Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Paul, it doesn’t matter what authority you feel the Bible has; the scripture itself testifies to its inerrancy

.

That is THE point of contention, what scripture says about ITSELF is irrelevant.
That is circular logic.

<snip>

Oh, Paul ...

Oh Danny !

PaulSacramento wrote:

DannyM wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Paul, it doesn’t matter what authority you feel the Bible has; the scripture itself testifies to its inerrancy

.

That is THE point of contention, what scripture says about ITSELF is irrelevant.
That is circular logic.

<snip>

Oh, Paul ...

Oh Danny !

Paul, do you agree that the Bible is the word of God?

I was shaking my head here too, Danny.

He seriously needs to take a course on bible reliability. Internal evidence tests are perfectly valid.

The earliest christians had every reason to NOT write things that were wrong.

Then when you look into the continuity of the bible
Written over the course of 1500 years
40 different authors
Authors came from all walks of life
Authors came from many different locations
In 3 different langauges (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)
They all had 1 theme: The redemption of man
And they all lead to 1 central character: The Messiah

domokunrox wrote: The moral argument does prove existence of God, if you believe objective morality exists.

At the very least it would be highly likely.

domokunrox wrote: The point is, good and evil is clearly defined in christianity. The line in the sand is clearly drawn. In the subjective morals, the line can be anywhere you want it to be.

True, which is why the atheist's morals do not have bearing on the argument.

domokunrox wrote: I actually could logically answer the problem of evil (suffering) consistent with the bible.

agreed.

neo-x wrote: Is it that hard to grasp what I said? I am saying that whatever happened cannot be judged on two different standards. Something which you are just sliding by.

Quite the opposite. I've argued AGAINST bringing another standard into the argument, namely the atheist's.

neo-x wrote: I understand that you are not a supporter of evil argument and you are just addressing how it is often erroneously responded to. But all I said was that this a futile argument unless a standard is first agreed on, and since that never happens. The point of debating this becomes useless.

The standard has to be the bible. I wouldn't say it NEVER happens, as any other standard is so obviously fallacious.

domokunrox wrote: atheist cannot hide behind any argument without defining anything like morals in order to prove inconsistencies in the bible because unless they are truly objectively defined, right or wrong and logical and illogical cannot be determined..

Is the bible not objectively denfined enough for you?

domokunrox wrote:I was shaking my head here too, Danny.
He seriously needs to take a course on bible reliability. Internal evidence tests are perfectly valid.
The earliest christians had every reason to NOT write things that were wrong.
Then when you look into the continuity of the bible
Written over the course of 1500 years
40 different authors
Authors came from all walks of life
Authors came from many different locations
In 3 different langauges (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)
They all had 1 theme: The redemption of man
And they all lead to 1 central character: The Messiah

Agreed. And if we are looking for some other authority to verify the authority of the word of God then we truly have become salves to the ill logic of the incoherent critics.

Oh my lord, echoside.

Seriously man. The moral argument is ironclad.
If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties don't exist.
Objective moral values and duties exist.
Therefore, God exists.

In order for the conclusion to be false, the premises need to be proven false by the atheist. Key words here. THEY MUST PROVE EITHER PREMISE FALSE. You say, its highly likely. Do YOU really think so? Cause I can defend those premises. You on the other hand probably aren't as very skilled apologetic, so do you need help with it? I will be glad to pass on the information to you. Just state what the atheist objection to the moral argument is, and I will gladly defend it.

Also, is the bible not defined enough for me? Oh, its defined plenty. The key word is, FOR ME. The christian. The atheist DOES NOT believe the bible, so why would the atheist USE DEFINITIONS that they do NOT UNDERSTAND, do NOT USE PROPERLY? Christianity does not work that way. Do you get it?

Christianity is not a plug and play device like a mouse for your computer. Christianity is a major difference in how one works. You cannot emulate Christianity values. When you try to emulate Christianity, it is simply just a hack. A fake. Not real. Cannot be relied on for accuracy. Cannot be relied on for stability.

