not mean that there is no social organization; Afghanis still have families, businesses, tribes, and other forms of organization. Rather, it means that compared to other societies, Afghanistan has less organization or order.

By the same token, when you say that there is order in the universe, it follows that you must know what a disordered, chaotic universe would look like. Unless you can show me such a universe, this is a meaningless argument.

As far as your contention that the existence of human life is improbable without God, this is just another manifestation of the fallacious "first cause" argument. As Richard Dawkins has noted, if we assume that the universe is complex, any God capable of creating it must be at least as complex. But then the question arises: who created God? If you say that God did not have to be created, that he always existed in his full complexity of his own accord, then why can we not instead say that a complex, ordered universe existed of its own accord?

As far as your argument for the historical resurrection of Jesus, all of these claims rely on the assumption that the Gospel writers were telling the truth. They claim that hundreds of people saw the resurrected Jesus, but we do not have the testimony of these hundreds of people; we have only the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

I submit that these four men, and perhaps the other Apostles, invented the story of the resurrection. I imagine that they truly believed in Jesus but, lacking evidence of his divinity, made up the story of the resurrection in order to back up their faith. They probably justified the lie on the grounds that converting people to Christianity was worth the lie. Why worry about deceiving someone if in doing so you save her or his soul?

Yes, the Apostles were willing to die for their beliefs, but that is by itself largely meaningless. Jim Jones convinced over 900 people to kill themselves, it's hardly surprising that twelve men would have died for Jesus, even if they had not actually seen evidence of the risen Christ.

As for Paul, he did not see the empty tomb; he rather had a "vision" of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. But such a vision could have a number of explanations. Perhaps Paul was schizophrenic. Perhaps he was on drugs. Perhaps he had a dream, but later modified the story so that it seemed more miraculous.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

One more thing regarding the complexity of life: there are some who would argue that if life were designed, it would be less complex, not more. Mike Wong, a professional engineer, points out that when engineers design and build machines, they typically try to make them as simple and redundant as possible. Jerry-rigged machines in which each part is dependent on all the other parts' working properly are poorly designed.

Wong points out that the human body is full of complexities and interdependencies that would not make sense if humans were designed. For example, the human body uses the same tube to breathe air that it uses to swallow food. This leads to a risk of choking. If the body were designed, there would presumably be one tube for breathing and a separate tube for swallowing. Any engineer could see the benefits of this; how could a perfect, all-knowing God miss it?

These complexities make perfect sense from the perspective of unguided, atheistic evolution. Evolution is a process in which organisms must adapt their own, already-existing characteristics to changing conditions. An organism might begin using its food pipe to breathe because the benefits of breathing air outweigh the risks of choking. If the human body were designed, the designer would have made two pipes, but without a designer, the body had to make do with the one it had.

Thus the complexity of life is an argument against the existence of God, not for it.

For more information, check out this article: http://www.creationtheory.org/Obsolete/Essays-IntelligentDesign.xhtml

link2eternity 4 months, 1 week ago

Hello Andrew,

You said, "I never said that, given an unknown, we must attribute it to naturalistic explanations; all I said is that we should not attribute them to God…."

So then, Andrew, what is your view of ultimate reality? Do you allow for some reality other an only natural one? Is the origin of life the product of only natural process, only, in your opinion , awaiting discovery?

You said, "As far as your argument for the historical resurrection of Jesus, all of these claims rely on the assumption that the Gospel writers were telling the truth. They claim that hundreds of people saw the resurrected Jesus, but we do not have the testimony of these hundreds of people; we have only the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John…. I submit that these four men, and perhaps the other Apostles, invented the story of the resurrection."

The assumption that the disciples lied about the resurrection is preposterous given the fact, as you noted earlier, that they gave their lives for something they knew to be lie. Your reference to Jim Jones does not help your case here, because people giving their lives for something they believe to be true would fit the same argument I am making here. While it does not necessarily follow that Jesus actually rose from the dead, it is apparent that the disciples actually thought he did and made it central to their message.

As for Paul, he did not see the empty tomb; he rather had a "vision" of Jesus while on the road to Damascus."

Again, Paul also gave his life, because he really believed that he had seen the risen Jesus. 2. You totally overlook the second historical fact. Namely, that the tomb was empty and this served as an objective connection to the message that the disciples preached, i.e. the resurrected Jesus.

It wasn’t only a claim, but a claim verifiable by the empty tomb. The record is clear. The Romans and the Jews knew where the tomb was and verification was as simple as checking the tomb. Of course, you could say, like the Jews did when they bribed the soldiers to say that the Disciples came and stole the body, but that puts you right back on the same issue you raised earlier - the disciples knew the resurrection wasn’t true.

Finally, regarding the idea that complexity is evidence against a designer contradicts everything we know about the physical world. Since complexity has successfully stumped the typical naturalist, it makes sense that some of them would want to change the way they think. The only problem being, of course, is that such an idea sounds a bit desperate, to say the least.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

"So then, Andrew, what is your view of ultimate reality? Do you allow for some reality other an only natural one? Is the origin of life the product of only natural process, only, in your opinion , awaiting discovery?"

I don't know. I've said before that it is possible that there are forces outside of the material world. I don't believe in them, as I see little direct evidence for them, but I don't totally discount them.

Read my comments earlier: to be an atheist is not necessarily to be a materialist. One can believe that there is a realm outside the physical world without believing that there are deities. This is how atheistic religions, such as Buddhism, can exist.

