it wasn't an argument it was the definition I used.

To be clear, yet again, if one wants to make an argument that atheism is a reasonable position, I agree.

If however one wants to make an argument that it is a fact that God is not, or that theism is not reasonable, I would invite the argument.

. Again not sure if that is comment or argument. I think I am allowed to use my definition of necessary being, when I use it. If it is in conflict with another definition, that is outside my argument.

If however, you are making an argument I don't see or understand, my apology. If that is so, I invite you to restate your propositions and conclusions and I will do my amateur best.

predictably judged absent of any basis. We live in the bonfire of the vanities. Why actually wait for the report ? Better to beg for it, get it, discount it before it starts, demand another one, a different one, a better one.

From the start the request for the FBI investigation was about delay not truth. Very predictable.

not sure if that was comment or argument.

Since terms are important, I will define non-contingent or necessary as a being whose existence is not contingent on another's existence and whose existence is necessary for every thing else to exist.

agree

requires another proposition that God is subject to any natural law. Which I challenge as not factual.

- 14 billion years of entropy mean god must be dead — Devans99

A proposition that begs the question

Speaking for myself, and with exception, most of the theist positions on the board can be summarized into theism is reasonable, and not that atheism is not reasonable. Mine, and their arguments, have not been directed to move anyone from atheism to theism. Just to defend the reasonability of our position.

The converse is not the case. The atheist position seems to be a very aggressive position against the reasonability of theism. However in a quick look back, most seem to think this is some sort of a given, I don't believe any have actually made the argument.

So in an attempt to escape the do loop, I invite any atheist argument, with factual propositions that end with a conclusion of either:

Therefore it is a fact that God is not,
Or
Therefore it is not a reasonable position that God is not.

And in the spirit of philosophy, keep your opinion and your sarcasm to yourself, and make an argument.

in mine above, a non contingent or necessary being is one who's existence is not contingent on anything, and is necessary for the existence of everything else.

In "the old post" above, you make the point that contingent things are not necessary- I agree.

No argument with Mr. Swinburne, I have never said that atheism is not a reasonable position. My only assertion was theism is also reasonable.

not sure your point here, but I wasn't making any argument, just giving you the correct Catholic teaching.

The following is what I see as the real problem. First, God knew that he was creating beings with a free will. Second, he knew that people would use that free will to reject him. Third, he knew that most people would reject him, or at least a billions would reject him. It would also seem to follow from this, that if God knew, for example, that creating Hitler would result in the murder of millions of people, then God is responsible for that evil. He is just as guilty as if he did it himself. For example, if I create a robot with a free will, knowing that that robot would murder people, then you would be within your right to charge me with murder. So either something is wrong with the doctrine you are proposing, or something is wrong with the concepts, or it's just incoherent. It's probably all three. — Sam26

Basically just another restatement of the argument from evil. The theist response is compensating goods. A moral God can allow evil if there is a compensating good. A compensating good must be much better than the evil, and the compensating good can not be possible without the evil. A theist would claim that our free will is such a compensating good.

Happy to end here as well

one is free by faith alone, to believe to be true and act accordingly anything one wishes and not be a fool, with only two caveats. That this belief is not in conflict with either fact or reason. Going further, any ridicule of the above point, is by definition, based on faith and as such is a self contradiction.

the accusation could have, and should have been investigated confidentiality. it is completely possible to have investigated this allegation and keep dr fords name out of the press.

In the same way the democrats would not have held onto the information until the last second had they actually wanted the truth.
— yatagarasu

It is amazing how the virtue of Senator Feinstein is being used against her cause. Let us review the facts:
1. After consulting with her friends, Dr. Ford herself anonymously tipped the Washington Post and sent her letter before Kavanaugh was selected -- showing it was not a general attack on any nominee, but an attempt to avoid the selection of such a flawed candidate.
2.Senator Feinstein was asked to hold Dr. Ford's Letter in confidence. Despite the fact that it would have been to her party's political advantage, she did so. There is no evidence that Doc Ford's letter was ever leaked. Thus, Sentator Feinstein acted with virtue.
3. Reporters got wind of the story late (possibly from a friend of Dr. Ford) and it was only as a result of the news accounts and the press showing up in her classroom, that Dr. Ford finally agreed to make her name known and allow her letter to be released.
Thus, there is no factual basis for the late hit conspiracy theory. — Dfpolis

There is nothing I know of that would have prevented sen feinstein from informing the committee and immediately using the existing investigating ability of the committee to conduct a confidential investigation of these charges 45 plus days ago when she received the letter. Any belief that holding that letter was anything other than to use it politically is naive.

