Chase

@ Mael - Darn. That's really the ONLY thing someone would have to do for all Christian faith to be a wash too. ID the body. That's a real shame... This is where it would be convenient for the Christian-hating atheist to propose the Christ Myth theory - but the overwhelming amount of evidence outside of the Bible alone makes that supposition laughable. Thankfully, you're not a fool and you're proposing a more reasonable - although not sufficient in comparison to minimal facts - theory in a Jesus that was stolen away. Who is your alleged grave robber? Can definitively prove the guards were asleep or even more inconceivably in on the crime? How do you explain away over 500 "post Resurrection appearances"? --- Eviora - I'm most definitely not a proponent of the multi-verse - and I argue about it's problematic nature in the Fine-Tuning argument above. I don't have anything to say about the possibility of multiple sets of physics laws for the various universes - as I don't think the multi-verse is supported by empirical science sufficiently enough to consider it at this point in time. As for arguing against the problematic nature of the Oscillating Universe (Bang/Crunch Universe)? I'm going to attempt to do you one better. Mike, Neo - please don't take this as a misguided belief that studies today are completely off-target and time-wasting. I'm just exercising for the sake of the argument I made earlier. I'm going to start by picking at the parent universal theory to the Oscillating Universe - the infamous 'Big Bang' itself. We know that the universe is either one of two things. That matter was created from nothing - or that matter has expanded from a single infinitesimal point. We know that from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that the universe is losing active energy. We know that the universe is expanding. Now, the Big Bang theory requires an eternal-past universe - as the "cosmic egg" where all of the space, time, and matter needed to reside before the "bang" would predate the official "creation" of the universe (or supposed bang itself.) In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin showed that cosmic inflation - expansion - was the general state of the universe - and also proved that an expanding universe would need a definite beginning - and a period that proceeds the universe's existence. This means that there has to be a period before the supposed "Cosmic Egg" of the Big Bang Theory - which is problematic for those who hold the Big Bang as the most plausible, which is what many people on the popular level still do. Scientists in fact, have moved on to the Oscillating Universe Theory from the Big Bang in part to continue to propose an eternal past universe, as well as several other universal models. The issue with the Oscillating Universe is that there is no way to pin down what the Big Crunch is in the future at this point in time, and when it happens, no human would even be able to do so - at least not in this universe. Which brings me to my final point. Is there enough matter to justifiably cause a slowing of expansion (which is yet not the case as empirical scientific studies make the current claim of exponentially increasing expansion as opposed to decrease.)? - Mike mentioned "dark matter". If dark matter is present - then it it's plausible that eventually there will be enough mass to slow down expansion and open the possibility for the Big Crunch in the future. The refuted hypothesis on dark matter - is that it's non-existent mass. If there isn't any dark matter - there's just empty space, and if there is just empty space, then the universe will continue to expand and there will be no crunch - which means the Oscillating Universe Theory is debunked, the most plausible universal construct is that the universe has a definite beginning in which something was created from nothing, and finally, it wouldn't be possible for the universe today to be a part of an infinite regression of Big Crunches and Bangs - leaving the Kalam cosmological argument in-tact. This is not to be an overstatement of the Kalam argument - but a further defense of it based on the supposed "theories are like hydra heads" statement. The argument is merely - to me - a philosophical argument that has considerable evidential validity from scientific studies in cosmology to this point. As such, it should be seen as a philosophical argument and not a cosmological one - and there must be proven cosmological studies - not theoretical construct - used in a philosophical argument that proposes an eternal-past universe. Currently, the evidence that already exists today, points in favor of a universe that has a finite beginning, and that is something that may change - or not.

nonono, Neo. Please don't take my non-comment as ignorance here - because I'm very interested in that study. As you said, the only hang-up is that we're all waiting to figure out if the laws of physics were created with the universe, or have always been in place. As such - I don't know how to attack it properly and would rather refrain. I will say that I acknowledge that as an emerging development.

