Debate

[frogus]

I am no longer persuaded by the 'God is good and therefore wishes to abolish evil, god is all powerful and therefore can abolish evil, but evil exists, so god is a contradiction' argument.
Although I have, in the past thougth that saying 'there is no good without evil' was a childish avoidance, but I seem now to be genuinely believing it.
A world without evil would mean that whenever a murderer stabbed someone he would instantly become healthy again and his wounds would seal up. Whenever someone cut their own head off on purpose it would grow back....banks would be continually robbed and remain full of money. None of this would be impossible to the god which we are discussing.

In that situation, how would anyone do anything good?

help the aged? The aged would not need any help.
give to the poor? There would be no poor (or poverty would not be a bad thing).
work hard every day? There would be nothing worth working for.

nobody could ever do any good. So evil really is necessary for good to take place. It was neccesary for god to create evil if he means to be perfectly good.

I don't care if good can't take place as long as everyone is happy.
I don't care if nobody knows that they're happy, as long as they are. It beats being unhappy, even if unhappiness doesn't exist.

I can only draw from this the contradictory conclusion that god's creation of evil, and hence his creation of perfect good was not a perfectly good act.

oooh....how confusing. I will think long and hard about this and see if I can tell you anything tommorow. I think perhaps that the word 'good' has split into two seperate meanings during my argument. I can't think right now, but by all means consider what I said.

[Tom]

Originally posted by frogus
I am no longer persuaded by the 'God is good and therefore wishes to abolish evil, god is all powerful and therefore can abolish evil, but evil exists, so god is a contradiction' argument.
Although I have, in the past thougth that saying 'there is no good without evil' was a childish avoidance, but I seem now to be genuinely believing it.
A world without evil would mean that whenever a murderer stabbed someone he would instantly become healthy again and his wounds would seal up. Whenever someone cut their own head off on purpose it would grow back....banks would be continually robbed and remain full of money. None of this would be impossible to the god which we are discussing.

I am not sure i understand what you are saying. It seems to me you are being confused by the notion of perfect goodness - is that right?
My arguement doesn't mention anything about making a perfectly good world.
My argument is still a valid argument and it still works. Try and have another look at it and tell me what is wrong with it

[frogus]

My arguement doesn't mention anything about making a perfectly good world.

come come.....if you don't want a perfectly good world, how good do you want it to be? Where is the line? Why isn't this one good enough?

ps sorry to be attempting to kill your argument while mine is lying wounded....

[frogus]

I can only draw from this the contradictory conclusion that god's creation of evil, and hence his creation of perfect good was not a perfectly good act.

no maybe I shouldn't be so confused. This conclusion agrees with what I said earlier:

if God created the difference between right and wrong then it must be true that to He Himself there is no difference between right and wrong-so he is not perfectly good. I believe that for this reason one should not worship him. On the other hand, if you believe that God is perfectly good, then you must believe that right and wrong have some meaning independant of God. If this is the case then there is either a force more powrful than he or he has to obey rules which were not of His creation, making Him less than omnipotent. For these reasons I believe that one should not worship him.

God's creation of perfect good (and evil) proves that before he did so, to him there was no difference between perfect good and evil.
What I said earlier:

People make laws that say you can only drive at 75mph, but that law doesn't actually limit us. I could steal my dad's car right now and do 80mph just for the fun of it. The very fact that we make the law of cars only being allowed to drive at 75mph means that we are capable of doing otherwise.

shows that one cannot be limited by ones own laws.

So my argument (revised and put in a handy and convenient flowchart format ) goes like this:

God created evil because without it there would be no good and by definition god is perfectly good.
^
^
^
Before God created good and evil, there cannot have been seperate notions of good and evil.
^
^
^
Because god created us and created the laws of good and evil 'to go with us', we are limited by the laws of good and evil. However, one cannot be limited by one's own laws, so still, to god, there is no good and evil.
^
^
^
God is not perfectly good

[AbysmalNature]

It is supposed to mean that human beings create their own souls and it is first dependent on some biological factors, but after that the soul is created solely by the choices made by other people and themselves.

