afungusamongus

Then by that definition a root canal is definitely wrong. It seems to me that you are hinting at Utilitarianism, but you give no reason or argument as to why it is true or why we should accept it That is a rather asinine comment. You clearly have not been sexually abused in your life. Maybe you should ask someone that has been if they think it harmed them. Then again they probably would not think such a question very good. Victim less Crimes like what exactly. Pirating DVD maybe. If their was no victim in a crime then their probably would not have been any need to make the action illegal in the first place. I really cannot think of any crime that does not have a victim of some sort. Do you think we should make rape legal because the women like it?

They can always celebrate their prophets birthday on the 12th of February. Lets see if anyone can figure out who I'm talking about

Would it prove the validity of any religion if they did or did not. What would be the point of such a experiment? To prove that God does not exist because only children believe in him? The OP seems to insinuate that Christianity does not try and defends it claims with rationality. The scientific atheist should not think he has sole rights to rationality and reason. It is demeaning and shows a lack of understanding about the claims that Christianity makes and the manner in which it defends the truth of its claims.

All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." - Alexander Vilenken Does the OP think he is a better physicist than Mr. Vilenken? I can quote you the article on Stephen Hawking website where he explains why the universe has a beginning. Does the OP think he is a better physicist than Mr. Hawking. Or is he just going to ignore the physical evidence just so he does not have to admit that their is a solid case for the existence of God. If scientist in general are like the person who started this thread then I weep for the future of humanity.

Clearly the person who does not know the difference between believing in God and superstition may just have to consult a dictionary. It is a grave insult to call a Christian superstitious and I strongly resent everyone on these forums who claims that. Dim reeper Seems to have a very aggresive stance on these issues. Is he interested in discussion or is he just here to tell a few Christians how superstitious they are. Is this the type of discourse you scientist want to be known for? That just seems to be saying that things can come into being uncaused. I have discussed the flawed philosophy underpinning such claims. Can you explain to me if life is such a inevitable consequence of the physical environment. Why have we not seen other planets with life on it. That still does not answer Divas question. Does these individual steps go back into infinity or does it have some sort of cosmic starter gun that started the first cause that led to it all.

Yoda how can something be eternal and have a beginning? They are mutually exclusive truth claims and cannot be true at the same time. If causality breaks down then it is entirely possible for nothing to create something. How can nothing create something is what I ask you Ed?

Please feel free to explain why the principle of casualty is wrong. Have you ever heard the phrase of nothing comes nothing?

Oih Vey. I'm getting side tracked again. Christian response to the idea of who made the creator. Ideas made popular again by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion That idea has it's root in a misrepresentation of Thomas Aquinas cosmological argument. What Aquinas says Whatever begins needs a cause for its beginning The universe had a beginning. Their for the universe has to have a cause. What Aquinas does not say. Everything must have a cause therefore we are left with the unanswerable question of who created the creator or what designed the designer. It is a subtle strawman. Aquinas never claimed that everything has a cause because if that was true it would lead you away from God as the cause of the universe. What has a beginning that is the important part. Christians have generally claimed that God is eternal (unlike the universe). My only objection is that it is logically absurd. Can you answer me how something can exist before it existed? The best way I have heard explained is by John Lennox. A noted mathematician himself. Lets take the following statement. (x) created (y) What you are in essence saying is that (x) existed before (y) and with some sort of curatorial powers created (y). This is a perfectly logical assertion. (Depending on what exactly x and y is, but that is neither here nor there.) Now take the following statement. (x) created (x) Here we find some difficulties. How did (X) exist before it existed to create itself?. It cannot. It is impossible. It makes no sense. This remains true even if you equate x to the universe. I sometimes think because of a lack of philosophical understanding scientist often make these little blunders. Maybe if philosophy had some more followers in the sciences these basic concepts could be better understood.

Did I say somewhere God created himself? Is this the age old question of who created the creator or who designed the designer?

