I doubt such a thing exists.

<It's not easy to make these guys run.>

His response so far can be summed up as this:

1. He's accusing me of defending a "God of the Gaps" kind of God. This "God of the Gaps" is not the God I defend, so all of his comments directed at me from that angle are off the mark.

2. He's had to resort to alternative theories of the universe because mainstream science and the Big Bang give us a finite universe.

3. He seems to reject the idea that the universe has a beginning on atheism (playing the devils advocate as he is doing), but the Big Bang gives us a beginning 14.7 billion years ago. If the atheist has to avoid mainstream science, I would say that is a strong indicator of a strained worldview.

4. He questions the efficacy of the arguments from natural theology. This has nothing to do with the argument from contingency but is itself an interesting topic. Why should anyone ever bother with natural theology? Is it persuasive?

Is He an All-knowing God who knows exactly what the future will be?

How come He created the Cherub that later on will become the Devil? Why didn't He kill him right there?

You ask such great questions.

<Is He an All-knowing God who knows exactly what the future will be?>

I lean toward Molinism.

<How come He created the Cherub that later on will become the Devil? Why didn't He kill him right there?>

The Bible doesn't tell us exactly and explicitly what happened regarding Satan.

What we do know is that Satan was created by God. He is not co-eternal. We also know that some angels have fallen away, just as people do. It all comes down to free will.

God seems to have created us all, including the angels apparently, with free will. God didn't create evil but created earthly and angelic beings with free will.

In 2 Peter 2:4 it says, <For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment...> and then he goes on to basically say how would you expect God to forgive you?

Keep in mind that Satan will receive his full punishment and that the day has already been appointed. To God, time doesn't mean much apparently. He is eternal and, although he exists in time since He created it, he is not subject to time and "a thousand years is like a day" to the Lord.

But all of this is just speculation on my part. I don't really know.

<Why did He regret saving the Israelites from the Egyptians and planned to kill all of them at the desert and replace them with Moses's descendants?>

It may just come down to athropomorphism.

However, a deep study of Molinism and Middle Knowledge would probably interest you <sugardom>. Molinism attempts to square the ideas of Divine Providence with Free Will.

1. modus ponendo ponens

(a & (a->b))->b

2. modus ponendo tollens by substituting non-b for b in 1.

3. modus tollendo ponens by substituting non-a for a in 1.

4. modus tollendo tollens by substituting non-b for a and substituting non-a for b in 1. which gives:

(non-b & (non-b -> non-a))-> non-a which is of course

Which one of these is Modus Ponens?

1. If A then B
2. A
3. Therefore B

and

1. If -A then -B
2. B
3. Therefore A

One more question: Do you consider the second example a contrapositive of the first example, since we are taking "B" and reasoning back to "A"?

Thank you for sharing this valuable information, <moronovich>.

I am going to delete your post in a day or two. I reserve my forum for serious discussion.

1. If -A then -B
2. B
3. Therefore A >

This is the modus ponendo ponens
1. If A then B
2. A
3. Therefore B

and this is the modus tollendo tollens
1. If -A then -B
2. B
3. Therefore A

"1. If -A then -B" is the contraposition of if "B then A"

The formal approach goes like this. Take the modus ponens

1. If A then B
2. A
3. Therefore B

Substitution: A|-B and B|-A and you have

1. If -B then -A
2. -B
3. Therefore -A

Replace "If -B then -A" by its contraposition "if A then B" and you have

1. If A then B
2. -B
3. Therefore -A

Then he actually admitted he didn't know the arguments, but he's sure he can refute them!

What a pompous, arrogant thing to say.

I challenged him nicely, politely and respectfully to debate me here in my forum. Now, the Christian <yourang> is making excuses. He doesn't want to leave <pgp> forum. He's afraid to debate me here. He wants others to interrupt. He's hedging.

Typical cowardly liberal so-called Christian. Cowards make me sick, especially when they run their mouths, get called on it, and then pop off at the mouth like a scared little weakling.

I thought I could have a really great debate with him and treated him with respect, but he did not reciprocate and became pompous instead.

Then he starts backpedaling, talking about "he's not going to spend too much time" and his time is suddenly "spotty" - after I showed him his rebuttal was predictable, laymen-like and easy to counter.

However, he preaches Christ and seems sincere, so I don't want to make an ugly fight of it with him like I do the others.

But he isn't perfect; he's a coward that fakes like he wants a debate but backs off when challenged directly.

Coward.

Also, you can get some insight into his thinking when he said that none of these logical arguments are any good - and then had the nerve to admit he didn't know them!

He basically admitted that he has committed himself to the idea that logical arguments are no good, he won't change his mind, he knows the arguments are no good but doesn't know them - what a foolish thing to say.

I've read his comments and he's easy pickings but just doesn't know it.

There are GOOD REASONS to believe that God exists wholly apart from revealed theology, and he values these reasons at ZERO, yet he doesn't know them!

Breathtaking!

He's come to my forum before but just throws a rock at the window and leaves.

I regret showing him any respect at all.

I was foolish.

He needs to grow a pair and sharpen his intellect, or quit yapping.

I told him he could take all the time he wants, but you must have missed that.

I offered to debate him and presented the offer with respect at pgp's forum, much more respect than I usually give.

I don't seek a discussion as I have those all the time. I seek trenchant debate with someone that can form philosophical arguments with premises and a conclusion, and he seemed sincere and capable.

But he did not reciprocate the respect I gave him. Then, because I left him alone in pgp's forum out of respect for pgp, he said that I ran away.

I just want to put the gloves on and get in the ring. We should fight HARD in the ring but leave it in the ring too. You can do that with friends and brothers. No need to always "just have a discussion".

I do appreciate your input though <tpstar>.

It's just that I really liked <yourang> and was surprised by his comments and tone.

But he does always go back to Christ, so I must agree that he deserves some respect and that he probably is a good guy.

Besides, religion is a very delicate subject and posters may not feel comfortable baring their souls here. In matters of faith, no proof is needed, and no proof is enough.

I can learn a lot from watching him, so really I wanted this debate between <BP> and <YouRang>.

I didn't do that.

He told me it would be easy to refute my arguments. That is projecting on his part. Then he accused me of running away so I came back.

I was very respectful until a day ago.

I don't think you'd have the time or interest, but ho and follow our conversation at pgp's forum starting from about two weeks ago. All was fine until he accused me of running away and then became dismissive and pompous.

<sugardom: I don't think <BP> can be defeated in a debate>.

Kind words. Thank you.

But in all candid honesty, I am not clever. The truth is, I choose to defend true arguments. It's not me that is unbeatable but rather the arguments. I merely give voice to them.

<sugardom>, I find the arguments from Natural Theology very compelling and persuasive. I think they build a solid, cumulative case for theism. I would like to argue them deeply with someone, anyone, but as <tpstar> said, religion can be touchy and some people aren't comfortable bearing their souls, so I find few takers.

I could just write about these arguments in my forum, but having a worthy opponent brings the very best of the arguments to the surface. They try to wriggle out of this and that and it gives me a chance to demonstrate the argument in all its fullness.

This is what I thought <yourang> would do in his role as devils advocate.

He said it would be easy, so I don't like his excuse "I don't have the time". I thought it was easy?

But above all this, I think God doesn't want Christians quarreling about anything related to God. So once <yourang> accused me of running away and dismissing the arguments with "see, these arguments are weak..." I had to leave it alone.

But after he said I hadn't been to pgp's forum in ten days because "I'm not interested", I had to respond lest his arrogance go unchecked.