Yes. Please review absolutely every word of your own question before replying.
"You[r] body dies, but. . ." <-- Don't strain yourself with that reach. You've already admitted to an initial (first) death here.
Good; so you believe that Christians go directly to heaven when they die.
But if they're alive in heaven, then they're not dead. If they're not dead, then they could not have died. Are you following the logic here?
You can't be alive if you died.
If you had died, then you'd be dead.
Christians believe that they will live in heaven.
I don't know how to make it simpler than that.
I believe in death, because I believe that when you die, that's the complete and total end of you.
Christians, on the other hand, believe that after what we refer to as "death" they are still living. Also, mildly surprised I have to explain Christian beliefs to a Christian.
You had me at "if." The speculative "if" gives me the option to chase it or seriously question why an atheist is trying to disprove purely speculative fiction with. . .purely speculative fiction.
Look, if you don't want to explore the logical consequences of your beliefs, then I can't force you to. As you say, you don't want to talk about it.
Since the argument blows your position out of the water, I don't blame you for wanting to avoid it.
Goodness means God. It's literally exclusive to God alone. -
Mark 10:18
Yeah? Prove it.
Because that (really) is His nature. Easy-peasy. See, you're hung-up on this metaphysical standard of "good" that you yourself cannot account for. A theoretical morality, that even God Himself would be subordinate to. <-- But that would mean God is not omnipotent.
Prove that this reality is His nature. If it's easy-peasy, you should be able to.
There is no higher standard of morality than God alone.
Yeah? Prove that, if you can. How do you know?
Because you assume we're using "goodness" as a separate metaphysical descriptive. We are not. You cannot even account for moral "good" without God. Even the presuppositionalists get that.
You don't seem to be able to account for goodness yourself.
Let's try it again:
If goodness is God's nature (hope you don't mind the "i" word there) then all we can say is that God being good is just God being God. What information does this give us about why goodness is good?
Can you show why being kind, merciful or generous are good things to be? Can you say, "It is good to be kind because..." and give an explanation?
Based on what you're saying, all you can do is say that "It is good to be X because that is in accordance with God's nature." Which tells us nothing at all.
^ I'm never allowed to get away with that dodge. What makes you so special?
Because you're the one who said you could resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma. All you've managed to do so far is say "Goodness is commanded by God because God is goodness. How? Why? It just is, that's why."
Logic is the biggest game in town. It's a game with rules. Either you're in or out.
Actual logic, yes. People playing silly word games, no.
No. If you accept logic as universal, then the modus ponens and PSR put you through the wringer. You're more than welcome to reject logic to escape God, but that's a heavy price you don't want to pay. Logic is math-based. Proof is exclusive to math. Thus, the modus ponens is not only valid, but also sound.
It doesn't work like that.
The laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. They're just descriptions of how we think about how the universe works. We didn't need someone to invent a law that A = A, we just had to recognise that it was so and create a law to describe how it works. Descriptive laws like this don't require a lawgiver at all.
^ Circular argument. If logic is invented, then there would be no reason to invent it in the first place. You're claiming that there was a time when no reason existed. . .for no reason.
Well, yes.
Before humans existed, there was no reason, because there was nobody to reason about things. This is not to say there was no order or patterns, just chaos; things were just then as they were now. But before intelligent beings observed and thought and, well, reasoned about them, there was no logic. Just the things that we see now that we base our logic on.
Again: there is no need to posit God as a Logician. Logic is something that humans are perfectly capable of inventing. What, you think that 1 + 1 could decide to be 3 if God hadn't made a law that they must only ever result in 2?
In which case, you're equivocating logic itself. Bad move.
Nonsense. Again: Logic is simply us observing ways in which the universe works.
^ Is that a typo? Because that's actually my line.
You should think more about it. You seem to be determined to believe that descriptive laws are prescriptive.
"If program, then programmer." If the universe is a computer program, then it logically follows that there is a programmer.
Well, the universe isn't a computer program, so there we are.
If the cosmos appears ordered, then it logically follows that there is an Orderer. etc.
Why?
Why does your special pleading have to come into this?
I said:
"Why does "everything exists" lead to the supposition that "there must be a Person who controls everything that exists?"
Where is the special pleading in this? Or are you just trying to distract from the fact that you haven't answered the question?
Which I refuted. There is no such thing as a determined indeterminate. You people are just contradicting yourselves. I never claimed a negative, "that there cannot logically be another option," and I don't have to prove a negative. You're welcome.
That's exactly what you claimed. Your whole argument is based on trying to prove logically that the only possible cause for the universe is a deliberate act by a conscious entity. So yes, if you want us to believe that, you do have to prove that there cannot logically be any other option.
I literally said the fallacy of begging the question. Quote: "You're more than welcome to imply the universe is "just there" without explanation, as a question-begging fallacy."
The universe is "just here." That is not open to question. As yet, I have no explanation for its existence.