Stealing is wrong correct, well what if you steal to feed your family, is that right. Murder is wrong, right, well why do people condone the death penalty, or war(is this not just civilized murder), rape is wrong right, but only if it is happening to the other guy's woman.

God did not created the differences between good and evil, Man did, we determine what is good and evil, and what is good is usually good for one group while bad for another, is that good?

[Tom]

Originally posted by frogus

come come.....if you don't want a perfectly good world, how good do you want it to be? Where is the line? Why isn't this one good enough?

ps sorry to be attempting to kill your argument while mine is lying wounded....

Dont worry you are not killing it since my arguement in no way relies on any notion of perfection.

The reason I mentioned the notion of perfection is that it causes a lot of problems in it self.

[Tom]

Originally posted by EMINEM


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The astrophysical evidence indicates that the universe began to exist in a great explosion called the "Big Bang" 15 billion years ago. Physical space and time were created in that event, as well as all the matter and energy in the universe. Therefore, the Big Bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing. Thus, what the Big Bang model requires is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing. From the very nature of the case, as the cause of space and time, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power which created the universe. In a word, God, as described in the Bible.

First of all this argument is concerned with the existence of a 'creating god' and nothing more. It says nothing about god as described in the bible. So even if your argument is good it establishes nothing about the many things claimed by the bible, such as goodness etc.

Second it is simply not a good argument.

Your argument is a valid argument - which it is to say that if the premises are true then so is the conclusion. But it is clear that both premises are highly questionable.

1. Cannot just be assumed. It is certainly not a logical principle. Further more quantum physics tells us that things can occur without a cause.

2. There is no principle that states that the universe had to start at some point in time. Furthermore there are various theories about the big bang and what caused it. One such is M-theory. As far as I understand it the multiverse is understood to be eternal. It should also be noted that there is nothing philosophically wrong with an infinite chain of causes, as Thomas Aquinas himself admitted. One could also imagine a circular causal chain.

But even if both the premises are true - and so ‘Therefore, the universe has a cause.’ It does not follow that the cause have anything to do with a god.

Your argument trades on the mystery that is the origins of our universe. But it does nothing to explain the mystery instead it deepens it because now we have to explain "an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power which created the universe", this is no improvement.

[EMINEM]

Tom writes:
Look again at my argument. It is a valid argument and it clearly shows that all three propositions can’t be true at the same time. Namely; God is good, God is powerful enough to help the suffering, A good agent would help the suffering. It is clear from what you are saying that you reject the proposition ‘A good agent would help the suffering’.

EMINEM:
Okay, let’s go through your argument point by point:

1. God is good.

Yes, I agree. God IS good. God is perfectly good. The Bible even states that “No one is good except God alone.”

2. God is powerful enough to help the suffering.

Agreed. God is certainly powerful enough to help the suffering. His incarnation has proven that. When God walked the earth as Jesus Christ, he healed the sick, cured the leprous, gave sight to the blind, raised the dead, etc. His primary reason for doing so, however, was to inspire belief; to convince the Jews that he was no ordinary prophet, but rather the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. But overall, it is clear Christ was more concerned with the spiritual condition of people rather than their physical well-being.

3. A good agent (God) would help the suffering.

Not necessarily. First of all, you have no way to determine whether God’s intervention in the suffering of an individual would do more harm than good. Suppose Hitler had leukemia as a child and God stepped in and cured him? Wouldn’t it have been better in the long run if he let nature take its course and let Hitler die, thus sparing humanity from a second world war? Suppose Stalin was diagnosed with a brain cancer as a youth, then woke up one morning with the tumors gone? How many millions would have been saved had God not intervened to save Stalin’s life? My point is is this - because of our limitations in space and history, we may not see God’s purposes for allowing evil and suffering to emerge in our lifetime. Therefore we’re not in a good position to assess the probabilities of why he permitted a certain evil or suffering from being committed. There just is no basis on the atheistic view for thinking that it’s impossible that God could have morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.

