New member, looking for discussion

[steve_b]

The reason that I deny fanciful claims such as the existence of the** Invisible Pink Unicorn**, or the existence of Baal, or the predictive power of** astrology**, is from the principle of the burden of proof. This is not a double standard. I believe any claim only to the extent that it is supported by evidence.

I never talked about

• fanciful claims
• unicorns
• Baal
• etc etc
  I did talk about the need for evidence and proof.

I gave you NASA’s age of the universe. They gurantee this is accurate +/- 1%, and they’re willing to stand on their date. Which means

• anything with age had a beginning, a genesis of it’s own if you will. That means before it existed, (and everything in it) none of it existed. There was nothing.
• For the universe and everything in it to exist, existance required a cause, it just didn’t appear on its own
• There’s far too much complicated design to even hypothesize a non intellegent cause, caused everything from nothing and be credable… And the brightest minds in science recognize that.
  Exerpt from an article, worth reading the entire article

"Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner and also a gifted and dedicated educator. Lederman’s book is called The God Particle and although the title sounds very appealing, the best material is in the first few pages. The remainder of the book is largely a case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting Super Collider, a proposed massive particle accelerator near Waco, Texas that was torpedoed by the U.S. congress some years ago. Therefore, reading the book today is a bit of a Rip Van-Winkle experience. But the first section is wonderful; it is in fact a good summary of what I have attempted to say in this lecture thus far. Leon Lederman states:

In the very beginning, there was a void - a curious form of vacuum - a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginning. None, zero! We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a - that is, some very short time after the creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

source from lecture outline Professor Henry F. (Fritz) Schaefer
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/bigbang.html

internal link within that article
leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/questions.html

Steven Hawking
dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/09/09/hawking-higgs-particle.html

 

[wasmit]

I’m not trying to prove the non-existence of the christian god, as this cannot be done. (just as I cannot disprove FSM).

I don’t understand your point about omnipresence. What are you trying to say?

 

[wasmit]

I did talk about the need for evidence and proof.

• anything with age had a beginning, a genesis of it’s own if you will. That means before it existed, (and everything in it) none of it existed. There was nothing.
• For the universe and everything in it to exist, existance required a cause, it just didn’t appear on its own
• There’s far too much complicated design to even hypothesize a non intellegent cause, caused everything from nothing and be credable… And the brightest minds in science recognize that.

The problem with the first two points here is that we cannot truthfully claim that this is the case. We currently know nothing about this situation. I agree with your quote below - “When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up.”

point three, Intelligent design is merely a synonym for creationism. ID and creationism has been thorougly debunked. Every example of design can be shown to occur through natural means (e.g. human eye, bacterial flagellum). Proponents of ID (creationism) are lying to promote their political agenda.

Exerpt from an article, worth reading the entire article

"Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner and also a gifted and dedicated educator. Lederman’s book is called The God Particle and although the title sounds very appealing, the best material is in the first few pages. The remainder of the book is largely a case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting Super Collider, a proposed massive particle accelerator near Waco, Texas that was torpedoed by the U.S. congress some years ago. Therefore, reading the book today is a bit of a Rip Van-Winkle experience. But the first section is wonderful; it is in fact a good summary of what I have attempted to say in this lecture thus far. Leon Lederman states:

In the very beginning, there was a void - a curious form of vacuum - a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginning. None, zero! We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a - that is, some very short time after the creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

When physicists like Stephen Hawking, Leon Lederman, and Steven Weinberg (all Nobel Prize winners) speak of “God,” they (like Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg, and Edwin Schrodinger before them) are referring to the laws that govern natural phenomena.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi wasmit,

I agree that line (5) has basically reached the conclusion. However, (5) is not a premise(assumption), the only premise is (1). Also, (5) follows logically from the lines before it. Therefore, the argument is not circular.

The argument is circular if taken as a whole, which one would assume is how you intended it to be taken (why wouldn’t you just stop at (5) otherwise?). In any case that part probably isn’t important.

If our hypothetical being enforces a change of will in a human, this is logically possible, because it is conceivable that we are all metaphorical puppets controlled by a puppeteer.

said another way, “God cannot enforce a change of our will if we are to remain free willed.” is not a logical impossibility, because our hypothetical being can just remove a particular person’s free will. Free will is not a universal unchangeable axiom.

said another way, Humans having free will is not an unquestionable certainty. It is conceivable that humans don’t have free will.

I hope I’m being clear.

