[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] I am absolutely stunned that this "Riddle of Epicurus" is often hailed as one of the greatest, if not the greatest argument for the existence of God. Before I tackle the other charges lobbed against Plantinga's ontological argument, I want to tackle this first.

 

Now we can go with the first implicit assumption of this argument and assume that morals are objective and that they exist independently of God. The only way God would be able to prevent evil would to commit a gross infringement on human free will. This of course would be, in itself, evil, and possibly more evil than letting evil exist.

But let us continue onto another pitfall of this argument. By assuming that evil exists, one assumes that objective moral values exist. if one assumes this, then the moral argument, as outlined by William Lane Craig, is validated.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist

Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist

conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

the riddle of epicurus commits suicide

NTWrightfan

Secondly, Premise 1 of your argument is ridiculous.

how is premise 1 ridiculous? could you give me a basis for objective moral values within naturalism? now remember, I don't mean a standard to live by, and I dont mean motivations for acting moral, I mean a basis by which we can say that something is actually and objectively evil.

Hate to butt in, but I can't resist theological debate, it seems. To me, it is not  the first premise, but rather the second premise that is ridiculous. I completely agree with your first premise. I don't believe such a thing as "objective moral values" exist. This is where i'm confused by your post. Do you believe that human morals are predetermined by something outside of human control?

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]In a quick search to find out what a "Biblical Christian" is, I found this:
The Christian Biblical Church of God believes and practices the true doctrines of Jesus Christ and His apostles as revealed in the Holy Bible.

So, seeing as Jesus and his apostles were Jewish, A Biblical Christian is a Jew?

blackregiment

That logic is laughable. Thanks for the humor. The more you speak, the more you reavel how little you know about what you are trying to demean and criticize. You really should stop while you "think" you are ahead.

You have yet to make any argument based on reality. Nor have you been able to convince me anything other than that you are the single, saddest, most-deluded christian i've ever met.

You keep saying things about how I'm so wrong, but you've yet to prove in what ways i am, without quoting scripture. you can use scripture to defend scripture, that's called circular reasoning. It's a term that's used a lot around here, so i'll assume i don't have to explain in any great detail how you're still so very, utterly wrong.

God gave you a free will to accept Him or reject Him. He will give you the consequences of that choice.  My only responsibility to the Lord in relation to non-believers is to share the Gospel of salvation in Christ. I do that regularly. I do not care to spend my time trying to convince one that chooses to reject God that God exists. The Bible tells us that when one chooses to continually reject God, their heart becomes hardened and at some point, will just withdraw and give them over to a reprobate heart.  

Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Maybe you are just at that point.

blackregiment

And to put the final nail in your proverbial coffin, you did exactly what i predicted, avoided trying to argue your non-arguable points by saying that i'm too far gone.

You religious types should just accept that your faiths are just that, faiths. There's no basis in reality for them, or else they would cease to be faith, and become fact. Religion is the litmus paper test for blind followers. Congratulations on believing what you're spoon-fed. Thanks for being soley responsible for the slow crawling progress of the human race.

I've got to stop with you now, because this is getting to be borderline personal for me. I think if it weren't for Christians, i wouldn't be atheist. how ironic. :roll:

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]
[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"]No you cant.There original forms are either lost or nobody knows which is the original form.sSubZerOo

I'm sure that the fact that the large majority of islamic followers all speak the original language in which the Quran was written has something to do with it. Unlike the old testament (and new testament?), where an overwhelming number of followers do not speak... hebrew? greek? :shrug:

That can't be right, arabic nations have as much variety in languages as Christian nations.. Furthermore the largest population of Islam isn't even in the middle eastern area, its in Indonesia.

Oh, color me wrong, then :(

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"]Despite all the enemies?

 

And why is it the first holy book so have achieved such a feat?

Thinker_reborn

 What are you talking about? What "feat"? What you are saying about the Qu'ran I can say the exact same thing about the torah or the christian bible. 

I'm sure that the fact that the large majority of islamic followers all speak the original language in which the Quran was written has something to do with it. Unlike the old testament (and new testament?), where an overwhelming number of followers do not speak... hebrew? greek? :shrug:

I'm sorry, but Thinker_Reborn, you did, indeed, miss the point of The Passion of the Christ. The film is supposed to be extra-brutal-reality to emphasize the pain that we suffered upon our own supposed savior. It's supposed to glorify jesus in his most desperate state. It's supposed to show the sacrifice that god made for all of his children, by sacrificing his own son.

Basically, it's supposed to be a 2 hour guilt-trip for Christians, to make them feel repentant for their sins. It was by no means a film created out of disrespect. You would have gathered as much, i'm sure, had you actually been able to stomach the whole thing. Don't feel bad, most people likely had to force themselves through the brutality.

So, seeing as Jesus and his apostles were Jewish, A Biblical Christian is a Jew?

Ugh. I no longer have the energy to write at the length of my last post, but on first pass, I'll point out all the things wrong i can find with your response.

You mentioned "irreducible complexity". Sorry, but it's been debunked.

You mentioned naturalists believing that all matter in the universe, and the universe itself, were all popped into existence, as if by magic. I won't pretend to understand the science behind subatomic physics the way you have. I will, however ask how, exactly, would you describe God's abilities displayed in Genesis?

You claim that evolution requires "unsupported leaps of logic and faith", despite the fact that the theory was and has been developed logically from evidence, and compared against all known historical references. At the same time, ignoring the fact that you blindly believe that man was made from dirt and woman made from the rib of a man.

You claim that naturalists take it on faith that macro-evolution has been proven true, even though no published document from the scientific community has ever claimed to have proven evolution to be scientific fact. Also, i think it's worth mentioning that we've all witnessed Micro-evolution, certainly another step in the right direction to support macro-evolution.

Also, You mentioned that I don't know what a biblical christian is. You're correct in that i thought you meant a traditionalist, being any christian that attended mass and was basically devout. How very naive of me, i apologize. Would you mind educating me so that i may further prove that you follow the authority of a book authored by unknown parties?

And speaking about "the good book", you complained about me having no evidence to support my opinion that the bible is of exactly zero authority. What evidence do you have that the bible of any authority at all? Do you have any logical reasoning based in real-life (read: not biblical) to backup ANYTHING that's written in the bible? No? didn't think so.

And finally, hilariously, you completely miss the point of my closing statement. I was admitting to being intolerant. Equally intolerant as you have been, in denouncing and disrespecting others' religions by blatantly regarding them as ignorant (wasn't it something about demonic spirits misleading people?). Yes, I am regarding you as ignorant as well.

Try as you may, but there is no factual evidence that anything in the bible is either true, or infallible. And I refuse to believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent creator would be wise enough to know that such an unbeliever would fail to yield his will to a mysterious book of unknown origin, brought to him by his fellow, decietful, sheep-minded man. And a god that would setup such a scenario and punish the unbeliever would, by definition, not be benevolent.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"]If respecting our beliefs effected a non-mulsim than I'll understand but what harm would come to anyone by not showing pictures of muhammad?What benefit does anyone get by showing his pictures when they arent even real?Thinker_reborn

I'm pretty sure the unanimous answer to that question will be "no".

Also, what aspect of the Passion of the Christ was disrespectful to christ, to you?

[QUOTE="Heydanbud92"]Please tell me she doesn't wear the sweat pants with the words on the butt...Cloud_Insurance

maybe she thinks her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard

damn right.