Let me state it once again for you echoside.

You say the atheist morals have no bearing on the argument.
Again, I disagree. Their morals MUST be defined in order to argue the morals of the bible. Plain and simple. Hence, the moral argument.

domokunrox wrote:Oh my lord, echoside.

Seriously man. The moral argument is ironclad.
If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties don't exist.
Objective moral values and duties exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Once again, show me what is so ironclad about it, other than the thought experiment "Don't you think X is REALLY wrong". Your second premise isn't anywhere near proven.

domokunrox wrote:In order for the conclusion to be false, the premises need to be proven false by the atheist. Key words here. THEY MUST PROVE EITHER PREMISE FALSE. You say, its highly likely.

Well yes that's the definition of an argument.

domokunrox wrote:Also, is the bible not defined enough for me? Oh, its defined plenty. The key word is, FOR ME. The christian. The atheist DOES NOT believe the bible, so why would the atheist USE DEFINITIONS that they do NOT UNDERSTAND, do NOT USE PROPERLY? Christianity does not work that way. Do you get it?

Of course not, though I'm sure many atheists misuse the bible's full context, that is a problem with their intellectual honesty not a problem inherent with the argument itself. Once again, the atheist, or anyone else HAS to use the bible, anything else is pointless.

domokunrox wrote:Let me state it once again for you echoside
You say the atheist morals have no bearing on the argument.
Again, I disagree. Their morals MUST be defined in order to argue the morals of the bible. Plain and simple. Hence, the moral argument.

This is a logical argument, not a moral one. An atheist, by definition cannot argue objective morals. You may title it "the moral argument" but morality is simply the topic, more specifically CHRISTIAN morality and it's logical conclusions.

Echoside wrote:

domokunrox wrote:Let me state it once again for you echoside
You say the atheist morals have no bearing on the argument.
Again, I disagree. Their morals MUST be defined in order to argue the morals of the bible. Plain and simple. Hence, the moral argument.

This is a logical argument, not a moral one. An atheist, by definition cannot argue objective morals. You may title it "the moral argument" but morality is simply the topic, more specifically CHRISTIAN morality and it's logical conclusions.

And an atheist, by definition, can not argue on logical grounds. If the atheist can not justify and account for the laws of logic and logical absolutes, then he can not argue on 'logical' grounds. Just as atheism has no grounds to pursue the moral argument, it has no grounds to pursue the logical argument. I'm surprised this has not occured to you. The atheist remains as incoherent as ever.

That's exactly right, Danny. Been trying to get him to see that the atheist is chasing his tail for quite a while now. Hopefully he sees it, and stops messing around. Its like pulling teeth with him. He says he isn't an atheist but he talks, reasons, as if he truly believes that the atheist is being intellectually honest and refuses to accept that the atheist needs to move forward with his objection.

I sort of got him to move forward a bit.

Echoside,
You say my second premise "Objective moral values and duties do exist" isn't anywhere near proven.
You're going to need to do better then that. You keep asserting that I am assuming a position of stubborn moral faith, but that is NOT the case here. The absolute truth to the second premise is that it objective morals require God, and its hard to believe someone who claims to not be an atheist does not see that it does and INSIST that atheists DO THEIR PART. Simply saying I do not agree does not cut it. The atheist is in no position to cop out here. We got them exactly where we want them.

Go ahead, echoside. Why is my second premise far from proven? Because if morals are not
objective and God does not exist, then I am in every right to commit moral atrocities if I so please. Think about it very carefully, because saying that objective moral values do not exist does have a backlash. Are you prepared for that?

I eagerly await echoside to come in and prove that rape, murder, theft, anti-jew, other forms of racist persecution, child abuse, patriarchy, and other social injustices are far from proven wrong morals.

Its going to be a good one, folks. Get the popcorn ready.