4. Since suffering exists in the world, it follows that God is not good.

Your 4th argument is based on the assumption that suffering is bad, wrong, unjustifiable. I’ve argued that you have no way of knowing that. One case of suffering and evil might prevent an even greater case of evil and suffering from transpiring. Paradoxically, an act of evil and suffering might even bring about an unforseen good. Witness September 11. Who would have thought that the loss of some 3000 American lives would lead to the destruction of the world’s most oppressive regimes? Speaking as a Christian, without the crucifixion and death of Christ, there’d be no church, no Christianity, and I wouldn’t be who I am today.

[EMINEM]

Tom writes:
First of all this argument is concerned with the existence of a 'creating god' and nothing more. It says nothing about god as described in the bible. So even if your argument is good it establishes nothing about the many things claimed by the bible, such as goodness etc.

EMINEM:
You really, really should read the Bible. It unambiguously paints a picture of a God as the creator, designer, and sustainer of the whole universe.

Tom:
Second it is simply not a good argument. Your argument is a valid argument - which it is to say that if the premises are true then so is the conclusion. But it is clear that both premises are highly questionable.

1. Cannot just be assumed. It is certainly not a logical principle. Further more quantum physics tells us that things can occur without a cause.

2. There is no principle that states that the universe had to start at some point in time. Furthermore there are various theories about the big bang and what caused it. One such is M-theory. As far as I understand it the multiverse is understood to be eternal. It should also be noted that there is nothing philosophically wrong with an infinite chain of causes, as Thomas Aquinas himself admitted. One could also imagine a circular causal chain.

But even if both the premises are true - and so ‘Therefore, the universe has a cause.’ It does not follow that the cause have anything to do with a god.

EMINEM:
Really, Tom, what are you going to deny? In my first argument I argued: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” Are you seriously going to deny this?! My second point was, “The universe began to exist.” According to Steven Hawking in his book “The Nature of Space and Time," “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Are you going to deny the paradigm unanimously held by cosmologists today? If you will not deny either of those two premises, then you cannot deny the conclusion that a transcendent cause of the universe exists.

Tom:
Your argument trades on the mystery that is the origins of our universe. But it does nothing to explain the mystery instead it deepens it because now we have to explain "an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power which created the universe", this is no improvement.

EMINEM:
I don't have to explain anything. To the theist, the answer of who or what this uncaused, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power is is perfectly obvious. I'll leave it to the atheist to come up with a better explanation of what caused the origin of the universe, taking into account the astrophysical evidence that actually supports the Big Bang theory.

[Der-draigen]

Originally posted by frogus
IF GOD EXISTS, WHY SHOULD WE WORSHIP HIM?

Because He will smite you if you don't.

Actually, come to think of it...He smites you if you do, too.

Hmmm...

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by EMINEM
My second point was, “The universe began to exist.” According to Steven Hawking in his book “The Nature of Space and Time," “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Are you going to deny the paradigm unanimously held by cosmologists today? If you will not deny either of those two premises, then you cannot deny the conclusion that a transcendent cause of the universe exists.

Excuse me for stepping in here, but the same Stephen Hawking has also stated clearly that a god is not necessary to explain the Big Bang event. Some cosmologists believe in a god, some are agnostics and some are atheists. There is nothing in the Big Bang cosmology that requires a god, this is a misunderstanding. And there is no contradiction between Tom's argument and the physicists - Big bang (or Bing Bang as it was called in my Astrophysics textbook by a misprint ) could have happened by totally naturalistic causes as well as by other means, it's not inconsistence with either atheism or theism.

[C Elegans]

@Frogus: I don't understand your reasoning here, do you mean that nuaces of human life would disappear if evil did not exist? Do you mean that we would loose ability to distinguish between different states if evil didn't exist?

Originally posted by frogus
A world without evil would mean that whenever a murderer stabbed someone he would instantly become healthy again and his wounds would seal up. Whenever someone cut their own head off on purpose it would grow back....banks would be continually robbed and remain full of money. None of this would be impossible to the god which we are discussing.

No, a world without evil doesn't mean that a murdered person would become alive - it means nobody would get murdered, nobody would want to rob a bank. That our life cycle includes birth and death is not evil in itself, or do you think so? IMO, a world without evil wouldn't necessarily mean eternal life, just that the man in your example dies of old age instead of being murdered by somebody.