At any rate, it was never my intention to discuss the validity of materialism vs abstract spiritual forces. When I began the debate, I said that there were "ample evidence and logical arguments against the existence of your or any other God or gods." I made no claims as to the existence of the spiritual, and it was never my desire to debate it. Quit trying to divert this debate: let's focus not he existence of God, not on the existence of the immaterial.

"The assumption that the disciples lied about the resurrection is preposterous given the fact… that they gave their lives."

Nonsense: it is entirely possible that the apostles believed that Jesus was God, but didn't think anyone else would believe them. They lied about the tomb believing that, by lying, they were leading people to a higher truth. They gave their lives for Jesus because they truly believed in Jesus, even if they did not believe in his resurrection.

"It wasn’t only a claim, but a claim verifiable by the empty tomb. The record is clear. The Romans and the Jews knew where the tomb was and verification was as simple as checking the tomb."

Nonsense; the Gospels weren't published until decades after Jesus died, and the vast majority of the early Christians did not live in Jerusalem. Only a tiny minority of the Apostles' converts would have had any ability to check the tomb. There were no planes and trains back then; traveling to Jerusalem from any other part of the Roman Empire would have taken weeks.

The only evidence we have for the empty tomb is the Apostles' testimony, and again, it is entirely possible that they lied because they believed they were serving a higher purpose.

"The idea that complexity is evidence against a designer contradicts everything we know about the physical world."

Bunk! When someone designs something, the goal is to make it as simple as possible. Complexity makes the designed objected less likely to work properly because it multiplies the ways in which it can break down.

Read the article by Wong that I posted. If there were a God, we would expect human life to be far less complex than it is.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

The "empty tomb" canard is ultimately just a variation on the argument from miracles. It holds that because people witness miracles, events that seem to defy the laws of physics and indicate the existence of deities or of higher spiritual forces, we should necessarily believe in those forces.

Besides the possibility that those who witness miracles are often lying, as the Apostles were, there are two problems with this argument:

1) As before, just because there is something we cannot explain does not mean that the answer is outside of the physical, natural world. There could be a materialist or naturalistic explanation that we could not have found yet. For example, some 70,000 people claimed to see the Virgin Mary at Fatima. It is possible that we will find some naturalistic explanation for this: for example, that these 70,000 people experienced a mass hallucination. After all, many times in history there have been seemingly impossible phenomena that are later on explained by science, philosophy, or psychology. That's not to say that there will be a naturalistic explanation, but we cannot rule such an explanation out.

2) All religions claim miracles. Christians claim that Jesus rose from the dead, but Muslims claim that the Koran's prophecies have been fulfilled, and Buddhists claim that flowers rain from the sky to vindicate Buddhism. All of these events are backed up with witnesses, many of whom have suffered and died for their beliefs. So how do you choose which miracles to believe and which not to believe? You can't believe in all religions, as many contradict each other, so how do you decide between them.

Remember, there are atheistic religions; Buddhism is the clearest example of one. So if Buddhism is true, as many miracles seem to attest, I am perfectly justified in not believing in God.

link2eternity 4 months, 1 week ago

Andrew,

You are really rambling right now.

I read Wong and he was, well, "wong." Sorry about the pun, but couldn't resist.

Naturally, life has never been observed to emerge from non-life, nature doesn't increase in complexity as the law of increasing entropy (the 2nd law of thermodynamics) tells us, things in fact, tend to move from complex to simple in without an outside influence. Left to themselves all systems tend to move from more complex to simple.

Also in regard to the disciples and mass hallucinations, it may indeed be possible to one extent that large numbers of people hallucinate, but it has never been shown that a large group of people have the same hallucination. Nor can it be shown that such hallucinations occur multiple times involving the same realities noted in the gospels. The disciples experiences didn't happen only once, but they reported having seen Jesus on numerous occasions and for extended times while having extended conversations. It is reported that Jesus even ate with them.

Concerning the empty tomb, your idea that the "vast majority of the early Christians did not live in Jerusalem" is not supported by the evidence. In fact, the gospel, of which the resurrection was central was preached first in Jerusalem, the very place where the events took place. See #8 of the above historical facts. As such, those who heard could have easily checked the tomb for themselves.

Finally, at least you hold a more conservative view of the Gospel's, but just because they were written a few decades later has no bearing on when and where the gospel was first preached. Luke tells us in Acts, that the gospel was first preached in Jerusalem.

Tony

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

"You are really rambling right now."

What a brilliant argument you've made! There's really no way I can respond to that, because it's such powerful logic. I think I'll just give up right now, since I can't possibly win if you think I'm "rambling."

Wong has a separate page to respond to the argument from the second law of thermodynamics; you can find it here: http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Example10 Since I know you won't actually read it, I'll sum up his arguments for you here:

1) It assumes that a more complex system is the same as a more ordered one, but this is not the case. More complex systems are actually less ordered.

2) The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, but living organisms are not closed systems. They receive energy from elsewhere (notably, the sun and the earth's core). It is the absence of energy that leads things to become more disordered (but not less complex) over time. Since living organisms receive energy from outside sources, however, they can continue to advance and grow more ordered over time. Eventually, of course, the earth's core will cool and the sun will go out, and then life will grow less ordered over time, and eventually die out. As long as the sun and the core remain hot, however, this does not apply.

