Message Board

atheist circular argument regarding admission of "evidence"

pacifist — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:31:28 GMT

hey all, I find myself posting on atheist forum gets me nowhere in discussion, usually. I'm not doing it to try convert people, which is good because I know it would not be easy. I'm doing it to challenge my beliefs and strengthen my ideas and mind, and in this sense I benefit. But I feel they don't engage my ideas fully, and in that since I don't think I get anywhere. They do, often times, but so often, they decend to emotion, attack straw men, or commit some fallacy like the genetic fallacy. They throw out evidence, when all I want is honest dialogue. Honest!

I think I realize why this is and what's happening. First let's consider the concept of willful unbelief, which I heard a sermon on and is good. It is characterized by

1. setting false standards,

2. doing biased research

3. always demanding more evidence and

4. denying facts

I am concerned here with evidence.

I made a post which in essense was asking them

"What evidence would you want before you were either convinced that God exists, or could shift the burden to the naturalist"? What would evidence look like that would satisfy you?" I'm also carefulto distinguish between types of atheism- agnosticism versus strong atheism, naturalism, and that if they fail to shoulder the burden of strong atheism, they are not entitled to the benefits it brings, such as becoming a materialist reductionist when debating any subject.

So, I asked what evidence would look like. But then I said what I read at another website- skeptical christian, in one of the comments.

1. for evidence to be acceptable, it has to be "real"

2. for evidence to be real, it must be scientific, i.e. observable, repeatable, testable, etc.

Then there is a ghost premise that doesn't usually get verbalized.

3. Yet anything with a full scientific explanation doesn't need God to explain it.

Therefore, it is logically impossible, if these premises are true, for any evidence to possibly point to God. It is either rejected as non evidence or it only proves nature, not god. This is strong agnosticism, isn't it?

In other words, they demand science to explain something that transcends science. They want a natural explanation for something that transcends nature.

They can claim certain things about us with correctness, perhaps, but they can't deny that they are begging the question, big time. And this is why I feel like it's to a large degree a waste of time on those forums.

When I posted this, some people acknowledged that this was so, just all of the sudden realizing it. They were the nice repliers. Other people tried to subtley change the subject, or argue from emotion. One guy actually gave me a straight answer. If God gave us prophecies and they all kept coming true, such that it would be a low probability, that would be enough. But that assumes God wants to. Anyway I didn't ask but I wonder what he thinks of the fine tuning probabilities.

But I am becoming aware of a thing called willful unbelief. I was agnostic but I was never a willful unbeliever in anything. I am also becoming aware of the prevalence of Strong agnosticism, that one doesn't konw about God, and nor can anyone else. That sounds a bit like logical positivism, maybe, but nobody can prove logical positivism, one just accepts it on faith.

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

Something I find problematic about Plantinga's OA

pietervl — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:47:05 GMT

I haven't studied Plantinga's OA directly, but just took it from WLC's Q&A article about Dawkins. Although he seeks to reformulate the argument in order to avoid Kant's criticism (existence isn't a property, or great making property, as existence is a precondition to having property), nevertheless something still seems fishy to me about premise 3:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

So P1 is translated into P2 using the term of possible worlds. If P2 follows from P1 merely as a different way of saying the same thing, then we should be able to translate P3 back into ordinary language.

So...

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

This seems to mean at best that it is possible that a maximally great being necessarily exist.

It does not follow that it actually necessarily exists right?

I think that using the term 'possible world' is misleading if one is not careful, because it appears to be an actual world which it isn't. This is because it says a maximally great being exists... in some possible world. This gives the impression that this being exists somewhere and therefore must exist everywhere, but that surely can't be right.

Plantinga used a similar argument against Dawkins' assertion that it is highly improbable that God exists, to which he responded that given an infinite multiverse, it would be certain that God must exist in at least 1 universe (given an infinite nr of universes, improbability becomes 100% probable in some universe, but that would mean that God must exist in every universe, or minimally (leaving out omnipresence for convenience), the statement 'God exists' must be true in every universe.

The reason why I think this last argument works, is because here each universe in the multiverse is actual and not merely possible. And so it is necessarily true that if God exists in one, it is true in all universes that He exists.

Sorry, I am not very technical in logic, but does my rambling make any sense?

Any comments?