In that situation, how would anyone do anything good?
help the aged? The aged would not need any help.
give to the poor? There would be no poor (or poverty would not be a bad thing).
work hard every day? There would be nothing worth working for.

Again, aging is not evil IMO, it's part of the life cycle. Elderly people still get more fragile and might need medical care, help with practical things etc.
If there was no poverty, there would be no need to give to the poor, but hey, none of my friends are poor and I still give then gifts not because they need it, just because it's nice to surprise them with something they haven't thought of buying for themselves. A world without poverty in the meaning of no starvation, no homless doesn't necessarily mean that everybody has exactly the same amount of money or other material things.

nobody could ever do any good. So evil really is necessary for good to take place. It was neccesary for god to create evil if he means to be perfectly good.

But do we need a clear distinction of "good" and "evil"? What about goodness and neutrality? A concept does't need to have an opposite to exist - the different colour we percept are not each others opposites, its just light with slightly different waveleights that hit our retinal receptors. Life and death are not opposites, death is just lack of life.

I don't care if good can't take place as long as everyone is happy.
I don't care if nobody knows that they're happy, as long as they are. It beats being unhappy, even if unhappiness doesn't exist.

But all unhappiness is not caused by evil, is it? People aren't only unhappy because they are raped, because someone murdered their kids or because they have severe illnesses. People frequently get unhappy for smaller things such as death of close ones from natural causes like aging, being left by a partner they love, not getting the job they wanted, or what have you. Unhappiness, just like other human emotions, will not cease to exists because murderer, rape or torture don't exist.

[Curdis]

Please free Quantum Physics and Cosmology from Theological debate

I have not taken my usual ten big breaths before posting but:

@Tom: Where in Quantum Physics does it universally posit that there is no cause-effect link? In particular the coming into being of matter at random (and indivdually indeterminable) places and times (which I believe is what you are relying on) is 'caused' by being a property of matter as modelled by a wave equation. I previously offered to debate the facts of quantum physics with you as it is a pet hate especially when Philosophers and Theologist start relying on dubious (and seeming random) aspects of a theoretical model which is a valid whole (until disproven).

@Tom and MnM: The big bang is a theory. Not only that it is a 'flavour of the month' theory and armchair cosmologists the world over have bibbed in with all sorts of unrelated connections to it to 'prove' their pet projects. C Elegans is correct in stating it is completely neutral to any question of God the creator and theology. If you are relying on it as you ultimate God exists/God doesn't exist arguement I have bad news:
1/ MnM wrote '<snip>unanimously held by cosmologists today<snip>' Well Fred Hoyle is dead which reduces the high profile opposition significantly but I sincerely doubt that if you (or Tom) put your arguements to any Cosmologist that they would support your conclusions, and the Big Bang model changes about as often as you change your socks. As far as 'hard science' goes Big Bang Cosmology is abstract art at best.
2/ Against MnM - if the theoretical big bang has resulted in a universe which is dominated by gravity (not the currently held concensus but see 1) then it will end in a big crunch which can easily be seen as the cause for a fresh big bang. ad infinitum - no god.
3/ Against Tom - if space time did not exist before the theoretical big bang (currently held concensus) then nothing which is of the whole cause-effect relation need have a bearing - enter the hand of god (she does have nice nails).

To the heart of your arguement MnM. Which bible is gods word? and why? Because there are plenty out there. Do we have to go to the earliest known Greek transcription to get the word of god? or is the St. James one as good? Why this god? There are other religious books and religions. Some of THEM say that they represent the only truth. - Curdis !

[C Elegans]

Now I'm just waiting for the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

@Curdis: I was hoping that you would turn up here - when the Big Bang theory get involved in theology, a physicist is required

Originally posted by EMINEM
This hinges on the question: Do you know how they are presented in the world religions? Obviously my perception of God is very much different from your own. My understanding of God leads me to seek a relationship with him, revere him, respect him, trust that he loves me and wants only what's best for my life. What does your understanding of God lead you to do?

