Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

[MindTrap028]

I think so. I didn't mention oceans nor many land areas that are unable to sustain humans

Sorry, I retract that line of argument.
Would you mind running your point by me again?

This makes no sense? How is a world that is "made for humans" = to a world where humans can defy normal physical laws, or IOW, do pretty much anything (defy gravity/"climb up walls")?

Sorry that may have had a wrong understanding of your point wrapped up into it.
I'll retract it for now, and let you explain your point again.

However, this is only true cause God picked those particular values right? God could have made gravity (or anything else) with different values when He created the universe and that % of matter you refer to wouldn't matter at all. So things we will never be able to see would not matter at all in this "painting". You are trying to play both sides of the court:
"God can do anything, but must work in the lines of our understanding of physical law type of thinking when God made the laws".
IOW, God could have made the universe work with 90% more matter or 90% less and we would still be here. Just change the laws of physics, after all, it is His, and His choice alone what the values are, right?

Right but the form of the argument wouldn't change. Your arguing if reality were different kind of thing.
Certainly if reality was different things would have been different.
However the answer to your question was simple. It doesn't have to have theological implications added to be sufficient.. yes?

However, this is only true cause God picked those particular values right? God could have made gravity (or anything else) with different values when He created the universe and that % of matter you refer to wouldn't matter at all. So things we will never be able to see would not matter at all in this "painting". You are trying to play both sides of the court:
"God can do anything, but must work in the lines of our understanding of physical law type of thinking when God made the laws".
IOW, God could have made the universe work with 90% more matter or 90% less and we would still be here. Just change the laws of physics, after all, it is His, and His choice alone what the values are, right?

Well, I certainly have no idea what hidden consequences could be the result of tweaking the fundamental forces of nature. if they are all logically possible, or whatever.
But again, the question of why so much space, and the answer was to have a view.
the follow up was why so much we can't see, and the answer is given the current state of the universe that is what it takes for it to exist.

Maybe if things were different it would require less.. I really don't know and plead ignorance. But I think the questions were answered pretty reasonable and I think you are kinda there too.
So, moving on?

[Squatch347]

Me:
"Perhaps, and yet here we are and no one has an answer yet that isn't just plain fantastic."

You:
"Define fantastic in a measurable sense. I think when we use subjective discriptors of that nature we end up just enshringing out initial conclusions against the argument. Perhaps all the answers are "fantastic" it doesn't mean that one of them isn't the most likely."

I don't understand your objection at all??

Hmm, ok. Let me try to reframe it a bit.

You objected to an explanation as “fantastic.” My point is that that is a very loaded term. If I were to tell someone in the 1880s that man would use heavier than air aircraft in 20 years he would call that fantastic (it was largely thought to be physically impossible at the time).

When you say it is “fantastic” you are describing your reaction to the claim, not the claim itself. It is how you perceive its credibility, not how the claim has been defended or the totality of the evidence. That is the crux of my point. You can’t use your reaction to a claim as a basis for dismissing it. You have to use something more objective. Is the claim objectively fantastic? Can you define what that would even mean?

Your point was your belief is the most likely to be true out of the bunch (I wonder that we are missing some part of the puzzle still)....

Not quite. I said of the three possible explanations, design has the most warrant as a valid explanation. That isn’t about my belief or about how I personally accept the explanation. Warrant is about the amount of support a claim has for and against it.

What if I told you I was God and was asking these questions just so you would articulate the answers, because a particular person reading would use this information to go on and do great works? What would you think of this claim?

Given that I have no evidence to support or reject your claim I would be agnostic on it.

Your analogy started with some one blissfully unaware of gov't.

Hmm, I’m not sure where you got that. If I ask someone “Can the federal government levy an income tax?” I’m obviously assuming they at least know there is a federal government right?

I think this seems an odd manner of objecting. The principle doesn’t seem that controversial. Let me use the other analogies I offerred:

It is illegal to murder, even if we as a judicial system have not fully explored every single nuance of that criminal code through common law.

I don’t know the full scope of injuries that would result from me hitting the ground, but I know it is an undesirable thing that my parachute doesn’t open.

Likewise, I don’t know the full state and motion of all matter in the universe, but I can state that the laws of thermodynamics apply.

Because gravity is not behaving like we expect

Exactly! The way we expect because we have a very validated understanding of the underlying laws. And that understanding of those laws still allows us to make predictions unrelated to dark matter like sending sattellites.

And yet it is off by how much when we try to measure the mass of the universe?

We don’t have any evidence that it is off at all. And it is exactly the opposite conclusion that physicists are operating under. Rather than assume relativity is wrong, they assume they can’t measure all the matter in the universe.

it seems a stretch to say the earth is made for humans when we can't live in most the environments.

When you say “made for humans” what do you mean? You seem to be implying that it means “made for humans to survive” since your measurement is whether it is conducive to life. Why do you think that is the correct metric here? IE why would the prevalence of habitats that are beneficial for humans be the sole metric God is using?

It's possible that a pair porcupines are nesting in my shorts and causing me an irritation, so?

Well if we agree it is possible, it doesn’t make very much sense to rule it out as impossible. That is how I interpreted your previous response and the one before, that we could, at least tacitly, dismiss this option because it was incoherent. Since that doesn’t seem to be the case, I’m not sure that objection holds.

No worries However, I don't think I have ever made that claim? Perhaps I was meant something like:
when I hear talk about the universe expanding, I also hear that it isn't expanding into anything else. IOW, there is no other space the universe is taking up as it expands.

Running back through the thread, I think what you said was:

4) God is conscious but has no physical presence and is timeless etc (how could such a being even be said to exist?).

Which I am under the impression we talked about earlier and which died out.

So is there any reason that the could not be another universe (manifold thingy) with "time" that is separate from ours?

As a pure hypothetical? Sure. Of course it couldn’t, by definition, have any interaction with our universe.

LOL! I'll give you 1/2 point However, they don't deny the effect, only the definition of the source. They still believe "something" holds their feet on the ground!

I’m going to appeal for full credit here :-). You said that gravity was undeniable, they don’t believe in gravity at all. It isn’t a force, isn’t an effect, isn’t a cause. There is no force (I can’t believe I’m typing this) that keeps you on the ground. That is your natural place due to density only.

Look, I don’t blame you for not reading that page, it is absolutely crazy, but if you scroll down to around the middle you’ll see he actually denies the effect. Start reading at “point’ C through F and you’ll see that he is arguing that the “effect” of things falling is your misperception because you’ve been lied to (not really paraphrasing). There isn’t anything to explain because a)density and b)everything else is a lie. (ie no spacecraft for example)

I’m not arguing he is reliable, or even really coherent. I’m arguing he denies that there is anything to be explained at all.

Certainly he is a good example of the kind of people I was referencing earlier, that they are willing to deny anything, no matter how obvious.

How is a being with no beginning of existence and no end not an actual infinity?

Across what dimensional set is He an actual infinity in this scenario? IE the natural numbers are an actual infinity across the dimension of cardinality of that set. What is the measure you are using?

[I’m asking this because I think your question implies that God is time bound. IE that He has just been sitting out there in time forever.]

[Belthazor]

Sorry, I retract that line of argument.
Would you mind running your point by me again?

No worries, I had said:
"If the Earth were made/intended for man, it makes no sense that that man can not live on a majority of it (which takes a much, much more dramatic turn when you figure in the universe too, which is nearly completely deadly to human life).
Is the Earth made for man or no? If yes, I don't understand "other considerations" (at least any presented so far) as being relevant, but happy to consider any possibility
The zoo analogy just doesn't work for me cause a zoo by definition is made for all "specimens", not specifically one specimen.
Is the earth a "zoo" or made for man?"

So the universe is so big we can't "see" all of it. It is vast beyond human comprehension. As far as we know, the nearly all of it hostile to human life. Out of that seemingly near infinity of space, there is Earth. Such a small spec of dust in relation to the universe, it is equally beyond human comprehension. Now Earth can only support human life in a small percentage of it's area.
My thought was human life if not welcome almost everywhere that we are aware of to an extreme (Squatch, please give us the math calculations of that relationship. Also Squatch, I am going to miss your input for the next few weeks till you return, safe travels sir!!!)
It just seems to run counter to "the Heaven's and Earth were made for man", or maybe I am not getting what "made for "means in this context?

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 PM ----------

Right but the form of the argument wouldn't change. Your arguing if reality were different kind of thing.
Certainly if reality was different things would have been different.
However the answer to your question was simple. It doesn't have to have theological implications added to be sufficient.. yes?

I don't think I understand?

I mean, for instance, in our current universe, an object needs mass to have gravity. God could have made a universe that kept your feet on Earth without mass, just as easily as He can break the current laws to perform miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if it fallowed the normal laws we observe would it? So those laws get suspended at God's will for miracles, I assume those same laws are not immutable in any other way God chooses....
(Squatch now doing a big eye roll and quiver at the lack of precision in that statement

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

Well, I certainly have no idea what hidden consequences could be the result of tweaking the fundamental forces of nature. if they are all logically possible, or whatever.

May I respectfully submit that according to your world view that you do, in fact know!
The ONLY consequences would be of God's choosing.
I see absolutely no other alternative?