I didn't just give up and say I have faith that science will answer those questions. I showed the reasons why science can answer those questions and religion hasn't. So you're really just ignoring what I said, without any argument against, and just repeating yourself. You are the one relying on faith when you just ignore things that are said so that you can keep on saying the same thing over and over again. — Harry Hindu

We are working on different definitions. I have never said it is not reasonable to believe science will not answer every question. As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is. But while each is reasonable we both make a leap of faith to believe as true and act accordingly as a matter of our world view that future beliefs of our respective religions is in fact true. That trust, while reasonable, if a belief based on faith.

Right, I seem to recall the current Pope has declared a less stringent admission to heaven. :)
That said, there are people on this forum that has declared the above, thoughtful people if you will.

I'm wondering, though, why wouldn't Catholics (and Hindus) make such declarations...?
There's no arbiter around to set the record straight, they can only go by some scripture reading.
Surely it's not a matter of some personal moral sentiments or preferences? — jorndoe

Your theology just got incredibly worse if you think any pope could change anything at all about the Catholic teaching on salvation.

To help, Catholics believe with incredibly limited exceptions (virgin Mary, canonized saints) that they can say nothing at all definitively about anyone's salvation because you can not know the heart of another or the mind of God.

It also specifically says that salvation is not in anyway denied to anyone who is through no fault of their own outside the faith.

Why should Catholics declaring that Muslims go to hell be taken more seriously than Hindus saying you'll be reincarnated? They shouldn't. — jorndoe

Just FYI, your theology is bad, that is not a Catholic belief.

what is the basis of what we hold as true based on science in 2018, is any different than what was held as true based on science in 1718, 1818, 1918 ?

The history of science is a long series of incorrect propositions held as true, until surpassed as a new truth.

This in no way diminishes the actual work of science, or mans ability to use reason to explain and understand the universe.

It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. Both the physical, as designed to do, and the metaphysical, by returning them to the physical.

I have come to the conclusion that you just like to argue. I’m done with engaging you.

Flake v. Elizabeth Warren. That would be interesting, although likely a Flake win. The problem is that "Republican" is no longer a useful descriptive term, except to describe a vicious, unethical, immoral opportunist. It's too bad; it used to stand for worthwhile ideas. Consider William F. Buckley: what do you imagine he'd have to say about Republicans today - he had trouble enough with Ford, Reagan and Bush. No wonder he said, near the end of his life, that he was tired of life. He'd been driven from his ideological home by scum — tim wood

that right there is the Flake platform - and it has my vote

As an aside - I still find the National Review a valuable read

Just amazing politics to watch - Seems a shoe in now that Flake is getting ready to be the moderate republican to challenge Trump in 2020. And hopefully a successful one.

Did not read given argument from Evil, glad to learn new phrase "compensating goods".
If God created everything, he also created Evil, the goat of escape. Haha. — Victoria Nova

my point was you are starting down a well trodden path. probably worth the time to see what the folks who walked it before have to say about it.

Say, woman got raped and questions God's intention. Religious leader explains that God knew of this person's intention ahead of time, and for that reason decreased person's murderous attempts so greatly, that woman actually survived. Thus God saved her life. — Victoria Nova

Others would say the rape was an evil act of free will of the rapist. And the compensating good of humans having free will is great enough to allow for some of the evil choices it allows.


Your argument above is just a restatement of " The Argument from Evil" , which is the most uses and probably best argument against the existence of God. The theist answer is "compensating goods"
meaning a moral God can allow evil, if and only if there is a compensating good. In order to be a compensating good it must firstly be a true good, and significantly better than the evil, and it could only be obtained by allowing the evil. The theist generally separates the "evil" into 2 categories - that which is done by man - the compensating good for this is free will. The second category is for natural acts of evil - the best theist argument against these are skeptical theism. Meaning we have no reason to believe that it there was a compensating good for theses, we would see it and recognize it as such.

if you have the time and interest - this lecture does a very good job of explaining this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJbgnyFlW5M

But when it comes to the metaphysical functions associated with natural theology: first-cause, ultimate ontological ground of being, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on, I have to admit that I don't have a clue. I think that agnosticism is probably the strongest and most justifiable position to take on these kind of issues, but in real everyday life we are often forced to stick our necks out a lot further. — yazata

I find the agnostic position the weakest. At its base it is not saying they are un convinced of either theism or atheism - at its base it is saying the large questions you asked above, answered by either theism of atheism are not important enough to take a side on. For some the questions demand taking a position, for some they do not. But it is the questions, not the answers that are at the base of being agnostic.