As well as can be expected, I think, if you don't define understanding as equal to and necessarily leadning to, belief in the bible/koran. I know less about hinduism and buddism.
I was in a christian primary school. I have read the bible and the koran, the bible twice, in Swedish and English (King James's). My understanding of the god described in these books, does not make me interested in following him even if I believed he/it existed. One could believe something exists, without wanting to following it. I for instance believe other life forms exist at other planets. I have no idea what it might look like, but it might well be far superior to us in any respect. Does this belief make me want to worship extraterrestrial life forms? No, not at all, I see no reason to worship anything specific at all.

Again you make it clear that your understanding of God is nowhere near the one described in the New Testament. He is not some sort of Zeus-like figure who wants to rule those less powerful than himself. He compels by love and liberty, not by fear and force.

The NT description of god seems to focus a lot more or love and forgiving than the IMO rather authorative god in the OT. But I thought the whole bible was supposed to be true to christians. However, I still don't like the exclusive principles - if god is so good, why are only those who believe in him allowed eternal life and access to his kingdom? That's conditioned love, whereas I think unconditional love would be much more good. Also, I don't think it's very nice of god to permit all the suffering that goes on around us - if you have the power to stop starvation, war and disease, I don't think it's especially good to choose not to do it. Whereas I understand your "what if it preventing this evil leads to even greater evil" argument, I have two major concerns:
1. Why does a perfectly good being even create the concept of evil? As stated in my post to Froggie above, I don't think rape and starvation is necessary either for freedom or for the contrast to goodness.
2. It seems to me highly unlikely that the 1 out of 5 people who are starving, would develop into new Hitlers if they were allowed to be healthy.

Absolutely. It's a sign of gratitude and thankfulness. God didn't just create us, he created us wonderfully! We are not like sheep, with the inability to reason and think, but intelligent, self-aware, conscious beings created in his very image. But of course, worship presupposes faith and humilty.

No, I don't think the fact that somebody created something, necessarily means that the created creature ought to worship and be thankful to the creator. Also, I don't think the human race very wonderful compared to all other species here. However, I do think many parts of our planet is truly wonderful and beautiful, but let's suppose a god created the Kamchatka penisula and not the geological and geothermic forces - why should I worship him because of this? Many artists produce great pieces of art, but I don't worship Kandinsky or Miro.

Great to hear from you again, Jackie.

Thanks MM I try to post here as often as I can between my intense work-periods

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by C Elegans


Excuse me for stepping in here, but the same Stephen Hawking has also stated clearly that a god is not necessary to explain the Big Bang event. Some cosmologists believe in a god, some are agnostics and some are atheists. There is nothing in the Big Bang cosmology that requires a god, this is a misunderstanding. And there is no contradiction between Tom's argument and the physicists - Big bang (or Bing Bang as it was called in my Astrophysics textbook by a misprint ) could have happened by totally naturalistic causes as well as by other means, it's not inconsistence with either atheism or theism.

The universe (space, time, matter, energy, gravity, electromagnetism, planetary motion, etc.) created by naturalistic causes? What are these natural causes? If you can just explain to me how time was created by natural means, I shall worship you!

Basically, if you don’t believe in a trancendant cause of the universe which exists outside of time and space, you’re left with two propositions, both very awkward for the atheist to uphold. 1. The universe came out of nothing. This is simply untenable. Something cannot come out of nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If there is absolutely nothing - no space, no time, no energy, no matter - then something cannot just come out of nothing. 2. The universe has always existed. This also doesn’t make sense, because if the universe never had a beginning, that means the number of events in the history of the universe going into the past is infinite. According to Hilbert (arguably the 20th century’s greatest mathematician) “Infinity is nowhere to be found in reality; it neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” Since past events are not just ideas in your mind, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events just can't go back forever. Rather the universe must have BEGUN to exist. The astronomical evidence indicates that the universe began to exist in a great explosion 15 billion years ago wherein physical space, time, matter and energy in the universe were created. This, incidentally, confirms what Christian theists have always believed; "In the beginning, God created the universe."

In summary, there must have been a cause which brought the universe into being. From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being. 1. It must be uncaused because there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. 2. It must be timeless, and therefore changeless, at least without the universe, because it created time. 3. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and, therefore, must be immaterial, not physical.

