tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7770606634512224946..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution Professor: Evolution Reconciles “Gross Evil and Suffering in the World”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91484244525229109032012-07-09T20:57:20.393-07:002012-07-09T20:57:20.393-07:00bornagain77 July 8, 2012 3:20 PM
Ian you state:
...<i><b>bornagain77</b> July 8, 2012 3:20 PM<br /><br />Ian you state:<br /><br />"That is special pleading: God is good and incapable of evil or behaving immorally because we say so and that makes Him a special case."<br /><br />No it actually logically follows from the necessary characteristics of a 'maximally great Being':</i><br /><br />Oh no it doesn't.<br /><br /><i>Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641</i><br /><br />What is puzzling is why Craig is allowed to get away with this sort of nonsense.<br /><br /><i> 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.</i><br /><br />a) A lot of things are <i>possible</i> but the fact that soemthing is possible does not mean it is necessarily <i>actual</i><br /><br />b) What does "maximally great" mean: biggest, fastest, strongest, smartest, all of the above and more? The phrase is undefined or so vaguely defined as to be almost meaningless<br /><br />c) Not so fast there, sunshine, who says this "maximally great" being and God are the same thing? Trying to sneak in a hidden assumption there?<br /><br /><i> 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.</i><br /><br />a) Still only <i>possible</i>, which does <i>not</i> mean actual.<br /><br />b) What is the ontological status of a possible being in a possible world? In what sense can it be said to exist?<br /><br /><i> 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.</i><br /><br />a) If there is a population of universes then it is <i>possible</i> that in each there is a "maximally great" being.<br /><br />b) There is <i>no reason</i> to think that all these "maximally great" beings are one and the same being.<br /><br />c) There is <i>no reason</i> to think that all or any of these possible "maximally great beings are the Christian God.<br /><br /><i>4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.</i><br /><br />a) Yes, it is trivially true that it is possible that in each of all possible worlds there is a "maximally great" being - and that includes our world.<br /><br />b) Still no reason to think "maximally great" being and the Christian God are the same thing.<br /><br /><i>5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.</i><br /><br />a) No, it's <i>possible</i> but until you define "maximally great" that's <i>all</i> we can say.<br /><br /><i> 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.</i><br /> <br />a) You're repeating yourself. See 5. a)<br /><br /><i> 7. Therefore, God exists.</i><br /><br />a) No, <i>non sequitur</i>. <br /><br />b) As before, you have given no reason why the "maximally great" beings in all possible universes are all the same being. They might all be different.<br /><br />c) You have given no reason to think that each or any of these "maximally great" beings are the Christian God.<br /><br /><i>Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial.</i><br /><br />It would. I'm pretty sure there are others besides me out there who would be happy to give Craig an argument about them.<br /><br /><i>Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist.</i><br /><br />You have any numbers to back up this claim?<br /><br /><i>The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists.</i><br /><br />No, the atheist just has to say that he or she doesn't think God exists because there is no good reason to.<br /><br /><i>He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square.</i><br /><br />That would depend on what definition of a god was on the table. But even a coherent <i>concept</i> of a god does not mean it <i>must</i> exist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79179960379437022902012-07-09T13:56:44.828-07:002012-07-09T13:56:44.828-07:00LS -
A link that points to evidence of transitio...LS - <br /><br /><b>A link that points to evidence of transitional fossils is not evidence that the species evolved on their own via random mutations and natural selection. It is only evidence that there was evolution. The actual mechanism of evolution is not evident in the fossils</b><br /><br />I posted that link in response to your assertion that there was no evidence that 'cow-like animals' evolved into whales. The link quite clearly shows that there is such evidence.<br /><br />Now you say you accept that such a transition occurred but that you simply question HOW it happened? You doubt Natural Selection - the driving force of evolution?<br /><br />Well luckily for you there is evidence for that too:<br /><br />http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/<br /><br />No wishful thinking needed. Just solid evidence.<br /><br /><b>Since you insist on being dishonest in your replies...</b><br /><br />And when have I been dishonest? You might not agree with me but at least allow that I mean my replies sincerely.<br /><br /><b>I've decided to end this discussion. You know, pearls, swines and all that.</b><br /><br />Oh right, I'm too far beneath you for you to grace me with your insights. You're far too enlightened to have to address my scummy, filth-encrusted, empirical evidence. How convenient for you.<br /><br />I trust the weather's nice up your own backside?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75222739956615681972012-07-09T13:04:05.041-07:002012-07-09T13:04:05.041-07:00I wrote:
Oh, the evidnce for evolution is indeed ...I wrote:<br /><br /><i>Oh, the evidnce for evolution is indeed solid but not the evolution you have in mind. I mean, not the evolution according to which some cow-like animals evolved into a whales all by themselves. There is no evidence for that.</i><br /><br />Ritchie searched deep and coughed up:<br /><br /><i>Yes there is:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/</i><br /><br />A link that points to evidence of transitional fossils is not evidence that the species evolved on their own via random mutations and natural selection. It is only evidence that there was evolution. The actual mechanism of evolution is not evident in the fossils. Wishful thinking is not science. It's superstition.<br /><br />Since you insist on being dishonest in your replies, I've decided to end this discussion. You know, pearls, swines and all that. Besides, unlike some of the professional prevaricators on this forum, I have a life to attend to.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58871610418500469152012-07-09T07:56:09.970-07:002012-07-09T07:56:09.970-07:00Born -
Theists have been pointing out the very s...Born - <br /><br /><b>Theists have been pointing out the very same thing with the multiverse conjecture of atheists, used to 'explain away' fine-tuning, for years.</b><br /><br />The multi-universe theory does not state everything that is possible to exist must exist somewhere. All it says is there could be lots of separate universes. That's all. There is no implication that anything that can possibly exist must exist in any one of them.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42201131411693702842012-07-09T04:52:04.359-07:002012-07-09T04:52:04.359-07:00Since when is tu quoque a valid form of argument?Since when is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque" rel="nofollow">tu quoque</a> a valid form of argument?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67589834356875910232012-07-09T04:36:06.129-07:002012-07-09T04:36:06.129-07:00Well, since I have one more minute to spare. I wil...Well, since I have one more minute to spare. I will point out another flaw of your argument:<br /><br />You state:<br /><br />'If it is possible that an MGB exists, then it exists in some possible world. What is the reasoning here? Everything that is possible to exist DOES exist in some possible world?'<br /><br />Now this is very strange for a atheist to point this out for Theists have been pointing out the very same thing with the multiverse conjecture of atheists, used to 'explain away' fine-tuning, for years. It is simply hypocritical for a atheist to suddenly find the argument from 'infinite possibility' incoherent when they have have been trying to use the very same argument themselves for years.,, Like I pointed out earlier, the multiverse conjecture of atheists, of the 'infinitely possible', clearly concedes the necessary premise to the ontological argument. ,,, Must go to work now, The last shot is all yours.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70602630509984106032012-07-09T04:16:54.509-07:002012-07-09T04:16:54.509-07:00most philosophers agree that steps 2-7 are valid m...<b>most philosophers agree that steps 2-7 are valid modal logic.</b><br /><br />That is a bald assertion - and one you are taking entirely on faith. You believe it entirely because Craig says so. If Craig was lying or simply mistaken, you would never know.<br /><br /><b>I guess, since I don't have years of training in philosophy to flesh out the point but can see the validity of their reasoning, for once I will be forced to appeal to the 'consensus' of leading philosophers</b><br /><br />If you could see the validity in their reasoning, then you would be able to relay that reasoning to me. The fact that you cannot, and need to appeal to consensus opinion in the first place tells me that you don't understand the 'validity in their reasoning' at all.<br /><br /><b>...there simply is no possible world where a non-existent maximally great being can ever exist, Which is, whether you admit it or not, exactly the argument you are trying to make.</b><br /><br />No, it demonstrably is not that argument I am trying to make. I am shocked at the staggering arrogance that you are telling me what my own argument is. My argument is nothing like the argument that you are insisting I am making. Can't you read my posts, or are you incapable of understanding what they are saying?<br /><br /><b>Well I'm fairly certain that you will disagree, but that's it for me on this argument and so the last parting shot is all yours.</b><br /><br />So basically you've just been strutting and crowing while jousting a strawman, and won't even attempt to address my actual, entirely valid objections? How surprising.