And, of course, you complete ignore the crux of Wong's argument: that an intelligent designer would not design complex systems. Again, the point of design is to make things as simple as possible so that they can function in a variety of conditions. The human body is far more complex and interdependent than it would be if it were designed.

"Also in regard to the disciples and mass hallucinations, it may indeed be possible to one extent that large numbers of people hallucinate, but it has never been shown that a large group of people have the same hallucination. Nor can it be shown that such hallucinations occur multiple times"

Nor has it ever been shown that the dead can come back to life. We're stuck with two possibilities: that people with similar backgrounds had the same hallucination, or that a man came back from the dead. Neither is terrible likely, but the mass hallucination is far more realistic. At least mass hysteria has occurred in the past, though perhaps not involving hallucinations specifically; unless I'm very wrong, the dead have never come close to returning to life.

At any rate, you still haven't responded to my point that the Apostles could have lied about the resurrection. Yes, they died for their belief in Jesus, but they could easily have believed in Jesus in general but not in the Resurrection specifically. They lied about it because they didn't believe people would take them seriously. Are you going to respond to this point, or just keep ignoring it?

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

Yes, the gospel was first preached in Jerusalem, but the Apostles quickly left Jerusalem and went to other places to preach. Paul made his way across the near East and eventually ended up in Rome. Peter said he was in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13), which most scholars believe was a code-word for Rome. Thomas made his way to India! Obviously, none of these places were near Jerusalem.

Presumably, the Apostles made a lot more converts outside of Jerusalem simply because there were a lot more people outside of Jerusalem! So within a few decades of the start of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians were indeed outside of Jerusalem, and couldn't necessarily have gotten to Jerusalem to vindicate the Apostles' claims.

As far as those Christians who were in Jerusalem, how do you know they didn't check the tomb, find that it was indeed occupied, and then forsake Christianity? We know that the Apostles converted 3,000 people on Pentecost (Acts 2), but we don't know what happened to them afterward. How do you know that they didn't go to the tomb, realize that Jesus had not risen, and then forsake Christianity? Luke would hardly have written this down, as it was not flattering to the Christian cause, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

link2eternity 4 months, 1 week ago

1.....Andrew,

In response to my question about your view of ultimate reality, you said,

"I don't know. I've said before that it is possible that there are forces outside of the material world. I don't believe in them, as I see little direct evidence for them, but I don't totally discount them."

Answer: If you don't totally discount them, then why fight so hard against the existence of the supernatural?

You said, "Wong has a separate page to respond to the argument from the second law of thermodynamics… Since I know you won't actually read it, I'll sum up his arguments for you here: 1) It assumes that a more complex system is the same as a more ordered one, but this is not the case. More complex systems are actually less ordered."

Answer: You've assumed here, or perhaps I should say that Wong assumes, that human beings are as complex as they could theoretically be when the possibility that we are complex just enough to work You have absolutely no way of knowing that God set out to make the universe and life as complex as he could.

You said, "Since living organisms receive energy from outside sources, however, they can continue to advance and grow more ordered over time. Eventually, of course, the earth's core will cool and the sun will go out, and then life will grow less ordered over time, and eventually die out. As long as the sun and the core remain hot, however, this does not apply."

Answer: But your arguments, despite the fact that you claim to be open to some other reality than matter, are based in materialistic ideas, and from a materialistic perspective nature, ultimate reality, is a closed system.

Secondly, you haven't offered any answer to the vast amounts of knowledge in the human genome. Surely, information requires an intelligent source, right?

More to Come

Tony@link2eternity.com

link2eternity 4 months, 1 week ago

2…..You said, "And, of course, you complete ignore the crux of Wong's argument: that an intelligent designer would not design complex systems. Again, the point of design is to make things as simple as possible so that they can function in a variety of conditions. The human body is far more complex and interdependent than it would be if it were designed."

Answer: Andrew, What makes you think an intelligent designer "would not" design complex systems? That is purely speculative. We are dealing with qualitative differences in intellect here, i.e. God verses man. After all, "Simple" and/or "complex," in fact are relative terms you know, depending upon the intellect of the designer and the observer. The idea the MS Windows is simple is relative to the knowledge the observer and/or user. Simple, perhaps in Bill Gates estimation but infinitely complex in the eyes of the uneducated having never used a computer. So, the uneducated should posit that Windows had no designer but is rather the result of matter plus time plus chance because of its perceived complexity

It is most likely that the complexity you admit is the result of our human ignorance

You said, "At least mass hysteria has occurred in the past, though perhaps not involving hallucinations specifically; unless I'm very wrong, the dead have never come close to returning to life."

Answer: So, Andrew, which is it? Hallucinations or mass hysteria? Neither fits the evidence. Having admitted the unlikelihood of a mass hallucination, the mass hysteria you mentioned is as unlikely given the evidence. In fact, the text tells us that the disciples were initially in hiding after the death of Jesus and it wasn’t until after Pentecost that they began preaching the gospel to which the resurrection was central.

You also said, "you still haven't responded to my point that the Apostles could have lied about the resurrection. Yes, they died for their belief in Jesus, but they could easily have believed in Jesus in general but not in the Resurrection specifically. They lied about it because they didn't believe people would take them seriously. Are you going to respond to this point, or just keep ignoring it?"