[MindTrap028]

No worries, I had said:
"If the Earth were made/intended for man, it makes no sense that that man can not live on a majority of it (which takes a much, much more dramatic turn when you figure in the universe too, which is nearly completely deadly to human life).
Is the Earth made for man or no? If yes, I don't understand "other considerations" (at least any presented so far) as being relevant, but happy to consider any possibility
The zoo analogy just doesn't work for me cause a zoo by definition is made for all "specimens", not specifically one specimen.
Is the earth a "zoo" or made for man?"

So the universe is so big we can't "see" all of it. It is vast beyond human comprehension. As far as we know, the nearly all of it hostile to human life. Out of that seemingly near infinity of space, there is Earth. Such a small spec of dust in relation to the universe, it is equally beyond human comprehension. Now Earth can only support human life in a small percentage of it's area.
My thought was human life if not welcome almost everywhere that we are aware of to an extreme (Squatch, please give us the math calculations of that relationship. Also Squatch, I am going to miss your input for the next few weeks till you return, safe travels sir!!!)
It just seems to run counter to "the Heaven's and Earth were made for man", or maybe I am not getting what "made for "means in this context?

yea, I see where I got the line I followed. You seem to imply the oceans for sure, and of course you mentioned separately the areas of land that man can't inhabit.. which I assume are like the sub zero parts. (not the Mortal Kombat kind). ..
My original line was to point out that the earth hasn't always been that way. Especially from a position which posits an "garden of Eden" when the earth truly was made for man, but then was spoiled. With things like a flood that would create vast oceans where man once could have lived.. which IMO negates your whole point.
That however has a lot of Christian assumptions, but if you are questioning the Christian God, then I think that is going to be inherent to the answer regardless.
So, given the above, I don't see the power of your objection in regards to the earth and man living on it.

I think my "room with a view" has some explanatory power over this objection as well.

I don't think I understand?

I mean, for instance, in our current universe, an object needs mass to have gravity. God could have made a universe that kept your feet on Earth without mass, just as easily as He can break the current laws to perform miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if it fallowed the normal laws we observe would it? So those laws get suspended at God's will for miracles, I assume those same laws are not immutable in any other way God chooses....

A world without rules may be incompatible with a God of order. So while God may suspend.. say gravity for Jesus to walk on water, it doesn't follow that then God doesn't "need" a rule to govern mans general activity. Especially where the world is designed to convey spiritual messages and truth. Such as the existence of God. If we lived in what appeared to be a lawless universe (because god was working miracle after miracle in random ways) then such a world may make it impossible to see God in it. If we say God acted consistently, then we would just be back to another kind of law.

May I respectfully submit that according to your world view that you do, in fact know!
The ONLY consequences would be of God's choosing.
I see absolutely no other alternative?

Well, that is a fair point. However I don't hold that God can do logically impossible things, so certain aspects that are possible, wouldn't necessarily be 'com-possible" or possible at the same time.
Like the example above regarding Laws vs lawlessness and finding God.

[Belthazor]

yea, I see where I got the line I followed. You seem to imply the oceans for sure, and of course you mentioned separately the areas of land that man can't inhabit.. which I assume are like the sub zero parts. (not the Mortal Kombat kind). ..
My original line was to point out that the earth hasn't always been that way.

I thought I addressed this concern in post #538:
"I made no such assumption. The Earth is a dynamic planet in a state of constant change to be sure, and seemingly has been since it formed. If it was made for humans I would presume they would be capable adapting to these changes."

But allow me another stab at it if my previous response was not sufficient.

Earth is very dynamic. During ice ages our coastlines were hundreds of miles from where they are now and the glaciers from the N pole extended clear to Texas. In between ice ages, when a lot of the ice is melted, huge areas would be flooded that had been dry ground. New islands form in the ocean from volcanic activity. Continental drift shapes weather as well as landscape. When N & S America didn't not "touch", Africa was a dense jungle.

God, knowing this would be the case, would create humans with the ability to adapt to and live in a majority of these conditions if the Earth were made for man. After all He did it for tardigrades. They can live in ice. Indeed, they live in almost all areas of Earth. Humans can't even go up very high and still live. Climb Mt Everest and your brain will swell from lack of oxygen.

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

Especially from a position which posits an "garden of Eden" when the earth truly was made for man, but then was spoiled.

Do the majority of Christians believe Eden was here on Earth?
Feel free to decline, but what denomination are you?
I just don't want to argue against things you do not believe and waste your time.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

I think my "room with a view" has some explanatory power over this objection as well.

Again, I actually like this response
It does fall in line if you are correct!

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

A world without rules may be incompatible with a God of order. So while God may suspend.. say gravity for Jesus to walk on water, it doesn't follow that then God doesn't "need" a rule to govern mans general activity.

I don't believe I have suggested otherwise. My point is, God makes the rules, and can do so at His discretion. The only reason we need X mass for the universe to exist in it's current form is solely by god's pleasure. He could made it possible with more or less mass if He so chose and we wouldn't know the difference....

---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

Well, that is a fair point. However I don't hold that God can do logically impossible things, so certain aspects that are possible, wouldn't necessarily be 'com-possible" or possible at the same time.
Like the example above regarding Laws vs lawlessness and finding God.

Again, I don't believe I have suggested otherwise (at least in our current conversation).

Look, lightning could strike every time you say the word/phrase "X", if God wanted it that way. Nothing illogical/impossible about that, that I can see. Our understanding of physics would be modified to allow for verbal input.
Indeed, incantations, phrases, particular groupings of words, seem to come up commonly in religions as particularly important!

[futureboy]

You haven't offered critiques or rebuttals of the arguments offerred. That isn't an ad hom to point out, simply a fact.

Your statement was an ad hom expression of your opinion about my ability to respond to the arguments, not a statement of the fact that I was not offering critiques or rebuttals. Again, "I get that you're saying these because you've run into a limit in your ability to respond", is nothing like the statement "you're not offering critiques or rebuttals". I appreciate your statement of regret that it came across as an ad hom, but trying to make it seem as though you weren't saying what you said is quite dishonest and bad form.

Until you engage with the premises and structure of the argument, this isn't a rebuttal.

The arguments don't even warrant a rebuttal since they don't support your Xtian theistic claims.

Except...you haven't gotten that far in the argument yet, I'm happy to detail the ramifications of the conclusions of these arguments, but it is a lot clearer of an explanation if you engage with the premises.

Again, arguments which don't necessarily support your theistic beliefs will be disregarded.

It would seem intuitively obvious that it means, in this context, that something is not contained within our physical and temporal dimensions.

Existence is by definition necessarily temporal. It makes no sense to say that something exists for 0 seconds.

For example, the physical constants of our universe are not generally held by physicists to be bound to our universe. They aren’t determined by it, nor governed within it.

The physical constants of our universe are our conceptualizations of how we've observed our universe to function. They do not exist in any way like you're attempting to use the term existence here in support of something actually existing outside of our reality.

And point 2 was a red herring, you keep claiming that there is a material difference that precludes all examples from counting, but you haven’t detailed what that difference is and why it matters.

I've repeatedly explained the difference. Your examples are of changes in existing matter within an existing universe. The claim in KCA is precisely not that. You are equivocating creatio ex materia and creatio ex nihilo. KCA requires the latter, while we only have examples of the former.

And, remember we aren’t talking about matter/energy changing.

Again, that's all we have examples of, and they don't serve as support for the claims of the KCA.

By not addressing either set of questions and not presented valid support for your claims

I'm not making any claims, I'm simply pointing out the issues with your arguments, which are:
1. They don't support theism.
2. KCA's premises aren't demonstrated.
3. Fine Tuning sneaks in a designer as well as a purpose, both of which need to be demonstrated.

So you are unwilling to engage arguments presented that contradict your OP?

No, I believe I clearly expressed myself when I said that arguments which don't support your theistic claims will be disregarded.

I don't recall having made any such claim. Can you point it out?

FB #406: Were these (KCA, FT, Moral) the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place?
S #418: They were not.

This is a clear statement that the arguments you're presenting here are not the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place. Or, in other words, you are not presenting the original reasons you began to believe as your rational justification for believing.

FB #424: Then why not present those reasons as your rational justification for believing in the Xtian deity?
S #494: Who says I'm not?
FB #495: You do.

Again, after you presented the KCA, FT, Moral arguments, I asked you if these were the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place, to which you answered that, No, "they were not". Therefore, with these arguments, you aren't presenting the arguments which convinced you in the first place, according to your own admission. So I again point out that you are not presenting the original arguments which originally convinced you to believe, and you already agreed that this is the case. The question remains: why not present the arguments which convinced you in the first place? What's wrong with those? Do you think that a Xtian theist, who continues to believe based on similar arguments as those which convinced you in the first place, and who hasn't reached the same position as you of basing their Xtian beliefs on these new arguments, is less rationally justified in their belief than you are?
What were those arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place?

You are asking for me to present evidence to eliminate other forms of theism which seems like an entirely different argument, but one we can get to later.

No, it isn't an entirely different argument. For an argument to support your specific Xtian theism, it must necessarily exclude all other conflicting theistic claims/beliefs.

Since it is a build-on the argument we are currently discussing, we have to resolve that before moving on.