But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based. — yazata

The true faith under science is the believe that science is capable of answering all possible questions. At its base is really a belief that humans are capable of answering all possible questions. Stepping into theology, this is original sin.

do you find the converse equally abhorrent? That an un-supported allegation could prevent a nominee? Or should we always err on the side of the accused in a situation like this - and then rely on the fairness of our elected officials, of either party, not to continue to use un-supported allegations to de-rail any nominee they do not agree with.

and as an aside - there was more than ample time for the committee to address this allegation to prevent an unfit nominee - if their objective was to correctly evaluate the allegation - and his fitness. That was not their tactic - Sen Feinstein, unilaterally elected to not investigate this allegations for over a month - If her concern was the truth, why would she do that ? The allegation alone was more powerful at the 11th hour, than an investigated allegation could have been.

I suspect that the Republicans are against the investigation because they're worried that he might be guilty or that it will cost them votes in the midterms and the Democrats are against the confirmation because they believe that he's guilty. — Michael

His guilt or innocence is completely secondary to both parties concerns. The republicans want to deliver a conservative court to their base in the midterms and 2020, which they will run on. The Democrats want to delay the nomination to the midterms and make all these elections a one issue election on Roe v Wade which they think they can win. That is all that this is about.

that point should be directly related to the nature of the allegation. And if the issue is - did this or did this not happen - it should have been investigated by the process in place as soon as it was raised. But it was not. The Democrats are not standing on any moral high ground demanding an investigation now, that could have been done 45 days ago, and the republicans are not standing on any moral high ground opposing one. This has just dissolved now into partisan politics , it is no longer about truth.

So because Feinstein tried to use it to her advantage, Dr Ford isn't owed the investigation she's requested? — Michael

I do think it was politically well played to use Dr Ford's accusation at the 11th hour to delay the nomination process. I think as a member of the US Senate, and a member of the judiciary committee , willfully withholding this very important accusation was a dereliction of her responsibility. I also think Dr. Ford had no interest in an FBI investigation of her allegations until she was scheduled to testify, and I am suspect that this position has more to do with her lawyers - recommended by Sen Feinstein - than her desires. I understood her only desire in sending the letter to Sen Feinstien was her civic duty to inform the committee of what she believes is an act by Judge Kavanaugh that would be disqualifying. It should have been investigated immediately by the committee for that purpose.

As I understand it, there is a process in the committee to investigate concerns like these, and that process could have been done, and been done confidentially, if the objective was truth - that could have been done. The objective of this is not truth - it is politics.

I don't think law enforcement works that way. This has nothing to do with Feinstein or the Democrats. — Michael

You have this incorrect - if Dr. Ford wants a law enforcement investigation all she has to do is file a complaint with the appropriate one. This has everything to do with Feinstein, the Democrats, the republicans, Garland, and the most important seat on the SCOTUS in decades. It has nothing at all to do with finding the truth.

Facts:

Dr. Ford accused Judge Kavanaugh
Judge Kavanaugh denies the accusation
Dr. Ford named 4 witnesses - who when questioned do not support her accusation
Judge Kavanaugh maintained a fairly detailed calendar/diary in 1982
Judge Kavanaugh drank, likely to excess in 1982 and college
Dr. Ford informed Sen Feinstein of her accusation in July
Sen Feinstein did not share this information with her committee
Someone leaked the letter to the Washington Post, against Dr. Ford's wishes
2 of the 4 undecideds need to vote against Judge Kavanaugh

My conclusions:

I do not know with any degree of confidence if the event took place as Dr Ford testified

Dr. Ford was very credible, and I believe - she believes she is telling the truth

I think Judge Kavanaugh's aggression was mostly anger at the democrats on the committee for how they handled the accusation and partly tactic to align closer to the republicans making is harder for the undecided Republicans to vote against him - and then face re-election.

I believe Sen Feinstein was derelict in her duties in not reporting this accusation to the committee
when she got it.

This delay was for the sole purpose of delaying the conformation hearing as long as possible - hopefully passed the mid terms

The requests for a FBI investigation now are disingenuous against the fact that one could have been done weeks ago - this is just another tactic to delay the conformation, hopefully passed the midterms.

High school and college beer drinking - even to occasional excess should not prevent nominations to the SCOTUS

High school and college beer drinking, even to occasional excess is not proof of anything other than high school and college beer drinking.

