You link to another answer as your deductive proof. On that page, you wrote:
"If the non-Christian worldview is true, the laws of logic are not valid. Therefore, even though non-Christians use logic to interpret evidence, they have no real justification for doing so. In the non-Christian worldview, logic is not something that can be trusted."
Is this what you were referring to?
If so, please prove that all non christian worldviews necessitate that the laws of logic are not valid.
Seemed like a bare assertion. You attempt to back it up by begging the question with regard to Time's beginning. As though it was a settled case that presentism is true. Do you provide an argument for this? If so, does it deal with the issue of simultaneous presents?
Above I provided two different deductive proofs that "an intentional and coordinated God is responsible for our existence". One is on this page, right after my statement that there was a deductive proof, and the other is at the link you mentioned.
The argument on this page has nothing to do with time, but the argument linked to, it seems to me, is true regardless of A or B theory.
Feel free to attempt to deductively demonstrate that the time argument is null and void; however, I'd recommend you do it on the relevant page rather than here.
I have no intention of explaining how the argument is still valid if presentism is false, if there are multiple simultaneous presents, or if there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. None of those things seem relevant to the argument in my mind. If they are in your mind, show me why, and I'll be happy to discuss.
"The argument on this page has nothing to do with time, but the argument linked to, it seems to me, is true regardless of A or B theory."
This is bizarre since the argument claims that time began. In fact, you go to lengths to argue this (bringing up the impossibility of infinity and all that).
The B theory does not state that time 'began' in the sense you are using it. In other words, there never was a point when the universe (past, present, and future) did not exist.
Your argument begs the question on this point and since this is what you hinge your deductive proof on, it's simply mistaken.
As to your argument here - it hinges on 'random' and 'accident', which is not what most atheists think. Natural selection is not *random*, for instance.
Seems like a strawman to me.
Call it "time" (A theory) or "progress through time" (B theory)... either way the argument is identical: exit Atheism.
If Natural selection is not uncoordinated, it would be coordinated. This necessitates a Coordinator: exit Atheism.
How is it identical? The B theory would indicate that the universe never began.
Natural *selection* is not random, which is what you initially stated. Now you are saying it's uncoordinated, which is different, so you are essentially switching things up to the detriment of your argument.
"How is it identical? The B theory would indicate that the universe never began."
"The Non-presentist will admit that, in the temporal location sense of ‘x exists now’, it is true that no non-present objects exist right now."
This is the sense which allows my argument to be valid in B theory. It seems to me that A theory and B theory both require the vector that is essential to my argument. A theory calls that vector "time", while B theory calls the space the vector is in "time"... but the vector exists in both theories, and the vector is all that's necessary for the argument. I have, in my argument, referred to the vector as "time" for the sake of simplicity.
"Now you are saying it's uncoordinated, which is different..."
I explicitly defined "random" to mean "uncoordinated" as I would use it in my argument above. I haven't changed anything. If you are using "random" in a different way, then your assertion about natural selection has nothing to do with my argument above.
I still don't see how that enables your argument to work - all that is saying is that, to the b theorists, there are two senses of 'x exists now'. It's not saying that at one time, X did not exist, which seems to be essential to your argument.
Read the rest of the paragraph:
"But in the other sense of ‘x exists now’, which we can call the ontological sense, to say that x exists now is just to say that x is now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers, whether x happens to be present, like you and me, or non-present, like Socrates. When we attribute to Non-presentists the claim that non-present objects like Socrates exist right now, we commit the Non-presentist only to the claim that these non-present objects exist now in the ontological sense (the one involving the most unrestricted quantifiers)."
"I explicitly defined "random" to mean "uncoordinated" as I would use it in my argument above. I haven't changed anything. If you are using "random" in a different way, then your assertion about natural selection has nothing to do with my argument above."
My point is that natural selection is not random and not an accident. I suppose you could say that nature coordinates the selection. That's where the difference is.
You are making a strawman out of evolutionary processes.
In theory, God could make it irrefutably known (to all of his creation) that he created everything. God fails to do that so not believing that God created everything is a reasonable conclusion. McCabe's argument from ignorance doesn't advance the issue at all.
I disagree with Carrier that it would necessarily be obvious. After all, God could want to hide this fact from us. But then, maybe Carrier is right and God is evil and hiding himself from us. Of course, that's not a reason to believe God is real and created stuff.
"In theory, God could make it irrefutably known (to all of his creation) that he created everything. God fails to do that so not believing that God created everything is a reasonable conclusion"
According to the Bible, and thus Christianity, God has made it irrefutably known (Romans 1:20). People claim it is not obvious because we want to suppress the truth that is clearly seen in unrighteousness -- we love our sin more than the truth (Romans 1:18).
