Ah, one from the illogical school.

<Dom: I don't 'believe' in logic because I don't regard belief>

I stumbled across your page and noticed this in your profile:

<Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! 52 From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against. Like 12:51-52> (Jesus)>

<Sigh. To address some of your questions: I respect logic - especially mathmetical logic. I don't 'believe' in logic because I don't regard belief -- or the absolute acceptance of a probability -- as a useful form of thought.>

When he said <the absolute acceptance of a probability>, he was *defining* his perception of how <Big Pawn> uses the word 'belief', in order to make that point that he doesn't find that form of belief to be useful.

This doesn't mean that <Dom> doesn't believe anything. He just accepts the things he believes as non-absolute probabilities.

Objective Moral Values and Darwinian Evolution are not incompatible.

<Monkey on our Back: Unravelling the 'Evolution Myth'>

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/arti...

<Though its roots lie in the findings of evolutionary biology, this way of thinking and talking about human behaviour is parascientific at best.

Perhaps best described as "pop evolutionary psychology" (as distinct from the discipline of evolutionary psychology itself), these days it's de rigueur among everyone from your physio to the latest celebrity chef.

It's basically a cultural repurposing of ideas about how humans have evolved and how our biology might affect us - one that trades on the respectability of actual science but modifies it for everyday use, casually neglecting its rules and rigours in the process.>

Yes, Darwinian Evolution is fact.

Yes, Objective Moral Values exist.

<Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! 52 From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against. Like 12:51-52> (Jesus)>

As much as you may like this, I'm guessing that you meant "Luke".>

This doesn't mean that <Dom> doesn't believe anything>

Seems to me he defined "belief" in that way only so that he could justify rejecting the word. Why do this?

I ask do you believe in inferential logic and he says "no".

Here's what you need to take away from this exchange. If one accepts atheism, then one is forced to accept all kinds of irrational ideas. One example is that you realize that you can no longer use the word "believe", lest someone notice and undermine your worldview.

Atheism forces one to adopt absurdities. Take for instance this question:

Is it objectively wrong to torture babies for fun?

Any normal person would say right away that it is, but not if that person is having a debate about atheism and theism. See, the atheist debater becomes Mr. Hyde as soon as he enters into debate and won't admit that torturing babies for fun isn't objectively wrong.

When the foundation of your belief system is a lie and you accept that lie, then you will be forced to defend all kinds of absurd lies.

<dom> likes to use other words besides "belief" but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

The *essence* of our discussion remains the same even if he wants to use other words in place of belief. The essence is the same.

He says, "I don't 'believe' in logic because I don't regard belief -- or the absolute acceptance of a probability -- as a useful form of thought"

1. He narrows the definition of belief to suit his already determined worldview. No need to narrow the way the word "belief" can be used.

2. Does he believe what he wrote is true?

Objective Moral Values and Darwinian Evolution are not incompatible.>

1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.

2. OMV exist.

People tend to try a few refutations, fail, and then back up from the argument a bit and start generalizing by saying, "I don't think God can be proven" or "I'm not convinced" but they never refute either premise

One can claim that objective moral values do not exist, but then they need to have some arguments and reasons for that. I haven't seen that here.

In general, most rank novices will say that the argument is circular, but then they realize it's not. Then they try to pretend they don't understand the word "objective". After that fails, they have nothing.

It's quite amazing. There is no back and forth. There is no round and round and round we go. None of that.

Fallacious reasoning. Evolution and the sophisticated human mind only explains how we are able to perceive moral values. It does not say where they come from.

Moral values may exist objectively and our minds can sense them through our moral experience, which has been sharpened and enhanced over time as we evolved.

The real test on premise #2 (OMV exist) is to ask yourself about your own moral experience. It's as valid as anyone else'. Ask yourself if torturing an infant for fun is objectively wrong or just distasteful.

Is it wrong for your but not for me? Is that ok?

http://www.religiousfreedomcoalitio...

Not according to many Islamic men. The above case is just one example. This is a big problem in places like Yemen.

They think it's GREAT!!!

Is it really okay because they say it is? Or is it really wrong to rape an 8 year old girl until she dies?

Is it all a matter of opinion? Or is it a moral fact that raping an 8 year old to death is wrong?

Wrong for everyone, or just for you?

<Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding them like grain with a pestle, you will not remove their folly from them.> proverbs 27:22

What good reasons and arguments are there to believe that this truth claim is in fact true?

I've never heard or read one yet, and atheists try to avoid answering by pretending that only the theist carries a burden of proof. This is because they have zero reasons for their truth claim.

The fact of the matter is that both the theist and the atheist make truth claims.

Theism = the proposition "God exists" is true.
Atheism = the proposition "God does not exist" is true.

The truth is that atheism is based on faith. We know this simply because they have no good reasons for their truth claim. Atheists believe (they don't like that word) in atheism because they want to.

Atheism is unscientific, anti intellectual and based on faith alone. Actually, I suspect that deep down inside all atheists know that they are lying to themselves.

Nice to see you here <sugardom>, hope all is well.

Yes, some atheists will try that one, but not too many because it's easy to counter.

First we should ask the atheist if he is really going to argue that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Of course no one will admit to making this claim.

Also, we should ask what kind of evidence one would expect to find in searching for God. As the creator of the universe we know that God is immaterial, spaceless and timeless.

Back to non observable things:

The natural laws that govern the universe are not observable. We can see the effects of the laws of the universe but we can't actually observe them directly.

We can't observe other minds or consciousnesses. All we can observe is our own consciousness.

We can't observe time, only aging.

We can't observe galaxies that are beyond our current reach.

We can't observe the past but we know it exists when we observe pictures, hear stories etc...

We can't observe some random person across the world but he exists.

Neither can macro evolution be observed, seen or heard.

Another question is raised: is the scientific method the only source of truth? If so, we should point out that the very statement "only those things that can be verified by observation and science" is in itself unscientific! So why should we believe that statement?

But really there is nothing but evidence for God's existence.

1. The fact that something exists instead of just nothing at all.

2. Atheist scientists themselves used to claim the universe was eternal and always existed. Now they say it began to exist at some time in the past, 14 billion years ago. Indeed there was a beginning as the good book says. "In the beginning".

3. The fine tuning of the universe for life is another good argument. That is, the initial conditions at the moment of the singularity. including the laws of the universe, came "pre packaged" as part of the initial conditions of the universe. This is before any cosmic evolution. We are talking about the constants and quantities including the rate of entropy from the absolute beginning. This is evidence of intelligent design.

The moral argument shows us that if you believe moral values exist objectively, you should believe theism is true.

The argument from intentional states is an argument for theism. It basically shows that material can never be "about" something else. Yet, we can think about other things; people, rocks, planets, hurricanes, bananas etc... There must be something more than material in us.

The historic account of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection is evidence for theism.

There are more arguments for theism.

So there are reasons to believe the proposition "God exists" is true.