This allegation should have been investigated and addressed confidentially when Sen Feinstein was made aware of it

The Politics

This is the most important SCOTUS nomination in many many years. There is a great deal at stake for both parties. The democrats feel IMO rightly wronged by the delay of Merrik Garland. In the last 10 plus years a predominately liberal SCOTUS has in republican opinion has exceeded their mandate and have made social law from the bench. If confirmed in some way or another abortion is at stake. If not confirmed the mid terms will be a one issue election on abortion.

It is Roe v Wade that is on trial -

After watching this, I believe Dr. Ford believes she was asaulted by Judge Kavanaugh
I also believe Judge Kavanugh believes he did not assault Dr. Ford.

These are not incompatible beliefs based on 36 year old memories from teenage years.
which after all this testimony is really all we still have.

Your mistake here is to fail to realise that you aren't justified in claiming that it's not a fact that unicorns don't exist. It could be a fact that unicorns don't exist, even if we can't yet justify that fact! How could you possibly know that it's not a fact? Have you searched the entire universe for unicorns? You're making the same mistake you suspect of me. The biologist, to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, wouldn't say one way or the other whether it's a fact, and for the same reason — S

i am, and always have been in complete agreement with this point. Yet again it is not a matter of fact that unicorns are or are not. And it is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not.

I agree to some extent, as with the historic case of black swans, and then black swans were of course discovered. However, if we know enough about them and their habitats, and we have searched well enough, in all the right places, over a long enough period of time, then we can say that it's very unlikely that unicorns exist on Earth. And that likelihood can be so low that for all intents and purposes, unicorns don't exist — S

Seems a restatement of my point that it is reasonable to believe that unicorns do not exist -

Absence of evidence, in some cases, can be evidence of absence. If a unicorn would leave traces, which it almost certainly would, then it can be traced. No unicorn traces have been found. Possibility alone is insufficient. What if it were possible, yet 99.9% improbable? That's no good reason to believe that it's a serious prospect, and it's very good reason not to believe that you'll ever encounter a unicorn in your lifetime. — S

This is in conflict with science - in science absence of evidence is only absence of evidence - the rest to this paragraph is using reason to believe a truth that unicorns do not exist - which is fine, but not science. It is reason, not fact.

Your belief in God, like a belief in unicorns, is unscientific and requires a leap of faith. — S

Agree - and have never said my theism is supported by science. And the same can be said of any claim that God does not exist can not be supported by science.

Then, for that same reason, it is a very reasonable belief that God does not exist. — S

I have never said anywhere that atheism is not a reasonable position, as is theism - both have reasonable arguments, neither argument has been shown to in conflict with fact.

It seems we are violent agreement on many things - other than your belief that theism in unreasonable. I have not seen, or if you have I don't remember any supported argument you have made yet that theism is an unreasonable position.

you are just elevating science to a religion -

yes we are in disagreement with what a fact is.

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.
the world is round is a fact.
the cat is in fact on the chair
that which is confirmed to be consistent with an observed reality is a fact.

It is not a fact that unicorns to not exist, and no self respecting biologist would ever make such a claim.
Because no one has ever seen a unicorn, does not mean they, as a matter of fact, do not exist. It is possible that in some dark jungle somewhere there are a few unicorns. New species are found all the time - that no one new existed before.

It is, however a very reasonable belief that unicorns do not exist.

If we are to have a comprehensive, unified vision of what the prime mover could be, it must encompass and integrate science — Janus

that is nothing more than faith in science - no philosophic/rational difference between that and my answer that it is a "necessary being"

I find the cosmological argument reasonable, more so since the current conventional scientific consensus is there was a beginning.

Ah, so you confuse fact and justification. Thanks for making that clear. There's a fact of the matter, even in the absence of justification for or against. — S

I have no idea at all what that was suppose to mean. You asked for an argument - I gave you one. I think you are just getting semantic - but I am not sure. Are we in disagreement with what a fact is ?

Since all arguments are based on natural reasoning and evidence there can never be any rational or empirical demonstration of the existence of supernatural being. It is the archetypal object of faith. — Janus

all arguments are not.

I agree that in a fully developed argument one would need to define "God". Here and in other places it is convenient shorthand for a supernatural being.

For clarity - In most arguments bases on reason - I would define "God" as a necessary being -

A necessary being is a self-aware thing that must necessarily exist for all other things to exist because that necessary being is the author of the universe and the initial cause of all things material.

The God of the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran - and most of those attributes is a matter of faith

i have absolutely no issue with your atheism, nor anyone else's. I have a standing issue with anyone who believes that my theism is in conflict with truth or reason - which it is not. The basis of your post "God is not" as a matter of fact - is most certainly based on faith and in no way a philosophic argument.