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16460942470387400282012-07-09T04:02:08.036-07:002012-07-09T04:02:08.036-07:00Ritchie most philosophers agree that steps 2-7 are...Ritchie most philosophers agree that steps 2-7 are valid modal logic. I agree with them and you disagree with them. Go figure, I guess, since I don't have years of training in philosophy to flesh out the point but can see the validity of their reasoning, for once I will be forced to appeal to the 'consensus' of leading philosophers :) as Darwinists continually appeal to 'consensus' with me. As well, I certainly don't agree with your thinking that you have made a logically coherent argument, for there simply is <b> no possible world where a non-existent maximally great being can ever exist</b>, Which is, whether you admit it or not, exactly the argument you are trying to make. Moreover it reinforces the point of the argument,,,, Well I'm fairly certain that you will disagree, but that's it for me on this argument and so the last parting shot is all yours.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50060847127231006592012-07-09T03:29:27.916-07:002012-07-09T03:29:27.916-07:00My argument is not the same as Dawkins'. Dawki...My argument is not the same as Dawkins'. Dawkins is asserting (by means of parody), that a being which created everything while simultaneously not existing would be greater than a being that did so while existing. Craig asserts that such a being is logically impossible, and I agree with him. <br /><br />MY (second) argument was that it is possible that a world exists which is not the dwelling place of a maximally great being. That being the case, following the Ontological Argument's own logic, a being that exists over all possible worlds does not exist.<br /><br />Moreover, Craig makes the same mistake as your other video and asserts that Premise 1 is the only one that needs defending and that all other premises logically follow. This is incorrect. And thus he falls foul of my first argument too (that his argument is circular).<br /><br />Let us take Premise 2, for example. <b>If it is possible that an MGB exists, then it exists in some possible world.</b> What is the reasoning here? Everything that is possible to exist DOES exist in some possible world? How can we support this? What is the basis for this assertion?<br /><br />If we are to accept that everything that CAN exist therefore does, somewhere, then this leads us to all sorts of absurdities. Consider it is possible that somewhere there exists a maximally evil being who destroys every world it inhabits. That is our Premise 1. Following Plantinga's logic, we arrive at the conclusion that such a being therefore does exist in this world, and we have just 'proved' that this world has been destroyed.<br /><br />Then there is the circularity. I could accept that an MGB's existence is possible. I could also, for argument's sake, agree that one that existed in actuality would be greater than one that does not. But you cannot infer that therefore one MUST exist in reality - which is essentially what the Ontological Argument is trying to do. This assumption of God's existence seems to be smuggled, if I had to pinpoint it, into premise 3.<br /><br /><b>Your argument is based on a 'square circle/married bachelor' type of logical incoherency</b><br /><br />No it is not! I wish you would stop and actually read what I am saying! You keep telling me that I am trying to assert that God is logically impossible, but that is not my objection at all. Are you paying the slightest bit of attention, or can you just not counter my ACTUAL objections?<br /><br />It is extremely telling that everyone you have presented defending this argument only tries to defend Premise 1 and insists that the rest logically follows. In actual fact this is merely a dodge. Insisting that it is only Premise 1 that needs defending is absurd, and insisting that it is the only premise that all objectors object to is flat wrong. Do you have anyone who is actually willing to defend premises 2 and 3?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4494854717343656432012-07-09T02:59:22.202-07:002012-07-09T02:59:22.202-07:00Well I for one certainly find the idea that we are...Well I for one certainly find the idea that we are alone in a universe which is indifferent to our plight both morally and rationally less objectionable than the idea that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being who is good and loving and watches over us, and yet also permits the atrocities which afflict us.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42940969689637815562012-07-09T02:54:50.376-07:002012-07-09T02:54:50.376-07:00Ritchie, A very similar version of your argument w...Ritchie, A very similar version of your argument was used by Richard Dawkins in the past (he devoted 6 pages to it in a book). Dr. Craig shows, with his usual clarity, why the argument you are using actually reinforces the validity of the ontological argument.<br /><br />Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641<br /><br />please note the comment at the 2:40 mark; <b>"there is no possible world where a non-existent being exist!!"</b><br /><br />i.e. Your argument is based on a 'square circle/married bachelor' type of logical incoherency! And that is the reason your argument (and Dawkins' argument) fails!bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33416936502957337162012-07-09T02:51:46.555-07:002012-07-09T02:51:46.555-07:00LS -
No, he is not.
Well colour me corrected.