Again, if you want to present arguments in support of Xtian theism, then by all means, do so. "Build-on arguments" which do not necessarily lead to a conclusion which exclusively supports Xtian theism will be disregarded. If you base your rational justification on KCA, FT, and Morality plus further arguments, then you should be making an argument which contains all the premises of the KCA as well as the premises which lead you to your specific Xtian theism. Or simply start your full argument with the conclusion of any one of those arguments as the first premise follow-ed by the premises from the arguments which lead to Xtian theism, so that we can see whether your chain of logic is even valid. It's not sound, but it might just be valid.

If you'd like to get to the next step in the arguments, I'm happy to as well, but you'll need to accept these premises first.

This is a ridiculous demand, and not even one you adhered to when you were convinced of Xtian theism, by your own admission. Again, you're either presenting rational justification for your specific theistic beliefs, or you're not. So far, you're not.

That is one heck of an intellectual leap, and one heck of an invalid inference.

No, it's simple logic.
"this thread isn't about how I came to belief, it is about whether theistic belief is rational"
Again, if this thread is about whether your Xtian belief is rational, but does not include the reasons you came to the belief, then by definition, the reasons you came to the belief are not the reasons why your Xtian belief is rational.

I've already asked numerous questions offering you the chance to clarify this which you have avoided answering.
So I ask you again:
So the initial reasons for how you cam to belief were not rational, and your initial belief was not rationally justified?
Are you claiming that the arguments which led you to believe in the first place are rational? If so, then the question remains: Why not present them here?
By not presenting them here, does that mean you think they aren't such strong rational justification as compared to the arguments you have presented (KCA, FT, Moral)?
Did you only have rational justification for your belief in the Xtian deity once you were met with the three arguments you have listed here?

Those are inferences from the option, not premises supporting the option. You are arguing what you think is the next step in the argument rather than what the text actuall says.
There are really only two options regarding this premise.
1) Add a fourth category. Do you have one?
2) Remove a category, which is what seems to be what you are implying here. I'm happy to entertain an argument to that effect, but you'd need to explain why your interpretation (presumabely it is either due to necessity or chance) is MECE (Mutualy Exclusive, Completly Exhaustive). Specifially, you need to show why those two categories cover all possible explanations.

There's just so much wrong with your reasoning here. But the main issue is that you seem to think that by simply including the design option in the argument, this fulfills the requirements for it to even be considered as an option, and anyone who disputes that must support why it could only be the other two options. This is entirely backwards.

In order to include it as an option, you need to demonstrate that it actually is an option instead of merely asserting it. That's why I pointed out the inherent claims included with the design option: designed implies a purpose and an entity, neither of which we have support that they're even possible.

So far, the only valid options we have are Chance, Necessity, and We Don't Know.

Your inference to design is based on an incorrect interpretation of the observed phenomena, as the claimed appearance of design doesn't support that design is even actually possible.

I get that you are claiming that but not only have several members here shown you to be wrong. And not only have you offered no evidence to support your claim.

As I've already explained, the statement "You can count to infinity if you count an infinite number of times." is intended only to point out the absurdity of any claims which include both the concept of counting (getting to something) and the concept of infinity. *Hint, you were the one who first made an absurd claim about counting to infinity in post #422.

---------- Post added at 10:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

Over to you.

I'm still working on it - sorry for the wait!

[futureboy]

2) It would be a time when the Anointed One was killed (verse 26).

Who is "the Anointed One"?

Again, I'll ask you to clearly state the text of the passage together with what it's supposed to have predicted has happened.

So far, all you've offered is interpretations of the text, which aren't specific enough to warrant their consideration as actual predictions.

Nice assertion. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Provide your proof.

Again, if you have many people working towards something, and someone predicts that it will happen, the prediction isn't miraculous. It's like me saying that ordering a meal at a restaurant and then it later arrives just as I foretold it is a miraculous prophecy.

Show me some original ancient manuscripts (other than something carved in stone) from the time frame that has survived decay. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls containing many OT books are not originals. Not many originals survive. Will you deny every historical document from this time frame that is not an original document? Is that REASONABLE?

This in no way addresses my statement.

I am not disputing that the NT books were not put together into one testament, into the NT (canonized), after A.D. 70. I am disputing that even one of them was written after A.D. 70. Give me your documented evidence that even one was.

No, you have it backwards. Again, the state of evidence is that we have no originals, only copies of copies, the earliest of which are dated to after 100 CE. Based on these facts, we have no justification for making any claims about the documents' authorship at any time prior to the earliest existing copies. For someone to claim authorship prior to the earliest copies, they need to support that claim. What support do you have for the claim that any of the books were authored at any time prior to 100 CE, and, more importantly, what support do you have that these earliest copies even match the originals?

With the amount of manuscripts we have available it is reasonable to believe we have accurate copies.

Right, the manuscripts that are copies of those early copies. Again, how do you know that the first copies are actually verbatim matches of the originals?

You have one massive assumption that you have invested a lot of thought and philosophy into, that the prophecies are written AFTER the fact.

One is perfectly justified in being skeptical of any predictions for which the earliest existing texts are from after the event happened.
For predictions which are confirmed to have been made prior to the event happening, they'd have to meet the aforementioned requirements: they can't be vague, and they can't have a high probability of happening. So far, your examples all fail for one or both reasons.

It has been my witness that almost every atheist I have discussed the subject with always brushed the evidence of prophecy off without an in-depth argument over it. It's all allegation and inference with either no fact behind the charges, no reasonableness, or use of liberal scholars centuries removed from the times.

Again, you have it backwards. You're the one making the claim that these are actually miraculous predictions. No wonder you've had similar experiences before.

Is it reasonable to believe these ancient artifacts (biblical manuscripts) bear witness to the reliability of the Bible (66 books; 39 books in the Old Testament, and 27 NT books) we read today? Show me it is not, and document your case.

Tell me, did you perform an in-depth study of biblical predictions prior to being convinced of the truth of Xtian theism?

If there were only one or two accounts, they would be very questionable, but the over 5,000 different manuscripts from different regions and different times show that the translations are reliable. Then there are over 24,000 partial manuscripts to work with, besides. There are hundreds of early church fathers that contain citations or quotes in their writings from almost every passage in the NT and many from the OT.

Again, none of this necessarily demonstrates that what you read now is actually what was originally written.

You would have to understand the essence of the OT.

And this is why it fails as a valid prediction. Some so vague that it requires pages and pages of interpretation and reference to other passages which themselves require interpretation could never be considered an actual prediction. Islamic doctrine has its own fulfilled prophecies which are likewise attested to by interpretations and references to other passages' interpretations. Why are you not a Muslim?

So, again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that these prophecies (predictions) were not written before the fact/event, but after, since you claim there is no facts, no evidence.

Backwards, again. Really, this penchant of yours to attempt to shirk the burden of proof is becoming quite tedious.

Daniel 9:24-27 is very specific. The timeframe is 490 heptads, and six specific conditions relevant to the Mosaic Covenant have to be met before or during the fall of Jerusalem and the city. Also, the Messiah or Anointed One would be killed before the fall of the city and temple. It would be a time of wars and the abomination of desolation would result. These and many other items are specific.

Unfortunately, there are a number of issues with how Xtians interpret Daniel 9:24-27 which are based mostly on changes to the passage which happened over time and translation. One big difference is the capitalization of Messiah, Prince, and Anointed One, which doesn't exist in the original Hebrew version. This capitalization is an attempt by Xtian translators to establish a connection with Jesus, but when looking at translations from the original Hebrew, the text is in no way sufficiently specific enough to warrant the claim that Jesus is being referred to.

Zechariah 12:1-10 is specific. It even describes One who will be pierced for the transgressions of Israel. It gives detail of the mourning and it gives details of when (the last days) which the NT prophets/writers/Jesus speak of as during that generation. All these prophecies go hand-in-hand.

And Jews have a different interpretation. Who to believe?

There are many, many more passages I can refer to, such as Isaiah 2-4, Isaiah 9:6-7, Isaiah 53, Isaiah 65-66, Jeremiah 31, Micah 4, many Psalms, Deuteronomy 28, as examples.

Feel free to do so, again, clearly stating the text of the passage together with what it's supposed to have predicted has happened.

In answering the statements and questions below it has become apparent the same themes are repeatedly evident, and one theme is how you get from an "is" or the descriptive, to an "ought" or prescriptive.

The way in which secular morality gets to the "ought" is by recognising that we're stuck on this planet together and need to find a way to co-exist which minimizes unnecessary suffering and maximized benefit. Once we agree that our well-being is in our best interests, it's no great leap to get to an "ought" in any situation.

Whose current understanding?

The consensus understanding of the experts in the field.

I don't share such a view. What about me and those who think like I do? My views are ridiculed, suppressed and subverted by the current understanding to push that materialistic narrative.

Not just your views, but any views which are asserted without having first met their burden of proof. That's just how the cookie crumbles, I'm afraid. After years and years of theists continuing to make assertions without meeting that burden, it's little wonder that some ridicule those assertions.

The point; that your origin (its beginnings) are something that cannot be traced to anything that makes sense once you hold to naturalistic beginnings, yet despite this, you continue to suggest and find sense from such beginnings.

