tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7622246248744583059.post5842801876525988012..comments2023-03-23T02:04:52.956-07:00Comments on Tommy Holland's Vision: Does God Exist? Friel-Barker Debate - Barker QuestionsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7622246248744583059.post-10701099865217546412008-11-04T12:42:00.000-08:002008-11-04T12:42:00.000-08:00No, you don't understand the Euthyphro dilemma. M...No, you don't understand the Euthyphro dilemma. <BR/>My position avoids it altogether; God's very character defines good. Therefore, what He is and does is the definition of good. Good is not sthg extrinsic to Him. <BR/><BR/>I notice that you didn't even attempt to ground or explain how you can know good and bad in your own worldview. Are you going to dance around that question every time I ask it, or will I only have to repeat the question a few times? Yours is not the automatic, default position, you know. You have to argue FOR it.<BR/><BR/><I>It is incorrect to describe characteristics of components of the universe and then apply those same characteristics to the universe itself.</I><BR/><BR/>This says a whole lot of nothing. The universe is composed of matter, energy, and space. Whence did they come?<BR/><BR/><I>For example, consider the following argument:<BR/><BR/>1. The human race consists of humans.<BR/>2. All humans have a mother.<BR/>3. Therefore, the human race has a mother.</I><BR/><BR/>Sounds good to me. <BR/>You, OTOH, didn't give an argument as to why this doesn't work out, but more importantly, you have no idea whether it's true or false. As a naturalist (as I assume you are), you'd need to be able to observe whether that's true or false, but absent a time machine, you can't. <BR/>Me, I ask the God who was there when it happened, and in fact there is one mother - Eve.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>We cannot apply the same characteristic (a mother) of the components (every human) to the entire set (humanity.) </I><BR/><BR/>Why not? Whom do you know that didn't have a mother?<BR/>Or are you just speculating again on things that you can't observe and haven't observed, but which are crucial to your worldview to believe? That's called blind faith, you know.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>That's why its incorrect to say that because every component of the universe has a cause, then the universe itself must have a cause.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll grant that just for the sake of argument.<BR/>The universe is not infinitely old. How did it start? <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>There's no arbitrary starting point of the universe where I could begin to measure nor ending point to stop.</I><BR/><BR/>The first part of this statement begs the very question at hand. How do you know this? Sounds like YOU have fallen into the infinite regress, a few lines after accusing Friel of the same.<BR/>The 2nd part is a complete guess on your part. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>then we are sneaking in time when time has not yet begun</I><BR/><BR/>1) Dealt with in the linked-to section I already provided. I guess you didn't bother to read it.<BR/>2) this goes against the thing you were just saying about the components of the universe. Make up your mind and stick with the one argument.<BR/>3) In reality, yes, there was no "time" before time was created, chronologically. Logically, however, there was. Time is contingent, as I explained. It requires a cause.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>To say that God exists outside of time is incoherent </I><BR/><BR/>what is your argument?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>if both God and the universe are outside of time, then who's to say which came first?</I><BR/><BR/>The universe isn't outside of time. Neither you nor I believe that. Why even bring it up?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7622246248744583059.post-81262033481838370282008-11-04T12:31:00.000-08:002008-11-04T12:31:00.000-08:00On the Christian worldview, all actions that God t...<I>On the Christian worldview, all actions that God takes are by necessity good. Otherwise, we have no idea what 'good' is.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a nice summmary of the Euthyphro dilemma, first offered by Socrates: Is something good because God does it, or does God do something because it's good? <BR/><BR/>If something is good merely because God does it, then 'good' is arbitrary to whatever God might decide to do. This is why some say that it's 'good' for God to commit genocide--after all, he's God, isn't he?<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if God does something because it's good, then God is adhering to a standard outside of himself--and since we can adhere to the same standard, God becomes unnecessary in determing what is good.<BR/><BR/><I>Friel's going after Barker's previous beliefs and all that "how do we know you're telling the truth now?" stuff was poor form for debating. <BR/>I see the value in it for a personal interaction on the street, but not in a debate.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm glad we agree. Barker later engaged in <I>ad hominem</I> attacks as I'll talk about in a later post. I was disappointed in the behavior of both participants.<BR/><BR/><I>The universe is not infinitely old. The universe is therefore contingent, it began to exist.<BR/>But nothing comes from nothing. Matter and energy started to exist.</I><BR/><BR/>One problem that I see here. Matter and energy are components of the universe. It is incorrect to describe characteristics of components of the universe and then apply those same characteristics to the universe itself.<BR/><BR/>For example, consider the following argument:<BR/><BR/>1. The human race consists of humans.<BR/>2. All humans have a mother.<BR/>3. Therefore, the human race has a mother.<BR/><BR/>We cannot apply the same characteristic (a mother) of the components (every human) to the entire set (humanity.) That's why its incorrect to say that because every component of the universe has a cause, then the universe itself must have a cause. Likewise, I can take a measuring stick and measure every component of the universe--a human, a mountain, a galaxy cluster--but I can't measure the universe itself. There's no arbitrary starting point of the universe where I could begin to measure nor ending point to stop.<BR/><BR/>As I said in my post, if we insist that there must have been a time when there was no universe and then God created it, then we are sneaking in time when time has not yet begun. And if we insist that the universe must have 'come from somewhere' then we are sneaking in space when space does not exist.<BR/><BR/>To say that God exists outside of time is incoherent and allows us to state illogical conundrums such as, "God created the universe" and "The universe created God." After all, if both God and the universe are outside of time, then who's to say which came first?https://www.blogger.com/profile/15321466949515992295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7622246248744583059.post-2956607978184508722008-11-04T08:41:00.000-08:002008-11-04T08:41:00.000-08:00OK, then, you have some tasks ahead of you.1) Prov...OK, then, you have some tasks ahead of you.<BR/><BR/>1) Provide a justification, on your own personal worldview, for labeling action X as "objectively good" and action Y as "objectively bad". <BR/>I'd suggest taking into acct previous discussions I've had on this topic. <A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/07/empathy-and-morality.html" REL="nofollow">Here</A> and <A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/11/contrasting-atheistic-preferences-and.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>On the Christian worldview, all actions that God takes are by necessity good. Otherwise, we have no idea what 'good' is. <BR/>Prove me wrong by answering this question.<BR/><BR/>2) Friel's going after Barker's previous beliefs and all that "how do we know you're telling the truth now?" stuff was poor form for debating. <BR/>I see the value in it for a personal interaction on the street, but not in a debate.<BR/><BR/><BR/>3) You apparently have no understanding of the standard kalam cosmological argument. Here it is in a nutshell (longer form <A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/04/kalamgesundheit.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>)<BR/><BR/>The universe is not infinitely old. The universe is therefore contingent, it began to exist.<BR/>But nothing comes from nothing. Matter and energy started to exist.<BR/>What could have started it? Some intelligent, volitional, powerful being outside of space and time would have had to create it. <BR/>This being is not contingent, but necessary, and as outside of time solves the problem of infinite regress. The naturalistic position, however, falls headlong into the problem of infinite regress.<BR/>Hopefully you can engage the actual argument now.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com