Yes, that is all well and good, but what God are you actually arguing against? It seems like you are trying to argue against the traditional conception of God (i.e. omnipotent, omniscience, creation of humans with free will), as you said:

The argument, if valid (which as far as i can tell, it is), shows that the four properties of omniscience/creation of humans/humans having free will/omnipotence cannot exist concurrently.

Therefore you cannot assume that free will does not exist in the course of your argument, until you prove it in your conclusion. Let me get more specific and let’s look again at your (2):

1. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)

Now you seem to agree above that if free will does exist, he can not change anything, as it is logically impossible to change the will of a free being. Remember, as your argument is working towards a conclusion about free will, you cannot assume no free will exists at this point in the argument. So let’s continue on to your (3):

1. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event. (omnipotence)

If free will exists, this is not the case in events that are caused by free will agents. What about (4)?

1. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)

Kind of correct I suppose, except that saying at the “moment” of creation is a little problematic for a God who is transcendent with respect to time. Now what about (5)?

1. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)

This no longer follows. If you include the necessary caveats in premises 2 and 3, 5 no longer follows, let me demonstrate:

1. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time, except the will of free agents if such agents exist. (omniscience, omnipotence)
2. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event, except events caused by free willed agents, if such agents exist. (omnipotence)
3. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)
4. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)

(5) no longer follows if free willed beings exist. Rather, if free willed beings exist (5) should be:

5.a At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans, only if said humans are not free willed (omnipotence, 3)

See the problem? Of course, free willed beings are not a necessary axiom, as you said, but your argument is trying to show an inconsistency between omnipotence, omniscience and free will, and therefore you cannot assume that free will does not exist in your first few arguments, without begging the question. You have to keep the option open, and if you do that, you get 5a, not 5. Therefore, the argument does not show any inconsistency between omniscience, omnipotence and free will.

 

[rookieonedge]

I don’t understand your point about omnipresence. What are you trying to say?

You said that the four "properties of omniscience/creation of humans/humans having free will/omnipotence cannot exist CONCURRENTLY.

My point is that with God EVERYTHING exist CONCURRENTLY, so to speak, because of His attribute of omnipresence, whereby all is present to Him at the same time. As I mentioned and you must realize, there is no measurement of time in Eternity. All is the ETERNAL NOW which seems like a trite expression, but true. In other words, in any given moment on earth, He is seeing the creation of the universe and the destruction of planet earth and the whole universe and everything in between all at once. It’s a mystery for us earthlings who need to measure events moment by moment.

Among God’s attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, is INFALLIBILITY.
Since He is infallible, He cannot err.
We humans are fallible in that we err or make wrong/immoral choices.
Therefore, God cannot be making the choices human beings make for themselves (because He cannot err.)

 

[steve_b]

:
Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*I did talk about the need for evidence and proof.

• anything with age had a beginning, a genesis of it’s own if you will. That means before it existed, (and everything in it) none of it existed. There was nothing.
• For the universe and everything in it to exist, existance required a cause, it just didn’t appear on its own
• There’s far too much complicated design to even hypothesize a non intellegent cause, caused everything from nothing and be credable… And the brightest minds in science recognize that.

The problem with the first two points here is that we cannot truthfully claim that this is the case.

Where’s your proof for that?

NASA has given (links were provided)

• proof for the age of the universe +/- 1%
• since the universe and all that’s in it has age, it is NOT eternal
• There is ALWAYS a reason for an effect. Effects don’t just happen on their own.

was:

I agree with your quote below - “When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up.”

Why didn’t you finish the quote for context?

Here is what I got out of it

(emphasis mine) What you focused on is in red

“In the very beginning, there was a** void**- a curious form of vacuum - a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this** curious vacuum** held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginning. None, zero! We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a - that is, some very short time** after the creation** in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.”

reformatted in numbered points1. In the very beginning (the genesis)2. There was a void. nothingness, no space, no time, no matter no light, no sound,3. yet he says there is a “curious vacuum” and the "laws of nature already in place.Points 1 and 2 are reasonable, given nothingness… correct? But what about #3. A vaccum is an effect. It requires a cause also. Just like space, time, matter, light sound etc etc etc. require a cause. And if there is nothingness in the beginning, how do you have a “curious vacuum” OR the laws of nature alrready in place? What caused the vacuum, and what caused these laws of nature to regulate, when there is nothing to regulate? They just don’t happen on their own

We continue with the quote

1. We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a - that is, some very short time** after the creation** in the Big Bang Notice there is still a genesis? There is a creation, (i.e. it goes without saying a creator ) but notice, AFTER** the creation but **before the bang, a tiny bit of time occurs. This is how science tries to explain the unexplainable. The why for everything. The cause for everything.5. You selectively isolate this sentence When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy from it’s conclusionOnly God knows what happened in the beginningBy leaving out, Only God knows what happened in the beginning you take away the context

What science is saying here is that there was creation then a nano second takes place and THEN a bang. From the bang onward we have science, because at that point there is something to measure and study. Before that, and science recognizes there was a before, THAT is God who created all things that are,
was:

point three, Intelligent design is merely a synonym for creationism. ID and creationism has been thorougly debunked.
Every example of design can be shown to occur through natural means (e.g. human eye, bacterial flagellum). Proponents of ID (creationism) are lying to promote their*** political agenda***.

