You aren't entirely wrong there Jim! However, I think when you use words like absurd and laughable you really undermine your own credibility. The arguments I run with are well worn and acceptable arguments given by the top philosophers and argued against by top philosophers.

Jim, indeed it is the way of philosophy to take one true statement and run to "absurd" lengths with it. Keep in mind that each time we pass from one realm to the next with such a truism, it must be soundly connected by logic and reason and I never shy away from that.

I think you might find some of the implications of these 'simple truths' absurd because they bother you. Yet, I rely on well worn logic in order to run further and further afield with any given 'simply true' statement.

First, there is nothing wrong with generalizing.

Second, you just generalized.

Third, there is no such thing as an innocuous question! The fact is that there are simple truths that imply other truths and sometimes you don't like them!

Then, in order to marginalize what these truth reveal, you resort to hand waving and saying things like, "Oh, this is just generalizing" as though such empty rhetoric can REALLY sweep these tidbits under the rug so nice, neat and clean the way you want.

It doesn't work that way. The logic doesn't go away just because you say, "Big pawn is an a** hole and is only generalizing" or "Big pawn will take your statement to absurd lengths"

Your words are cheap. You express only your desire but not a hint of logic. You may want to believe that you can call the ontological argument a "cheap trick" but you wouldn't dare delve into it with me - because there is no way out!

Since you've guessed what the new argument is I will roll it out here on my forum in proper form, based largely on Plantinga's work.

Once the argument is formulated the way I want to formulate it, formally, then we can hash it out.

But if you think you can stand at a safe distance and point fingers at the argument with your friends and say, "Cheap trick" you're wrong. There is no trick and I don't waste my time on tricks.

You'll have to actually use your head and engage in a tug of war with me over the logic. Thankfully, I will be defending the truth so my task is SO much easier than yours.

I do what I do for good reasons.

I have no respect for a forum full of prideful, arrogant people. Therefore, I treat them as they should be treated and I don't care if they think I'm the one being arrogant.

Secondly, I'm not putting up with dishonest crapola when discussing philosophical arguments. I mean really now! If someone trots out the genetic fallacy against the moral argument AGAIN after learning about it 10 times over the last year - I'm done with them.

They KNOW they are grasping at straws and it belies their pride. It's all ego coming out and I won't deal with it.

If I throw down the moral argument and the same person comes back with, "we don't need God because we understand that natural selection elevated our brains to the point where we understand that acting morally is good for survival" - it's genetic fallacy time all over again.

Now, when introducing this in a new forum I take the time to educate the laymen on the genetic fallacy, but if you are going to resort to it again and again and again - it's time to get the fly swatter out!

Seriously, those people that do that KNOW that they are wrong but their pride just won't let them shut their mouths.

When you trot out the genetic fallacy against the moral argument for the 10th time in a row - yes, I'm declaring myself the winner. That's because I've won. There is nothing more to say other than to explain that the other guy's viewpoint is based on a fallacy.

That ends the argument with that person. We then await a better man to come along.

I believe our decisions belong to us and so do the consequences.

<Does God let things happen randomly?>

Good question. I think God lets things happen all the time, but I also think that He has participated in "our" events i.e. the birth of Jesus, the resurrection, creation and so on.

But you asked if God 'randomly' lets things happen. I'm not sure how to reconcile randomness with omnipotence and omniscience. Random means to do something without any plan, method or conscious decision making. Since this is God's universe and He is omniscient, I don't think anything is random in His eyes.

1. Sometimes scientists make statements that are not scientific.

2. A scientist's expertise is only in science.

3. Dawkins actually argues against a God-of-the-gaps God. He really does. He's a brilliant scientist but when debating theism vs atheism, he defines the concept of God as a god-of-the-gaps kind of God.

