I notice he brought up ID. This is another thing that many atheists assume all Christians adhere to. Someone made the very good point that Intelligent Design was made to solve a problem that Catholics don't have.
Here is a follow-up to one point by yet another anonymous poster:
http://
debunkingchristianity.blo...066365123272900
Hi Scott ("Pippen"),
Nice to meet you! I enjoyed watching you play basketball.
ME: "This is impressive in that it makes it impossible for the atheist to say (as, e.g., Daniel Morgan naively does) that PoE absolutely proves that God doesn't exist."
I'm not saying that Danny did or didn't say this. But, do you have a source quote?
Sure: in his post on presuppositionalism:
On Sept. 26, I asked Prof. Witmer if he would talk to our group, and we discussed possible topics a bit before he decided to talk about CPS at our meeting 9. I have now made the abstract of the talk, and the full-text (.pdf) of his presentation available online. Please download and feel free to comment on his arguments and major points. I especially enjoyed his presentation of a "conditional PoE", wherein he argues that either there are moral facts or there aren't, but either way, the PoE shows that God does not exist.
http://debunkingchristianity.blo...sm-
general.html
I see now that there is some possible ambiguity: is the last clause (starting with "but either way . . .") his own opinion, or a report of Prof. Witmer's? I would say it is reasonable to interpret it as his own, either as his sole intended meaning, or else, alternately, that he was referring to the professor's view, with strongly implied agreement, based on how he presents it.
In any event, Daniel can clarify for us if he thinks that PoE "shows that God does not exist" (contra the current philosophical consensus, almost across the board, as I understand it).
I believe he made a similar statement on my blog, but I could be wrong. I'd have to look that one up.
ME: "After 1000 trillion trillion trillion years in heaven (actually eternity is out of time, but whatever) who will care about their suffering on earth, way back, no matter how horrible?"
Let's see...how about an analogy?
"Honey, but the fact that I allow some people to beat you to a pulp on our wedding night doesn't matter at all! We're going to have a happy life together for another 80 whole years! What's 5 minutes of pain next to the rest of the 42 million we will spend together? I allowed that, sure, but it isn't wrong in contrast to all the good that I'll give you one day!"
...
"What, you ask, 'how will you know that the rest of this will be more happy?' Well, dear, just trust me."
...
"What, you ask 'how can i be trusted with a virtual endless number of minutes if this is how i allow you to be treated for five of them...?' Uh, well..."
Again, you greatly misunderstand my meaning about perspective from the standpoint of eternity. First of all, I referred to one's own suffering, not sinful suffering inflicted upon others.
Secondly, this doesn't justify any sin or wro
(cont.)
. . . wrongdong whatsoever. What eternity does is make the "sting" of suffering and unjust misery and atrocities, etc. less. It doesn't lessen the wrongness of horror of them.
The atheist, by contrast, only has this life, so obviously, sin and suffering and evil take on immeasurably more significance and are accordingly that much more troublesome. But since the critique is of the Christian view, the perspective of eternity and eternal life in blissful happiness cannot be ignored and excluded from the discussion.
You can't have it both ways. If you wish to criticize the Christian worldview you have to incorporate all of its relevant aspects, not revert to the atheist worldview (i.e., "this life is all there is") wherever it is convenient or packs an emotional punch.
So, nice try, but your "reasoning" neither applies to my particular argument, nor to the larger Christian apologetic re: suffering. Any Christian who would actually reason in the fashion you caricatured should be locked up in either a jail or a rubber room.
You guys can keep twisting and caricaturing legitimate Christian arguments if you wish, but that just shows that you aren't approaching discussion in an objective manner, and that poor discussion ethics and extreme emotionalism may have more of an effect on what you say than you realize.
More along similar lines (posted at Debunking Christianity):
Following up on my last post with some more relevant info. regarding the question I was asked:
Daniel Morgan wrote on my blog, on 10-6-06:
"It is just that the arguments for atheism (or arguments against God's existence, if you prefer) seem to be absolutely airtight."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...3844187/
#116298
He links "arguments for atheism" to this page (his own):
"Misc. Arguments For Atheism"
http://grove.ufl.edu/~dmorgan/Ar...r%
20atheism.htm
This is connected to his main website, as you can see:
http://grove.ufl.edu/~dmorgan/
On this page is included "The Problem of Evil." Here is his entire section:
The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God with the existence of a world full of evil and suffering. If God is omniscient then he knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering, then why does he not do so? The simplest answer is that God does not do so because he does not exist. This is by far the most popular argument for atheism.
Excellent. Then the "by far the most popular argument for atheism" has now been demolished (by Alvin Plantinga), insofar as it supposedly proves God's nonexistence.
Even J.L. Mackie admitted that (". . . we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another." -- The Miracle of Theism, Oxford Univ. Press, 1982, p. 154).
Now, I don't fault Daniel for being unaware of this now 30-odd year development in philosophy of religion (which started before he was even born). I certainly am not up on all the goings-on in philosophy (not even in religious matters) either (though it would be great fun if only I had the time).
But since he has made it a goal of his to critique theism, it would be good for him to become aware of this, so as to avoid overly-triumphalistic statements in the future, such as this one, which can easily be dismantled.
Daniel sanctions even more naive, absurd comments on the same page; e.g.:
"A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible."
(under "The Freewill Argument")
And:
"A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible."