These are all effects

• inellegent design
• sunonym
• creation
• nature
• human
• eye
• bacteria
• flagwellum
• politics
• agenda
  They required a cause.

It’s the cause of everything that has you trapped in denial
was:

When physicists like Stephen Hawking, Leon Lederman, and Steven Weinberg (all Nobel Prize winners) speak of “God,” they (like Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg, and Edwin Schrodinger before them) are referring to the laws that govern natural phenomena.

c’mon friend, Laws don’t happen without a cause. and laws don’t create anything. God creates

 

[Lisdogan]

"We currently know nothing about this situation.

"

Wasmit, go for it.

I am a Catholic Christian on a quest to understand as life goes on just what ‘faith’ is about. I think about things like Absolute Truth: Is there such a thing as Absolute Truth? What do we mean by ‘Absolute Truth’ (define)? Is there ‘one Absolute Truth’? Are there clusters of ‘Absolute Truths’? Is it possible to discern, understand and know that ‘Absolute Truth’? Or is it by nature, as with God Creator, unknowable by definition? A ‘Mystery’? Or is all ‘Truth’ relative? Relative to what? Who defines any such ‘Truth’; the criteria for establishing such ‘Truth’.

I think that this implicitly underlies some of the discussion in this thread’s current phase.

I tend to believe

• that belief and value systems (religions) grew out of social values within communities which required creation myths (with godhead) to explain their origin;
• that probably, the physical and other laws of the universe are immutable;
• that ‘God’ has chosen not to intervene in them in order to answer prayer, create miracles, or eg to prevent natural disasters;
• that humankind is left to its own devices and free will to make what we can with what we have;
• that our inadequate minds, given the state of our present knowledge (and our knowledge of our lack of knowledge), are incapable of comprehending in any but the crudest terms, the nature of the infinite number of infinite and eternal universes (the multiverse so-called); etc.

They say that doubt is just the other side of the faith coin. That is probably true, I think. So there I am - on both sides of the coin.

Although I understand your analysis of secular morality, it is short of accuracy: for example, that secular societies can claim vigorous morality. We see too often that this is not so in the current process of national and global secularisation. Further, I am concerned about how secular morality would be sustained and infused.

China has survived for millennia without a normative system of religious morality: and look at where they have got. Our global economy is shambolic: how did it get that way? I have battled HIV around the globe and dealt with *official *denial, corruption, incompetence and incapacity, amorality /immorality.

I have travelled to 54 countries for humanitarian purposes, and live in Africa. What I observe is that national governments claim to be, or are in fact, morally neutral. Certainly the global community is not underwritten by great moral commitments save those of the United Nations, including the 2005* Responsibility to Protect* legislation meant to halt murderous rampages in the Congo, Sudan and Somalia and Zimbabwe, and to partner failed nation states. Problem is that such legislation or human rights conventions are virtually impossible to implement.

I cannot but cling to the idea, whether or not I am a person of ‘faith’, that there is no (or very little) foundation for secular morality, and question whether there would ever be one. As far as I can determine for myself - in terms of history, sociology and anthropology - there has never (perhaps I should say very seldom) been a secular basis for established morality. Secular spirituality (de-institutionalising religion) is on the rise, and may be an interim phase on the way toward secular morality.

Meanwhile, at least as far as HIV is concerned for example, it is the churches in small communities, and in nation states that stand and speak and act on behalf of the wretched of the earth. They comfort, heal and act - where they can.

You referred to the Great Scientists. As an antidote to science, I am reading Hans Kung, and find him deeply, profoundly convincing. I am scrabbling among all the Greats, viz the following quotations (including two from Einstein which are interesting):

Love [God/…or…in the way that Jesus loves us], and do what you will. St Augustine

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. Albert Einstein

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. Albert Einstein

We cannot know God’s essence, for He is unknowable; we can comprehend Him only by his energies. St Basel The Great

The Spider Universe
Curious I took a pencil from my pocket and touched a strand of the [spider] web. Immediately there was a response. The web, plucked by its menacing occupant, began to vibrate until it was a blur. Anything that had brushed claw or wing against that amazing snare would be thoroughly entrapped. As the vibrations slowed, I could see the owner fingering her guidelines for signs of struggle. A pencil point was an intrusion into this universe for which no precedent existed. Spider was circumscribed by spider ideas; its universe was spider universe. All outside was irrational, extraneous, at best raw material for spider. As I proceeded on my way along the gully, like a vast impossible shadow, I realized that in the world of the spider I did not exist. (*Spider Universe * Wm H Calvin, How Brains Think, 1996, p 21; from Loren Eiseley, The Star Thrower, 1978).