The "temporal location sense" is the only sense in which my argument needs to work, and the only sense in which I'm claiming that it works, and in this sense it works perfectly. The fact that there is another sense that operates differently in B theory is completely irrelevant to the argument.
"I suppose you could say that nature coordinates the selection."
Only if nature is a person.
"The "temporal location sense" is the only sense in which my argument needs to work, and the only sense in which I'm claiming that it works, and in this sense it works perfectly. The fact that there is another sense that operates differently in B theory is completely irrelevant to the argument."
How is that, exactly? Your argument needs a creation event, which the b theory denies. I'm genuinely puzzled by your response here.
"Only if nature is a person."
And why is that? I think you are equivocating here. You want 'uncoordinated' to equate to 'random', but it can't if you are going to say that natural selection is random.
"Your argument needs a creation event..."
A "creation event" is not one of the initial premises of my argument. The argument only requires an iterative sequence: the "vector" I have been referring to in our conversation. This vector is present in both A and B theory. In the context of the argument, the beginning of the vector (not necessarily a "creation event" or the "beginning of the universe") is logically deduced from the existence of the vector -- that makes "the beginning of the vector" the conclusion, not the premise.
The only ways out of the argument, as far as I can tell, are to say that:
(1) yesterday (or any previous moment) has never existed in any sense at all -- not even in an "illusory" sense (and neither A nor B claim this).
(2) things can be and not be in the same exact way (rendering all statements incoherent and knowledge impossible).
"it can't if you are going to say that natural selection is random."
I never suggested that natural selection is random. Nothing is random in the sense in which I am using the word in my argument. If natural selection occurs, then it is not random at all. But this "natural selection" stuff really has nothing to do with the argument I made above.
Since getting into semantics over my (or your) particular word choice only leads to bait and switch arguments, I'll instead try to elaborate on what the argument I made above is actually intended to mean, rather than harp on word definitions.
If Atheism is true, then the premise is that everything that happens is purely the result of processes that are unplanned, unintended, without purpose, without goal, without guidance, and without logical thought directing them. This means that if Atheism is true, then the conclusion is that everything that happens is unplanned, unintended, without purpose, without goal, without guidance, and without the direction of logical thought. Atheism asserts both the premise and the conclusion. Atheists, however, agree with the premise, but not the conclusion, so no Atheist really holds to Atheism.
The response I hear most frequently from Atheists is that humans can plan even though humans themselves are unplanned. Humans can intend even though humans themselves are unintended. Etc.
The problem with this response is that, under Atheism, "human intent" as they refer to it is still purely the result of unplanned, unintended, purposeless and unguided processes, without the direction of logical thought, making it still logically unjustified. If Atheism is true, our conclusions are no more logically justified than if they had been the negation of what they are. If our conclusions are not justified, we cannot be said to have true, justified beliefs (knowledge).
If Atheism is true, no one has a good, rational reason to hold to any belief, as all of the beliefs we hold to are purely the result of processes that are unplanned, unintended, without purpose, without goal, without guidance, and without logical thought directing them.
What if God is simply potential between what is and what could be? We choose our God and make God real in our lives.
Certainly we choose to pursue the things that matter most to us, and in one sense, the thing that matters most to us is our god. But if it is not ontologically (inherently by its own nature) in authority over us, if it is not our Creator and Sustainer, if we are the ones making our god real, then our god is subject to us, not the other way around. This is really the situation with all non-Christian gods: they are mere inventions of men. A god like that doesn't have any power he didn't derive from us. This makes us the Creators and him the creation; us the masters and him the servant; we are the god in this scenario. However, we didn't create our environment. We didn't create ourselves. We didn't determine that we ought to do the things that we fail to do. These were determined by something higher than us. If we spend our time seeking after that which we have created rather than that which created us, the real Creator will never be found.
What we "invent" is simply a user interface, it is not the Divine Mystery that encompass and includes all things... That Divine mystery is the Creator and Sustainer/Mother of all that is, was and shall be... It is that Mystery that calls to us when we hear the wind blowing through the trees, fall in love, witness birth and death.
Most Pagans recognize that while inspired by the Divine, and our own understanding of that Divine... what we call God or Gods is still limited. Christianity and a host of other religions confuse their understanding of the Divine with the Great Mystery itself.
hi its my bro`s site just say paul told to ring and to look after you
Richard, you seem to be assuming a specific shape for "God", specifically, the Christian shape. It's certainly possible, for me at least, to imagine Gods for which the universe would look almost exactly the same, for example, a Deistic God.