In other words, it has some of the central attributes of God, as he is described in the Bible.

[EMINEM]

Re: Please free Quantum Physics and Cosmology from Theological debate

Originally posted by Curdis


To the heart of your arguement MnM. Which bible is gods word? and why? Because there are plenty out there. Do we have to go to the earliest known Greek transcription to get the word of god? or is the St. James one as good? Why this god? There are other religious books and religions. Some of THEM say that they represent the only truth. - Curdis !

The Bible is God's word, the Old and New Testaments. Not the Koran, not the Upanishads, not the Bhagavad-Gita, not the writings of Confucious. Just the Bible. But you know what? It's past 1:00 AM right now, and as much as I'd love to shift this debate away from the Cosmological argument and nearer towards the immediate experience of God as further proof of his existence, I gotta get some sleep!

So, good night from the nation's capital!
.
.
.
.
.

Good night to you too, Jackie!

[frogus]

Reply to C Elegans....

No, a world without evil doesn't mean that a murdered person would become alive - it means nobody would get murdered, nobody would want to rob a bank.

Now you are taking away free will from humans, which we have already agreed not to do. We have (I think) decided that a world of automatons controlled by god is no good from either our, or god's, or a transcendant philosopher's point of view. If we really can have free will then we must be able to stab and rob whenever we want.

Again, aging is not evil IMO, it's part of the life cycle. Elderly people still get more fragile and might need medical care, help with practical things etc.

sorry if I'm not making myself clear...I say that anything which brings unhappiness is evil (see 'Is it fair?' for my views n these things). I don't think anybody thinks that frailty of limbs and arthritis etc bring happiness.

But all unhappiness is not caused by evil, is it? People aren't only unhappy because they are raped, because someone murdered their kids or because they have severe illnesses. People frequently get unhappy for smaller things such as death of close ones from natural causes like aging, being left by a partner they love, not getting the job they wanted, or what have you. Unhappiness, just like other human emotions, will not cease to exists because murderer, rape or torture don't exist.

In this world without evil, people can be raped and tortured all they like. It will not hurt, they will not get pregnant, and there families will not be sad when they die. Who knows if they will die or not? This world is riddled with impossibilities.

A world without poverty in the meaning of no starvation, no homless doesn't necessarily mean that everybody has exactly the same amount of money or other material things.

peoples material possessions will have no importance. They will constantly spring in and out of existence as they are turned to negative use and start causing unhappiness. The moment a millionnaire starts regretting his millions, they will dissappear, but anything as unlikely may bring them back in ten minutes.
Children's power ranger toys will cease to ever have existed as soon as the child's mind starts to turn to violence...etc.

[Tom]

Originally posted by EMINEM

3. A good agent (God) would help the suffering.

Not necessarily. First of all, you have no way to determine whether God’s intervention in the suffering of an individual would do more harm than good. Suppose Hitler had leukemia as a child and God stepped in and cured him? Wouldn’t it have been better in the long run if he let nature take its course and let Hitler die, thus sparing humanity from a second world war? Suppose Stalin was diagnosed with a brain cancer as a youth, then woke up one morning with the tumors gone? How many millions would have been saved had God not intervened to save Stalin’s life? My point is is this - because of our limitations in space and history, we may not see God’s purposes for allowing evil and suffering to emerge in our lifetime. Therefore we’re not in a good position to assess the probabilities of why he permitted a certain evil or suffering from being committed. There just is no basis on the atheistic view for thinking that it’s impossible that God could have morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.

4. Since suffering exists in the world, it follows that God is not good.

Your 4th argument is based on the assumption that suffering is bad, wrong, unjustifiable. I’ve argued that you have no way of knowing that. One case of suffering and evil might prevent an even greater case of evil and suffering from transpiring. Paradoxically, an act of evil and suffering might even bring about an unforseen good. Witness September 11. Who would have thought that the loss of some 3000 American lives would lead to the destruction of the world’s most oppressive regimes? Speaking as a Christian, without the crucifixion and death of Christ, there’d be no church, no Christianity, and I wouldn’t be who I am today.