I like the way you write; I like the way you think. Thank you. I need to think and be practical as well.

In Christ,

 

[wasmit]

Hi wasmit,

The argument is circular if taken as a whole, which one would assume is how you intended it to be taken (why wouldn’t you just stop at (5) otherwise?). In any case that part probably isn’t important.

Yes, that is all well and good, but what God are you actually arguing against? It seems like you are trying to argue against the traditional conception of God (i.e. omnipotent, omniscience, creation of humans with free will), as you said:

Therefore you cannot assume that free will does not exist in the course of your argument, until you prove it in your conclusion. Let me get more specific and let’s look again at your (2):

Now you seem to agree above that if free will does exist, he can not change anything, as it is logically impossible to change the will of a free being. Remember, as your argument is working towards a conclusion about free will, you cannot assume no free will exists at this point in the argument. So let’s continue on to your (3):

If free will exists, this is not the case in events that are caused by free will agents. What about (4)?

Kind of correct I suppose, except that saying at the “moment” of creation is a little problematic for a God who is transcendent with respect to time. Now what about (5)?

This no longer follows. If you include the necessary caveats in premises 2 and 3, 5 no longer follows, let me demonstrate:

1. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time, except the will of free agents if such agents exist. (omniscience, omnipotence)
2. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event, except events caused by free willed agents, if such agents exist. (omnipotence)
3. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)
4. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)

(5) no longer follows if free willed beings exist. Rather, if free willed beings exist (5) should be:

5.a At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans, only if said humans are not free willed (omnipotence, 3)

See the problem? Of course, free willed beings are not a necessary axiom, as you said, but your argument is trying to show an inconsistency between omnipotence, omniscience and free will, and therefore you cannot assume that free will does not exist in your first few arguments, without begging the question. You have to keep the option open, and if you do that, you get 5a, not 5. Therefore, the argument does not show any inconsistency between omniscience, omnipotence and free will.

I think I see where our disagreement is now. You are saying that an omnipotent being cannot do something that is logically impossible, and changing the outcome of a decision made by a person with free-will is logically impossible.

This changes the argument to:

1. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time, but cannot do logically impossible things, specifically, he cannot change the will of free-willed agents if such agents exist. (omniscience, omnipotence)
2. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event, except events caused by free willed agents, if such agents exist, and other illogical actions. (omnipotence)
3. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)

5.a At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans, only if said humans are not free willed (omnipotence, 3)

etc…

while the argument, below, implies that our omnipotent friend Brahma can do anything that is logically possible, which includes changing the outcome of a free-willed decision.

1. Assume an omnipotent omniscient Deity named Brahma that created all humans.
2. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)
3. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event. (omnipotence)
4. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)
5. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)

So, our disagreement boils down to: Can our omnipotent being change the outcome of of a free-willed decision? Is changing the outcome of a free-willed decision illogical?
If the answers are No and Yes, then the argument fails. Otherwise it holds.

I don’t know the aswers to these two questions, I will look into it.

 

[wasmit]

Where’s your proof for that?

The burden of proof is on the person who claims to know how the big bang came about.

The most reasonable position to take is to say “i don’t know”. Because no-one actually knows for sure.

point three, Intelligent design is merely a synonym for creationism. ID and creationism has been thorougly debunked.
Every example of design can be shown to occur through natural means (e.g. human eye, bacterial flagellum). Proponents of ID (creationism) are lying to promote their political agenda.

These are all effects
inellegent design
sunonym
creation
nature
human
eye
bacteria
flagwellum
politics
agenda
They required a cause.

It’s the cause of everything that has you trapped in denial

I notice that you avoided my point and started talking about something which I have refuted several pages ago. You can still respond to my points if you choose to.

Thankyou for the personal attack

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi wasmit,

So, our disagreement boils down to: Can our omnipotent being change the outcome of of a free-willed decision? Is changing the outcome of a free-willed decision illogical?
If the answers are No and Yes, then the argument fails. Otherwise it holds.

I don’t know the aswers to these two questions, I will look into it.