Ya know. I really -DO- appreciate when someone points out a genuine flaw in my argumentation. That was an amusing scenario and it goes to show that I've clearly got some tightening up when it comes to providing evidences for my premises (if you could, go back to the last thing I aimed at KosherKitten and dissect that argument - as I think I tried to be careful with that one.) and that without those evidences and as you say "that preciseness" when dealing with vagues or abstracts my argumentation is severely weakened.Thank you, Eviora. I think I've come to understand your position throughout this discourse. You're not attacking me - which is genuinely different from a most discourses I have on the matter here in Reborn - and you're more-so trying to encourage a better employment of logic in my defense instead. You're not being unwilling so much as you're trying to be as to the letter as possible. I tend to do my worst arguing against agnostics as opposed to proclaimed atheists because the agnostic can only be given the burden of proof on one of two issues - on the one hand the agnostics that proclaim that one can't know will put me on the spot on issues and I'll forego and mistake that position as that of an atheist's - where the atheist ascribes to a specific doctrine as I do. This ends up causing a circular discussion that the agnostic didn't really want to be in, nor did I want to be in, because nothing is being determined either in argument or in feedback to it (I.e. I don't believe that to be the case.) On the other hand the agnostics that simply "don't" have faith in the existence or non-existence of God I - also run circles around - except this time I'm trying to goad with multiple questions and supposed ideas as opposed to good logical arguments and historical data that would be valuable. Neither of these is an ideal debate at all. In fact - in this thread I was guilty of wronging the Agnostic position on both accords - as Jericho ascribes as "one can't know" agnostic and you seem to be more of the "lack of faith either way" agnostic. --- I wanted to employ Occam's Razor only because I'm well aware of it not being used as a logical device. It's one of the many things I've seen people bring up when it comes to issues of "God of the Gaps" on all sides of the spectrum. Thank you - your intelligence is to be commended here -....although you did look it up on WIkipedia so only slightly. <3 --- Finally, allow me to present a logical argument for the existence of God using what is referred to as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. - while trying to support the argument with legitimate evidence this time, so as to not be completely vague again. I'm sure you would appreciate that. Whatever begins to exists, has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. The first premise of the argument makes the claim that anything with a beginning has a cause. This premise is genuinely easy to mark as true, because objects without causes is essentially more of a stretch than "magic" - and the question that arises is this. If something can come into being from nothing - why isn't it a normal occurrence? Scientific evidence and everyday phenomena validates our first premise here. Whatever has a beginning, has a cause.The second premise is indicative of an existential beginning to the universe. This one is not nearly as easy to hammer out as many cosmologists have debated in the past that there is the possibility of an eternal past for the universe - as in to say the universe has existed "forever." However, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that things in a closed system will eventually reach equilibrium. What does that entail for the universe? That it's slowly running out of usable energy. This is problematic for the view that universe didn't have a beginning > because we would have run out of usable energy in the universe by now if the universe has always existed up to this point. The 2nd Law then points us toward a universe that instead, has a beginning. This is further scientifically confirmed for the likes of Albert Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity, and Edwin Hubble's studies in the red shift - which provided us with empirical evidence for what would become an expanding universe that was brought into being at a single point in the finite past. There have been opposing models to try and explain these discoveries in favor of an infinite past universe - but they have failed to stand the test of time. Furthermore - it's been recently proven that any expanding universe can't be eternal in the past at all, but must have a finite beginning. If there is a Multi-verse, these studies still apply. Therefore, we can justifiably say that the second premise is true as well. The universe has a beginning.What about the conclusion then? We get to the point where we have to admit that the universe has a cause. In my worldview that cause is God - but how does a creator God fit into this universal existence? and if everything that has a beginning has a cause, what's God's cause? The Space-Time universe consists of three major things that came into being when the universe began. Space, time, and matter. The universe can't cause itself - so the cause of the universe must be beyond the space-time universe. This cause must be of the following qualities: Spaceless Timeless Immaterial Uncaused and IMMENSELY Powerful. Does the Judaeo-Christian God fit these qualities? Well, Let's look at it this way. God had to exist before time existed in order to cause the universe, which would make Him timeless. God, being timeless, would then make Him a viable candidate for being "the uncaused cause. - as something that has no beginning doesn't have to have a cause. The amount of power it would take to start something like the universe indicates that the cause of the universe must be powerful, which isn't far-fetched for a God figure at all. Finally, space and matter existed after the universe had begun, meaning God must by elimination be spaceless and immaterial. The universe has a cause.

Remember when I asked Gaunt if he believed the universe existed? If you do hold that position you have one of two options. The first one would be to attempt to scientifically prove the creation of the universe follows the laws of nature and science - including the Law of Conservation. The second option is being forced to admit that you at least ascribe to ONE miraculous event as factual because the Law of Conservation causes naturalistic universal existence in the current time unavoidable issues. Like Gaunt, you don't have option to be dismissive here simply because I can point to a thousands-year old manuscript and align it to modern universal existence (even though that's EXACTLY what he did anyway.) Remember, a "miracle" is a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered (carefully thought, not necessarily proclaimed - Mike) to be the work of a divine agency. I'm not going to make the argument that theistic creationism is ironclad - but I will indicate that it would be a miracle and that it seems to be the most reasonable assumption in an arena where where it would be at the very least sitting opposite another assumption - meaning Occam's Razor can't simply force burden of proof on either/or and we'd currently be in an existential stalemate. --- That's an interesting theory about the resurrected Christ. (Speaking of Gaunt, he previously had a similarly interesting theory - Jesus having a twin - about Jesus that I hadn't heard before...see, this is what makes these discourses worth it for me - learning.) The issue there is that the Resurrection is more substantiated because it's supported by the historical documents that are also pieces of Scripture. This means the Occam's Razor would have shift the burden of proof on Gaunt as to proving there was indeed a twin brother - and in your case, your opting for dismissal by infinite possibility - which means your burden of proof would have to be that Jesus did not appear to over 500 people and ascend. When dealing with historicity, you have to interact with the oldest texts on the matter. In your case of dismissal - you don't (and if you do, I'd be very impressed. Seriously - and I'd apologize for my assumption.) have any documents of your own that propose in detail infinite possibility of what the Resurrected Christ was during the time period. - I have Paul's letters, Hebrews, Acts, and the Gospels in manuscript form - only dated decades after the Resurrection as opposed to two millennia it would take for you to draft that that response. --- Let's get into the semantics. I know earlier in the discussion I started throwing around the Omni's - but I'll make the concession (and I tried to by introducing the term greatest possible being) that maximally great may not be indicative of the Omni's so much as it is by rough definition. The definition of "Great" is of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average. Maximal means of or constituting a maximum; the highest or greatest possible. Thus, a maximally great being - without associating it to be God - is a being with the highest or greatest possible amount of ability, quality, and eminence.

