ydoaPs

Rereading this post, I may have come across more curt than I intended. If you really do know of anything that goes against the premises, I'd really like to see it. No sarcasm was intended.

What's this got to do with Einstein?

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say in this post because of the grammar and spelling. Like this part, I have no idea what "exists true" is supposed to mean. Do I think that there exists an anthology labeled "The Bible"? Sure. Do I think every word written inside is absolutely literally true? Not by a long shot. They didn't. The names on the Gospels were added much later and there's no real reason to believe that the names attributed to them are the names corresponding to the people who actually wrote them. Likewise, 1 Peter and 2 Peter are written by two different people, neither of which was Peter. Most of Paul's letters are forgeries and the accounts of his trip on the road to Damascus contradict each other. No, it didn't. That's not even true according the the fairy tale as written in the stories.

The argument is formulated in a first order quantified temporal modal logic. It is written in English for readability. Tell me where in physics it says that points on a four-dimensional differentiable manifold aren't points on a four-dimensional differentiable manifold. I'd love to see it.

If you could find the paper you're thinking of, I'd love to take a look.

No, but I've played with temporal modal logics. Arguments can be any finite length. Premise (2) is true by definition. If something is present at the first point in time, nothing can be before it. I'd say that I like those titles, but they're too tongue in cheek. However, I then remembered that I recently read a paper called "Two Dams and that Damned Paresis".

Here's my anti-Kalaam argument. If you think of a nifty name for it, let me know. I may work on it and submit it to one of the undergrad paper contests. (1) If a causal agent A causes object O to begin to exist, then A stands in a prior temporal relation to O with respect to A's proper time. (2) If an object exists at all points in time, then nothing stands in a prior temporal relation to it. (3) The universe exists at all points in time. (4) Therefore, nothing stands in a prior temporal relation to it. (5) Therefore, there exists no causal agent that caused the universe to begin to exist. Premise (2) and (3) are true by definition. So, the only premise that really needs defending is (1). Premise (1), however, is rather uncontroversial since almost every philosopher ever has held it as a necessary condition for causation. It is also extremely well supported evidentially since every single time we've observed something caused to begin to exist, the causal agent stood in a prior temporal relation to that thing wrt said agent's proper time. Line (4) follows from (2) and (3) via Modus Ponens. Line (5) follows from (1) and (4) via Modus Tollens.

Everyone knows that Pascal's Wager is terrible. In fact, Pascal knew it was terrible (that's why he never published it). This video is a clever wager that turns the table on the original. Thoughts? Rebuttals?

Irenaeus, who was divinely inspired, says that Valentinian texts aren't divinely inspired.

This one is from yesterday.

You can't use Philip; it's a forgery. Those are the rules, right?

No, it didn't. The Bible condones full-on American South style slavery: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money."-Exodus 21:20-21 The alternative would be to have been living how they had been living before they were kidnapped and sold. AND IS EXPLICITLY CONDONED IN BOTH THE OT AND NT So, is it invariant or not? The God of the universe Herself said that slavery is good. Who are you to disagree with Her?

Thing to learn for today: Euthyphro Problem Is slavery, or is it not, moral? When the God of the universe was telling mankind the "invariant moral code", she explicitly endorsed full-on American South-style slavery. She also explicitly endorsed the sex trafficking trade. As well as capital punishment for disobedient children. The fact to learn for today-the above quote is directly opposed to the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament and the words of the God of the universe herself as recorded in the Old Testament. "THINK NOT THAT I COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, TIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20) "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."-Jesus (Luke 16:17) Perhaps you should actually read the whole thing sometime rather than just the bits your pastor cherry-picks. I mean, you didn't even know the above quote from Matthew existed even though you paraphrased the part immediately following it in another thread. Come on, man. The atheists here tend to know the Bible better than the Christians-probably because we've actually read the thing.

