The Existence of God

As to point one: My counterpart fails to recognize that my first paragraph is not so much argument is it is background and definitions. My counterpart then asks: "Why did God want this? How did you know that God wanted this?" Actually I went to a great deal of trouble answering that in the first paragraph. Then my counterpart went on to assert: "This is God"s will, yet I believe it is immoral. Unless you believe that this is a moral thing to do then Jon is wrong." But this is not argument; it's dogmatic assertion. My counterpart then makes reference to an OT passage: "The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)" My counterpart does not understand that exaggeration was common in this era when speaking of dealing with enemies and my counterpart exaggerates the importance of the wording. This commentary by Paul Copan: "Yes, Joshua uses ancient conventional warfare rhetoric. Many other ancient Near East military accounts are full of bravado and exaggeration, depicting total devastation. Ancient Near East readers knew this was massive hyperbole and not literally true.6 Interestingly, Deuteronomy 7:2"5 uses words like "utterly destroy" right next to "you shall not intermarry with them" (NASB). As we have seen, the chief concern is destroying Canaanite religion not the Canaanite people." (http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org...) While this is in reference to a different passage it still applies. Secondly in warfare where you are removing a people you wouldn't make the mistake of leaving offspring behind. They will grow up to be avengers of their fathers. At the time what would have been the killing of a few thousand people; over the years, would turn into the killing of tens of thousands of people. Each new generation would rise up to strike out at the Israelites and they would have a renewed conflict on their hands. Further more these people were known for engaging in religions that featured things like infant sacrifice. These were violent and corrupt pagan cultures. Now this was my comment: "God is the owner of all things in a very complete sense. If God destroys something or allows it to be destroyed it cannot be said that God is doing something wrong. Isn't God free to do what He wants with His own things?" And my counterpart responded with this: "This is not the way at all to morally justify God killing people. This just made me sick to my stomach that a person would actually think this." This borders on a personal attack and I think my counterpart should be penalized for it during voting. What I was saying was simply that God cannot be held to the same kind moral accountability that we are because we don't own other people or this world and God does. God is the source of all existence and has a right to things above and beyond what we do. I cite Job as precedent: Job 1:21 "He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD."" As to point two: My counterpart is quite mistaken. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a "God of the gaps argument". A gaps argument makes God a working part of the theory. I cite big bang cosmology only to establish that the universe did indeed have a beginning. The theory stands on its own with absolutely no reference to God at all. The KCA then goes on to infer from the implications of that theory that there is a Creator. The real problem as I see it; is that atheists wish to restrict any consideration of an ultimate cause of the Universe's existence to material causes alone. They invoke the term "God of the gaps" as a distraction from the very real and vexing issue of where exactly the Universe ultimately originated. As to the accusation that the KCA can provide evidence for the existence of other entities; to the best of my knowledge I am not required to eliminate other possibilities but merely to provide evidence for the possibility of my own conception of a Creator. If my counterpart wishes to get into a discussion about which God specifically in regard to the KCA then we would need a separate debate. I'll be glad to do that but that's for another time. As to point three: Here Hayd actually makes a lethal error: "the quality of having unlimited or VERY GREAT power." (Google) https://www.google.com...... 1. "almighty or infinite in power, as God." 2. "HAVING VERY GREAT or unlimited authority or power" http://dictionary.reference.com...... The careful observer will notice that two of this definitions support my claim. The definitions provided make the point that omnipotent doesn't mean ONLY the ability to do anything but can ALSO simply mean very great power. Now once again my counterpart attempts to use Scripture but fails in the attempt: "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit." Psalm 147:5 (This passage supports my claim not his and the comment about "No limit" is in reference to God's knowledge.) "The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress." Job 11: 7-11 (Here again, the verse supports my claim not Hayd's) "But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." " Matthew 19:26 (In this case my counterpart takes the passage out of context. Jesus is talking about it being impossible for man to save himself and then says the above statement.) "For nothing will be impossible with God." Luke 1:37 (Once again Hayd takes a verse out of context. What it actually says in toto is:) Luke 1:36-38 "36"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. 37"For nothing will be impossible with God." 38And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her." It's obvious this passage is not meant to be understood as a definition of a fundamental attribute of God but rather a response to the doubts of the person spoken to. "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?" Jeremiah 32: 27 (Finally this. It's true that is a direct statement about God's character. However if we apply the same rules to reading the Bible that we do to other literature this problem clears it self up. For instance if I told you it was "Raining cats and dogs outside" you wouldn't expect k-9s and felines to be falling from the sky. Why hold the Bible to a standard you don't hold your own language to. Let's look at the full context of the verse:) Jeremiah 32:26-28 "26 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 27 "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?" 28 Therefore thus says the LORD, "Behold, I am about to give this city into the hand of the Chaldeans and into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will take it." God is talking about a military victory that seems impossible to Jeremiah. This passage is not claiming that God can make squared circles or married bachelors. As to point Four: My counterpart seems to not understand what "Freewill" is. Freewill is the ability to choose or choose otherwise. When the whole of humanity exercises it, it can have the effect of limiting the choices of others. Hayd cites things that a very much a product of freewill. Isis and laws are a product of the choices of human beings. As to point Five: My counterpart doesn't do me the courtesy of acknowledging the true gravity of my response to his claims. He merely mentions that I point out that there are flaws in using the KJV and ignores the fact that I demonstrated from the Hebrew in the text that he was wrong. I would ask that the voter reads both sets of arguments carefully and makes a decision based on the data provided and not on prior prejudice.