"If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved." - Wikipedia on infinite regresses We are after all trying to ascertain what the cause is. It defeats the purpose of the initial inquiry. Just for future reference when I refer to the word eternal I'm mean without a beginning and without a end. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." - Alexander Vilenken I link things in my post for a reason. The phrase have your cake and eat it comes to mind. Make up your mind is the universe eternal or not. They are mutually exclusive claims that cannot be true at the same time So what is it does it have a end and a beginning or does it not? We can quibble about definitions if you want but I'm using the generally accepted definition for eternal. Just btw Mark it is a philosophical impossibility for something to have created itself. It is like Aquinas mentions. Just like a man cannot be his own father just so could the universe not have created itself. So in essence we are left with three options for the existence of the universe 1) Eternal 2) Created Itself 3) Created by another Seems like science has dis proven number 1. 2 is logically incoherent. So it seems like we are left with 3.

Is the historical accounts of Jesus evidence enough for you? Why exactly is the bible not evidence. It is a concise account of Jesus by the people who witnessed his life and knew him personally. Last time I checked eye witness accounts hold up pretty well in court. Would you doubt the authenticity of a Biography of Napoleon written by Josephine de Beauharnais? It is quite unfair to burden Jesus of Nazareth with a hyper skepticism that you would not have for any other historical figure.

Really I thought cause and effect was a rather rudimentary scientific concept. Is cause and effect unsupported? It is like WLC has mentioned on a few occasions believing in things coming into being uncaused is akin to believing in magic. When you have a magician pull a rabbit out of a hat then the magician is the supposed cause for the rabbits existence. Not even magic beats the concepts of causality. Care to explain to me what is so false about them. You are clearly not a idiot so I'm sure you would have no problem in providing a concise refutation of this argument. This assumes that their is nothing that can exist beyond space and time, but the problem is if we are to discern what exactly the cause is of this universe beginning it would have to exist before the universe (and time for that matter) existed. This leaves the naturalist with a quite the dilemma if he wants to know what exactly caused this universe to begin. Cyclical Universe models are not immune to the tenants of good logic. Rather rudimentary stuff if we are to discern the truth of matters. If I remember correctly Mr. Vilenkin addresses the issue of cyclical universe in that very article. Maybe I should not have used the word eternal as I see now for the scientific minded eternal is bound with the time the universe existed. I meant not eternal as having a beginning.

The Blackwell companion to natural theology should also be on your list. Along with evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell, A case for Christ by Lee Strobel and Atheism and its scientific pretensions by David Berlinski. That last one is especially important to this forum.

Believing in Jesus but not in God makes little sense. He was after all God Incarnate. Sure you can hold to some sort of naturalistic explanation for him, but that is hardly what he taught. Leaves me with the question if you believe in him why would you not trust in the things he said? Are we to believe the man who gave us some of the most sublime moral teachings in history would lie about who he was?

http://www.scribd.co...-Creation-Event Lets call this a public service announcement to all the atheist on this board. It seems that Alexander Vilenkin has showed again why a eternal universe is improbable. Their was off course a very well known Christian who also believed the universe had a beginning. His name was Thomas Aquinas. He was one of Christianity greatest philosophers. Among some of his feats was the formulation of a argument for the existence of God. Lets review his argument for a bit. Premises 1) Whatever comes into existence has to have a cause. 2) The universe came into being. 3) Therefore the universe has to have a cause. We cannot invoke a infinite regress of causes. When confronted with the problem of discerning exactly what this first cause is we find this cause needs some specific attributes. First of all to have existed before the universe existed it had to be immaterial. For it to have existed before time existed it had to be eternal. And lastly to be able to create a universe it had to be immensely powerful and knowledgeable. Lo and behold before you know it you have your self something resembling a God. We still need some more work to get us to the Christian God, but at the very least it takes you away from atheism. I would like to remind everyone who post in this thread about another quote from a respected Christian Feel free to discuss.