Forum: Ontological Argument

Hindu sacrifice of 250,000 animals begins

billclute — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:01:07 GMT

I thought this was an interesting look at some of what goes on in another religion. I'm not posting it to cast judgement in any way but just to give us some insight to another belief.

Hindu sacrifice of 250,000 animals begins

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

a couple questions of doctine and bible

pacifist — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:48:36 GMT

Hey all,

I have been entertaining some questions about christianity, one of which I have a strong theory about and another which I dont really have any idea about, but neither of which are critical or core for any theology.

First, it is interesting when I read John, mention is made of a disciple that Jesus loves most. This is interseting. Why would he love someone more than others? Doesnt he love everyone equally? The word in this case, in John, is Philo, according to strongs concordance. In my bible, its translated as "he" but according to strongs it can be female, if there are no other grammatical reasons why it has to be male (and Im no expert). Nevertheless, it cant be mary magdalane, nor can it be peter, based on the passages. this is kind of a mystery to me. Does anybody know anything about it? Im not saying Jesus had a female lover, not at all. I dont think theres any specific evidence for that. I wouldnt even consider it as as possibility except that there is a big chunk of Yahshuas life unaccounted for, so it may be possible though I dont believe it. But Im curious in any case about these passages in John.

Secondly, and this is sort of a metaphysical and philosophical issue. It is clear that the bible says that God sends his prophets. to the people of israel, people of great wisdom and understanding and righteousness. They have human birth and then preach and speak to the nation, and sometimes other nations, as they are called. If their souls were created at the very instant of conception, how is it that they gain such wisdom above and beyond everyone else? And if God creates them with wisdom without violating free will, why cant he do the same for everyone? We already have an example of one being or soul, namely Jesus, incarnating into a human embryo in a human womb. I guess this is an argument for or a question of reincarnation. I hold this view because it explains the data better than anything else that Ive found, and does not seem inconsistent or incompatable with the theology, or saying of Jesus, as well as not being logically impossible. The "data" i refer to is this data mentioned in this paragraph as well as other things like childhood memories of past lives, as well as other theological problems, such as brief lifetimes and eternal consequences. Nevertheless, I am not dogmatically attached to it, or to anything else for that matter, if anyone can show me a better way. But as Jesus said, in his parable that Craig likes to quote, and I like as well, about the landowner sending his servants and then his son to collect the rents, my question is, taking servants to mean prophets- from where does God send them? From some heavenly world above? This is the position that makes the most sense to me, for in the fathers kingdom are many mansions. This would mean that the prophets are also "avatars" as that word literally means descender. It would mean we could maybe conceieve of prophets as angles- not as malack, messenger, which they literally are, but as cherubim, I mean.

And then one can ask what exactly is an angel/cherub? Specifically, are they created beings along with man, but on a higher level? If so, why would God create different beings on different planes of existence and paradise. Why would he make certain creatures lower? I do not presume to understand Gods mind, but I still ask why. Or we can conclude that souls are created simply and must evolve their way back up to God through many lifestimes, and the philosophical reason why this would be necessary is so that beings can choose God and rightness of their own free will, every step of the way. Every step of the way. Again this makes most sense, but Im not dogmatically attached. Show me something better.

What other alternative explanations are there for where the prophets are being sent from? Or else were they just created at conception? John the Baptist is said to be reincarnation of Elijah, although he denied that- maybe because he wasnt elijah in this incarnation and wanted to focus on the here and now. But at least the fact that people asked this sincerely meant this view of at least occasional reincarnation was on the radar of the Jews at the time if not actually considered theologically possible or theologically supported. So why cant it be more general. My dad always talked about how reincarnation isnt compatable w/ christianity, though I was young and he didnt say why. I could ask him now. But far from that I see it as logical.

One last brief third topic- I see in his newsletters that Craig uses words like anthropopathic, in describing humans attributing human characteristics like pain and intelligence and souls to animals. He uses this word to defent a theological position. But couldnt one also use the word Anthropocentrist, for those who are presupposing that humans are unique in having souls or feeling pain? To my mind animals dont have language, even though they may- ever hear of morse code? Well at least I think they feel pain, and who are we to say they dont have souls? Anyway Im anthropopathic but hes anthropocentric and we have not made any progress!It seems the BoP is on the person who argues animals are different than humans in these basic ways in which it seems all of life and all of zoology possesses. After all, if anyone argues animals dont have souls- could we not make the same argument against other races of humans? Or other humans of our own race? Where does it stop? This seems very ad hoc to me and I have to hold people to account. Craigs a bright man, but I dont understand why christians force biblical inerrancy as a truth to the degree they do. I know the NT is pretty reliable as text, but what of old?.