Answer: Oh, but I did respond to it, Andrew. They didn’t just die for their "belief in Jesus," they died for the Jesus they believed rose from the dead. The very Jesus with whom they reported to have conversed, walked, ate on several occasions, and over a period of about 40 days, and all after his death - that was the Jesus they believed in. And remember, the resurrection was central to their message not a fabricated addendum to a story they wanted everybody else to believe - a "story" they knew to be false. Remember, they really believed they saw the resurrected Jesus - again as they, at least most of them, died for preaching it.

one more post, i think... Tony@link2eternity.com

link2eternity 4 months, 1 week ago

Andrew,

3…..You said, "Presumably, the Apostles made a lot more converts outside of Jerusalem simply because there were a lot more people outside of Jerusalem! So within a few decades of the start of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians were indeed outside of Jerusalem, and couldn't necessarily have gotten to Jerusalem to vindicate the Apostles' claims."

Answer: Andrew, the fact that more converts were eventually won east or west of Jerusalem is not the point. The gospel was preached first at Jerusalem. The truth claim of the resurrection and the empty tomb were, as a test for truth "falsifiable." In other words, it wasn’t a vacuous claim made with no corresponding evidence (another test for truth) but one that depends upon verifiable evidence consistent with said claim.

You said, "As far as those Christians who were in Jerusalem, how do you know they didn't check the tomb, find that it was indeed occupied, and then forsake Christianity?"

Answer: There is no evidence at all that your scenario took place. In fact, Christians became a real nuisance in Jerusalem and elsewhere with their resurrection message. Evidently the Romans and the Jews believed the tomb to be empty and the persecution to which the Christians were eventually submitted revealed that fact. In fact, if the tomb had not been empty, stopping Christianity in its tracks would have been as easy as dumping the body of Jesus in the midst of the crowd during Peter's sermon on Pentecost.

I think I hit them all.

Tony Tony@link2eternity.com

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

"Why fight so hard against the existence of the supernatural?" I have not been arguing against the existence of the supernatural; I've been arguing against the existence of God! Again, read my statements: there are "ample evidence and logical arguments against the existence of your or any other God or gods." I never said anything about the supernatural in general.

We absolutely cannot have this debate if you keep misrepresenting my position. Either read my comments and have a serious debate, or drop it!

"from a materialistic perspective nature, ultimate reality, is a closed system"

Now, to be clear, I am not a strict materialist, and I allow that something could exist outside of the material world. But even from a materialist perspective, the biosphere is not a closed system. The universe as a whole is, but the biosphere has different properties from the universe as a whole.

The biosphere, as I explained before, receives energy from the sun and from the earth's core. The universe as a whole is not receiving more energy, but one part of the universe, the biosphere, is. Thus even though the universe as a whole is losing useful energy and becoming less ordered, the biosphere is gaining useful energy and becoming more ordered.

Now, in the long run, this will end. The sun will go out and the earth's core will cool, leaving the biosphere devoid of energy. Life will end and the earth will become more disordered. But in the short run, the biosphere is receiving energy, and there is thus nothing unusual about the fact that it grows more ordered, even from a strictly materialist perspective.

"vast amounts of knowledge in the human genome. Surely, information requires an intelligent source, right?"

Not at all. The information in the human genome is simply the result of evolution. Organisms with more useful information in their genes are more likely to survive and pass on that information. Over time, the information builds up in the genome. Humans are the result of billions of years of evolution, and that is the source of the information.

"What makes you think an intelligent designer "would not" design complex systems?"

But what we do know is that many of the complexities of the human body are dysfunctional. So many parts of the human body are interdependent in ways that make survival more difficult; the same tube, for example, is used for eating and for breathing. If the human body were designed, we would expect to not find complexities like this. Rather, we would expect to find a much simpler design that incorporates, for example, more than one windpipe.

Now, you could claim that God has designed all this as part of some grand plan. But since we don't know what that plan is, we cannot assume it exists. The dysfunctional complexity of life is evidence against the existence of a designer, because we would not expect to find it in designed life. It isn't an absolute proof against God, but it is evidence.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

"the resurrection was central to their message not a fabricated addendum to a story they wanted everybody else to believe - a "story" they knew to be false. Remember, they really believed they saw the resurrected Jesus - again as they, at least most of them, died for preaching it."

Nonsense! The resurrection was one part of a broader story of Jesus. They added it onto the rest of the Jesus story and, realizing how effective it was as evidence, they made it central to the story. They knew it was false, but it wasn't central to their understanding of Jesus. They just knew they needed the evidence to convince others.

People's dying for a cause they know to be partially false is actually precedented. Take Gandhi: Gandhi preached nonviolence, and it was quite central to his movement, yet he himself did not believe in it. He called for violence against groups he didn't like (such as the Muslims). Yet inspire of this, Gandhi was willing to go to prison, suffer, and die for his cause. Why? Because although nonviolence was central to the fiction that Gandhi created around his beliefs, it was not central to his beliefs themselves. What he really believed in was nationalism and anti-colonialism, but he decided that he needed to add nonviolence to those doctrines in order to vindicate them for other people. He preached nonviolence, but it was for nationalism and anti-imperialism, and not for nonviolence, that he died.

By the same token, the Apostles did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. They believed everything else he had taught: original sin, redemption, the conflict between God and Satan, etc. They invented the fiction of the resurrection because they decided they needed it to vindicate the other things to other people. They preached the resurrection, but it is for the other parts of the Jesus story, and not for the resurrection, that they died.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

I take your point about the lack of evidence that Christians in Jerusalem saw the empty tomb and forsook Christianity. There is, however, still the possibility that the Apostles bribed the people who owned the tomb to open it and dispose of Jesus's body. Since you have yet to effectively demonstrate that the Apostles couldn't have been lying, I regard this as a strong possibility.