I'm sorry if the naturalistic explanations of our origins don't make sense to you, but this is not a refutation of them. If you're referring to "sense" as in "meaning", then I've already answered this: We determine our own meaning.

What I traced my origins to can logically make sense because I trace them to a personal, intelligent, caring ultimate being

This is nothing more than the assertion that just because you have an explanation which makes sense to you means it's the actual explanation. Unfortunately, logic and reason don't work that way. Further, we tend to explain things by referencing other things which we already understand and have support for, so any attempt to explain a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery is not an explanation. Your explanation fails because of this.

not some glob of matter plus energy over time devoid of all reason that supposedly is the origin of us

If you're referring to "reason" as in "the cause", then we have a good idea of the cause. If you mean "reason" as in "meaning" again, then this has already been addressed.

What you assume is that such an origin can produce what you witness.

Nobody assumes that.

The difference between the two worldviews is that my worldview can make sense of what I observe, yours cannot (how do you get life and senses from inorganic chemicals mixing?).

Again, claiming that you can make sense of something is not a demonstration that what you assert is the actual explanation.
I could just as easily make sense of what we observe by claiming that magical universe-farting pixies created the universe, and then magical life-sneezing fairies created all life. This makes sense of what we observe, therefore, it's a valid explanation.

If the atheist/secular/materialistic worldview does not fully understand how things happen, then that worldview could be mistaken in its views of the universe.

Whether it "could be mistaken" is not a demonstration that it is mistaken. Since the current models have proven themselves to be reliable and provide us with predictive capabilities, we can be fairly certain that they are accurate.

You and anyone else has every right to attempt to disprove those models, which their creators and proponents are constantly trying to do themselves, incidentally. But what you miss yet again is that even if you disproved every single one of the naturalistic models, you would not have moved one step closer to demonstrating your Xtian theism.

You do not know; you prefer to believe what you do.

Well, to be clear, it might be said that nobody truly "knows" anything, really - depending on how far you want to go with defining "knowledge". All we have is reasonable certainty of most things which we claim to "know".

How life originates from non-life has never been demonstrated in the real world, just theorized as possible.

And nobody has ever claimed to have an explanation for how life originated from non-life. You need to be careful not to confuse abiogenesis with evolution. We can assume it's possible for life to come from non-life because we know that life exists, and we're fairly sure that it doesn't exist in most of the rest of the universe. So as far as life originating from non-life being possible, this isn't an issue. How it happened is something we don't know and may never know.

One support is the reasonableness of mindful being producing other mindful beings.

This is in no way support that, when humans determine reasonableness of proposition, there is a mind behind it. What does that even mean, "a mind behind it"?

What you need for your assertion is oodles and oodles of time, plus matter and energy without intent.

Both of which we have.

Thus, Chance randomly somehow produces what is necessary. Does that make sense to you? If so, then explain how so I can dispute it. Some things work in theory yet are impossible to demonstrate in real life, such as arriving at the present from an infinity.

Again, there are some things we don't know for certain and which we may never know. This is no way lends credibility to any Xtian claims.

You assume and speculate based on the THOUGHTS of other subjective, relative, limited human beings. Why should I believe them (a blind speculative faith since no human being was there to witness origins nor witnesses life from non-life happening today)? Confirmational bias verifies what a person wants to see.

Your anti-science bias is quite clear here. It is unfortunate that this bias has prevented you from experiencing the world of knowledge offered to us through science.

You derive meaning from the meaningless.

Yes, we derive meaning from our own understanding of reality and how we see ourselves in it, and that reality is ultimately meaningless, as you use the word. It's just reality, and we find ourselves trapped in it. It's our job to figure out what to do with ourselves.

The universe does not have meaning to it UNLESS a MEANINGFUL Being has produced that meaning.

No, the universe does not have meaning to it, period. We create our own meaning for ourselves within the universe, but that doesn't change the fact that the universe appears to not care about our existence in the least, let alone have a meaning for our existence.

The unbeliever's worldview tends to derive meaning from the meaningless. The unbeliever keeps borrowing suppositions from the Christian worldview to make sense of their worldview.

What suppositions are borrowed from the Xtian worldview? You claim this yet provide no support.

They want things to matter, live their life as if things ultimately matter, yet don't have what is necessary for it to ultimately matter.

"Ultimately matter" is something which has not been claimed nor supported. The only meaning is the one we create for ourselves, and the only things which matter are the ones we say matter. You can claim that things ultimately matter until you're blue in the face, but it's nonsense unless you can demonstrate it.

I'm talking about how you obtain quantitative VALUES from the qualitative (the OUGHT from the IS). You use these qualitative values all the time as if your personal opinion or that of other likeminded opinions establishes what is good or best. How does the descriptive (behaviorism), what is, become what SHOULD BE, the prescriptive?

I've offered the foundation for the "OUGHT" under secular morality. Now, how about Xtian theistic morality? Where does your "OUGHT" come from? All you can do is claim that there is a deity which has made some moral pronouncements. These are all "IS" which don't necessarily lead to any "OUGHT".

How do you get good without first KNOWING what is best?

As long as we agree to care about well-being, then the fact of reality provide what is good.

You just make it up, call it "good," but if someone makes up a different/opposite value, you dispute its rightness.

Nobody "just makes it up". Your claim that secular moral values are arbitrary is unsupported and plainly false to anyone with even the slightest idea of how it works.

How do you get best without an ultimate, fixed, unchanging standard? A relative standard is always changing, so how do you know what you believe as "good" is actually the case. It could all change tomorrow.

Again, as long as we agree to care about well-being, this is the standard. If we no longer agree to care about well-being, then the lack of a standard is the least of our problems.

What you call "good" today could be seen as evil tomorrow.

Sure, if evidence is provided showing that it doesn't actually offer well-being, then it would not be seen as good anymore.

Why is that? All I would have to do is point to abortion in your country (presuming you live in the USA) in which at one time not long ago (before Roe Vs. Wade) it was looked upon as bad, murder, and not permissible. Now it is looked upon as the woman's right to choose and that being "good."

Right, evidence has been provided which shows that the well-being of the fetus should not take priority over the well-being of the woman, and that women should have autonomy over their bodies in order to maximize well-being.

Same-sex marriage and sodomy was once thought of as evil, yet the idea has been promoted as "good" by many societies in recent years, and laws against same-sex marriage or sodom have been repealed and changed.

If something is asserted as evil for the wrong reasons, it's no wonder that, when the evidence comes around to support that it's not wrong, it's no longer considered wrong.

Slavery was once thought of as permissible, and many people thought it good to own slaves. That position is no longer seen as good.

Really? It seems that some here think that there's nothing wrong with owning people as property ... or at least owning people as labour, whatever that means.

Some countries and some people accept one view and oppose the opposite. Tyrants enslave their people by their control over them and dictate what is and will be the laws of the land. Who is right?

If we agree to care about well-being, then those who can demonstrate that their approach maximizes it are right.

How does that make it better, because you like it? You are confusing PREFERENCE with values.

No, because I'm in the best position to determine what my life's meaning should be, by definition. Preference vs. values doesn't enter into it. You asked why my individually determined meaning to my life is better for me, and I explained why. If you think otherwise, then feel free to provide an argument for that.

Why is YOUR meaning any BETTER than mine in a relative world of ideas?

Again, the meaning I determine for myself is better than the meaning someone else determines for me. The meaning you determine for yourself is better than the meaning someone else determines for you. The meaning I determine for myself is no better or worse than the meaning you determine for yourself because we're different people.

Why is your social construct BETTER than that of Hitler or Kim Jong-un? Because you LIKE it?

What makes it better is that it is demonstrably better at ensuring well-being and minimizing unnecessary suffering. It is based on facts.

When there are two opposing conventions like the view of same-sex marriage or abortion, viewed in one country as Good and Right and in another as Evil and Wrong, which convention is the correct one? In a relative world which person is to say. Logically both views cannot be true since they are contrary to each other.

Again, the position which is demonstrably better as ensuring well-being, as according to the available facts. A good example is women's right to vote, drive a car, have a job, etc., as compared between a western country and a country which doesn't uphold those rights. Are you honestly going to say that we can't in any way show that the society which upholds those rights is better at ensuring well-being? Are you honestly going to claim that the moral values behind those rights were divinely inspired by the same religion which holds women to be not equal to men according to its scripture?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism has all the ingredients of a worldview.

Nothing about the wikipedia article on atheism supports that it is a worldview. It lists the various views held by atheists, but there is no collection of view which could be called a worldview that could be applied universally to "atheism". This has been repeatedly explained to you. The only common element for all atheists is that the lack a belief in deity X. Lacking a belief in something in no way constitutes a worldview.

Once you deny God, you must explain existence by some other means.

No, one can, and most do, simply acknowledge that we don't know for sure, since this is the only rationally justified position.

You MUST sift everything through the eyes of your foundational, core, starting point.

The foundational, core, starting point for any rational skeptic should from the minimum base assumptions which are:
1. The universe/reality exists.
2. We can learn something about the universe/reality.
3. Models with predictive capabilities are more useful than models without predictive capabilities.

No further assumptions are required, or allowed, in order for a foundational core starting point to be considered rational.