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

Variation of the Cosmological Arguement

Devin — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:01:21 GMT

In order to defend the idea of creationism it must first be shown to be, at the very least, possible that something existed causally prior to the beginning of the universe. My purpose with this argument is to not only prove the possibility of something existing but rather the necessity of it. This argument does not claim to define what that "something" was/is. It merely shows that there must have been something as opposed to nothing. Whether that something was (a) god or something else is irrelevant to this particular argument.

This is a variation of the cosmological argument that I came up with. I am posting it here in the hopes of getting a thorough critique on what logical inconsistencies might be within my argument.

For the sake of making it easy to follow I have listed all of the arguments (and their premises) that support the premises of the original argument (listed first). I tried to boil each premise down to its supporting argument and so on with the premises of that supporting argument until all that was left was either proven or was an actual definition.

In responses to this post please state what you disagree with and why.

Prove: Something independent of the Universe caused it to come into being.

Premise 1: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being. *

Premise 2: The Universe did not come into being, uncaused, from absolute nothingness. **

Premise 3: The Universe had a beginning. ***

Argument: If the Universe did not bring itself into being and did not come into being without a cause from absolute nothingness, then it must have come from something independent of this universe.

Conclusion: Something independent of this Universe must have caused this Universe to come into being.

*Prove: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being.

Premise 1: An effect cannot come before its own cause.

(Due to the Law of Causality)

Premise 2: If any given thing that must have a beginning never had a beginning, then it does not exist.

(Due to the Definition of Beginning)

Premise 3: If something does not exist then it cannot have an effect on reality.

(Due to the Definition of Existence)

Argument: If the Universe did not exist before its own creation, then it could not possibly have influenced its own beginning.

Conclusion: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being.

** Prove: The Universe did not come into being, uncaused, from absolute nothingness.

Premise 1: At any two points, given perfectly identical circumstances, the exact same events will occur with the exact same results. *

Premise 2: In absolute nothingness any two points are perfectly identical both in and of themselves and their circumstances.

(Due to the Definition of absolute nothingness)

Premise 3: In absolute nothingness there is no outside force that could possibly act upon any given point.

(Due to the Definition of absolute nothingness)

Premise 4: There are at least two points in all of existence that are not perfectly identical.

(Given)

Argument: If there are no outside influences on any point within the expanse of absolute nothingness, then only events which do not need causes could possibly occur. If only spontaneous events could occur, then they would occur equally and simultaneously at every point in this expanse of nothingness. If the only events that could possibly occur always occur at every point equally and result in all of existence being perfectly uniform, then all of existence should still be perfectly uniform. Since all of existence is not perfectly uniform then it is not possible that there was ever absolute nothing.

Conclusion: The Universe did not come into being, uncaused, from absolute nothingness.

*All this premise states is that any given point (p) plus five (a random number representing an event) p+5 will always equal p+5.

Absolute Nothingness- A Universal state of nothing and only nothing at any given point in existence.

***Prove: The Universe had a beginning.

Premise 1: As time progresses, any given system will become more uniform.

(Due to the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics)

Premise 2: If the Universe did not have a beginning, then it would have existed indefinitely before this current moment.

(Due to the Definition of Beginning)

Premise 3: The Universe is not perfectly uniform.

(Given)

Argument: If the Universe existed indefinitely before this current moment, then it would be perfectly uniform. Since it is not perfectly uniform it is an impossibility that the Universe never had a beginning.

Conclusion: The Universe had a beginning.

I am looking forward to any and all comments and criticisms.

Thank you.

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

The nature of evidence

midasvuik — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:46:11 GMT

I just saw the debate between WLC and John Shook. One issue that repeatedly came up during the debate was that of the burden of proof. WLC says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yet he uses the absence of evidence for the existence of a multiverse as evidence that the multiverse does not exist. Is WLC being inconsistent?