One more point about the resurrection: you may maintain that it is unlikely that the Apostles lied about it. You are perfectly correct to say that if the Apostles knew the resurrection was a lie, it is hard to believe they would be willing to die for Christ. You would be perfectly correct: it is unlikely, and it is hard to understand their motivations.

The alternative to this possibility, however, is that a dead man came back to life. This is not just unlikely; it is impossible. Never in recorded history has a dead body come back to life. It simply does not happen

Now, if we actually saw a dead body come back to life, we would have to accept that such a thing is possible. But we have not seen a dead body back to life; we have only the Apostles' testimony. Given the choice between believing that these twelve men were deranged enough to die for something they knew was untrue, or believing that a dead man came back to life, I will promptly choose the former.

Remember, there is some precedent for people being willing to die for a cause in which they don't actually believe: think of the Gandhi example. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen from time to time. There is no precedent whatsoever for the dead coming back to life (and if you think there is, you're taking "The Walking Dead" way too seriously). It is far more believable that the Apostles were just lying, and bribed the owner of the tomb.

link2eternity 4 months, 1 week ago

Ok, Andrew, forthrightly divulge your view of the supernatural then.

Explain your view of a dead man rising as impossible in light of your belief in the supernatural.

You said, "The alternative to this possibility, however, is that a dead man came back to life. This is not just unlikely; it is impossible. Never in recorded history has a dead body come back to life. It simply does not happen."

I give you a chance to reveal the kind of supernaturalism you maintain.

Even though your arguments are materialistic, I give you a chance to describe the kind of ultimate reality you believe in.

Oh, and explain how "God" does not qualify as supernatural, if you don't mind.

Tony

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

I didn't say I believed in the supernatural; I said I haven't ruled it out. Though I'm inclined to believe in a materialist universe, I'm not willing to discount that there may be something beyond the physical.

God does qualify as supernatural, but to believe in the supernatural is not necessarily to believe in God. I could believe in impersonal spiritual forces, as Buddhists do, without believing in a God or in gods.

How is this relevant, anyway? For the last time, we are not debating whether the supernatural, as a whole, exists; we are debating whether God, specifically, exists.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

Both history and biology contradict the "empty tomb" theory. There is no record in history of a dead man coming back to life, and our biology tells us that once you are completely dead (as Jesus would have been had he been crucified and then left for three days), you stay dead. Thus as far as we can know anything about our world, the resurrection of the dead is impossible. Perhaps some day we will realize that our science is wrong, and that bodies can come back from the dead, but until that day, we have to conclude that the resurrection of the dead is impossible.

By contrast, it is not impossible that people might be willing to die for a creed that they know is partially untrue. There is certainly no philosophical or scientific law that prevents them from doing this, and it has happened in history (again, think of Gandhi).

Thus given a choice between believing in the Resurrection and believing that the Apostles were lying, the only rational choice, based on history, science, and the human experience, is to believe that the Apostles were lying.

link2eternity 4 months, 1 week ago

Hello Andrew,

If you don't mind, lets end the debate with the following - if not it will drag out way too long for any readers..

I will respond to your posts here and then offer my "closing statements."
You can then repond to me once more and then post your closing statements.
This gives you the last word.

You said, "Nonsense! The resurrection was one part of a broader story of Jesus. They added it onto the rest of the Jesus story and, realizing how effective it was as evidence, they made it central to the story."

Really, Andrew? The resurrection was "effective as evidence" and then you deny its evidential validity by claiming that the disciples lied about it?

You said, "Both history and biology contradict the "empty tomb" theory. There is no record in history of a dead man coming back to life, and our biology tells us that once you are completely dead (as Jesus would have been had he been crucified and then left for three days), you stay dead. Thus as far as we can know anything about our world, the resurrection of the dead is impossible. Perhaps some day we will realize that our science is wrong, and that bodies can come back from the dead, but until that day, we have to conclude that the resurrection of the dead is impossible."

Ah, biological impossibility, again. Materialism is the ultimate reality in your thinking it seems, Andres, regardless of your claims to some adherence to a supernatural. Evidently, you’re your position, naturalism is true therefore miracles are a prior and ipso facto eliminated as possibilities.

Andrew, the empty tomb is historical and the 12 facts mentioned earlier are naturalistically inexplicable.

Consider the conversion of the unbelievers as part of the evidence. --James, Jesus’ previously skeptical brother, was converted when he believed he saw the resurrected Jesus. --Paul, a leader in the persecution of the Church, was also converted by a real experience he believed to be the risen Jesus Neither of these were Jesus' disciples prior to seeing what they believed was the resurrected Jesus. You make it sound like Jesus' disciples were blind pawns willing to preach in his name regardless of the facts, but the above two men, James and Paul, were antagonistic toward him originally. James, was his half-brother and was not a believer before Jesus died and rose.
Paul is a unique story as well. Not only opposed to Christianity, but militantly hostile (watched at the stoning of Stephen and then with papers to gather Christians for their demise). It was Jesus' appearance to him that changed his course. Paul, of course, became the apostle to the gentiles - the most prominent and persuasive evangelist and teacher of the early church. Finally, the change of the day of worship for Jewish converts from Saturday to Sunday, the 1st day of the week, isn't something to be taken lightly.