M...LS -<br /><br /><b>No, he is not.</b><br /><br />Well colour me corrected.<br /><br /><b>My personal view is that animals are not conscious. They're just meat robots. Anthropomorphizing animals is just engaging in superstition with no scientific basis.</b><br /><br />So you see absolutely nothing wrong with animal cruelty? I could come home every night, beat my dog to a bloody pulp and torture kittens to death in the cruelest ways I could imagine, and you would be fine with all of this? It would be as morally consequetial as physically assaulting my toaster?<br /><br />While I might agree that we cannot prove that animals have a consciousness (as opposed to being 'meat robots' who merely act like they do), consider that the same thing is true of other human beings too. The only being, human or animal, I know for a fact that feels pain is myself. All other humans could be 'meat robots' programmed to react as if they felt pain while in actual fact feeling nothing. <br /><br />Your logic, extended only slightly to encompass humans too, is the logic of a psychopath. I do not say that to be insulting, I say it as an objective fact.<br /><br />If we are to allow that, on balance, humans probably aren't just 'meat robots', then on what grounds do we exclude animals? They certainly act like they have feelings. They certainly act as though they feel fear, joy, anger, frustration, pain, etc. Why would we doubt this to be true?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89980325762550435972012-07-09T02:51:05.681-07:002012-07-09T02:51:05.681-07:00LS -
not the evolution according to which some c...LS - <br /><br /><b>not the evolution according to which some cow-like animals evolved into a whales all by themselves. There is no evidence for that.</b><br /><br />Yes there is:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/<br /><br /><b>Your faith maybe but not mine.</b><br /><br />If you faith cannot stand alongside acceptance of a scientific theory then allow me to suggest it is your faith that is in error, not the theory.<br /><br /><b>Don't try to shove your religion down my throat por favor.</b><br /><br />Excellent advice all round, that. Though I'm bemused as to why you are addressing it to me.<br /><br /><b>Hunter always quotes famous evolutionists including Darwin when he makes a point about the religious basis of evolution.</b><br /><br />Hunter's entire perception of biology is coloured by his religion beliefs. He thinks biology should allow for miracles, and that it is religious bias which prevents 'evolutionists' from doing so. In actual fact it is perfectly standard scientific practice which prevents them from doing it, and HIS religious bias which makes him think biology should.<br /><br /><b>I doubt it but so what?</b><br /><br />Lions have the bodies of carnivors. Their teeth, their claws, their degestive tract - everything about them is suited to hunting. Not grazing. As Thornton points out, they simply could not survive without meat. Thus, the idea of a herbivorous lion is as nonsensical as a dolphin which flies and nests in trees. Would it really still be a dolphin?<br /><br /><b>According to certain scriptures, there were other advanced creatures involved in the creation of life on Earth and many left their mark on ancient civilizations. </b><br /><br />And you're suggesting these 'advanced creatures' suddenly made the Earth a dangerous place? They broke the Earth's solid mantle into tectonic plates, allowing for earthquakes and volcanoes? They turned Earth's regular weather system erratic? They introduced horrific diseases when once there were none? Why exactly would they do that, let alone how?<br /><br /><b>I believe in the existence of both a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The two are complementary. I also believe that there are unbreakable laws in both realms. One of them is karma, the spiritual equivalent of conservation laws in physics.</b><br /><br />And what is your basis for belief here? What is your evidence that these exist?<br /><br /><b>Our spirits do not change during a lifetime. Hitler had the same spirit when he was born that he had when he died.</b><br /><br />And yet there are children starving and dying of horrific diseases every day who are suffering far more than Hitler ever did. You think all those children really deserve their grisly fate?<br /><br /><b>Suffering is a purely spiritual thing. It has no meaning in the physical realm.</b><br /><br />Rubbish. It's not a 'spiritual thing' if you contract a debilitating disease or are involved in a terrifying, agonising accident. It is very much a physical thing.<br /><br /><b>Justice is not wrought by God or anybody in particular.</b><br /><br />Oh, so there is no great arbiter of justice? Right, well we agree on that at least.<br /><br /><b>In order for us humans to be saved from karmic law, someone else must pay the price.</b><br /><br />How can someone else pay the price? It is a cornerstone of our justice systems that the guilty and only the guilty are punished for there misdeeds. No legal system in the world allows innocent parties to bare punishment in the place of the guilty. How is karmic justice just if it allows such a thing?