Forum: Presumption of Atheism

This is scary... (demographics of future)

pacifist — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:18:46 GMT

This youtube video is scary, but very informative. Everyone would do well to watch it, either who will live for fifty more years or who have children. It is a presentation of changing demographics, and as one thinker said- demographics is destiny. Now the only question is whether the premises and facts presented are correct, and they seem reasonable to me.

The video is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK1pnCldKZI

Why is it scary? First, I am not scared because what must be must be. I am not anxious for the morrow, because the morrow will be anxious for itself. But is it scary because I am not muslim, and my religion may lose, and others win? No, religion is not a game if different teams competing, and nobody wants to lose. Religion is the quest for truth, and there is only one truth, whoever may grasp it, or portions of it.

It's not scary per se, but it's worth being aware of and getting ready for. By the way, just as there there was a time when I was a serious agnostic and I suspended belief in God in general, there was also a time when I thought seriously about accepting the koran, because they seemed to have deep devotion, because they seemed purer and less altered, etc. For whoever believes me when I describe my history of seeking, this should give me street cred. In other words, I don't just blindly accept what I was born into, either familially or culturally.

Even after rejecting islam and the koran as being inspired and fully true (and clearly that does not mean it is completley false) and after the WTC disaster, I thought that muslim culture would not necessarily be a bad thing in the world. I thought this because of certain historic accounts, because of their prohibition of usury, alcohol, other things, and because historically they have been behind many of the sciences and progress that we have now in the world. I still link only the smallest minority of muslims to terrorists, as that is all I can do with integrity. Yet I disagree now that their cultures are nicer cultures than secular western cultures. Why? For four separate reasons- 1. malaysia, 2. northern india/kashmir 3. middle east/jerusalem and 4. egypt

When I say these places, I mean parts of these places. They are not all bad, but they all contain elements that I disagree with that are not found in secular cultures, almost in proportion to the degree that the cultures are deep into islam. Yes I have been blessed this last year to circumnavigate the globe and I've seen many places, more besides these that aren't muslim. But these places mentioned.. I don't like the way that women are treated as chattel or whatever, and forced to cover themselves and not have much autonomy. I have seen this both at distances and close up. This was especially evident in kashmir. I want everyone to have freedom of how they want to live. I'm not against people choosing to live a certain way, if there are no social consequences if they choose another way. Women, I find, lack choice. Also it seems in these cultures that there is less freedom of expression. There is even less smiling. In palestine I found the people the nicest, most happy and open. This seems paradoxical, but I don't see it as so. People who have suffered know the value of things, appreciate the sun when it shines. I do think they are mistreated, and don't mistake me for someone who supports the governmet of israel and the settlers in the WB. I do not. I also dislike having to listen to the call to prayer five times a day, especially when it is right next to my bed, and when it lasts for an hour on fridays or whenever it was. It just seems like a 'big brother' type of culture.

I am not scared though but this video is worth watching, for all, atheists, muslims and christians, because demographics affect us all. I am personal interested in studying islam in more depth, in all the various aspects. I am beginning to read books of all types on that, among all my other interests. I read abook about a militant muslim converted to gentle islam and what went through. Anyway video worth watching

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

Scrutinize my argument

gmankbadi — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:52:42 GMT

I would like to run the following arguments relating to objective truth and moral values by you to see if they uphold logical scrutiny. Could you please comment on the fallacy of my reasoning or premises if the arguments are not sound. Could not the theist argue the following for objective propositional truths existent in the world?:

Premise 1 If objective truths exist, then they are best explained by the existence of a necessary mind

Premise 2 A necessary mind entails the existence of God

Premise 3 Objective truths do exist (as is necessary from the very nature of the case)

Premise 4 A necessary mind is the best explanation for those truths and, thus entails the existence of God

Conclusion Therefore, God exists

My second argument is not really an originally constructed argument by any means. It simply lies as an extrapolation to the argument Dr. Craig has developed for the existence of God from the reality of moral values. Primarily the arguments seeks to corroborate the second premise of your argument; that objective moral values do exist.