Just to be re-assuring. Mike, I still have to have time to catch a breather before tackling your earlier input - but I will get there. KosherKitten - I respectfully believe that it is at the very least possible that God was involved in the flood in question and in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - and based on current cosmological discoveries and currently established scientific principles God is the best possible answer for the creation of the universe. When dealing with the flood and the destruction accounts - the narrative provided by the writer of Genesis seems to be that the best understanding for what happened in all three of those accounts -must- be attributed to God. However, outside of the fact that these events actually took place, there isn't any indication outside of Genesis that would indicate divine phenomena. All we've really confirmed - in all three instances - is the effect of these three events and not the cause. When dealing with the universe there is a logical argument to be determined from it's very blueprint or apparent model - is the universe necessary, coincidental, or intelligently designed? The universe is fine-tuned to support life. The universe's fine-tuning is probably explained by Necessity, Chance, or Design The universe's fine-tuning is -not- explained by necessity or chance Therefore, the universe is fine-tuned by design. Now, to defend the deductive reasoning we must clearly first prove that the universe is not necessary or coincidental - as that's what the 3rd Premise entails. The first premise is to be understand as true as life-prohibiting planets are limited to 1 definitively and we don't know definitively of any other universe that supports life. Essentially, because this universe supports life, it can be safely argued that the universe is fine-tuned to do so given the amount of numerical constants and quantities of the universe (such as the Gravitational or Cosmological Constant) that if tampered with - even infinitesimally - results in the inability for the universe to be life-prohibiting. The universe is fine-tuned to support life.Premise 2 states the three possible methods of fine-tuning. These three options completely cover the board of possibility, so this premise is also most likely true - that the fine-tuning is attributed to one of these three possible methods. In order to argue that this premise is false, you most provide a possible method of fine-turning that is not necessity, chance, or design. 2. The universe is fine-tuned by necessity, chance, or design. Premise 3 is where the weeding out begins, explicitly stating that necessity or chance is insufficient to explain the universe's fine tuning. NECESSITY The idea of a necessary universe is indicative as follows: The fundamental constants and quantities of the universe cannot be changed. Generally, that's how constants work as any tampering would have universe altering effects, so on the outset it would seem this would be plausible......except it isn't. The ultimatum this method forces us to ascribe to at the end of the day, is that a universe without life is impossible. One must then ask the question if the universe would be possible without life - and the mathematical probability is not only insufficiently supportive of the hypothesis that it isn't, but actually far more the opposite. A universe without life is MUCH MORE possible than one a life-permitting one. Therefore, it's safe to say the necessity argument is debunked, because the mathematics behind the idea don't support it at all. CHANCE Chance is the most ascribed non-theistic position on fine-tuning. Essentially, we life forms got really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY lucky - and that life as we know it is completely coincidental. The issue is, the probabilities involved are so astoundingly remote that the proponents of this method abandon empirical science in favor for metaphysical speculation. The hottest cosmological trend when discussing coincidental fine-tuning today is the 'Multiverse Theory' - which, to you non-cosmologists and physicists out there - I'm talking about specifically an 'infinitely-expanding multiverse' or the idea that multiple universes are constantly and endlessly being created by a sort of universe generating model. The infinite multiverse suggests that life-sustaining universes will eventually pop up as the universes are created. This multiverse theory however, has no scientific evidence to suggest it should be given credence, as it cannot be detected, observed, measured, or proved. Furthermore, whatever the universe generating model is, it must also require a lot of fine tuning itself - and small patches of order are far more probable than big patches of order - so the the most probable observable universe that is inhabited by a singular observer and is very small - whereas our universe is a vast high order universe with billions of other observers. Even if the Multi-verse did exist, it alone doesn't explain universal fine-tuning - which effectively means chance is also debunked - leaving us with only one option. 3. Universal fine-tuning is not explained by necessity or chance 4. Therefore, the universe's fine-tuning must be explained by design. What is the design method? The method that suggest the universe supports life because it was designed as such. Where have we heard of a designed universe before? "The heavens proclaim the glory of God; The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; Night after night they reveal knowledge." - King David - Psalm 19:1-2

Eviora, the only thing I can do is posit the opposite - that the Judeo-Christian "God" has applied enough sufficient historical evidence, can be logically applicable through the reasons I've given and I would have to accept that all of it won't make a difference if you are not actively searching. You take from that what you will - but there is truly one event that would solidify or completely destroy the Christian faith - the Resurrection itself - and that event can be logically explained through the minimal facts method - meaning I can list off some facts that every credible scholar - Skeptic to Evangelical - universally agrees with. These facts throw out both the inerrancy -and- divine inspiration in the Scripture, instead looking at it as merely historical documents dated back to the first century. 1. Jesus is the son of Mary 2. Jesus had disciples 3. Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man - or God 4. Jesus was crucified by Pilate. 5. Jesus' Tomb was found empty. 6. There were over 500 recorded "post-resurrection" appearances of Jesus. The minimal facts then have to provided with the best possible explanation. There are many theories - such as the Stolen Body theory mentioned by Maelstrom earlier, the Hallucination Theory, the Jesus Myth Theory...and looking at these facts, none of these theories explains them all better than Jesus doing as He said He would - rising from the dead. Here's some historical digging on the subject of Jesus that is completely extra-biblical, as well as some interesting information on the Disciples that should exonerate them from being the alleged graverobbers in the Stolen Body theory. All of this information - including doing the scholarly thing and accepting the Gospels as historical biographies - and applying the logical buzzsaw on the possibility of a God in the first place, have led me to believe that Jesus' Resurrection is not only hard to deny, but actually rather well substantiated and would need an actual rebuttal piece-by-piece to support any opposing Resurrection theory. Of course I have faith - but I believe the appeal about taking a hard scholarly look at the validity of Christianity is quite possibly the simplest religion to debunk - or at least in the way the Apostle Paul phrases it - It should be. This is all the historical evidence that I have to give you. The logical arguments you need to apply something greater to a human being - or you're missing the target by a long-shot with regards to "maximally great" or "best possible" beings. Finally, I've been asking you to engage in active discourse because I feel like if you gave me something to actually debate on - I can throw you some harder evidences in return. By simply dismissing any Biblical or non-agreeable piece of info your way - you're not encouraging discussion. I'm not trying to win any medals here, but I can't make any hard claims if you give me no bait on specific topics you would like to see answered outside of the maximally great being you've had me discuss. Even though you even claim to have argued the "maximally great being" card - you chose to agree that there must be a threshold when it's perfectly logical that in order to continue to retain being maximally great in an expanding universe, God must continue to expand in order to remain the highest eminence-bearing being.