I will post my closing arguments in the next post….

Tony

link2eternity 4 months, 1 week ago

Closing Arguments: Thank you, Andrew for your interaction. I hope first of all that we had an audience, and secondly, that they were enriched by our debate.

In this debate…………..

I have noted the existence of those objective realities like order in the cosmos, the human genome, and the complexity inherent to the universe and life and you give no evidence that naturalism is a sufficient first cause.
Additionally, you discard the logical argument of first cause and posit that said complexity arises from purely natural causes. You discard the argument despite your allegiance to science which seeks, well, sufficient first causes.
I have noted certain inherent qualities that define our humanity, like mind, reason, morality, and volitional freedom: all realities that require a personal, intelligent, holy, and free first cause. I pointed out that the kind of reality you posit, apparently materialism, offers no logical explanation for those qualities. While you persistently insist that you do not maintain that ultimate reality is only materialistic, you argue within that frame of reference throughout. This, I might add, logically reduces those qualities, including the supposed freedom to the pawn of those forces that make us the physical, and even though some claim that uncertainty concerning those previous states "frees" us, jumping from the nature of reality, ontology, to knowledge of said reality, epistemology, does not release one from the logical link to said reality.
I have very briefly pointed out the historical evidence for the resurrection. You, however, have decided to believe against the evidence. Believing that the disciples lied and that the tomb was not indeed empty. Believing that the disciples gave their lives for something they knew to be a lie, even though, as you say, there is "no documentation or scientific evidence" to show that anyone has ever died for something they know is a lie.
Also, Andrew, your reasoning is circular in regard to the resurrection and it rests you’re your apparent materialistic bent. For example, you know that the resurrection of the dead is "impossible," so you reject any evidence to the contrary. Of course, you try to cover you materialistically dictated presuppositions with the appearance of open-mindedness to the evidence by saying, "Perhaps some day we will realize that our science is wrong, and that bodies can come back from the dead, but until that day, we have to conclude that the resurrection of the dead is impossible."

Number 6 and 7 next....

link2eternity 4 months, 1 week ago

NOTE: this is 6 and 7 of last post even though it reads as 1 and 2.

Your argument against the resurrection is also myopic and arrogant, saying in fact this, "Now, if we actually saw a dead body come back to life, we would have to accept that such a thing is possible." The problem with such thinking, however, leads one to believe that if "we" today saw someone rise from the dead then it would be enough to believe it. The problem, based on your denial of the disciples testimony as eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, is that you would expect everyone to believe it as true if you ("we") saw it, but deny the disciples that same privilege as if your eyewitness testimony were more reliable than theirs. Witnessing such an event, as you said, would be believable, and assumedly, life changing; hence, the disciples, including the skeptics, James and Saul (Paul).
Finally, you offer no evidence for the non-existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, the only real effort you made consisted of mere denials and assertions about what some are now thinking about complexity rising from nature apart from any intelligent agency, even arguing at one point that complexity is evidence against intelligent agency.

I enjoyed the interaction and I hope any readers brave enough to read it, will be enriched by it. I pray that they see Jesus Christ for who he is, God incarnate, redeemer, risen Lord, and soon coming King.

You get the last word, Andrew,

Tony Watts Link2eternity.com

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

Okay, I'm going to respond to the "empty tomb" bit and that list my final statement afterward.

"there is 'no documentation or scientific evidence' to show that anyone has ever died for something they know is a lie."

But there is! Gandhi suffered and died for something he knew was a lie. Gandhi clearly did not believe in nonviolence, yet he was willing to die for it! If Gandhi could do it, the Apostles could do it as well.

"biological impossibility, again. Materialism is the ultimate reality in your thinking it seems"

Not at all; I simply believe that biology should be taken seriously. I assume that you take biology seriously as well; if not, I assume you don't go to a doctor or a dentist or take any medicine. I'm not saying that if biology says something is impossible, it absolutely cannot happen; what I am saying, in fact, is that if biology says something is impossible, there is a very high burden of proof that must be met before we believe it is possible. The Apostles testimony simply does not meet this burden of proof. It is entirely possible that they were lying, and this is more likely than that a dead body actually came back to life.

I must stress again, the fact that the Apostles died for their beliefs does not demonstrate that they were telling the truth. Remember Gandhi: nonviolence was central to his preaching, yet he clearly did not believe in total nonviolence. Yet he was willing to die for his principles. Thus there is documented historical evidence of people's dying for beliefs they know are untrue; there is no evidence of dead bodies coming back to life. It is more likely that the Apostles were lying.

And no, it's not a "circular" argument. If I saw direct evidence of the dead coming back to life, I would have no choice but to disregard modern biology. But the Apostles' testimony is not direct evidence. Given the choice between the Apostles' word and everything we know about biology, I will pick biology.

"Your argument against the resurrection is also myopic and arrogant... [because] you would expect everyone to believe it as true if you ("we") saw it, but deny the disciples that same privilege as if your eyewitness testimony were more reliable than theirs."

On the contrary, if I saw a dead body come back to life, I would not expect anyone to believe it on my testimony alone. I would have to give them direct evidence of it. Photos, video tapes, and biomedical data would constitute direct evidence. If I could show other people that data, I would expect them to believe me, but I would never insist on such a claim without such evidence.

