Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[DanDare]

Originally Posted by jireh

The rules were not imaginary. The Jews even HEARD Gods voice at the Sinai mountain. Furthermore, Gods rules were and are just. If you think slaughter babies, as the Canaanites did, was fine, be so. The God i believe in said after 400years : enough is enough !! He had given them enough time to stop their evil practices.

Oh yeah, they heard gods voice, gee I'd accept that in a court of law. Well, ok then, its ok for them to kill anyone they want I guess. All they have to do is hear good old god again.

Watch this:

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Originally Posted by jireh

The rules were not imaginary. The Jews even HEARD Gods voice at the Sinai mountain.

And then they like, you know, saw the colors and like, totally said "woah" man.

Prove that the Jews did not just go up to the Sinai mountain to smoke weed everyday.

Originally Posted by jireh

Furthermore, Gods rules were and are just. If you think slaughter babies, as the Canaanites did, was fine, be so. The God i believe in said after 400years : enough is enough !! He had given them enough time to stop their evil practices.

Why did he create them in the first place if he wasn't going to like them or what they were doing?

[IVPITER]

Originally Posted by jireh

i guess its easyer if you want to understand my position , to read Craigs answer to your point entirely.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5767

Craig's answer is pretty fucking sickening. Justifying the murder of children because they might taint the Israelites by marrying them. And it's okay according to Craig because he claims, the same children that might have turned Jews from Yahweh to some other god, that they would of hopefully went to heaven so killing them is actually doing them a favour. Killing children is spun by Craig as their "salvation"!!!!! I am so glad that I do not share your objective morality.

Originally Posted by William Lane Craig

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

And the difference between your "loving" god and a murdering tyrant—that gives the message that he loves his people, knows what is best for them and judges who lives and who dies—is what exactly? Because I am having trouble seeing the difference.

Craig admits what the Israelites do is wrong but because god gave them the order, it is suddenly wrong not to kill every single man, woman and child with out a presumption of innocence or due process. Just following orders in not an justification for genocide whether it be from some official or priest or the "voice" of god himself.

Originally Posted by William Lane Craig

What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.
So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

It is not "reasonable faith" but a fucking repulsive faith that should provoke outrage in any reasonable human with an iota of compassion.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by loubert

You to actually use your own words and describe it. Tell me, what did Karl popper say exactly? Quote if you like then explain in your own words.

i thought Popper was clear enough. Rather than i to explain it in own words, what did you NOT understand about the argument ?

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Iseeyouthere

Nope. No deal.
Besides, we'd just send the questions and statements to the person who was choosen and you'd still do what you are doing now... completely ignore questions, copy/paste things without understand them and mutter some crap about killing is ok.

BTW. what does the canaanites debate have to do with explaining the initial question of this thread, and furthermore with the existence of God ?

[jireh]

Originally Posted by DanDare

The earliest molecules that did what DNA now does were simpler but less stable ad more easily mutated during copy.

and how did they assemble the first time together to be able to start the copy process ???

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Logic please

Ahem... we have a specific debate forum for that purpose. Are you issuing a challenge for a formal, structured debate? If so, what is your proposed topic? If there are a number of takers for the alternate case, one will then be selected.

If you are not proposing a formal one-on-one debate, anyone is free to respond to you, in this thread. And no, we won't be limiting or changing this, to satisfy your baseless request to dictate the terms of the discussion.

Over to you.

well , as said, if the participants do not like me to post outside sources , and demand me to write all answers by myself, i must disappoint you. That won't happen. If you are insatisfied with that, you are free to choose someone else to debate.

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by jireh

BTW. what does the canaanites debate have to do with explaining the initial question of this thread, and furthermore with the existence of God ?

Jireh, if you really wanted to stick to the original topic, you shouldn't have been the one to take it OT with "objective morals" (for example), should you? Trying to bail out of your topic extensions now, by bleating about OT when people reply, looks pretty disingenuous, no?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

And now the SUPERCHARGED PROTON HYPER THEIST is going for the kill:

First up, the DUCK'N'DODGER:

Originally Posted by jireh

i thought Popper was clear enough. Rather than i to explain it in own words, what did you NOT understand about the argument ?

Second, the BACK TRACKING PAST BLASTER:

Originally Posted by jireh

BTW. what does the canaanites debate have to do with explaining the initial question of this thread, and furthermore with the existence of God ?

Third, the HYPERSPACE QUESTION DODGE:

Originally Posted by jireh

and how did they assemble the first time together to be able to start the copy process ???

It appears the athest's plans of getting him to answer the questions have once again been foiled by the SUPERCHARGED PROTON HYPER THEIST FROM INFINITY AND BEYOND! But will he get enough time to escape?

To be continued...

(insert epic action hero theme music here)

[jireh]

Originally Posted by loubert

And that is a godidit answer. It answers nothing at all. It is similar to the postulation that the sun was a miracle of god, then we humans realized it was a process called nuclear fusion.

Oh sure. Could you provide a scientific paper, which provides empirical proofs, that planets, stars etc. formed through that mechanism ?

As science advances and uncovers more of our world, your god idea shrinks into the recesses of what requires further research.

quit the oposit is the case.

The universe most probably had a beginning - therefore a cause.
The universe is finely tuned to life - therefore a tuner
Life needed complex , specified information as origin - therefore a intelligent mind
Morality is prescriptive - therefore a moral giver.



instead of pointing out to a natural origin, the more science advances, the more it finds out how finely adjusted everything is, and that natural explanations do fail entirely to adress and explain the origin of everything physical that exists.