Instead of a Creator as the explanation, you must find another REASON for our existence

Well no, we don't actually have to find a reason for our existence in order to have a reasonable good existence. But we understand that, in order to make the most of our existence, we should try to find out as much as we can about it.

If you deny God, then a naturalistic view becomes the default

Wrong. A naturalistic view does not become the default if one denies Xtian theism. There are quite many alternatives which are not naturalistic. In any case, it's important to be clear about what one means by "naturalism". When I use the term, I'm usually referring to methodological naturalism, which is quite different from philosophical naturalism.

How do atheists answer these essential metaphysical questions? Someone who does not believe in God answers every one of them.

Not necessarily, and this goes back to your misrepresentation of atheism as a worldview. Some atheists might not care about the answers to those questions. A good example would be someone who has no concept of a deity and likewise has not considered those questions in any way. That person would be technically an atheist who has no answer to those questions.
Further, atheists have all sorts of different answers, depending on who you ask, which further refutes your claim that it's a worldview.

Being an atheist, your system of thought tries to define everything starting from and looking at everything through a particular slant.

Rational skepticism is not a slant. It's the only rationally justified approach which has repeatedly demonstrated its reliability as a pathway to truth. Faith has not.

The question is which is more reasonable and logical and which can make sense of our origins and values.

No, the question is which has met its burden of proof. If all you care about is which is claimed to be able to make sense of our origins, then farting pixies and sneezing fairies works just as well as your god.

My claim is that only my theistic system of thought makes sense or can make sense of it.

Even if you could support that claim (you haven't), this criteria is wholly irrelevant, as the pixies and fairies example demonstrates. This is also demonstrated by the existence of all other theistic claims which contradict yours, but which are equally valid according to your criteria.

I ask you how "best" can exist/be if everything is relative or for that matter from a subjective, limited mind?

To which I already replied:
A "universal best" might not exist. We certainly don't have any good evidence that one does. So we're left dealing with reality (as we experience it) on reality's terms, and we have to come to terms with the fact that we're stuck co-existing on this planet, and need to find ways of co-existing which are beneficial to us, maximize our prosperity, and minimize our suffering.

If a universal best, a measure that we can measure everything else from, does not exist then why is your measure any better than mine?

It depends on whether we agree to care about well-being. Once we do, then the measure is the facts. Whichever measure is supported by the available facts is better.

All you can do is CALL it better.

Well, I already provided a basis for making objective moral evaluations, but the flaw you try to apply to secular morality isn't avoided by Xtianity. All you can do is claim that there's a deity who has made moral pronouncements. Nothing about that makes it actually better or the best, even if we accept that the deity exists. It just another IS which doesn't get us to the OUGHT.

Preference does not make something good; it just makes it permissible. Hitler or Kim Jong-un permits something that you don't or may not like in your society such as the killing of Jews, or the suppression of a people. Unless you can produce a universal standard and measure what makes their view any better than what you believe? N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Again, I've already provided the basis for making objective moral evaluations within secular morality.

THAT is your assumption. Mere assertion.

No, it's a fact. You've claimed that you have an ultimate best. You have not demonstrated that it is actually the ultimate best. Simply defining it as such does not make it so.

As I have said, I have a reasonable and logical faith

As you have said but not supported...

that is necessary for the ultimate best

Claiming it's necessary does not make it so. You have to demonstrate that it is. Otherwise, I can simply claim that the reality-farting pixies are necessary for there to be an ultimate best. This gets us nowhere.

I do not see you as being able to give answers to origins and meaning sufficiently.

I've already explained that we may never know the answers to origins, as well as where meaning comes from. Your statement that you don't see those as sufficient answers is irrelevant.

When I dig into the nuts and bolts (the basics that holds everything you believe - the web of your core beliefs - together) of your worldview presuppositions I see them as unraveling and leading to the senseless. (Matthew 7:26-27)

Again, there's nothing inherently necessary about the universe that requires there to be a meaning, ultimate best, or sense. You'd need to provide support that it is before this counts as a valid criticism of the atheistic position.

I have an ultimate best, granting that God exists.

Right, but the "granting" part is were you get into trouble. We could just as easily grant that farting pixies exist and be able to get our hands on that holy ultimate best you keep going on about.

What is more, I can make sense of origins.

Well, for one, you can't. Again, you can't explain a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. But in any case, even if we granted that your explanation was valid, simply having an explanation doesn't make it true - we're back to universe-farting pixies again.

Why would something that has no intention, no purpose be capable of producing both? You ASSUME 'it' (whatever it is) can.

Again, nobody assumes that.

How do you know that it is an improvement unless you have a final/fixed reference point? You don't.

Again, I've provided the reference point, which is the objective evaluations, based on available evidence, which demonstrate whether something ensures well-being.

The standard is always shifting without a final reference point. Demonstrate with a shifting reference point that your OPINION is any "better" than any other without a fixed reference.

The reference point is our agreement to care about well-being and the standard is whether something ensures well-being.

Your worldview in regards to morality is no better than any other UNLESS there is a final, fixed, unchanging reference point that good and evil can be compared.

You keep claiming this, and yet fail to provide any support.

Otherwise, it is just preference - personal FEELINGS or likes versus dislikes. Some like to burn witches, other like to befriend them. What is your preference?

Again, I've provided the foundation for making objective moral evaluations. It is not based on preference.

1) I mean, Is it rationally consistent with what it claims? Or Does it borrow from another worldview to make sense of its claims?

You were the one who made the statement that my worldview cannot make sense of itself. Make your arguments and provide support.

3) If you do not believe in God, the ultimate Supreme Being, then you HAVE to explain everything in naturalistic means eventually

Again, no, there are many atheists who haven't even considered the explanation for everything.

Why is maximizing prosperity good?

Because we've agreed to care about well-being a prosperity in a secular moral system. If you're yet again absurdly demanding an "ultimate best", then I'll repeat:
Such a thing might not exist. We certainly don't have any good evidence that one does, and all you can do is claim there is one. So we're left dealing with reality (as we experience it) on reality's terms, and we have to come to terms with the fact that we're stuck co-existing on this planet, and need to find ways of co-existing which are beneficial to us, maximize our prosperity, and minimize our suffering.

In a universe without any ultimate fixed measure, that takes no note of suffering, or cares about it in any way, what does it matter?

It matters to us.

If you want to believe it does, so be it, but why do you continue to deny those who do not believe in maximum prosperity as the "better" option?

We not only believe it does, but we can support that it does. Those who do not care about well-being usually don't end up sticking around for too long.

Look at all those who believe in looking out for themselves and bleed the rest of us dry. If they choose to take your life, what makes that evil in a relative, changing universe?

According to the universe it doesn't matter, of course. But according to the objective evaluations which can be made in a secular moral system by members who agree to care about well-being, it's labelling as evil is quite easily justified.

If they have the power to do so, then so be it.

Sure, if someone has the power to do evil and doesn't care about the consequences, there's nothing I can do to stop them. It doesn't change the fact, however, that I'm able to support the objective evaluation that their actions are evil. It's a lot like your god, in a way. There's nothing I can do to stop Yaweh from applying an unjust infinite punishment for a finite crime if he exists, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm able to support the objective evaluation that his actions are evil. If he exists and is anything similar to the monster described in the bible, then there's nothing I can do but suffer an eternal punishment with the knowledge that I'm morally and intellectually superior to him.

Again, your view fails the test of logic, of two opposing beliefs being true at the same time and in the same manner.

This is not my view, but your misrepresentation of it. No wonder it fails the test of logic.

Meaning loses its identity.

This is an incoherent statement.

One has to be wrong, and only if there is a final reference point does it ultimately matter, or anything goes. Such specifics like abortion or same-sex union can't both be good and not good at the same time and in the same manner.

And I already provided the foundation for determining which is wrong.

It is the question of the is/ought fallacy; how you get from an is to an ought in a strictly material universe.

I've provided the pathway to the ought.

How do your values originate? They SUPPOSEDLY originate from an amoral universe with a system of belief that denies a personal supreme being. They originate from changing likes and preferences. Show me otherwise.

This is yet another absurd misrepresentation of secular morality. Secular moral values don't originate from changing likes and preferences. Take a look at any single dispute about rights in the last 100 years, and you can clearly see this. None of the parties involved were arguing solely on the arbitrary basis of likes and preferences. This is just so absurd it's not even funny.

Says who? A lion does not debate on whether it is right or wrong to kill a gazelle. It likes the taste in its mouth and feeling in its belly, so it does it. It knows its survival depends on eating it, or it would not bother and die.

The morality of the jungle is quite different from ours, although there are some governing principles which are shared by both, namely the principle of well-being. In an ecosystem such as the jungle, the animals rely on and operate within a natural equilibrium, of which lions eating gazelles is a natural part. So comparing that to secular human morality is not valid. A more valid example would be when a male lion commits infanticide and eats a cub. While there are studies which hint at there being long-term benefits to the species, it's easy to see why infanticide is not practiced by more socially-developed species such as chimpanzees, humans, and other apes. Simply put, any possible benefit from infanticide would be greatly out-weighed by the harm it would do to a society which cares about maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm, and is able to find ways of achieving that benefit - whatever it is - through other, less harmful means.