Yes, that is the crux of the problem. The answers are No and Yes for the traditional conception of the Christian God, so the argument fails. If you want to use the argument to try and argue against some other god, go ahead, but it won’t have much impact on the Christian God.

 

[steve_b]

The burden of proof is on the person who claims to know how the big bang came about.

I believe you are the one who mentioned the big bang first
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4640057&postcount=33
was:

The most reasonable position to take is to say “i don’t know”. Because no-one actually knows for sure.

science knows the big bang happened and when it happened 13.7 B years ago +/- 1% but according to you they don’t know how or why it happend? I quoted the brightest scientists who say the why and how, is God. And I gave names and sources.
was:

I notice that you avoided my point and started talking about something which I have refuted several pages ago. You can still respond to my points if you choose to.

I didn’t avoid anything. You think you refuted something. When asked for sources where are they? I find you quoting wiki Such as
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4673599&postcount=165
and you link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
to prove your point???. Problem is, the article you use as proof has a disclaimer and a caveot on it which says

:
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2008)

not to mention the following caveot

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(disambiguation

That’s not proof. Multiverse as an alternative to anything is pure hypothesis. So why even use this article in particular or wiki in general?

I’ve brought this up to you in the past. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4791147&postcount=291

 

[Ryan29]

I believe you are the one who mentioned the big bang first
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4640057&postcount=33

science knows the big bang happened and when it happened 13.7 B years ago +/- 1% but according to you they don’t know how or why it happend? I quoted the brightest scientists who say the why and how, is God. And I gave names and sources.

I didn’t avoid anything. You think you refuted something. When asked for sources where are they? I find you quoting wiki Such as
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4673599&postcount=165
and you link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
to prove your point???. Problem is, the article you use as proof has a disclaimer and a caveot on it which says

That’s not proof. Multiverse as an alternative to anything is pure hypothesis. So why even use this article in particular or wiki in general?

I’ve brought this up to you in the past. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4791147&postcount=291

Steve B? Where’s Mazzone?

 

[wasmit]

how is the bible true and the koran not?

 

[steve_b]

how is the bible true and the koran not?

Did Muhammad claim to be God or the son of God?
Did anyone witness Muhammad rise from the dead and ascend to heaven?
Did anyone witness Muhammad perform miracles or bring any dead back to life?

In the Old Testament, the covenant of God is said to be with the line of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, through Abraham’s wife Sarah. This is the line of Mary and Jesus. NOT Abraham, Ishmael through Hagar,

 

[mlchance]

how is the bible true and the koran not?

The question is too vague. The Koran is true in those parts that are true. Those parts that are false aren’t true.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rookieonedge]

how is the bible true and the koran not?

Below is a link to a site that compares the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed. It may be of some interest to you.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/080305a.html

 

[erbo]

Hi everyone,

I’m just jumping into this thread now. I’ve read about 15 pages of posts, and I really want to contribute, but I haven’t read everything in this thread, so please forgive me if I bring up something that was already discussed.

I didn’t notice the topic of morality brought up anywhere. wasmit, are you familiar with the moral arguments that are used as the basis of an explanation for God? This is an argument that is based on an observation about human nature.

Specifically, I would like to discuss with you the existence of a universal moral law, or a “Law of Right and Wrong”, as C.S. Lewis names it. Do you think that such a law exists?

-erbo

 

[wasmit]

in relation to morality, I remember reading about a survey on morals, where the researchers made a special effort to reach people of every background, every religion, every level of technological advancement, especially very remote communities/tribes.

Almost everyone (like 98%) chose the “right” answer to the questions on morality. This suggests that almost every human has an innate sense of right and wrong, regardless of location/background/wealth.

–

I’m not familiar with the moral arguments for the christian god.

–

the article i recall reading suggests that moral rules are common across all humans.

 

[wasmit]

how is the bible true and the koran not?

The bible says that jesus did many extraordinary things. Similarly, the koran says muhammad did many extraordinary things.

I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here.

In the Old Testament, the covenant of God is said to be with the line of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, through Abraham’s wife Sarah. This is the line of Mary and Jesus. NOT Abraham, Ishmael through Hagar,

is this the “the bible says it is true” argument?

 

[wasmit]

how is the bible true and the koran not?

more specifically, I understand that christians claim that the bible is the inerrant word of god, and the absolute truth, and that all other holy books are wrong.

Muslims make a similar claim.
Jews make a similar claim.
Hindus make a similar claim.
etc…

how is the christian claim true, while the other religion’s claims are false? As far as i know, the arguments are the same for all religions, they cannot be said to apply to one religion only.