(under "All-good God knowingly creates future suffering")
FROM: "Why the Christian God is Impossible", by Chad Docterman
"Impossible" is a very strong word in philosophy. I w
(cont.)
. . . would suggest that Daniel Morgan give the matter a great deal more thought before launching off into dogmatic pronouncements. One can allow for the overly-zealous folly of the recent convert to some extent, but c'mon, let's try to exercise at least some semblance of moderation and common sense.
And now one wonders if "drunken tune" actually is drunk, since he has now written the following inanities in response to me:
DA: You don't know all the things that God knows.
And neither do you, punk. So stop acting like you’ve got a monopoly on truth, Davey.
. . . He is everything unknown. Don’t claim that you have an inkling of knowledge about your god I don’t have. We’re in the same lifeboat together, and for all you know I’m going to heaven because I dared to question your god’s existence, and you’re going to hell for being an obedient slave, Davey.
. . . I’m open to anything, and I’ve decided that the only true god is mine. He can kick the ever-loving &%#$ out of your god, Davey.
. . . Don’t make claims for your god when you have no idea what he is. Your belief in your god is coherent, but this gives no evidence for or against the existence of the god you describe, punk.
http://
debunkingchristianity.blo...068666848752218
I thought this was going to be an interesting discussion. I suppose some good fruit came out of it as I got to see some development re the hardening of Pharoah's heart. Unfortunately it is rapidly unravelling as drunken tune goes nuts. Meanwhile John has opted for My-scholar-can-beat-up-your-scholar.
Thanks for a post dedicated to me. I thought it would be an interesting discussion as well, however, it seems to have died once Dave ran away. His appeals to an authority that doesn’t exist are not much of a killer argument.
Scott W.,
How did I "[go] nuts"? I only followed the reasoning Davey gave for his belief, as exhibited by his comments. I was hostile, of course, firstly because I believe that he is very likely mad, and secondly because his arguments, while they tried to back up his claim, only furthered an obviously frantic attempt to plug every hole in the crumbling dyke.
Dave,
In response to my final post, you throw in four sentences of mine without context to the odd claims that you make, and do not respond to the heart of the argument. The god I describe is more powerful than yours, yet you cannot accept that this being could exist.
I come here one day, and find this chuckle fest of Christians laughing at ... well, the application of belief. It just doesn’t fit into your mindset, believing in a god other than one that is logical by your standards.
If you wish to continue speaking on friendly terms, all you have to do is contact me by email or by my website. If you’d like me to tone it down, just ask. But I will not sit idly by as you leave the debate at Debunking Christianity, and then complain about your experiences to your friend, Scott W. I would like to continue, but if you do not wish to debate further, that is fine with me.
But , if you wish to continue speaking, just follow the link here.
I give you permission to attempt to convert me in any way you wish on my website. It's your turn.
I don't waste time interacting with fools. Several folks at Debunking Christianity are capable of intelligent, rational discussion and I intend to engage them in that as long as they are willing to do so. We've seen what you are capable of. Not interested . . . I have very little patience with folly and juvenile mockery. Life's too short.
Whatever you say, Dave. I allowed you to write what you want, and gave you permission to attempt to convince me that I am wrong. I would not respond to what you said. It's a free ride! You could rehash your arguments for all I care, or quote verbatum from any source you wish. If you spend a good deal of time debating me, writing in your own words, then run away the moment I ask you to convert me, I can only conclude that you are not capable of any argument whatsoever.
I told you that I would be cordial in our conversation, if you wished to continue talking. You shut off the debate, even when I told you I would hold back. It's sad that you end our conversation with an attack. Unlike you, I don't call other people 'fools' for asking for proof.
If you're not interested, fine with me. We're done here. Just don't quote me out of context, as you did in your comment. It's not becoming of a follower of Christ.
I can only conclude that you are not capable of any argument whatsoever.
Of course I am not! What person who is "very likely mad" would be???!!!
I'd have to be "very likely mad" to be stupid enough to attempt "debate" with a person who thinks I am "very likely mad".
And so, wishing to think that I am indeed not (at least to keep up the illusion as long as I can), there really is no choice here.
Let me give you a bit of advice if I may (a word to the wise is sufficient): next time, try to be "cordial" from the outset. Then your potential dialogue opponent / partner probably won't conclude early on that you are an ass, and things will go much more smoothly for you.
Just don't quote me out of context, as you did in your comment. It's not becoming of a follower of Christ.
Context is obviously irrelevant when "dialogue" has sunk to the level of the following puerile, vapid sorts of comments:
========================
DA: You don't know all the things that God knows.
"And neither do you, punk. So stop acting like you’ve got a monopoly on truth, Davey."
". . . He is everything unknown. Don’t claim that you have an inkling of knowledge about your god I don’t have. We’re in the same lifeboat together, and for all you know I’m going to heaven because I dared to question your god’s existence, and you’re going to hell for being an obedient slave, Davey."
". . . I’m open to anything, and I’ve decided that the only true god is mine. He can kick the ever-loving &%#$ out of your god, Davey."
". . . Don’t make claims for your god when you have no idea what he is. Your belief in your god is coherent, but this gives no evidence for or against the existence of the god you describe, punk."
free government loan and grant free government loan and grant free government loan and grant. commercial estate loan not real commercial estate loan not real commercial estate loan not real.
Commenting by HaloScan