1. How was I disregarding "explicitly wrong" passages? I've essentially said in this thread that there I don't believe the Hebrew word for day is equivalent to the 24 hour day, that it's possible the flood only pertained to a specific area of the world, and I'll make more of a concession and say that Sodom and Gomorrah was possibly destroyed by seismic or volcanic activity. This is essentially pointing out critically that the writer of Genesis doesn't have a modern explanation for those events - and but it doesn't discredit the author's observations in the slightest. This means that the Bible has observational truth beginning with the very first book and only lacks modern understanding. World was created - we know that to be true without looking at the Bible. There was indeed a major flood in the area the manuscripts of Genesis was written that is paralleled to the Great Flood. Sodom and Gomorrah did exist and were destroyed by some catastrophic event. 2. The entire Bible is most definitely not poetical narrative. In fact, the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are officially recognized by critical scholarship as Greco-Roman BIOGRAPHIES detailing the life of Jesus. Acts is a short historical narrative telling of the early Church following the Resurrection. Paul's Epistles are letters. - There's even direct historical content in several books of the Old Testament - such as Judges and the Chronicles. I don't see how you can view the entire Bible as poetic. That just goes to show you don't know your Bible, and you are arguing to uphold your personal view on it's reliability without making enough of a scholarly sacrifice to interact with it. 3. The Bible is much different than www.BooYahAtheism.com in that the Biblical narrative is not out to shame other viewpoints. When you use a sensationalist source, you are stepping outside the bounds of critical scholarship and into the bounds of derisive rhetoric. I don't know if you think I'm trying to beat people over the head with my Christianity, but I'm certainly not appreciative of you walking into a debate only to try and beat me over the head with your Atheism. At least if you aren't going to go out and make the arguments yourself. --- Eviora The difference between faith and guessing is the amount of conviction behind each. A guess is not likely to hold much conviction behind it and it is more likely to be adjustable as new facts that support or refute the guess are discovered. Faith is backed by loads of conviction in a manner that effectively makes the object of faith fill in all existential gaps without having to bend over backwards and continue to whittle away at them. On the one hand you are given the ability to freely and and almost pricelessly jump from one viewpoint to the next, but on the other, you're able to live your life without too much misguided questioning and are able to apply existential meaning to areas other viewpoints may not have.

So, you would need to argue that your capability to choose is the issue at hand there. It's not that it's impossible to be saved. It's that people don't make the choice.

Right, right, your sensationalist website where you gave me a bunch of verses that were that were probably taken out of context and I ignored because I'm not feeding you guys sensationalism and I took as an attack on the viewpoint. Just because you can throw a bunch of things that were not literally true doesn't mean they don't hold any merit. Especially in a poetic narrative where the intention of the writer isn't to directly recall history in the first place.

My goal wasn't to change anyone's opinion. That's your choice then. I wish you define "error" here as I'm not quite sure I understand the context. Are you trying to say that it's unreliable because it's NOT specifically a history narrative? Or because the writer didn't have a modern view of the events? One of the things that will continuously be brought up is "rigidity" of earning eternal life. It's supposed to be rigid! The notion that being a Christian is easy is most certainly baseless and that's not what I'm trying to propose at all. You have to ultimately do the following: Admit that you are insufficient to join the Kingdom of God due to your sin nature. Put all of that said sin nature on Christ so that he can take your burden from you. With the knowledge that you have of your restoration, attempt to live as sinless as possible and constantly atone, while showing love for others (which is HARD in some cases!) And you, as a human, not God as a God, are likely to fail. This is where God restores us through Christ. Christianity is the wrong religion for you if you are looking for a God that gives out hand-outs -AND- is just king of a happy forest regardless of the choices made by his subjects. If you're looking for the easy way to Heaven, then you're not going to find it in any religion. My argument is that swallowing our pride and believing in Christ is the "only" Way - and not that it should be easy or that God should appeal to me if I am not looking for Him - and my belief in THAT is held in the Resurrection whereas other religions don't have something that can be taken seriously to anchor said belief in. Ultimately, you don't look for eternal life when properly living the Christian life. You look for Jesus. That's what's irrational about the whole thing.

1 - because the entire world doesn't want to believe in the same God and each individual has the ability to make their own judgements. 2 - I said that Genesis is not a history narrative so much as it is poetic literature. That in no way suggests that it isn't historically accurate. For example - just because the Hebrew day doesn't equal the typical 24-hour day, doesn't mean the author of Genesis got the creationism account wrong. For another example - Just because "the Great Flood" may only have encapsulated the area around the writer as the "known world" doesn't mean that the Flood account didn't happen at all. For yet another example - Sodom and Gomorrah are again, two places you can actually visit and see that they were destroyed by something. One of the biggest reasons you don't have to read the Bible literally throughout is because of the various forms of literature the different books are. If we're taking the truly scholarly approach, we have to first understand the literary form, prose, time period, author, and recipient of each piece of Scripture. Another reason is the concept of shifting covenants, which is why we can justify a wrathful God of yesterday as a loving God today.