And they're wrong. Where do they get them? The Bible (a book which condones slavery, the sex slave, capital punishment for disobedient children, etc)? Nope. Is it from God Herself? Is morality itself intrinsic or extrinsic to God? That is, does it come from God (via Her nature or will) or does it come from outside of God? This dilemma has been around since at least Plato and as such Divine Command Theory was long dead before Christianity joined the game. Plato's version comes from one of his earlier texts called the "Euthyphro" which is the name of the person with which Socrates is talking. He poses a form of this question which has since become known as the "Euthyphro Dilemma". It goes roughly like this, "Are pious things pious because the gods say they're pious, or do the gods say they're pious because they're pious?". Now, this formulation has caused a lot of people who like the Divine Command Theory to try to say it's a false dilemma, but every attempt at trying to pull out a third "horn" has proved unsuccessful as they inevitably essentially collapse into one of the initial horns. To curb this issue and preserve the initial problem, philosophers have come up with the formulation I gave in the first sentence. If morality is extrinsic to God, then humanity can be moral even in worlds without gods. If morality is intrinsic to God, then morality is arbitrary and/or meaningless (which one depends on your method of trying to claim morality is intrinsic to Her). So, which is it: is morality meaningless and/or arbitrary or are no gods required? And then there's the historical fact that theistic morality has changed throughout time. Whether or not they believe it to be true has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true. The universe doesn't care what you believe. You do know that there's an entire field of what we ought/ought not do (in which gods are conspicuously absent)? Funny how even the nihilists don't say "do whatever you want". Care to try something other than a straw man? Or he could keep the money, kill everyone else in town and take THEIR money, jump off a building repenting to Jesus on the way down, and have no consequences!

Theists don't either.

*ahem*

That depends on what "perfect" means. This has been a hotly debated point of contention since the first version of the Ontological Argument.

Is morality itself intrinsic or extrinsic to God? That is, does it come from God (via Her nature or will) or does it come from outside of God? This dilemma has been around since at least Plato and as such Divine Command Theory was long dead before Christianity joined the game. Plato's version comes from one of his earlier texts called the "Euthyphro" which is the name of the person with which Socrates is talking. He poses a form of this question which has since become known as the "Euthyphro Dilemma". It goes roughly like this, "Are pious things pious because the gods say they're pious, or do the gods say they're pious because they're pious?". Now, this formulation has caused a lot of people who like the Divine Command Theory to try to say it's a false dilemma, but every attempt at trying to pull out a third "horn" has proved unsuccessful as they inevitably essentially collapse into one of the initial horns. To curb this issue and preserve the initial problem, philosophers have come up with the formulation I gave in the first sentence. If morality is extrinsic to God, then humanity can be moral even in worlds without gods. If morality is intrinsic to God, then morality is arbitrary and/or meaningless (which one depends on your method of trying to claim morality is intrinsic to Her). So, which is it: is morality meaningless and/or arbitrary or are no gods required? It should be noted that this problem only works for moral realists. Nihilists get a "get out of jail free" card on this one.

No, there's a difference. Iggy is saying that you're not broken at all. Christianity is saying you're defective and need to be fixed so you can have that dignity. The two cases are in no way the same. Christianity is fake medicine for a fake disease. With reading comprehension like that, it's no wonder you missed that one of Jesus's major messages was that the Law is to be upheld until the end of the Earth and that works are the way to the Kingdom.

No.

We didn't have those problems prior to 1956, why would they suddenly arise now?

The same exact chapter you paraphrased immediately prior to the bit you paraphrased.

Nice of you to take the bit out of context. Read the WHOLE bit there. That's Jesus saying the entirety of OT Law is to be held UNTIL THE END OF THE EARTH.

There is a Q&A portion after the debate. If this debilitating downward spiral of radical skepticism isn't addressed during the debate, I'll probably ask about it. Biola University is also streaming it live.

He DOES like the Gish Gallop. And before someone straw mans the crap out of the OP, this isn't to say that belief in God is not reasonable. It is, however, to say that Craig *must* hold that it is without contradicting himself.