The Apostles, of course, did not take photos, films, or biomedical examinations because none of that technology existed at the time. We have only their word, and as I've said many times, if it's their word against everything we know about biology, the only rational choice is to believe biology. They could easily have been lying, just as Gandhi was lying.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

"the empty tomb is historical"

Again, if the Apostles were lying, they could have bribed someone to open and empty the tomb. Thus the argument comes back to whether the Apostles could have been lying; you cannot use the empty tomb as separate evidence. I have demonstrated that the Apostles very well could have been lying.

Your example of Paul is completely pointless. Paul did not see the risen Jesus; rather, he saw a vision of Jesus long after Jesus had supposedly risen into heaven. As far as I can tell, he never even saw the empty tomb; he wasn't in Jerusalem when he had the vision. His testimony is not relevant here.

As far as James, do you have any historical evidence outside of Christian scripture that he was a skeptic? The Apostles wrote scripture, so if they were lying about the Resurrection, they could easily have lied about James to bolster their claim. Thus, again, it comes back to whether the Apostles were lying; James' conversion is not a separate argument. This would only change if there were a separate record proving that James was a skeptic. But how could there be? It's not as if the Romans or the Sanhedrin kept detailed records of every individual's religious opinions; governments can't even do this today. Unless there is some separate evidence of James' initial unbelief, this could easily be one of the Apostles' lies.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

1) You claim that I "offer[ed] no evidence for the non-existence of God," but this is a blatant lie. I offered two points against the existence of any god or gods and two points against the existence of the Christian God specifically. I will briefly rehash those here: a) If there is a God, why are there no religions that are consistent among cultures; b) God is on the losing side of history; c) The Christian God is said to be all-knowing and all-powerful, but if God is all-knowing, there is no free will. If there is no free will, it is impossible to be "powerful" in any meaningful sense; God would simply be an automaton, and would operate the same way gravity of plate tectonics operate (i.e.- without a will); d) The Christian God is said to exist outside of time, but also makes decisions, yet decisions are necessarily made within time. Either the Christian God does not make decisions, and is thus not a personal being and not a god, or he exists within time and is subject to it.

We more or less addressed arguments a-c, but you did not in any way respond to argument d. It is, however, absolutely essential to the argument over the Christian God. Without time, decisions are impossible. To make a decision, it is necessary that there is a point in time in which I do not know what I am going to do, and then later that changes. Either God does not make decisions (and is thus an automaton), or he exists within time. You completely ignored this point, and thus I can only assume that you have no response to it.

Your claim that I "offer[ed] no evidence for the non-existence of God" is manifestly false, and makes a mockery of this debate. You should be ashamed.

2) You continue to misunderstand my position on materialism vs the supernatural, but I will take the fall for this as I realize I have not explained it very well. This is how I see it: I am tentatively a materialist, but I am by no means certain of materialism, and am open to the possibility that the spiritual/supernatural may exist. The evidence against the existence of the immaterial is much weaker than the evidence against the existence of God specifically, so while I am a very vehement atheist, I'm much less certain of a materialist.

3) Though I admit I've been flaky about the "materialism vs supernatural" issue, I did make one thing very clear: the existence of the supernatural does not equal the existence of God. Even if we grant that some spiritual force exists, it does not follow that it is a sentient, personal being; it could just as easily be an impersonal force, something that operates without thinking or making decisions.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

4) Most of your claims revolve around some variation on "we can't explain where such-and-such comes from, therefore God must have created it." This is essentially your argument regarding order in the cosmos, the human genome, free will, and morality, amount other topics.

In some cases, of course, you're simply flat-out wrong: for example, the theory of evolution explains very well how the human genome originated, while philosophy explains the source of morality. But even for those things that are unexplained, it does not follow that God created them. Just because we don't currently have a philosophical or scientific explanation for the origin of life does not mean that the only explanation is God; on the contrary, it could be that a scientific or philosophical explanation exists, but we just haven't found it yet.

You may claim that it is unfair to assume that we will find a secular, rather than divine, explanation, but remember, the tide of history is against God. There have been many examples of things that are attributed to divine power, but were later successfully explained by historical analysis, philosophy, and/or science (for example, mental illness). Conversely, there are no documented examples of anything being explained by naturalistic explanations that were later discovered to be the result of divine power. Thus it is far more reasonable to assume that there will be a naturalistic explanation for, for example, the origin of life than to assume that it is the result of divine power.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

5) The existence of free will is actually an argument against the existence of God, or at least of the Christian God. Though there is no naturalistic explanation for the existence of free will, there is nothing in naturalism that proves that free will can't exist; thus from a naturalistic perspective, one can believe in free will, but not understand how it exists. By contrast, if the Christian God is real, free will certainly does not exist. The Christian God is said to be omniscient, infallibly knowing everything from the past, present, or future. But if God knows everything that will happen in the future, there is no free will. If God infallibly knows everything I will do tomorrow, then by definition, I cannot do anything tomorrow other than what God has foreseen. If I cannot do anything but a list of specific actions, then by definition, I do not have free will.

Your response to this argument was to say that you can anticipate some of the arguments, but that doesn't rob me of your free will. But this is a specious comparison. Your assumptions are fallible; I am certainly capable of surprising you. You may infer that I will use certain arguments, but you do not know for a fact that I will use them. By contrast, your God is said to have infallible knowledge of the future. If he existed, he would know exactly what I would be doing at any given time. It is that perfect knowledge that takes away my free will.