<br /><br />Moreover you haven't really answered my objections. Why is it that suffering is distributed so randomly and arbitrarily (indeed all too often it seems the wicked propser the most and suffer the least)? And even if suffering was karmic justice, wouldn't charity still be bad? I mean, those starving kids in Africa do DESERVE it, after all...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41659691935441617902012-07-08T22:09:23.053-07:002012-07-08T22:09:23.053-07:00No longer need we agonize about why a Creator God ...<i>No longer need we agonize about why a Creator God is the world’s leading abortionist and mass murderer. No longer need we query a Creator God’s motives for debilitating countless innocents with horrific genetic conditions. No longer must we anguish about the interventionist motives of a supreme intelligence that permits gross evil and suffering in the world.</i><br /><br />Oh dear...I was supposed to be "agonizing" and "querying" about God's motives? Some Christian I am. I was very content to know the Creator can call us back home to Him at any time, and placed my trust in the fact He knows what He's doing.<br /><br />Well, I'm sure it will make those who lose a child to cancer feel better and lessen their pain knowing that "nature" did it as opposed to a loving God calling His child back home to Him.National Velourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142359587875219081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29840797843671285002012-07-08T21:31:48.962-07:002012-07-08T21:31:48.962-07:00Thorn:
I'm sure we'll now get the usual &...Thorn:<br /><br /><i>I'm sure we'll now get the usual "that was caused by THE FALL!". Wait for it.</i><br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><br /><i>I suspect you are right.</i><br /><br />No, he is not. Thornton is a troll who thinks that fundamentalist Christianity is the source of all evil. His/her entire reason for living is to show them how much he/she hates them. I don't think they care. I certainly don't believe that bad things happen because of the fall of men. There was evil in the universe long before humans appeared.<br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><br /><i>In which case I'll be asking exactly why the lions - or any other creature for that matter - should bear the consequences of 'sins' committed by two humans beings. I mean, what did the poor lions ever do wrong?</i><br /><br />We can design and build robots from metal, plastic and silicon. We can even program into our robots such things as aversions and affinities that make them behave as if they consciously feel pain or enjoy certain pleasures; they don't. So can the advanced intelligent creatures who designed life on earth. <br /><br />My personal view is that animals are not conscious. They're just meat robots. Anthropomorphizing animals is just engaging in superstition with no scientific basis. You are free to disagree, of course.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83313497013433532082012-07-08T21:04:05.534-07:002012-07-08T21:04:05.534-07:00Me:
There is no scientific basis for evolution.
...Me:<br /><br /><i>There is no scientific basis for evolution.</i><br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><br /><i>Yes there is. An extremely solid one.</i><br /><br />Oh, the evidnce for evolution is indeed solid but not the evolution you have in mind. I mean, not the evolution according to which some cow-like animals evolved into a whales all by themselves. There is no evidence for that.<br /><br />Me:<br /><br /><i>This is the reason that prominent evolutionists continually bring up the strawman of the omnipotent and benevolent God.</i><br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><br /><i>'Prominent evolutionists' do not continually bring up God. People of any faith - or of no faith at all, can accept ToE, just as they can accept any scientific theory.</i><br /><br />Your faith maybe but not mine. Don't try to shove your religion down my throat por favor.<br /><br /><i>It is Cornelius and the other bonkers ID/Creationists who bring up God. Because what they are peddling is essentially religious doctrine.</i><br /><br />Hunter always quotes famous evolutionists including Darwin when he makes a point about the religious basis of evolution.<br /><br />Me:<br /><br /><i>Furthermore to the problem of evil posed by Avise and others, it is enlightening to me as a Christian, to realize that Judeo-Christian doctrine teaches that Satan is the god of this world and that, when God returns to the earth, the lion will eat grass and lie with the lamb.</i><br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><br /><i>Then the lion will require extensive modifications to its bodyplan. So many, in fact, that I imagine it would be totally unrecognisable as a lion...</i><br /><br />I doubt it but so what?<br /><br />Me:<br /><br /><i>So maybe the world was vastly different and friendlier at one time in the distant past.</i><br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><br /><i>Ignoring (for the moment) the obvious point that this is religious myth, not fact: what changed? What exactly caused the docile, herbivorous lion to become a territorial carnivore?</i><br /><br />According to certain scriptures, there were other advanced creatures involved in the creation of life on Earth and many left their mark on ancient civilizations. <br /><br />Me:<br /><br /><i>In this vein, it is tempting to speculate that the collective mind of humanity has the power to attract disasters usually attributed to God.