You may have seen or heard this kind of reasoning before. It goes like this: thousands of years ago, people believed in the god of thunder. When it thundered, they thought the Thunder God was responsible. But now, thanks to science, if you go to school and study physics you'll see that we don't need to say it's the Thunder God that makes it thunder. We would know how thunder really works instead, thanks to science. As science progresses we find that all these old gods are unnecessary. We don't need to talk about any gods to explain how things work anymore.

This is the God of the gaps kind of god that Dawkins likes to argue against when he steps out of his field of expertise and starts debating about theism.

Justified, true belief. That is the modern concept of truth but some philosophers point out that even this may be insufficient.

I think so. Scientific consensus for hundreds of years prior to the 1960's or so, was that the universe had no beginning. It had always existed and its beginning need not be explained.

Then, around the 1960's, lots of evidence started coming in and cosmology entered a new era. Cosmologists discovered a cosmic background radiation that indicated a massive past event. Also, it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Indeed, there was now for the first time, real evidence for universe that began to exist.

Yet the scientific community at the time did not want to accept this because it would make the theists "too comfortable". So the scientific community strongly opposed this development with everything they had, even though it was THE BREAKTHROUGH for cosmology in the twentieth century!

The editor of the leading UK scientific journal at the time denied the big bang, despite mounting evidence, because he didn't want to give in to the Christian world view.

Just read about this editor (whom you probably already guessed) John Maddox. "Down with the Big Bang". Nature 340 (6233): 425. 1989. http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...

Of course we all realize that NOW there is general scientific acceptance that the universe, including time, began to exist about 14.7 billion years ago.

In summary:

We can see that the personal bias's of scientists can and does influence science.

We can see that having faith in atheism has hindered the progress of science.

We can see that, even though the bible is not a scientific text by any means, it was right all those years ago when it said, "In the beginning, God created..." because there was a beginning.

On the other hand, if scientists had been biased toward theism, then perhaps, just perhaps, they may have started looking for evidence of a beginning sooner!

Newton, the great genius and father of the modern scientific revolution, was of the idea that science was possible because he expected order in the universe. Why did he expect order in the universe? Because he expected laws in the universe - and because be believed there was a Law Giver. It wasn't just Newton of course but many others. There were many theistic scientists (particularly Christian) that lead the modern scientific revolution.

Bear in mind that the modern scientific revolution happened in the west and not the east. The west was very Christian and believed in God the law giver and order in the universe, thus enabling science to even be done. There were no such parallel expectations of order, laws and law givers in the east, hence the MSR was a western phenomenon.

Dawkins is a total buffoon. I am surprised more people on that side aren't embarrassed by his efforts.

<Pilate asked, "What is truth?" >

I was debating someone the other day (an atheist) and he said "so what?" to the cosmological argument for God's existence! Amazing. I'm always more and more amazed. He doesn't realize how powerful an argument this is.

Of course, the scholars and scientists of the past knew exactly how important this argument was. That's why, until just a few decades ago, the prevailing theory was that the universe had no beginning and always existed. This was very comfortable for atheists since they didn't have to discuss a beginning to the universe. They knew that that had obvious and very strong theistic implications. The late great Fred Hoyle is a prime example.

Anyway, the very history of cosmology bears witness to the strength of the cosmological argument, yet, in breathtakingly ignorant fashion, the so-called New Atheist types are blissfully unaware. This doesn't keep them from having strong opinions mind you. No way. The new thing now is for atheists to mock, try to intimidate, ridicule and so on.

The new atheist types are full of bluster but have no substance. Get just one level beneath the surface arguments and they're utterly and hopelessly lost.

It should be the law to carry your gun. This would reduce the number of people killed in psycho shootings. No one will want to try to stick up a bank if everyone is armed. Same with a school; if all the teachers are armed then who is going to target a school for a room to room shooting rampage?

Furthermore, if every law abiding American owned a gun and was trained to use it, that would certainly act as a deterrent to potential foreign invaders. Imagine, every household in America protected by a gun. This would certainly deter burglaries and in home invasions.

It would be expected that a woman walking alone on the streets could be packing heat. She's not an easy target.