You also posted a video by William Lane Craig, but his argument was even more specious than yours (which, may I say, is quite an accomplishment). Craig says that God's knowledge of the future is like "an infallible barometer." But a barometer measures the weather, which, unless you believe in Aeolus, does not have free will. Thus this comparison is at best completely nonsensical, and at worst confirms my point: that if the Christian God is real, there is no free will.

6) I did, in fact, respond to your "first cause" argument. I pointed out that it is a red herring. The problem of the "first cause" is an interstice metaphysical problem, but it is not in any way an argument for God, because if everything that exists requires a first cause, then God would require a first cause as well. You can't simply claim that God is exempt from the need for a first cause, because if there are exemptions, why not simply exempt the universe? Thus regardless of whether we believe in God, the "first cause" dilemma is still a problem.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

7) You never really responded to the "inconsistent revelations" argument. I'll rehash it: there are so many religions around the world. Some cultures believe in God while others do not, and even those who do have wildly different concepts of God. If there really were a God (or, for that matter, a pantheon of gods), we would expect to find the same religion everywhere. There may be other religions competing with it, but we would expect to find one religion everywhere. After all, if God is all-powerful, why wouldn't he make himself available to everyone? Yet there was nothing like Christianity in the Aztec world, nothing like Buddhism in the Kalahari, and nothing like the ancient Greek religion in Japan. Thus, it is unlikely that there is a God.

You tried to turn this argument around, claiming that since religion is universal, there must be something to religion. But this argument is specious for two reasons. First, it does not in any way demonstrate the existence of God. Though it is (weak) evidence of the existence of the supernatural to say that all cultures believe in the supernatural, not all cultures believe in God. Many religions (such as Buddhism) believe in the supernatural but not in God or gods. Thus even if it is an argument for the supernatural, it is still a powerful argument against the existence of God.

Second, though it is an argument for the supernatural, it's a very weak argument. Yes, all cultures have religions and believe in something of the supernatural, but this could easily be explained as some sort of psychological need. Simply posit that humans are used to authority. Authority appears in all human societies; simply assume that people saw this authority, and believed that authority was the way of the universe. Thus each culture invents its own concept of ultimate, universal authority, and that authority is the supernatural. Thus humans believe in the supernatural universally not because the supernatural is real, but because they have a tendency to follow authority, and the supernatural fulfills this tendency.

AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 1 week ago

8) You use complexity as evidence for intelligent design, but this is absurd past all endurance. As I explained, a designer makes something as simple as possible, trying not to produce any complexities and interdependencies that are not absolutely necessary. Yet the human body has many of these complexities. Humans, for example, use the same tube to breathe and to eat, increasing the risk of suffocation; if the human body were designed, the designer would presumably make a separate tube for each purpose in order to make the final product more functional. Thus the complexity of the human body is, if anything, an argument against the existence of God.

You responded to this argument by claiming that Microsoft is designed, yet is indeed quite complex. Thus something can be designed but still be complex. This is true, but misses the point. I was not saying that nothing designed can be complex; what I was saying is that the kind of complexities present in the human body would not have been designed. The tube for breathing and eating, for example, is an easily fixed design-- just add another tube! Perhaps you'll claim that God had some special plan that involved making humans more likely to choke. But even if this is true, the fact that it needs a complicated explanation makes it unlikely. Thus though it is still possible that God exists, the complexity of the human body makes it unlikely.

Thank you for an enjoyable and enlightening debate. May you and I both find enlightenment! -Andrew

Matt_Woodruff 4 months, 1 week ago

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich - Napoleon. Scary how true that is!

Courseaire 4 months, 1 week ago

Andrew & Tony - Thank you for a great discussion.

teufelhunden 4 months, 1 week ago

Yes I really enjoyed it too! Thanks Courseaire for letting me know about their debate. Thank you Tony.

Courseaire 4 months ago

Andrew - I'm very impressed with your research, knowledge & the presentation of your argument; and from someone so young. I see great things for you once you graduate. You might want to consider transferring to Duke.

Middleman522 4 months ago

I think we just witnessed the written War of Worlds! Andrew, is something so uncontrolable as ones belief in God so frightning to control freaks that you would obsess this way. Why does a written form of "right and wrong" bother progressives so? sad!

clodfelter37 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Andrew, Are you for real??????

AndrewSoboeiro 3 months ago

@Middleman522:

"Andrew, is something so uncontrolable as ones belief in God so frightning to control freaks that you would obsess this way."

I'm not sure how I've "obsessed." If you're asking me why my posts are so long, I try to explain my opinions in as detailed and articulate a way as possible; do you have a problem with this?

"Why does a written form of 'right and wrong' bother progressives so?"

I don't object to a written moral code; I object to the idea that the source of morality is an all-powerful being. If right is right and wrong is wrong simply because God says so, morality is completely arbitrary. If God chose, for example, to make child rape moral, he could do so; the fact that he hasn't is just a coincidence.

This is a serious problem because there is no agreement among religions (or even among sects within religions) as to what God wants. Christians who engaged in the Crusades, for example, believed that God wanted them to rape and murder Muslims. If we posit God as the source of morality, anything can be moral as long as your particular conception of God agrees with it.

Secular moral codes, on the other hand, tend to be more consistent, at least when it comes to the basics. They define behavior as immoral if it is bad for society and/or if it cannot be part of a universal principle. Under these definitions, rape, murder, and theft are immoral in pretty much every circumstance.