And I've specifically pointed out that you CAN use the Bible for scholarly discussion and that it does have historical merit. The floor's yours chief. I'll be the one waiting while you actually refute me with something other than "please don't use this source because I don't personally believe it to be accurate." To other moderators out there, as well as -Unknown-, if you want the topic locked, we're reaching stalemate. I've already made the argument for biblical reliability regarding the universe, so the ball truly is in Gaunt's court to determine the universe has nothing to do with a deity. and if you've been paying attention, I've tried to accompany Biblical information with SCIENTIFIC verification. Where's YOUR compromise? @ MIke - You have a lot good stuff and I would like to get to it with you individually. It's just...in giant text-wall form and there's a lot of bodies in this room right now.

Coincidentally, Hiss, Pascal was criticized for holding a deistic faith that was not held in grounds of the supernatural and thus had inauthentic belief in the Judeo-Christian God by other apologists. However, the Pascal Wager poses an interesting question. Is it not better to live believing in possible eternal life than it is to not believe in the concept at all? Let me flip the question you posed on it's head, Gaunt. You would rather have me wait for an explanation we don't know for certain will suffice for the creation of the universe over a scientifically-backed observation that is thousands of years old already? There's enough evidence NOW to posit the possibility that the Judeo-Christian God was involved with the creation of the actual universe. The difference between non-literal Creationism and the Big Bang Theory is that one of these is a substantiated claim, and the other is merely a substantiated possibility. We know from the science that's already been determined behind the universe that the writer of Genesis is not off target with the model of the universe - and if we translate the actual Hebrew word for day we know that the word held multiple definitions, including one as vague as "a while." So, the non-literal Creationist can make the following claims. The earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That amount of time can be mathematically proposed to have been made in seven 'a whiles' - or Hebrew "days" - through the mathematical equation 4.54 plus/minus 0.05 billion divided by 7 (or the amount of "days" it took for the Lord to create the earth.) The quotient of that equation gives us the length of "day" necessary to support Non-Literal creationism. Genesis accurately describes the model of the actual universe. @ Eviora Out of curiosity, do you think there should be a threshold associated to maximally great that is anything other than infinite? I personally think that if the threshold of greatness is infinite, and the maximally great being is infinitely great - then what we have is a maximally great being who is still meeting the threshold even though said threshold will increase without end. Taking this back to the universe - we know that the universe is expanding exponentially - so in the case of omnipotence - God must be expanding faster than the universe is in order to remain the greatest possible being with regard to potency, so as to remain more potent than the universe. Perhaps greatest possible being would be a more agreeable term with you. I would safely assume my child wouldn't make the same mistake twice unless there was a previously known condition that prevented the child from feeling a burn (in which case the default would then be to prevent the child from touching the flame.) The interesting thing about sin is that 'the pretty flame' imagery you use is actually quite relational to the very topic. Humans have always had the capacity to reach out to the flame, or forbidden fruit, or another man or woman's spouse, or someone else's bike, or whatever because the object is desirable in it's own right. God is an equally desirable being and nothing more (on the basic wants and needs spectrum of Humanity, not in relation to eternal life or spiritualism) so as to not interfere with our own decision making. The argument YOU must make is that our capacity as humans to make our own choices is a flaw - in order to support that God has the power to save us and doesn't. My argument is that He did everything sufficient enough and we're just not making the choice. - and that's also backed by Pascal.

@ Mael You're right. Any one set of those bones that come from unmarked tombs that come from the Jerusalem could be the bones of Christ. However - I didn't ask you to dismiss the issue with a possibility. I asked you essentially - to go find the body. If you're not going to make the effort to disprove the Resurrection - then it still remains on the table and by default Christianity still remains a completely viable worldview. You can't dismiss an outright claim merely by a possible answer. The best course of action there is to go out there and find those bones is it not? Thank you for not ascribing Jesus as a mythical person - because there are a number of reasons even skeptic scholars don't hold that position. For this claim about the body being removed from the tomb - I must first have to ask. Who moved it? Please don't give me a liturgy of "possible" answers and then tell me all of them make more sense than the Resurrection does, because all of them would have to first come through the guards posted outside of the tomb and all of them would have to have sound motives for doing so as grave-robbing generally wasn't done for the bodies. Do you have any substantial evidence that proposes the body having been moved - or is belief in the body being moved stem merely from rational elimination? It's easy to hold that belief just because you don't want the body to have simply disappeared with the best possible hypothesis. We know for a fact the guards were existent not only because of the text in Matthew indicating as such but because of the Stolen Body hypothesis stemming from Jewish High Priests of around that time. The Jewish argument, if the guards didn't exist, should be that the guards didn't exist - making it a non-issue with regards to the body being stolen away. However, it's historically backed that the Jewish position on the Resurrection involves the guards being asleep - which makes the Stolen Body hypothesis a much weaker argument - especially if the guards outside of the tomb were ROMAN guards, who would have been executed for poor job performance. If the Jewish opposition holds that the guards were asleep - it's safe to say there indeed were guards posted. @ Gaunt Let me ask you a simple question - do you believe the universe exists? The reason I ask is this. The nature of the universe - all matter that ever existed being made from nothing with a definitive beginning - is a miracle in itself! - as the Law of Conservation tells us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A "miracle" is an extraordinary welcome event that is not explained by natural or scientific law and is thus attributed to a divine agency. In the case of the universe, even if we were going to just omit God from the picture, the first premise in that definition is undeniably true, the creation of the universe is not explained with natural or scientific law. We must then operate under the assumption that God exists in order to attribute Him to the scenario, and the Genesis text provides point blank, that same universe that has definitive beginning and is created from nothing. This would make the second premise of the Miracle definition also true. The creation of the universe is attributed to a divine agency. This means that in order to prove that Miracles are -NOT- possible, one must first prove that God isn't possible. Gaunt - you've already deferred by saying you sadly can't prove your own position. The issue there - is that position MUST be defended in order to say that miracles are not possible. @ Eviora In your argument about belief not being a choice you actually use an instance where you allow the person hearing the voice on high taking the test the choice to not write down the given answers. You also lead off by saying that one can be provided insurmountable evidence for something and still choose to not believe in it. This leaves me rather confused - What do you mean that belief can't be chosen? People will continue to look at eternal damnation as something God inflicts on others willingly. The way the text reads however, indicates quite clearly that the God it proposes doesn't willingly want to damn anyone at all. Separation from God is not something that is "rewarded" for a bad choice, but rather the choice itself. When you see it through that lens, the damned make the decision to be apart from God and their wishes are granted. In this very thread I can make the argument that I've created the situation you present in your last paragraph. I am providing evidences, and you are rejecting those evidences or not believing me. Until you can provide an argument that belief doesn't equal choice, I'd posit that you're making said choice right now. Literally every one of your posts has rejected evidences starting with the sentence "I don't believe ____, therefore your argument is moot" This no longer makes it a debate and makes it more of a circular argument where I continuously provide evidences and you continue to reject them because you don't believe in the God I'm proposing. There's no open-minded interaction with the information. There's no questions being asked. There's no real discussion under this instance.