</i><br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><br /><i>You think earthquakes, tidal waves and droughts are caused by humanity's collective telepathic powers...? Seriously, what on Earth are you talking about?</i><br /><br />The power is really indirect. I believe in the existence of both a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The two are complementary. I also believe that there are unbreakable laws in both realms. One of them is karma, the spiritual equivalent of conservation laws in physics.<br /><br />Me:<br /><br /><i>Maybe the world is hostile and dangerous because this is the world that we deserve.</i><br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><br /><i>But suffering is not inflicted on those who deserve it the most. No natural calamity specifically targets bad people. So if suffering is punishment for misdeeds, why is it dished out so randomly and indiscriminately?</i><br /><br />Our spirits do not change during a lifetime. Hitler had the same spirit when he was born that he had when he died. Suffering is a purely spiritual thing. It has no meaning in the physical realm.<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, it logically follows from the 'suffering is punishment for sins' logic that charity is bad. Why should we help the sick and afflicted when they are being punished for being wicked? Why should we ease the suffering of others if that suffering is actually divinely-wrought justice? Do you really hold to this?</i><br /><br />No. Justice is not wrought by God or anybody in particular. Karma is unity. Nobody, not even God, can violate karma. In order for us humans to be saved from karmic law, someone else must pay the price. This is the basis of my faith. Take it or leave it.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57974240486625727842012-07-08T20:47:28.242-07:002012-07-08T20:47:28.242-07:00I'm sure we'll now get the usual "tha...<b>I'm sure we'll now get the usual "that was caused by THE FALL!". Wait for it.</b><br /><br />I suspect you are right. In which case I'll be asking exactly why the lions - or any other creature for that matter - should bear the consequences of 'sins' committed by two humans beings. I mean, what did the poor lions ever do wrong?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90499823643626501792012-07-08T20:44:55.363-07:002012-07-08T20:44:55.363-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79263889261952009532012-07-08T20:41:30.714-07:002012-07-08T20:41:30.714-07:00Yes I will watch the video. Because it is short an...Yes I will watch the video. Because it is short and the only one you have posted.<br /><br />See? People are much more likely to actually follow your links if you just post the odd one here and there as and when relevant - not a foot-long shopping list of links to hour-long videos whose relavence is questionable at best.<br /><br />As to the video itself:<br /><br />I take umbridge right away with the assertion at 00.45 that Premise 1 is the only premise that needs defending, 'since all the others logically follow'. That is completely false.<br /><br />In fact, Premise 1 is the only one I am happy to freely agree to. I DO accept it is possible that a maximally perfect being exists. But so what? Agreeing that something COULD POSSIBLY exist is not the same as saying that it DOES exist.<br /><br />Out of the actual arguments the video 'refutes', the only one which comes close to one that I have made is number 5, the 'Reverse Ontological Argument'. And here the poster's logic is demonstrably flawed.<br /><br />First, he insists that one has to show that an MGB is logically impossible before we finish premise 2. But this is not true. I don't actually have to show any such thing. As I said, I am happy to grant that the existence of an MGB is possible. Identically, such a being's non-existence is also possible. So why would I have to establish as a fact an MGB's impossibility before I conceive of the possibility that there exists a world without an MGB? The assertion makes no sense at all.<br /><br />I accept that God IS possible. And The Ontological Argument still does not carry any water. It is circular, and can be used to assert to completely contradictory conclusions. It is demonstrably flawed.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78277222635805038892012-07-08T20:40:14.191-07:002012-07-08T20:40:14.191-07:00Ritchie
Louis: " when God returns to the ea...<i>Ritchie<br /><br />Louis: " when God returns to the earth, the lion will eat grass and lie with the lamb."<br /><br />Then the lion will require extensive modifications to its bodyplan. So many, in fact, that I imagine it would be totally unrecognisable as a lion...</i><br /><br />I wonder if Louis knows that all cats (including sweet little domestic moggies) are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore#Obligate_carnivores" rel="nofollow">obligate carnivores?</a> Their bodies require a protein found in meat - taurine - that they can't produce naturally? Without a steady external supply of taurine (from fresh meat or taurine supplemented food) they sicken and die.<br /><br />I'm sure we'll now get the usual "that was caused by THE FALL!". Wait for it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51296854305690587652012-07-08T20:26:14.271-07:002012-07-08T20:26:14.271-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8254360248846098412012-07-08T20:10:14.459-07:002012-07-08T20:10:14.459-07:00LS -