Premise 1 If objective moral values do not exist, then meaningful conversation about objective moral values need not remain coherent or consistent

Premise 2 Meaningful conversation about objective moral values need remain coherent and consistent

Conclusion Therefore, objective moral values do exist

I think that if one denies premise 2, one's argument self destructs. For, could one not argue that distorting another person's claim about objective morality is in itself objectively wrong? Thus, were the relativist to argue that he did not believe objective moral values existed and the theist were to retort Can I take what you've just said to mean objective moral values do exist?, there would be nothing ethically wrong with the annunciated distortion of the relativists propositional claim. For, were the relativist to argue that distorting his claim was unfair or immoral, the theist would simply retort that on the relativists own definition, no such morality objectively exists. Therefore in denying premise 3, the relativist diminishes the potency of the his defeater for premise 2.

Forum: Moral Argument

Does God love some people more than others?

Maxeo — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:23:06 GMT

Abstract:

Quote:

I argue that there is an important sense in which God's love is partial or preferential. In developing this argument, I appeal to Thomas Aquinas's claim that God's love for persons has the character of friendship. By its nature, friendship exhibits a considerable degree of partiality. For whether a person prefers to be uniter to another friendship depends (in part) on whether the latter reciprocates the former's affection and endorses those commitments conducive to fellowship. I God's love is expressive of friendship (so described), then the sort of partiality some may wish to deny of his love may be one of its salient features.

Shawn Floyd, "Preferential Divine Love: Or, Why God Loves Some People More Than Others," Philosophia Christi 11:2, 359-376.

The converse view offered by Talbott :

Quote:

If expresses a truth about the essence of God, then it is logically impossible that the person who is God should fail to love someone, or should act in an unloving way toward someone, or should do anything else that is incompatible with his love.

Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God (Bocan Raton, FL: Universal, 1997), 113.

Agreeably, God is impartial in love towards everyone not for any work of our own, however, I agree that God has a particular love for his church, the elect. The article in EPS's newest issue is very interesting. I'm sure this may spark some discussion. So my question: does God love some people more than others?

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

Any bible is not to be trusted

Composer — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:40:28 GMT

Any bible is not to be trusted -

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; . . . . (Ezekiel 18:20) RSV

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezek. 18:20) KJV

Oops!

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth of them that hate me; (Exod. 20:5) KJV

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth of them that hate me, (Deut. 5:9) KJV

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

NSR [Necessary Role Submission]

Maxeo — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:02:40 GMT

Here's the abstract from a recent paper from the most recent issue of Philosophia Christi on NSR within the Trinity.

Quote:

In this essay we examine a recent proposal in Trinitarian theology. Analyzing the claim that the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father, we argue that there are no good reasons to hold such a view but that there are strong reasons to reject it. The arguments made by Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem from the Christian tradition often rest upon the fundamental understandings of the theological issues at stake, their arguments from Scripture bring important--but flawed--metaphysical assumptions into the exegesis of biblical texts, and their own proposal is either hopelessly mired in contradiction or entails the direct denial of the full divinity of the Son.

Thomas McCall, Keith E. Yandell, "On Trinitarian Subordination," Philosophia Christi 11:2, 339.

I recently read the article and agree with McCall and Yandell that we should reject NSR. Is anyone else in here a member of EPS (Evangelical Philosophical Society)? What are your thoughts on the issue?

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

It is finished!

pacifist — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:26:14 GMT

Folks, I just finished watching a more than 6 hour movie on the Nazarene, Yahshua Jesus who is called Christ, directed by Franco Zeferelli, namely "Jesus of Nazareth".

What a great movie. It is worth every minute. Are there any others here who have seen this film in it's entirety? I imagine it's one of the best of the hundreds of movies about Jesus ever made. I had already seen Zeferelli's other film, Brother Sun Sister Moon about Saint Francis of Assisi, and I liked that

It's there for anyone to watch, and it's only 41 parts

peace

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

Burden of Proof

pacifist — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:35:15 GMT

Hello all, peace and love to the world.

It seems to me that most (maybe 75 percent) of the debate energy between rival groups such as theists and atheists, when it is difficult to marshall absolute proof about something, center around arguments regarding Burden of Proof BoP and it's inverse, Benefit of Assumption BoA, and who is in possession of each.

it seems there are only three areas that apologetics of anything tries to support. They are

1. to attack or defend the logical possibility and coherence of something (e.g. problem of evil)

2. what side has the burden of proof and benefit of assumption

3. The actuality of existence, or it's high probability

Again I think BoP is where the debate centers primarily regarding any sort of belief.