When discerning which religion one SHOULD pick - one SHOULD be practical - I'll give you that one. My argument though is that there is more physical evidence and there is a given lifeline with Christianity as opposed to other religions. Like you said - the physical evidence -IS- there, and while I won't challenge your having looked into it, I will list what Jesus gives you that other religions simply don't. Period. Christianity provides the most accurate theistic cosmological design by affirming that the universe has a definitive beginning, is prone to decay, is formed from nothing, and that the universe is still expanding. Christianity provides intrinsic meaning to humanity. Christianity is the only religion to provide redemption for sinners as opposed to goals the sinner would need to achieve before hand. Christianity provides an anchor that is historically refutable (the Resurrection.), so if you're wrong and you find out before you die, you can change course. Christianity provides the gift of the Holy Spirit. If the Scripture is correct on the matters of afterlife, Christianity provides eternal life for one of the more simpler criteria out there for those that pursue it. "Real" Christianity provides a second chance as opposed to an agenda. and most importantly - Christianity provides you with the love of a father who would die for your well-being without forcing you to change your mind. I wish I could say "just call yourself a Christian and all of your dreams would come true!" or sell it to people like it's a Buick - but this is likely the least satisfying post for you even though ti comes across like salesmanship. If you don't search for truth and if you don't look for truth, you shouldn't expect anything to change. It's the point where we start saying "I believe there isn't" and do nothing about it that we stop looking. If you don't want to suffer and you don't see enough from me or from the rest of your life to convince you of a saving worldview, fine - but it would make more sense if you were in the position to where you don't want to suffer to spend your whole life searching in the chance that you would eventually find the salvation you want. The tough jerky for anyone to chew back in the first century for anyone - and the same even today - was that Jesus was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. I can't be the one to convince you that He is. That's on you. But if you're not going to pursue or look or try and you're going to waste your days arguing against a supernatural being who can save you with human logic - then you won't ever be satisfied in that manner. I'm not saying this to be rude - but because I've been there. I know my Jesus enough to leap into faith without sight only because I've seen Him at work. For some of us, no matter how much we want to make the claim - logic isn't going to do it. There's no debate to be had if you're going to say "well, I don't believe it, so 'there'" I've been open minded enough to say that I would debate the circumstances in an assumption that God doesn't exist - but I can't debate deflection. It's you all's God given choice to just dismiss me.

My out here is most definitely not that God can be be inconsistent. In my argument about the changing covenants I highlight how consistently God pursues His people. My "out" - if you want to call it that, is more of a limitation. I can safely argue that no human is going to be omniscient - and I don't think God had it in the cards for humanity to know everything so much as he wanted us to believe in Him on our own accord without putting him through the meat grinder that is logic. What ends up happening in these circumstances is that if we logically accept something, such as the viability of mathematics, we have a logical understanding of math and lack an intimate relationship with it. I wasn't always a believer - and in fact, I fell out of the same learned Christianity as Lil' Rupe above for complete skepticism myself. I felt exactly the same way. I used to throw up paradox after dilemma in order to rationalize how being a person of faith is irrational. God didn't make us to be rational, but to be relational. My re-affirmation experience consists of two things. Personal experience with God, and the same arguments I've tried to spout in this thread. I'm in no way trying to convert or even make completely rational the Christian worldview. I'm trying to teach the logic because I am convicted to defend my views as the militant atheists out there are willing to attack them. I do this not because it makes sense, but because I personally have seen Him at work and would hate for someone to buy into the idea that He doesn't exist without first looking at all sides. Aside from that, it's not my place to change anyone's mind. I engage in debates to teach, and to learn.

That's the impasse though. There's no way to prove that God is or isn't any of those omni's using human reasoning. That's where faith comes in - on BOTH sides.