There is no scientific basis for evolution....LS - <br /><br /><b>There is no scientific basis for evolution.</b><br /><br />Yes there is. An extremely solid one.<br /><br /><b>This is the reason that prominent evolutionists continually bring up the strawman of the omnipotent and benevolent God.</b><br /><br />'Prominent evolutionists' do not continually bring up God. People of any faith - or of no faith at all, can accept ToE, just as they can accept any scientific theory. It is Cornelius and the other bonkers ID/Creationists who bring up God. Because what they are peddling is essentially religious doctrine.<br /><br /><b>Furthermore to the problem of evil posed by Avise and others, it is enlightening to me as a Christian, to realize that Judeo-Christian doctrine teaches that Satan is the god of this world and that, when God returns to the earth, the lion will eat grass and lie with the lamb.</b><br /><br />Then the lion will require extensive modifications to its bodyplan. So many, in fact, that I imagine it would be totally unrecognisable as a lion...<br /><br /><b>So maybe the world was vastly different and friendlier at one time in the distant past.</b><br /><br />Ignoring (for the moment) the obvious point that this is religious myth, not fact: what changed? What exactly caused the docile, herbivorous lion to become a territorial carnivore?<br /><br /><b>In this vein, it is tempting to speculate that the collective mind of humanity has the power to attract disasters usually attributed to God.</b><br /><br />You think earthquakes, tidal waves and droughts are caused by humanity's collective telepathic powers...? Seriously, what on Earth are you talking about?<br /><br /><b>Maybe the world is hostile and dangerous because this is the world that we deserve.</b><br /><br />But suffering is not inflicted on those who deserve it the most. No natural calamity specifically targets bad people. So if suffering is punishment for misdeeds, why is it dished out so randomly and indiscriminately?<br /><br />Furthermore, it logically follows from the 'suffering is punishment for sins' logic that charity is bad. Why should we help the sick and afflicted when they are being punished for being wicked? Why should we ease the suffering of others if that suffering is actually divinely-wrought justice? Do you really hold to this?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91952715654069626382012-07-08T19:45:59.646-07:002012-07-08T19:45:59.646-07:00HMM and Ritchie, do you really think you are the f...HMM and Ritchie, do you really think you are the first to use that objection?<br /><br />Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&src_vid=RQPRqHZRP68&v=ixqsZP7QP_o&annotation_id=annotation_936326<br /><br />I know you probably will not watch the video, but it is there for you anyway.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29247313363451289692012-07-08T19:37:12.002-07:002012-07-08T19:37:12.002-07:00Born -
But IF a maximally great being exists then...Born -<br /><br /><b>But IF a maximally great being exists then He exists in every possible world.</b><br /><br />But that doesn't give us any reason at all to suppose that a 'maximally great being' actually DOES exist, does it?<br /><br />You are still trying to define God into existence. It won't wash. You need to establish God's existence first, not just assume it as the Ontological Argument does.<br /><br /><b>You must prove that God is logically incoherent like a married bachelor or a square circle to prove he does not exist using the ontological argument.</b><br /><br />No I don't. All I need to do it show that your argument is flawed. Which I have. I can use it to prove both that God exists and that He does not. Therefore the logic is demonstrably faulty.<br /><br /><b>You have merely assumed, on pain of irrationality, (as if that ever concerned atheists before) that it is not even conceivable for God to exist.</b><br /><br />No I haven't. That isn't even close to anything I have said at all. I've just pointed out that the Ontological Argument is circular, and that it can be used to justify two opposite conclusions. I have demonstrated that your argument is faulty. Which is all I need to do.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62130684506088624412012-07-08T19:23:35.124-07:002012-07-08T19:23:35.124-07:00Off Topic: I found this following interview very i...Off Topic: I found this following interview very interesting. It is with a neurosurgeon from Harvard who was a 'card carrying materialist', yet he had a very profound NDE in which he had a complete change of mind about how the world is actually structured. He is very articulate and I think he gets the point across very well:<br /><br />A Conversation with Eben Alexander III, M.D. - Near Death Experiencer -<br />Eben Alexander III, M.D., Steve Paulson (Interviewer) - video<br />http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid3.htmlbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.com