God Exists

Argument from Prophecy I was saying the quote seemed shady. Not that Newton never said it, but the source is from a newspaper. Not the most accurate. Just because Newton's work was under Jerusalem, doesn't mean the paper cited them. The quote is unverified. Pro never objects to the prophecy being self fulfilling. He only objects to retrodiction with respect to the book of Daniel. However, this isn't the only way a prophecy can be fulfilled. Next, Pro attacks my claim that his argument is one from ignorance. The problem is, he never showed why it's wrong or why we should think a God gave those revelations and fulfilled them. This is where the fallacy is. He has given no reason to prefer God. He tries to shift the burden of proof, by saying I need to prove psychic fits are more logical. However, this was just to show where the fallacy is! To show a God isn't the only explanation and Pro needs to show why God is preferred. This is why your syllogism fails on premise one. Why should we think they were from a God? I extend arguments. Quantum Consciousness Pro reasons that my rebuttal helps, instead of hurts his argument. I feel he missed the point. If the apparatus breaks the wave function, then where's the problem? Humanity has existed for thousands of years with no collapsed wave functions. Pro and I can live our entire lives without touching an apparatus and thus never breaking a wave function. Even when conscious beings evolved, they don't have to collapse a wave function. So, where's the problem at? Pro dropped this argument and asks me to give an explanation for the wave function’s existence. I don't think Pro understands my point. I don't necessarily have to give an alternative explanation. I often do, because it shows the opposing side hasn't fulfilled their burden of proof. It shows the opposing side must offer more evidence to support their explanation. Here, Pro offered no evidence to support the idea that God created the wave functions. He just asserted it. I feel my arguments still stand. If Pro wishes to accept my response, then his argument is no longer problematic. Pro’s new argument is nothing but a speculative assertion. Solar Eclipses Pro commits a straw man fallacy. My argument was not that since the odds are unknown, it must be a coincidence. I was saying, since the odds are unknown, then Pro’s argument hinges on an unproven assumption. This is nothing like the straw man my opponent went after. I extend my argument here. Pro then ignores my other argument, claiming it's irrelevant. His objection doesn't touch my argument. If we had a different type of eclipse, or none at all, prophecy would remain mainly unchanged. Pro’s argument is one from ignorance. He needs to prove God did design the moon. All he's doing asserting God created it because he can't think of any other way it came to be that size. Problem of Evil Pro parodies the problem of evil. His parody is a fallacious false analogy. Parents can't be all wise or all powerful . If parents were all wise, they can teach children to do right, without rules or punishment. Since parents have finite wisdom and power, rules will get broken. God, however is defined as all wise. A God who is Tri-omni can teach humans without any evil. Pro says I don't understand that evil is explained in the first few chapters of the Bible. I'm aware that it tries, but I wasn't going to give a response to an argument that hasn't been made yet. The argument is basically, Adam and Eve were given free will, they messed up. Therefore evil is not on God, but man. First, this argument assumes free will exists. This is a highly controversial subject in philosophy, and needs to be proved first. Second, does free will exist in heaven? I don't want to answer for Pro, but I think if the God being debated exists, there would be. Because, how would love coexist? The creation would be forced to love and praise, but that's not love. Is there evil in heaven? Obviously not. It wouldn't be heaven if there was. This means free will and no evil can coexist. The creation could live in this world where we can still accept or deny God, but have no evil. Third, Even with free will we're still limited. For example, many things can be done to a building. We can 1. Paint the building 2. Lean on the building 3. Punch the building However we can't 4. Jump over the building 5. Turn the building into an invisible pink unicorn 6. Lift the building above my head Does the inability to do 4-6 violate free will? Why couldn't God put evil in the same category as 4-6? Fourth, were Adam and Eve perfect? If so, then they couldn't become imperfect. Since it would say what is perfect wasn't really perfect. Yet if A+E weren't created perfectly then God would basically be baking a cake and yelling at it for not tasting good. It would also mean God brought about an imperfection and thus responsible for evil. The argument stands. Temporal minds Pro commits another straw man fallacy. This argument isn't claiming that we don't know how an atemporal mind works. Nothing in the argument suggests this. A mind must be successive, otherwise it's not a mind. It's like saying you can listen to music while it's muted. How in the world is my argument assuming the A theory of time. It's an argument from the lack of time, not about the nature of time. Nonetheless, the Bible speaks in an A theory manor. I'll expand on that below. Pro tries to get around the argument by claiming God and time can both exist. He says, nowhere in scripture does it say otherwise. God can only exist with time, if the B theory is true. Otherwise, God’s eternal nature creates an infinite regress. Maybe this is where Pro was going with his last objection. First, the scriptures speak in an A theory manor. Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Under the B theory, nothing begins to exist. Past, present, and future exist equally. The universe always existed, ontologically. Other verses (2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2) speak of before the "ages". Some translations even use the word time Second, the Bible says God created everything. John 1:3 - All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made Clearly, this would include time. God not inventing time and claiming he created everything is like saying you created a chair while you sat on it. This argument is unrefuted. Back to Pro.