Now I believe in the simplest explanation that fits the data points and to not multiply causes. some people reject certain data points, even though they maybe ought to. others ignore them. For others, they do not exist at all, because they haven't made their presence known- e.g. religious experience, or also fine tuning argument, for those who are not familiar with that science.

sometimes arguments which fail as arguments still yet succeed as burdon of proof arguments, I think. Tell me if I'm wrong. For example, some arguments that are guilty of begging the question still are good arguments for shifting BoP. When there is the case of a general rule, even when it has known exceptions, and moreso when there are no known exceptions, it seems reasonable for me to conclude the person trying to show that a case is an exception to the rule carries the burden. For example, all times humans run across information, it has been produced by a mind. DNA has information. It does not follow necessarily that DNA has been produced by a mind, but then again I think BoP is on those who would demonstrate otherwise. Suppose 99 percent of people living in finland were born there. Marty lives in finland. Anyone who says marty was not born there, I think, carries the BoP, even though that person can still be right.

If six nuclear missles are aimed at a target in enemy territory and five get taken down in the air, the one that hits will still amount to a full success. So I think it is with the following. I think these following, when fully comprehended, are why the burden of proof is not on the theist to prove that God exists, but on the atheist, or at least in between us as fifty fifty, as God- according to a minimalist definition of a mindlike entity at least partly outside of time and space.

1. why there is something rather than nothing

2. existence of consciousness

3. WLC's arguments, kalam, moral, teleological

4. my argument from desire, which begs the question but at least is sufficient I think to shift burden to doubters

i. desires are either natural or aquired

ii. all natural desires relate to something that exists objectively (hunger is a natural desire and food really exists)

iii. people have a desire for transcending the earth, heaven for an afterlife, for connection to God

iv. that desire is natural

V. Therefore, heaven and God exist.

5. That children are born believers (assuming this is shown to be true) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

6. Personal Experience regarding perceived contact with God

Atheists have to do one of two things, I think.

1. either become agnostic or a weak atheist and allow that God is a possible explanation for certain phenomenon. in other words, stay open minded

OR

2. at least show or try demonstrate that the BoP is not on them. And in doing so, they ought to consider the points made above. By comparing god to an orbiting teacup is not sufficient, because a teacup does not remain a cogent explanation for consciousness, or experience, as God remains. Nor can thay accuse one of being God of the gaps, because that is just changing the subject. Nor do they say that we have to be able to explain God, because if they require that, they they have to explain evolution perfectly before we can accept that.

They can't have atheism both ways- the benefits of hard atheism or naturalism in exorcising God from all science and from all philosophy and discussion everywhere, while shouldering only the burden of weak atheism, which is just a-theism or agnosticism. I don't think most are doing it intentionally, but I'm sure subconsciously they realize.

Can I get an amen, my brothers! Hallelujah!

It makes me wonder, what makes different minds come to different conclusions regarding burden of proof and where it lies, based on a set of given facts and assuming equal knowledge. In other words, why do some people put more faith in empiricism to explain everything, while others see it as useful but limited and become more agnostic about these things? Maybe it's not always a question about mind but one of heart. In any case, why there are differences about what side victory goes to given no additional evidence. Because this will probably be the most heated area of discussion even after I'm dead and gone

Praise God, and peace on Earth!

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

Tons of John Warwick Montgomery clips

Kenny — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:01 GMT

A youtuber posted over 20 short video clips of Dr. John Warwick Montgomery answering typical questions and refutations of Christianity here. It looks like these clips were made during the 80s! Nevertheless, it would be a helpful witnessing tool. Dr. Montgomery is one of my favorite apologists. He has at least two doctorates like Dr. William Lane Craig. You can buy some of Dr. Montgomery's debates and audio lectures here.

Forum: Choose Your Own Topic

Hume, Causation, and the Kalam

jasondulle — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:49:27 GMT

As I understand it, Hume argued that since we cant observe causal relations directly, we cant say A causes B unless we can show that A necessarily causes B. What would you say to someone who objects to the implications of the conclusion of the kalam (as opposed to the first premise, which Hume himself accepted), citing Humes critique of causation? For example, if they say "You cant say the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial unless you can demonstrate that there is a necessary causal relation between such and the beginning of the universe," how would you respond? What other types of objections might someone raise based on Humes view, and how would you respond to those objections?

Forum: Kalam Cosmological Argument