Hitler did not think it is wrong to kill Jews. Kim Jong-un does not think it is wrong to exploit his people.

And they were wrong, and we can show why they were wrong according to objective evaluations of their actions. But it's important to recognize, however, that the harm done by Hitler and Kim Jong Un was not made possible by skepticism, secular humanism, or even atheism. In both their cases, it was the dogmatic belief of their followers which led to their atrocities. No one in their right mind would say that the problem with those regimes was that they had too much skeptical enquiry & rational discourse going on.

So what? Why should I care about what is important to you, as long as what I like to do is the prevalent view?

Again, if we agree to care about well-being, then this is a no-brainer.

When you say, "we are the ones who determine what is best" then if someone has an opposing view on what is best, who is "right?"

The one who can back up their position with available evidence.

Is it the majority that rules?

If the question cannot be determined by objective evaluation of available evidence, then the majority determines the outcome, yes. This is what happens when people vote on things. However, we should hope, at least, that the majority doesn't simply choose which side they're on based on the arbitrary basis of likes and preferences, and instead evaluate evidence and arguments available to them in order to determine which side they're on.

Again, how does preference make something "good?" Because you can beat someone over the head if they do not follow what you like?

This is yet another gross misrepresentation of secular mortality.

That is what happens in most dictatorships throughout history.

Right, and you'll notice that most dictators don't really care about the well-being of their country.

Unless you have an ultimate, absolute, unchanging, righteous source that is best why is your measurement the standard I SHOULD follow?

If you don't agree to care about well-being, then by all means, don't follow that standard.

So why should I make it meaningful? Try living it when you're starving to death and you have no hope, or in a Nazi concentration camp. How is there justice there? What is justice in an amoral universe?

The universe doesn't inherently provide us with justice, and it would be naive to think it did. We must ensure justice ourselves.

If I disagree, which one of us is right? In a universe without any ultimate reason or meaning why SHOULD I care? It is all relative.

We were talking about whether I was imposing your worldview by deeming a suicide tragic. Again, I have full justification for why someone in pain committing suicide would be considered tragic. Your response doesn't seem to address this in any way.

You would have to borrow from the Christian worldview that believes it is wrong to commit suicide or right to have compassion on others to "justify" the view. You would have to demonstrate that your relativistic and subjective views are based on what is best or "good," or it is meaningless - it can mean whatever a person wants to make it mean.

I don't need to borrow from the Christian worldview to believe it is wrong to commit suicide because I don't believe it is wrong to commit suicide in all cases. In any case, I find it quite ironic that you would mention infinite punishment for committing suicide along with compassion for others in the same sentence.

Some people do. But if you are nothing more than a biological bag of matter, it makes no difference, ultimately, what you or I believe.

Again, this "ultimate best" is a red herring. Such a thing might not exist. We certainly don't have any good evidence that one does, and all you can do is claim there is one. So we're left dealing with reality on reality's terms, and if we care about well-being, then we have to accept the fact that we're stuck co-existing on this planet, and need to find ways of co-existing which are beneficial to us, maximize our prosperity, and minimize our suffering.

My Christian worldview believes it matters for a good reason. God has created us, and He values our life, and He is the One who grants it, sets it in place, and has the right to take that life from us.

These are all assertions which you have not supported. And please note, even if we accepted that there are actually valid predictions in the bible which were fulfilled, it would not demonstrate that anything else in the bible is actually true. Someone making a prediction which they claim they got from a deity and then the prediction coming true in no way demonstrates the mechanism behind how they got the prediction, nor does it demonstrate the truth of any of their other claims.

You continue to inject meaning into a meaningless universe because you think it matters. It does not matter in such a universe. Besides, why do you continue to find such meaning from such a universe? Why do you continue to find a reason when no reason is ultimately there? It is so inconsistent.

I've already addressed this.

If a value is relative then how do you know it is good or bad?

By making objective evaluations based on the available evidence. If humans value something, then of course that value is by definition relative to those humans. But once a value is established, such as agreeing to care about well-being, it's easy to make objective evaluations of situations and determine whether they're good or bad according to well-being.

Ultimately, in such a worldview, my life is neither good or bad in a meaningless universe. It just is.

Yes, according to the universe, our lives have no ultimate meaning. This does not preclude us from establishing our own meaning, however, which we readily do. And it's really strange that you would have such an issue with this. In virtually every other aspect of your life, you'd resist anyone telling what you should do or value, or what meaning you should adopt. In highschool, you'd never accept the government telling you that you're destined to be this or that, and that this is what you have to study when you get to college and you can't decide for yourself. And when applying for a job, if they were to impose their own desires on you in deciding where to work, that would be ridiculous. But when we find ourselves in a universe utterly devoid of any apparent meaning specific to humans, all of a sudden you find yourself claiming that us making our own way is impossible, and that some externally-imposed purpose is necessary? It never ceases to amaze me how deep some folks' indoctrination goes.

[futureboy]

--- continued from #547 ---

Then you are living contrary to your materialistic worldview from which nothing ultimately matters.

No, I'm not. I never claimed that it's a tragedy because of some ultimate meaning. I stated that it's a tragedy because of the suffering the person goes through and the lost opportunity for prosperity. Both of these are values we determine ourselves and do not require any ultimate meaning in the universe or externally-imposed values for us to be able to recognize the value to us.

Again, you have crossed over to borrow from my Christian worldview in which it does ultimately matter because we are answerable to God.

My response had nothing to do with the Xtian worldview or ultimate meaning. On the contrary, my answer clearly showed how much more compassionate human values are when compared to your evaluation according to Xtianity. I actually care about the person, their suffering, and the possibilities they may have had in life, while all you seem to care about is an externally-imposed meaning.

If there is no God, everything is permissible, as long as you can get away with doing whatever you want to.

Recognizing that there’s no guarantee of justice in this universe is what ensures that we strive to have it. Recognizing that good isn't guaranteed to be rewarded is what makes us want to reward it when we see it. Recognizing that evil isn’t guaranteed to be punished is what makes us want to work together to deal with problems as a collective and also individually in ways which encourage actual change and which hopefully minimizes harmful actions.
Recognizing that there's no guarantee of justice means we appreciate those moments when it is achieved, and ensures that we work toward achieving it more often.

It is permitted by God since you have a violation, granted by God, but God also permits you to sin, and He gives you the consequences of sin too. He could prevent you but then you would be a robot. You are not a robot. You have a choice to disobey God, even though you will suffer consequences, for God has made know to you what is indeed right and what is indeed wrong. Your conscience bears it out. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to steal.

He knows all things, but it is a choice people make that they will be accountable. Since God takes life, not YOU, then you taking your life goes against God's command, which you well know - Thou shall not kill.

You completely missed the point. Again, according to your faith, every single suicide is predetermined by god. God created this universe with complete foreknowledge of every single suicide that might happen. He had the option of creating other universes instead in which nobody would commit suicide, but he chose to create this universe. You're right when you say God is the giver an taker of life. According to Xtianity, god not only gave the life to the person who commits suicide, but he also takes their life by choosing to create the universe in which they do so.

If so, then if 99 out of 100 and 990 out of 1000 people like ice-cream, then ice-cream is "good!" If 99 out of 100 like killing Jews then killing Jews is "good!"

The comparison is completely invalid since you are not including the potential consequences of both scenarios. With ice-cream, the potential consequences of everyone liking it are negligible. With killing Jews, however, the consequences are quite extreme.

This is the consequence of utilitarianism.

Sigh, no, it's not. If you ignore the potential negative consequences, you're not talking about utilitarianism.

Certainty is available through a necessary being, or to put it another way, what would be necessary for certainty?

Again, all you're doing is claiming that such a being is necessary without demonstrating that it is.

All I'm saying is my worldview can make sense of certainty. Can you be sure that the universe exists the way you perceive it to be?

If you're referring to absolute certainty, then this is a red herring. There is no solution to hard solipsism (you can't demonstrate that you aren't a brain in a vat and that everything you experience exists only in your mind). We deal with varying degrees of certainty based on the available evidence.

Only if an ultimate Being who created it has told you as much or you get lucky and think His thoughts after He does, and logic confirms such IS the case

Again, you have no demonstration of this. Any fallible being who experiences a deity telling them something can't claim absolute certainty because they're fallible. It doesn't matter that an actual deity might have actually told them something, the fact that they're a fallible human being means that absolute certainty is by definition out of reach. It's like running pure water through a dirty filter - you won't get pure water.

So you presume and this a result of your worldview position! Your worldview does not have what is necessary for certainty.

Again, absolute certainty is impossible. How can you be sure that you're not a brain in a vat?

Science, which you trust, relies on the fact of uniformity of nature, (that what has been the case continues to be). That is the framework for science. So, how certain are you of it?

As certain as necessary in order to continue to be able to rely on it and understand how it demonstrates its reliability.

If God be true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4) then I can know that what is constant will remain constant (Genesis 8:22; Colossians 1:17). That would be one difference between our worldviews. I would have a "Better" groundwork for science.

What you have is a claim from a text, nothing more.

Why SHOULD anything REMAIN constant in a chance, random universe? THERE IS NO REASON. Yet it does!

The observed uniformity of nature and the reason for it are two completely different things. Pointing out that we don't have an explanation for uniformity of nature (that's kinda why it's an assumption in science) in no way affects the validity of the assumption.