The first idea, looking at both of your responses Laggless, that I do want to impart with you is the idea of shifting covenants. A covenant is a divine agreement between God and Man, and God made several of these agreements with various men, starting with Adam and finally giving us the New Covenant under Christ Himself. The covenant of works, also called the covenant of life, was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam who represented all mankind as a federal head. (Romans 5: 12-21) It promised life for perfect and perpetual obedience and death for disobedience. Adam, and all mankind in Adam, broke the covenant, thus standing condemned. The covenant of works continues to function after the fall as the moral law. The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who have faith in Christ. He also promises the Holy Spirit to the elect to give them willingness and ability to believe. Christ is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. The following covenants are building block agreements and show a progression of terms throughout biblical history: the Noadic covenant made with Noah regarding the destruction of men for their corruption - and selection of Noah as the figurehead for humanity post-flood. the Abrahamic covenant made with Abraham regarding the initial formation of Israel and the blessings that would come from Abraham's lineage. the Mosaic covenant made with Moses about the return and redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage. the Davidic covenant made with King David about the establishment of Israel as a sovereign nation with continued support from the Lord - as well as the solidification of the House of David's offspring. and finally the New covenant with Christ. Throughout these covenants we know that one thing has remained consistent. "The wages of sin is death." - but we also know that God's righteousness doesn't always make Him look appealing. That however, isn't the point when it comes to justifiable wrath that was agreed to by man prior. Adam lost his right to living eternally in the garden for being disobedient and was not struck down unjustly. What we are forced to realize here is that instead of God being cruel and leaving that one covenant intact God repeatedly gives the Israelites offer after offer - culminating with paying the price HIMSELF so that the choice is given to us. You can't sanely make the argument that God is unforgiving when you take the Crucifixion (which is extra-biblically proven to be a historical event!) of Christ into account as well as the concept of shifting covenants. Sodom and Gomorrah is a hard topic to discuss because of the implication of an outdated cultural norm being enforced by genocide these days. However, let's take a look at the scenario under the implication that we don't think God exists at all. If you were to go to the supposed site of those two cities we would find two things. Firstly, we would find signs of civilization that is dated to around the time Sodom and Gomorrah would be thriving, and secondly we would find sulfuric rock build up and uninhabitable land indicative that SOME catastrophic event had occurred! Looking at it from the skeptic's point of view we are forced to confirm that the cities were in fact destroyed. Our only recalling of the events comes in Genesis, where the philosophy of the time period suggests that the two cities had caused God to become wrathful with their sinful behavior. If that's the general philosophy of the time, you can't blame the writer of Genesis for sensationalism - and the debate must be brought to what is the cause and not a denial that the event never even happened. What does this mean? That as far back as the Book of Genesis, the Bible has scientifically-supported instances of historical reliability. The questions we have to ask now are why or what caused these historical events to take place. NOT -IF- they took place. To discredit the Bible as a non-reliable source based on contradiction is negligence regarding the covenants, and to discredit the Bible as a non-reliable historical source is just being being ignorant of actual history. Does this mean you should take everything the Bible reads word-for-word literally? NO! ...but it does mean you can use it in a scholarly manner and that you should read it in it's given literary format. Allow me to make 5 statements and put you in the position to challenge them. Actions made out of Racism and Homophobia are always wrong. Rape is always wrong. Drowning a baby to death for SPORT is always wrong. Hitler was 'immoral' by committing genocide - and genocide is always wrong. (Because Godwin's Law is just amusing.) Happiness is better than Suffering. There should be an inherent absurdity in trying to refute these claims. Why? Because these are objective moral truths. You have to think of morality like it's a one-topping pizza - if you pick up a slice of the pie, and it's got pepperoni on it, the rest of the pizza should have pepperoni. Remember my claim from before? (Some -OR- all morals are -not- contingent?) That would be a slice of the 1-topping objective moral value pizza. These five statements are a slice of the objectivism pizza. Therefore, morality MUST be objective, because parts of it are very much so. This means there is absolutely no room for moral subjectivity and any future opposition must hold to moral relativism (based on cultural norm) - which again is weakened by the fact that there are still objective values within. I actually said that Jesus was NOT a political activist. We happen to know that he was a poor carpenter from Nazareth living under the heavy iron fist of a conqueror in Rome, and that he had disciples and preached a message that was far different than the religious leaders of the time were okay with. It didn't matter if Jesus was personally against slavery or not. His purpose on the earth wasn't to free slaves from their earthly masters, but free slaves from their own sin nature - which is infinitely more valuable than escaping human captivity under the notion that God exists. I am not the one to speak about Muslim conviction - although I can justifiably say that you can't get to heaven by sacrificing other people in the Christian worldview. Period. You'd have to debate a Muslim about that if one. I'm not best suited for that scenario. Having watched the Vsauce video I have a few statements: causing the loss of ANY life that isn't justified by agreement is morally wrong. There isn't a moral dilemma presented here so much as there is an unavoidable perilous situation. In both the first scenario (fork in the tracks)AND the second scenario (the overweight man), death is unavoidable. There is no moral obligation for the bystander because there is no way to completely avoid someone dying here. Vsauce and the narrator admit that the dilemma has it's own faults. I personally believe I have equal philosophical standing with Vsauce, if not better. The actual 'test' is to test for how a person thinks in said scenario - not to determine morality. The question isn't right or wrong, but do you think rationally, or emotionally? Looking back at Sodom and Gomorrah - we have to look at who is actually making the choice. We know from the active covenant (the Old Covenant with Adam) that during the city's existence that disobedience would be punished by death. The historical claim by the author of Genesis is that the citizens of those two locales chose to be disobedient to God and thus chose their fate. This concept is known as "Free Will" - meaning that we as humans are allowed to make our own decisions as God has made us with the ability to do so. In the case of S&G - God was forced to punish those people because that is what they chose. It's the same case with you and choosing to not believe based on your own research. You are given the ability by God to defy Him - It's just....not a good idea. This also illustrates the beauty of a relational God as opposed to one that solely cared about sovereignty. He wanted his creation to choose and accept Him on their own free will, and even after it didn't pan out and he wanted to destroy the entirety of the human race - He kept that inherent free will. Why should people think God is omnibenevolent? In my opinion, it comes down to three basic premises. God created us. God gave us the ability to make our own choices. God pursues us even after we make BAD choices - to the point of dying in our place - without taking away our right to make our own choices. Now, you can argue if omnipotence and omniscience and omnibenevolence is logical within human confines - but I would be much more interested in you disproving these possible attributes when dealing with a supernatural being that is beyond human logic.

