God created evil

[John Dibble]

I'm not answering a question that splits hairs between bloggers and us forum community members.

You won't answer it because you know you were wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you seem to think that this "infinite God" thing can just exist without any cause, so I don't see how the notion is any more or less absurd. Of course that isn't what I said at all, but it doesn't surprise me that as usual you can't comprehend that.

The burden of proof is on the nonbelievers;

No, the burden of proof is always on the ones making a claim. To say otherwise is to say that you would have to disprove everything you don't believe in in order to say that your beliefs are rational.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a strawman argument - not all unbelievers believe the universe "appeared out of nothing". If someone actually makes that claim then the burden of proof is on them for that claim. That hasn't been proven, so I don't believe it.

Another problem with what you're saying is that it isn't necessarily hypocritical - the two claims aren't necessarily bound to one another. You could believe that the universe came from nothing, but that it is finite and will eventually end.

[Derek]

I'm not answering a question that splits hairs between bloggers and us forum community members.

You won't answer it because you know you were wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you seem to think that this "infinite God" thing can just exist without any cause, so I don't see how the notion is any more or less absurd. Of course that isn't what I said at all, but it doesn't surprise me that as usual you can't comprehend that.

The burden of proof is on the nonbelievers;

No, the burden of proof is always on the ones making a claim. To say otherwise is to say that you would have to disprove everything you don't believe in in order to say that your beliefs are rational.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a strawman argument - not all unbelievers believe the universe "appeared out of nothing". If someone actually makes that claim then the burden of proof is on them for that claim. That hasn't been proven, so I don't believe it.

Another problem with what you're saying is that it isn't necessarily hypocritical - the two claims aren't necessarily bound to one another. You could believe that the universe came from nothing, but that it is finite and will eventually end.

Infinite God thing? Yes being infinite does not require a beginning or end. How that is is beyond our finite comprehension.

[John Dibble]

Infinite God thing? Yes being infinite does not require a beginning or end. How that is is beyond our finite comprehension.

Once again you don't understand what I said. I didn't state anything about "our" comprehension, I stated something about your comprehension. Your response to what I said earlier about existence only proving existence at best, which is to say that our existence proves nothing about where our existence came from, was to irrelevantly act as if I was saying we come from nothing which is not at all what I said.

[John Dibble]

The burden of proof is on the nonbelievers;

No, the burden of proof is always on the ones making a claim. To say otherwise is to say that you would have to disprove everything you don't believe in in order to say that your beliefs are rational.

Occum's Razor, Dibble.  It's a lot easier to explain a watch when you have a watchmaker.

1. This is an incorrect application of Occam's Razor, which states "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". The proper use of Occam's Razor is to take the evidence, develop your ideas around the evidence, and cut off anything from the ideas that are not necessitated by the evidence. I can say a watch needs a maker because I can compare it against every other watch in existence - watches don't occur in nature, we know that humans are needed to make them. The universe on the other hand is different. We don't know where the universe came from, nor do we currently know of any universes to compare it against. We cannot therefore state that the universe was made in the sense a watch would be made - it may have been, but we lack the evidence to make it a necessary conclusion, and therefore Occam's Razor would actually make any theory of the universe's origins not include a maker until evidence for one was found.

2. Occam's Razor is a principle for developing theories and whatnot, but that does not mean a theory or idea developed using Occam's Razor is necessarily correct. New evidence might show that the previous conclusions were totally incorrect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a strawman argument - not all unbelievers believe the universe "appeared out of nothing". If someone actually makes that claim then the burden of proof is on them for that claim. That hasn't been proven, so I don't believe it.

Another problem with what you're saying is that it isn't necessarily hypocritical - the two claims aren't necessarily bound to one another. You could believe that the universe came from nothing, but that it is finite and will eventually end.
[/quote]
I don't care if you claim it explicitly; you claim it tacitly via your acceptance of Western science and a mainstream conception of reality.[/quote]

No, I don't. I've outright stated I don't. Stop with this ridiculous attempt at straw-manning.

[Derek]

The burden of proof is on the nonbelievers;

No, the burden of proof is always on the ones making a claim. To say otherwise is to say that you would have to disprove everything you don't believe in in order to say that your beliefs are rational.

Occum's Razor, Dibble.  It's a lot easier to explain a watch when you have a watchmaker.

1. This is an incorrect application of Occam's Razor, which states "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". The proper use of Occam's Razor is to take the evidence, develop your ideas around the evidence, and cut off anything from the ideas that are not necessitated by the evidence. I can say a watch needs a maker because I can compare it against every other watch in existence - watches don't occur in nature, we know that humans are needed to make them. The universe on the other hand is different. We don't know where the universe came from, nor do we currently know of any universes to compare it against. We cannot therefore state that the universe was made in the sense a watch would be made - it may have been, but we lack the evidence to make it a necessary conclusion, and therefore Occam's Razor would actually make any theory of the universe's origins not include a maker until evidence for one was found.

2. Occam's Razor is a principle for developing theories and whatnot, but that does not mean a theory or idea developed using Occam's Razor is necessarily correct. New evidence might show that the previous conclusions were totally incorrect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a strawman argument - not all unbelievers believe the universe "appeared out of nothing". If someone actually makes that claim then the burden of proof is on them for that claim. That hasn't been proven, so I don't believe it.

Another problem with what you're saying is that it isn't necessarily hypocritical - the two claims aren't necessarily bound to one another. You could believe that the universe came from nothing, but that it is finite and will eventually end.

I don't care if you claim it explicitly; you claim it tacitly via your acceptance of Western science and a mainstream conception of reality.[/quote]

No, I don't. I've outright stated I don't. Stop with this ridiculous attempt at straw-manning.
[/quote]

I don't know how to copy just one quote but Occam's Razor is not always concrete. Yes it is often the case that the truth or facts are right in front of you or at least the case that what is thought to have happened is more likely than a twisted far out conspiracy theory. However, you can't always be sure. I'm always careful to apply Occam's Razor to anything. What is the simplest solution after all?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

why all the chatter?  why not just conclude God created creatures that were initially good but who had the free will to do evil and corrupt themselves?  end of story

[John Dibble]

I don't know how to copy just one quote

I told you how to do that - just use the bracket tags and cut out anything you don't want to quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I stated pretty much this with my second point. Also, the notion of the "simplest solution" isn't really what Occam's Razor is about, rather it's about not adding unnecessary assumptions to your conclusions.

why all the chatter?  why not just conclude God created creatures that were initially good but who had the free will to do evil and corrupt themselves?  end of story

Because some people don't feel that simply coming to that conclusion is what they should do. You may feel that because of what you believe to have been some kind of divine revelation that you experienced that you've got enough to go on to make that conclusion, but the rest of us might not feel that way if for nothing else lacking such an experience. If a person didn't feel that he or she has enough of a reason to draw that conclusion, then wouldn't just concluding it be intellectually lazy?

[Derek]

why all the chatter?  why not just conclude God created creatures that were initially good but who had the free will to do evil and corrupt themselves?  end of story

And besides if everything was "perfect" in the beginning then it was our destiny to fail or our fate. God would have known ahead of time by being God that Adamah and Eve would have eaten the fruit. Did you know that fruit is often equated with sex in the ancient world. So technically we can say that by having knowledge, Eve gained the knowledge of sex and that the fruit is only a symbol of sex in this story. So perhaps Genesis 2 is only trying to explain original sin (sex) in a metaphorical sense. They were tempted to do what is not pure. Now every born human since the beginning of time must be cleansed of original sin which sets up the need for baptism.