1. Claiming the statement, "We don't yet know why," and then claiming that this statement is equivalent to the determinate answer is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. IOW, "I don't know" is never the answer for anything. It's like taking an exam and filling out all the write-in answers with "I don't know," and then expecting your teacher to give you a passing grade. Ridiculous.
"I don't know" is never the answer to anything? Are you serious?
There are lots of things I don't know the answer to. And the same for you.
Tell me: what colour is my hair? How do you say "thank you" in Ancient Egyptian? How many 7s are there in the complete pi? If I roll a dice, what number will it show? Will it rain tomorrow?
2. You should at the very least feel some purely rational frustration with the universe begging the question of its own existence. But you don't, because the logical fallacy makes you feel good about being an atheist. You just have to wake up every morning and force it on the rest of the world as-if it were rational, when it really isn't.
Don't try being a mind-reader.
Don't you think it's rather childish to experience frustration at things you don't know? Like an infant throwing a tantrum? I can't levitate, leap tall buildings with a single bound or speak Russian either. Should I feel frustrated about those things?
Why not be sensible about this? Mature? There are things we don't know. And quite possibly will never know. It's not that I'm happy about these, but why would you expect me to be frustrated about them?
Logic stacks.
MUH is rational. <-- The wider reality that governs material nature is unfalsifiable. Supernature is rational.
You can keep saying it all you like, but that doesn't make it true.
Only objective refutations count. This isn't about your will. Any moron can "nuh-uh" their way out of a jam. I'm holding you to a higher standard than that.
It would be nice if you were, but truthfully, your arguments are so shallow it's boring to keep explaining them.
*ahem* "Nuh-uh!" <-- Did the magic work? Or is it just when you do it?
Perhaps it's because I know how to do it and you don't.
- You're not the judge of what is "good" evidence and what isn't. Flaws in evidence can only be submitted as objective flaws. Not subjective flaws.
- Evidence is objective; not subjective. So your subjective assessments never count.
- You have cited no objective flaws in the causal argument. Assertions without evidence to the contrary don't count. "Flawed" is not a magic word that creates real flaws.
Evidence is objective, but you seem to have an extremely subjective view on what counts as evidence.
Yet you are admitting "cause." <-- The deductive proof follows from there.
Conceding, for the moment, that the universe has a cause, we now come to the question: what was that cause?
And my answer is: I don't know.
If you think you
do know, you'll need to show some reasons for your answer.
No. They're all materialistic empirical claims; every one of them. And they always come around every generation or so to replace the old tired-out one that preceded it.
Again: if you want me to believe that God is real, you have to give some reason for why I should think so. Just as if I want you to believe that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto, I have to give you a reason to believe rather than just "you can't prove there isn't."
Hold up. Pay attention here and don't skim-past this: The definition of terms is always necessary before proof can even be demonstrated. I agree with igtheists and ignostics. They are correct on one highly relevant detail you are missing here--the definition of "God." I only define "God" as an omnipotent being. Not, "The God of the Bible," because I'm not a presuppositionalist. The Bible is Special Revelation; not General Revelation in nature. Your definition of "god" or "god(s)" doesn't count here, because I'm accepting the burden of proof. So in the end, it's first definition of terms in the claim; then prove the claim.
That was supposed to be significant in some way? I feel underwhelmed.
I don't have to define God. I'm not the one who believes in Him. You do. And then, when you make your arguments for Him, I tell you if they make sense or not.
^ Special pleading. You can examine the universe and see.
You can look outside the universe and examine it? Goodness me. I'm impressed!
The existence of "God" can obviously be examined when contrasted against a finite universe. Granted God cannot be known exhaustively, but that's not necessary, we already know enough that we are without excuse.
God can't be known "exhaustively"? How generous of you.
In fact, God can't be known at all, in any way. If you think He can, try performing an experiment on Him. And of course God can't be examined in contrast to a finite universe. We know the universe exists, but we have no way at all of examining God, in contrast with a finite universe or in any other way.
Then how do you know I'm even capable of making logical arguments to begin with? You've never seen any.
You never spoke a truer word?
Why contradict yourself? You reject law of causality. You reject modus ponens. You reject PSR. You reject pretty much all the logic that I'm appealing to. You think appeal to ignorance is "the answer" for literally everything. You think gainsaying is rational. You think logic is invented without the prior existence of logic itself (quack-quack). You essentially reject law of identity. You think an indeterminate is a determinate claim. Need I go on? I think it's pretty clear where the misology really comes from here.
Sigh.
Look, I'm sorry I keep rejecting the nonsense you post, but it would be a disservice to you to do otherwise. If I were to accept the fallacious arguments you keep posting, you might think they're right. And that would not be good at all. You understand - sometimes we must be cruel to be kind.
What a convenient loophole you discovered! Since your "internet disability" doesn't allow external (neutral POV) verification, then this means I can pretty much ignore everything you argue on those very same grounds.
You are already.
I'll copypaste it in the next post, but then you can then immediately move the goalposts and reject it because you can't verifiy it for certain that Harris wrote it, or that I didn't doctor the contents.
There. That wasn't so hard, was it?