Thank you, Hiss, I appreciate your understanding as to how the arguments should be viewed. I would be happy to discuss things under the assumption that God doesn't exist as soon as it's adequately defended. I'm not trying to convert everyone but the discourse had indeed shifted to me putting up or shutting up. Because I do hold a strong belief on the matter - I have opted to put up. Now I do believe - if there is anyone out there not named Guant (because both of us came to our stalemate already and we don't need to go to war again.) it is the devout non-theists' turn to provide a counter. Until then, I don't wish to field anymore attacks outside of the one I promised Laggless earlier.

I'd actually like to sit down and see you prove yours regarding the premises above. The burden of proof falls on the believer, no matter what the belief is. I've argued on behalf of an existent God and made a concerted effort in explaining away a common dilemma that is used to favor the view that there isn't an existent God. I can tell you that a maximally great being must be all good because humanity itself is capable of being "mostly" good. In order for God to logically be maximally greater than the mostly good human being, God must be completely good. Your argument then, would have to be that there could a God that is of equal or less greatness to the human being - and that God must be existent and not hypothetical. The atheist often doesn't take the steps needed to defend their own viewpoint. They just go as far as to discredit a theist's. Can you prove that wrong? Also, allow me to posit a counter dilemma here. What is the best explanation for Jesus' body having remained missing? Those of you that are able to read the thread where I proved the historicity of Jesus up to his specific Crucifixion know that He was actually crucified without having to even open the Bible at all. Recall the Apostle Paul in my first post on this topic. Give me the best explanation that trumps Jesus' ascension - and my faith and my efforts in this thread are in vain.

1. A "maximally great" being is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect (or all powerful, all knowing, and all good.) 2. I didn't think I was debating theologians or philosophers such as myself who make this kind of stuff their very livelihood but people who surf the internet and form their own ideas based off of what suits them best. As such, I have kept things basic so as to hold discourse with the common individual and tried not throw a slew of terms people wouldn't understand into my argument. As for using non-trivial facts, would you rather me try to defend my argument with trivial ones and lies? No. That would be a great waste of everyone's time. Great (adj.) - of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average. MAXIMALLY Great then - would be indicative of a being that is of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above everything else that is existent.

Laggless, with all due respect, you didn't follow my argument at all. I'll explain after I get past the first dilemma that was brought up by Hiss - known as the Euthyphro Dilemma. The question Hiss asked was essentially "Is good only good because God approves it?, or does God approve it because it is good?" This is trap question that many non-theists like to use in order to force the theist to either make morality arbitrary or indicate that good exists outside of God. Now, allow me to start by formulating a rebuttal that does neither. Premise 1: If there is a maximally great being, that being must be omnibenevolent (all good.) Premise 2: There must be a maximally great being. Conclusion: Therefore, said being MUST be omnibenevolent. How does this put aside Euthyphro's Dilemma? God's nature is then made necessary and not a result of his approved moral values and duties in order to be the maximally great being. Because God -must- be good (not that he just -is- good), everything that he approves of must be good because all good is His very nature. This means that there can be no good that isn't applicable to God, because due to necessity, it's who He is. With half the dilemma solved, we now have to look at the first part of the question as it could be now argued that it was avoided. Is good only good because God approves it? If God is the maximally great being - He doesn't have choice to be anything -BUT- good, according to the argument posited above. Here's another. Premise 1: God is by definition, a maximally great being. Premise 2: A maximally great being -MUST- be metaphysically necessary and morally perfect. Premise 3: If a maximally great being -MUST- be metaphysically necessary - the being -MUST- exist in all possible worlds. Premise 4: Some -or- all moral values are -NOT- contingent. Conclusion (A): By premises 1, 3, and 4, God must have the same moral character on all possible worlds. Conclusion B - Therefore, God's nature is good not because He happens to be, nor His involvement with "external" goodness, but because he -MUST- be good in order to be a maximally great being who is morally perfect and existent in all possible worlds. Long story short, the necessity of God's nature being good in order for Him to be God makes God Good, and because God -has- to be good (not just is) the things He wills and approves are God because they reflect his necessary nature. Here's the final straw here - taking his nature - that is necessary in order for God to be who He is - into account. God wills something because He -is- good, and something is right because God -wills- it. Laggless, you've got a lot to refute too. I just want to get some water first..

Objective morality is a set of principles regarding "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" based on the existence of irrefutable statements - or facts - as opposed to individual feelings or cultural norms. @ Laggless - I would posit that since we're discussing the topic of God - that it's allowable until Amentura (-Unknown-) says otherwise. Alternatively, you can send me a private message with your response.