From where your worldview starts (and finishes) there is NO REASON. How reason materializes from lifeless matter plus energy is a mystery. You can't make sense of it. Your worldview is devoid of making sense of it.

Again, it depends on how you're using the word "reason". I've addressed this. And again, failing or succeeding to make sense of something (or claiming to) has no bearing on the truth. I've already addressed this, as well.

Yes, I believe truth originates from God, and we learn it either from His word or by correctly thinking His thoughts after Him. When we do that science bears witness. So, we find the correct path via science when we correctly think His thoughts after Him.

And do you have support for any of this?

I have started to give reasons why the Bible is reasonable to believe and points to God. I invite you to refute and dispute it and let's see whose worldview is more reasonable and logical.

Nothing you have provided counts as support for your belief that "truth originates from God, and we learn it either from His word or by correctly thinking His thoughts after Him".

We do science because of the uniformity of nature - we CAN predict based on consistents (Genesis 8:22). Why IF there is no reason behind this uniformity? We would never have any faith that we could do science.

This has nothing to do with the validity of the assumption of uniformity of nature. Not having a reason behind the uniformity is precisely why it's an assumption.

So, which view of "Science" do you hold

This has no relevance to our exchange. Here it is again:
PGA: Kuhn listed some scientific paradigms that changed with more information, more knowledge, and over time, which brings into question of whether the scientific paradigms we live under today are true to what actually is the case.
FB: No, it doesn't. Only actual evidence can bring it into question. This is what is referred to with "more information, more knowledge". Even if I accepted your extrapolation from Kuhn, this does nothing at all to actually support your theistic claims. You could, right now, conclusively disprove every single scientific theory and model, and you'd still have all your work ahead of you to prove anything at all about your deity.

Specificly, can't know that God exists or the Bible is true. Can't know that God exists or the Bible is true.

Where did I say this?

Whose reality? Your view of it?

This does not address my actual response to your statement. Here it is again:
PGA: Again, I repeat, I have what is necessary for truth provided God exists.
FB: Yes, "provided". Since you haven't met the burden of proof, then you don't have what is necessary for truth.

Is it more reasonable to believe that reason derives from a reasoning being, an ultimate reasoning Being at that? It does not derive from you, or me. You are not necessary for me to reason, nor I for you.
Is it more reasonable to believe that reason can derive its existence from something inorganic, for that is supposedly where you owe your existence and reason from (when I say you, generically I mean all life forms)?

Claiming where reason comes from has no bearing on any Xtian claims.

Sure it is, for ideas are not created in a vacuum. They are built upon, one concept at a time, starting from a core presupposition(s) that requires faith.

The base assumptions don't require faith, they are by definition necessary. You can't not assume them due to the problem of hard solipsism.

Sure it does, it supports the biblical claim that God's word is true (John 17:17).

Merely repeating the claim does not address the rebuttal.

I do not merely accept some prophecy as true, I accept all that God prophesies through His divinely inspired servants as true, and I base it on a higher authority than my own for, I trust His Word as truth.

Again, whether there is an accurate prediction in one place does nothing to prove a claim in another.

I'm not familiar with The Simpsons. What exactly do you mean?

The Simpsons is a cartoon comedy that has been on TV for about 30 years. Over the course of the show, there have been numerous episodes which have since been identified as predictions that came true.

The point is that no number of fulfilled predictions lends credibility to any of the other claims, no matter how many predictions there are or how accurate they are.

Please provide the biblical prophetic verses you reference.

Egypt: Ezekiel 29:1-15
Along with other predictions which never came true, this passage predicts that Egypt would be a desolate wasteland, which has never been recorded to have happened.

Tyre: Ezekiel 26:1-21
Nebuchadnezzar never completely destroyed the city of Tyrus, as claimed in this prediction. After a many-year conflict, Tyre reached a compromise with Nebuchadnezzar and succumbed to his authority without ever being destroyed. Further, even after being conquered by Alexander the Great hundreds of years later, Tyre still exists, despite the prediction claiming that it would be completely destroyed and never built upon again.

Nile: predicted twice in Ezekiel 30:12 and Isaiah 19:1-8
There is no evidence that this has ever happened.

Judah: Isaiah 7:1-7
God promises the kind of Judah that he would not be harmed, but he was (2 Chronicles 28:1-8).

Here's another good one: Israel will live in peace with it's neighbours, as predicted in Ezekiel 28:24-26. Despite them having houses and vineyards, no punishment has been inflicted on their neighbours. Indeed, the punishment of neighbours is happening still to this day by everyone in the region.

Secular morality can't account for goodness for it has no fixed measure. The measure is always changing.

Your requirement that a moral system needs a fixed measure in order to account for goodness is unfounded. It is a bare assertion just like the bare assertion you make when you claim that you do have a fixed measure for goodness. Again, claiming you have one does not magically pop it into existence - you have to demonstrate that it actually exists. Until then, all we are left with is the realization that we're stuck dealing with reality as we observe it on reality's terms, and the reality is that there is no ultimate measure for what is good. By agreeing to care about our well-being, however, we can establish a foundation for making objective moral evaluations in any situation and determine which actions are better or worse in that situation.

So again, you claimed that "making sense of morality" is evidence of the Xtian god, and my response was that secular morality has no problem making sense of morality, and it's the only moral system which is: A) actually a system and not just a collection of pronouncements, and B) demonstrated to exist. Your response does not address these points, and simply makes the bare assertion that it can't.

a) b) Show me how.

This has been supported in the Secular vs. Religious morality thread. But, in short, there are many societies in the world which have moral systems that are secular. These are actual moral systems, meaning they can change and be improved upon as we learn more, whereas religious morality is nothing more than a collection of moral pronouncements asserted by its followers. It is not a moral system which has been demonstrated to exist - only claimed to exist.

The question is how does something that has no mind, no intent, no purpose, but is chaotic and random (chance happenstance) continue to "act" in a uniform manner? There is no REASON that it would, but you continue to argue from reason. The more you think about it, the more that REASON and PURPOSE become apparent. The minute you start to argue for your atheistic position reason becomes apparent, and you find reason supposedly from a universe that is devoid of it. Why is there a reason for any of this? Are you just making it up? Why should I believe your reasoning? Support your worldview.

This has nothing to do with our exchange. Here it is again:
PGA (providing proof that the Xtian god exists): Another is the consistency or uniformity of nature.
FB: Uniformity of nature is evidence of uniformity of nature. Any further claims require further support or arguments.

So again, the fact that we observe uniformity of nature is not evidence of god, it's evidence that there apparently is uniformity of nature.

It is much more reasonable than concluding that your origins are derived from something that is devoid of reason and logic. I witness every day that from personal, logical, rational beings come others of the same kind. I never witness these mindful qualities arising any other way.

You claimed that "the complexity and diversity of life and the universe and the reason that we can THINK about these things logically and rationally" is proof of Xtian theism.

Again, the fact that we see complexity and diversity of life and have an ability to reason and think logically is evidence that there apparently is complexity and diversity of life and we apparently have an ability to reason and think logically. This is in no way a demonstration of any Xtian theistic claims.

There is no "why" without a mindful being.

This in no way addresses by response - you appear to be going back to the previous proof you offered about us being able to think and reason.

The question then is how? How does something come from nothing? I see it as an impossibility.

You've essentially just repeated the claim without addressing my response. Here it is again:
Could there even be "nothing"? Is that even an option?

Your whole question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" assumes that there could even be "nothing", which hasn't been demonstrated. The question is nonsense until you demonstrate the two possibilities. Further, even if we granted those possibilities (something or nothing), the fact that we have something and not nothing proves just that: that there is something and not nothing. It in no way demonstrates Xtian theism.

Unless the universe owes its existence to an outside source, there must be a beginning because I don't see how you can get to the PRESENT in an infinite/eternal universe or even a string of universes that reach back to an infinite regress. In a multiverse eventually you would have to arrive at the grand beginning or we are speaking of it being eternal/infinite.

You're not doing much else here other than demonstrating your lack of understanding by conflating different concepts within cosmology. If you want to talk about something vs. nothing, fine, but that has nothing to do with whether the universe is infinite.

It is also the support

How can something be simultaneously a claim and the support for the claim? That's absurd. If you want to support the claims of the bible, then this by definition must be corroborated from elsewhere. If you want to talk about actual history, then I'm afraid that there is no consensus among non-Xtian historians about whether any of the claims in the bible are true. There is even ongoing debate among historians about whether Jesus was a myth. So "history" doesn't support what you say.

So, are you saying that they depend on you and your expectations for them to be what they are?

You seem to be referring to the assumption of uniformity of nature, which in a way does provide us with the confidence that the laws of logic as we've expressed them are valid and will remain what they are.

Neither you or I am the necessary mind that makes the law of identity, or laws of mathematics, or the laws of nature, what they are.

Again, the laws aren't things which exist physically or need to be created. If no conscious thinking agent ever existed, we can be fairly certain that reality would still function the same way as we've observed it to. And that's all the laws of logic are - our expression of how we've observed reality to function.