DannyM wrote: And an atheist, by definition, can not argue on logical grounds. If the atheist can not justify and account for the laws of logic and logical absolutes, then he can not argue on 'logical' grounds. Just as atheism has no grounds to pursue the moral argument, it has no grounds to pursue the logical argument. I'm surprised this has not occured to you. The atheist remains as incoherent as ever.

You can't just slide away from the argument that easily. The atheist can most certainly use logic, regardless of it's source or what his worldview says about it. But like I said, this is a test of biblical coherency, not atheistic. It cannot be the case the God is responsible for the laws of logic, but they also prove him false. If that happens then the only LOGICAL explanation is it's something outside of our understanding.

It's not impossible to me that someone might make a good case against Christianity. And would that prove atheism any stronger of a worldview? No not at all, the atheist's philosophy is still flawed, there's just some other explanation for the laws of logic, creation of the universe, etc.

Just a quick add on though Danny, I've got a good handle on your position from the presupp apologetics thread so if this takes a turn down that road I'd rather not go through that argument again if it's all the same to you. I think I've made my point here just about as good as I can.

Domokunrox wrote: Go ahead, echoside. Why is my second premise far from proven? Because if morals are not
objective and God does not exist, then I am in every right to commit moral atrocities if I so please. Think about it very carefully, because saying that objective moral values do not exist does have a backlash. Are you prepared for that?

Do you have any other "proofs" other than this appeal to consequences? There is nothing to think carefully about here, you keep trying to shift the burden of proof to me when it is your position that objective morals exist, and it is a "rock solid argument".

Echoside wrote:

DannyM wrote: And an atheist, by definition, can not argue on logical grounds. If the atheist can not justify and account for the laws of logic and logical absolutes, then he can not argue on 'logical' grounds. Just as atheism has no grounds to pursue the moral argument, it has no grounds to pursue the logical argument. I'm surprised this has not occured to you. The atheist remains as incoherent as ever.

You can't just slide away from the argument that easily.

No sliding away; the atheist will still be defeated even when granted an illusory level playing field

The atheist can most certainly use logic, regardless of it's source or what his worldview says about it.

And he will always be inconsistent. I mean, the atheist cannot even account for the ability to string a coherent sentence together. (Not that that occurs very often in these debates, of course.) He can be cut down on whatever level one chooses.

But like I said, this is a test of biblical coherency, not atheistic. It cannot be the case the God is responsible for the laws of logic, but they also prove him false. If that happens then the only LOGICAL explanation is it's something outside of our understanding.

That’s why it will never happen.

It's not impossible to me that someone might make a good case against Christianity. And would that prove atheism any stronger of a worldview? No not at all, the atheist's philosophy is still flawed, there's just some other explanation for the laws of logic, creation of the universe, etc.

Go for it, Echo. I won’t object to you employing logic and reason…

Just a quick add on though Danny, I've got a good handle on your position from the presupp apologetics thread so if this takes a turn down that road I'd rather not go through that argument again if it's all the same to you. I think I've made my point here just about as good as I can.

Okay, fair enough. I don’t want a long drawn out repeat of that just yet either

Oh, echoside. I got you exactly where I want you.

Moral experience reveals that objective values and duties do exist. My senses are not infallible, and it does not lead me to think that there is no external world around me. In the absence of some reason to distrust my moral experience, I should accept what it tells me, which includes that some things are good or evil, right or wrong.

Actions like rape, torture, theft, child abuse, and so forth are not just socially unacceptable behavior. They are moral abominations.

You and other people who fail to see this are just handicapped. The moral equivalent of someone who is physically blind, and there is no reason I will let your impairment call into question what we see clearly.

As I have pointed out, the position that objective moral values and duties do not exists leads to sociocultural relativism. You are in every obligation to defend if you believe your position does not lead that way. It is not burden of proof, it is the burden of proving the worth of your worldview. If you do not believe it is bankrupt, then you must prove it is not. I cannot do that for you.

Simple as that.