Search results

You’re attacking a straw man. Craig’s argument relies on the fine tuning of the universe, not the biological complexity of life. The reason will generally fall back on the idea that the past cannot be actually infinite and so needs to terminate somewhere. This termination makes more sense as a...

What you have claimed is: Regardless of whether you want to see this claim as matter of fact or not, I still regard it as a positive claim – one that requires some reasoning behind it. In the same way you would ask me to provide reason for the claim “God probably does exist”, I similarly expect...

Theists will claim that they do have reasons for proposing God’s existence so I am not to inclined to agree with you from the outset. On the other hand, you are claiming that the lack of reasons for proposing God existence is itself reason for proposing his non-existence – I can’t help but feel...

Care to share what it is that makes ID self-evidently presumptuous and ridiculous? It doesn’t seem all that self-evident to me. Craig and almost all theists propose God’s existence as necessary. Questioning the cause of a necessary being’s existence by definition doesn’t make good sense...

Still, I think you are claiming more than what you 'ought. Being able to assert that “God probably doesn’t exist” requires you have more than a lack of evidence supporting God’s existence. You claim that “we take that rational approach to almost every other deity and scientific concept” but I am...

Attack the arguments, not the person who proposes them.

Observation is probably the wrong word as that could be confused with him observing them in time. But essentially yes, God see's/knows how a person will freely act in the future and thus has foreknowledge of what they will do. His foreknowledge is dependent on their action, not the other way around.

It makes perfect sense within the context of what you are reading. The reason it does not have to occur and it is possible for it to fail to occur is because the logical order of God's foreknowledge is based on what does in fact happen. We could replace God's foreknowledge with a true future...

Sorry? I'm not sure what this is in relation to?

As promised, I just wrapped up a paper on theological fatalism for those interested. It's a quick read (3 pages). I hope it proves to be of some use in clarifying my position. :)

Sorry mate, I didn't even notice that you posted this until I was going over some posts from a few pages back. I've just started writing a short paper that deals with this issue specifically and hope to finish it off over the weekend. As a result, I'll refrain from replying directly to you here...

Sure, I'm happy to admit that people are more keen to find supporting evidence for their existing beliefs - this is the rational thing to do in order to ensure that we don't "flip flop" between beliefs unnecessarily. Though make sure to keep in mind that this reluctance is an entirely separate...

No prob, I can empathize with your the dilemma :P I'll wait till after we work through any prima facie logical flaws of the conception of God I defined but after that would you be keen to discuss some arguments from natural theology? I find that natural theology gives me good enough grounds to...

Sure thing. I'll just add one qualification on omni-benevolence and that is that God's acts of benevolence should/will ultimately be aimed toward the greatest possible good. I'm not so sure I really understand your position. You don't hate the idea of God's existence in a broad concept, you...

I don't think it really complicates it all too much. All it is proposing is that God has middle knowledge (knowledge of what "would" happen). Either way fatalism doesn't seem to be an issue as you seem to be openly admitting that it's not a problem under particular views of God. Sure how...

In my mind, it makes no difference as to whether we are looking at an event in isolation or as a succession of prior events. Sure, some things must happen in order for a particular event to be a logical possibility, but this doesn't imply that such an event "must" happen - all that is implied is...

Nope, I'm saying that the event itself is still genuinely open to your will. God knows what you "will" do, but this does not imply that you "must" do this, only that you will. If you were to do differently then God would have known otherwise.

Not at all. "Must" implies that it couldn't have been any other way whereas "will" places the contingency of the outcome on the event itself. Which logical problems would be more severe?

I believe you have fallen into the old problem of logical fatalism. True future tense propositions or foreknowledge regarding your actions does not imply that it "must" come to pass, only that it "will" come to pass. If you were to refrain from driving to Uni on Wednesday then something that is...

I'm confused as to why facts or actions presented in the bible are taken to mean that they have Gods moral stamp of approval? Many reprehensible actions are documented precisely because they were reprehensible - the effects of which can be seen as history plays out. Recommended reading...