So you presented 7 arguments which you claimed were proof of Xtian theism:
predictions in the bible
our ability to make sense of morality
the apparent uniformity of nature
the apparent complexity and diversity of life and our ability to reason logically and rationally
the question of why something rather than nothing
the claimed unity of the bible
the laws of logic

I provided rebuttals to each of your arguments, to which you have failed to respond sufficiently in order to uphold each argument as valid proof of Xtian theism. You're 0/7.

I think it is logical. That is my support (other than His Word).

You've essentially just repeated the claim. Again, simply claiming that god's existence gives meaning to the universe and people is not support.

Do you find meaning from a meaningless universe? That is your origins without personal being. Meaning comes from the meaningless. How? If there is no purpose found from the universe why do we keep finding purpose in it?

This has been addressed.

So you invent the purpose, but there is really none ultimately there. You just make it up and delude yourself? The earth orbits the sun for no purpose/no reason. It takes the same amount of time every year. It happens for no reason yet we can discover this, we discover mathematical formulas that explain gravity, or distance, or volume. This all means nothing?

Your inability to deal with a universe devoid of ultimate meaning and which doesn't care about us isn't proof that the god humans made up to help them deal with the facts of reality is true.

All in all, Peter, I have to say that most of what you have provided as your reasons for believing don't surprise me, and are in line with most older theists I know and have spoken with. Unfortunately, the main issue behind it all is that it's not much more than a big argument from ignorance, to the point of even making up questions and issues to argue from ignorance about (something rather than nothing, laws of logic), questions and issues which have already been addressed by others.

You are clearly concerned about living in a world without ultimate meaning, purpose, morality, justice, all coming from some ultimate source. But the kind of world you want to live in has no bearing on the world you do live in. If your principle objection to other worldviews is that they don't include some ultimate purpose, morality, or justice, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Life is not fair, and the need for purpose, morality, and justice which you've argued exists is a core principle behind nearly every religion. But you simply can't ignore the fact that often good goes unrewarded and evil goes unpunished - and even occasionally good is punished. And creating a safety blanket to help you deal with reality and ensure you aren't mired in depression is not the answer. Just because it allows you to face the fact that we exist in a completely indifferent reality doesn't prove that it's true, just like it doesn't prove that any of the other safety blankets invented by humans throughout history are true. Whether it’s Heaven and Hell, or Karma dictating infinite rebirths, it serves the same purpose and fails for the same flaws.

Some of us understand that, in order to get the best out of life, we actually have to face reality. Some of us understand that there’s no reason to think that reality is anything other than indifferent to our existence and our ideas of good and evil. Some of us understand that dealing with reality on reality’s terms is demonstrably the only way to make actual improvements in our situation.

I thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, present the rational justification you believe you have for your Xtian theism, and read my responses. Going forward, I'll only be addressing statements which directly respond to the points I've made, and will be ignoring the repeated questions you ask regarding your own failure to deal with reality since they've been, for the most part, unrelated to the statements you've been responding to with them.

[Belthazor]

Hmm, ok. Let me try to reframe it a bit.

You objected to an explanation as “fantastic.”

Actually I believe I said that all current explanations seem fantastic (as in don't make sense/hard to believe/goes against everything we normally experience in everyday life). I would rather not get caught in definitions of a particular word.

Your claim is your explanation has more merit/warrant than the others we have discussed so far.

Even if I agreed that would not get us very far as again, all seem (insert word of choice here for incredulity/etc).

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------

Not quite. I said of the three possible explanations, design has the most warrant as a valid explanation. That isn’t about my belief or about how I personally accept the explanation. Warrant is about the amount of support a claim has for and against it.

Yes, you believe that "design" has more warrant than other explanations.

How does "more warrant" make it obviously true?
If we look at a murder crime seen and there are three suspects, but one is most likely guilty based on the available evidence, that doesn't mean the person is actually guilty, right?

It is more about the level of warrant/evidence than which explanation has more. At what level of warrant/evidence do we conclude truth, is much more important than simply which has more warrant/evidence.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

Given that I have no evidence to support or reject your claim I would be agnostic on it.

Given that God is kinda prone to acting thru the average person when He deals with the masses I find that odd.

You actually give it a 50/50 kinda chance?

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

Hmm, I’m not sure where you got that. If I ask someone “Can the federal government levy an income tax?” I’m obviously assuming they at least know there is a federal government right?

Well, from you I guess!

Post #433 started this:
"Right, and we know a lot about the universe. But even if I approache someone who knew virtually nothing about the IRS. Someone who was blissfully unaware of federal income taxes, agencies, etc. That person could still reasonably answer the question, "Does the government have the power to levy an income tax?"

I don't know any other way to take:
"Someone who was blissfully unaware of federal income taxes, agencies, etc."
(emphasis mine)

---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------

Exactly! The way we expect because we have a very validated understanding of the underlying laws. And that understanding of those laws still allows us to make predictions unrelated to dark matter like sending sattellites.

Exactly, we don't know what the hell is going on, but we suspect there is more matter than we can identify on the order of almost all of it.....

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------

When you say “made for humans” what do you mean?

When I "say"??
This is a typical Christian claim (based on Genesis I believe).

If you don't believe God made Earth for humans to live on, I retract the statement

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

Well if we agree it is possible, it doesn’t make very much sense to rule it out as impossible. That is how I interpreted your previous response and the one before, that we could, at least tacitly, dismiss this option because it was incoherent. Since that doesn’t seem to be the case, I’m not sure that objection holds.

Negative Ghostrider!
I don't believe I have rejected any premise so far in this thread?

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

Running back through the thread, I think what you said was:

4) God is conscious but has no physical presence and is timeless etc (how could such a being even be said to exist?).

Which I am under the impression we talked about earlier and which died out.

A good thought point though.
How can a timeless being act?
How can a being with no form/substance/immaterial be called a "being".

---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------

As a pure hypothetical? Sure. Of course it couldn’t, by definition, have any interaction with our universe.

1. Are we not currently looking for "bruises" (for lack of a better term to describe an interaction between universes)"?
2. How can God interact with our universe then if you have to be part of it to have "any interaction"?

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

I’m going to appeal for full credit here :-). You said that gravity was undeniable, they don’t believe in gravity at all.

I had to go back pages and pages to look up your last challenge and don't have time at the moment to look this one up, but I am sure I said something much, much closer to :
"though we may not know why, something keeps our feet on the ground (earth). This is undeniable?" or something similar.

I see no reason to give full credit. Your rebut was amusing, but he doesn't deny that something (the effect of a known undeniable fact) is keeping his feet on the ground.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

Certainly he is a good example of the kind of people I was referencing earlier, that they are willing to deny anything, no matter how obvious.

Yes, and your claim this represents the majority of humans that ever lived had a similar aversion to logic is totally unfounded and needs considerably more support! That some humans can delude themselves to the obvious, hardly supports that nearly all humans suffer from this to this degree (denying God is obviously true/etc).
This would have to be the case since almost all humans that evert lived were not Christian???

---------- Post added at 07:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

Across what dimensional set is He an actual infinity in this scenario? IE the natural numbers are an actual infinity across the dimension of cardinality of that set. What is the measure you are using?

[I’m asking this because I think your question implies that God is time bound. IE that He has just been sitting out there in time forever.]

I don't understand your question? I though mine was pretty clear.

No beginning, no end (but does actually exist) = Definition of infinity.

How is existed forever not an infinity and also not implying time as a necessity? How can exist not explicitly involve time on some form/frame/level?

Where did I go wrong?

[Belthazor]

[I’m asking this because I think your question implies that God is time bound. IE that He has just been sitting out there in time forever.]

As we discussed, "time" began for "our" universe at the BB. As we have acknowledged, there could be other universe'/realities (which is a necessity if God exists...). It is likely they have "time" of their own unrelated to ours is it not?

I just can't see how God can be "unaffected by/above/not subject to" time in some way if He actually exists and acts in any fashion. For any action there is before/after. This is "time".
Or how are you defining "time" so a being can actually be "timeless"?

[Belthazor]

You objected to an explanation as “fantastic.” My point is that that is a very loaded term. If I were to tell someone in the 1880s that man would use heavier than air aircraft in 20 years he would call that fantastic (it was largely thought to be physically impossible at the time).

True, and almost as amusing, travel faster than the speed of sound was thought impossible as well!

I say amusing because birds and insects were flying right in front of their faces at the same time these people were saying heavier than air objects could not fly!
It's fairly obvious birds and insects are heavier than air but fly around just fine (another undeniable something it seems? Even flat Earther's will admit birds fly/become more buoyant/get their damn feet off the ground into the air in ways men cannot).

Guns that could shoot projectiles faster than the speed of sound had been around since the at least the mid 1800's and whips had been cracking the sound barrier long before that.

Now on the one hand, this lends strength to your argument about people not being able to see the "forest for the trees" as it were.
On the other hand, God would know this would be the case, so if He created us as we are, He would have known most would not fallow Him. This seems to go against the common Christian claim that "God wishes all to be saved"?
Does free will necessarily mean that most will not be able to "see the forest for the trees"?

Which brings us to an issue. When discussing religion with Christian's, often when a point gets sticky, the Christian will say they personally don't believe that or that their Church does not say that or some such. Why wouldn't Christianity be more unified in their beliefs?