I wondered if you would come to this. Here the claim is made that our world is the best possible world.
This is actually the only way you can effectively counter my argument. Because my argument will not work if this world is the best possible state of affairs. But do you really belive this?

As CE says "It seems to me highly unlikely that the 1 out of 5 people who are starving, would develop into new Hitlers if they were allowed to be healthy."

To me it is obvious that our world can be improved in a number of ways (without taking away freedom) but if you don't think so then this argument will go no further.

[Tom]

Originally posted by EMINEM

You really, really should read the Bible. It unambiguously paints a picture of a God as the creator, designer, and sustainer of the whole universe.

And you really, really should read what I say again. I don't think that the cosmological argument indicates that there is a creating god - I think it leaves it wide open and so I'm agnostic on that point.
But clearly the cosmological argument only concerns the instant of creation. The garden of Eden, the holy spirit, Jesus, God being good and just - all these things goes completely unmentioned by the cosmological argument. That was my point and I don't see how it can be denied.

Originally posted by EMINEM

Basically, if you don’t believe in a trancendant cause of the universe which exists outside of time and space, you’re left with two propositions, both very awkward for the atheist to uphold. 1. The universe came out of nothing. This is simply untenable. Something cannot come out of nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If there is absolutely nothing - no space, no time, no energy, no matter - then something cannot just come out of nothing. 2. The universe has always existed. This also doesn’t make sense, because if the universe never had a beginning, that means the number of events in the history of the universe going into the past is infinite.

I certainly see no problem with a causal chain going back to infinity. While I think that 1. is probably true there is no logical reason why the universe could not pop into existence out of nothingness.

Originally posted by EMINEM

According to Hilbert (arguably the 20th century’s greatest mathematician) "Infinity is nowhere to be found in reality; it neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." Since past events are not just ideas in your mind, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events just can't go back forever. Rather the universe must have BEGUN to exist.

Hilbert was a great mathematician but not the greatest. But even if he was, he should have stuck to math since what you claim he is saying is clearly wrong. Lets first look at what your argument.

"past events are not just ideas in your mind, but are real,"
(I can agree with this claim)
"the number of past events must be finite."
(But why do you conclude this? What is the connection? What is the argument?)
"Therefore, the series of past events just can't go back forever."
"Rather the universe must have BEGUN to exist"

There is no argument here for what you claim - all there is is just your claim.

But anyway here is a simple example of infinity in nature. Take a length like a centimetre. Half it. And half it and continue. This can be done an infinite number of times and you will end up with an infinitly small length. Simple and there is no problem with this - note I'm not talking about actually chopping up matter.

Originally posted by EMINEM

The astronomical evidence indicates that the universe began to exist in a great explosion 15 billion years ago wherein physical space, time, matter and energy in the universe were created. This, incidentally, confirms what Christian theists have always believed; "In the beginning, God created the universe."

That the universe started 15 billion years ago doesn't confirm that god created the universe. It really is that simple.

[fable]

Eminem writes:
Basically, if you don’t believe in a trancendant cause of the universe which exists outside of time and space, you’re left with two propositions, both very awkward for the atheist to uphold. 1. The universe came out of nothing. This is simply untenable. Something cannot come out of nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If there is absolutely nothing - no space, no time, no energy, no matter - then something cannot just come out of nothing.

2. The universe has always existed. This also doesn’t make sense, because if the universe never had a beginning, that means the number of events in the history of the universe going into the past is infinite...

This seems in no way more startling than the idea of a universal deity without precedents, an all-encompassing, self-directing entity, who either appeared as an effect without cause at the beginning of the universe, or always existed.

Mind, I'm not arguing for either of these propositions instead of a deiform one. I only fail to see how the irrationality of the two non-religious views of cosmological formation you've mentioned precludes their acceptance. Even to a primitive layman like myself, the frontiers of physics these days are very exciting; like Alice's White Queen, one has to believe six impossible things before breakfast. Commonly accepted principles of reality are bent on a regular basis. Eliminating the irrational from the micro- and macrocosmos is simply impossible, given the analytical tools we now have at our disposal.