AJJ

Look, I’m bored now, so I’ll just state the obvious one more time and leave it at that. My language is blunt; it’s no wonder you don’t like it, becaus...

The killing of unborn children is an emotive issue. So what if there are unsuccessful pregnancies? How does that make any difference to the fact that ...

OK, so how many of those attributes and to what degree does someone need them before they get their Dignity Card? And what about those without theirs?...

I’m not talking about pigs or apples. I’m talking about innocent, defenceless, human life. Innocent because it has done no wrong; defenceless because ...

If you say so. I’m going off what you’ve been saying.

You’re outlining a moral code that favours the strong and healthy over the weak and defenceless, and your response to opposition is an accusation of m...

A lot of people live perfectly good lives. The majority of people love their children, planned or not. On a moral code of any worth, destroying an inn...

So on your moral code murdering an adult is less acceptable that murdering a new born baby?

People also have abortions simply because they do not want the child, and so an innocent human life is destroyed because it suits someone else’s plans...

It is a life, it is human, it is innocent. It is most often destroyed simply because it is unwanted.

I take the view that destroying innocent human life because we find it convenient to do so is wrong. If that lacks nuance then so be it.

No more replies to any of this now from me.

He does, because of everything I’ve already said.

No, because of everything I’ve already said.

He’s necessary, which means that He can’t not exist. Through various logical steps, and I’ve tried to demonstrate some of those as well as I can, He i...

Settle down everyone, you don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. I’m out.

Graham Oppy is a distinguished atheist philosopher of religion, don’t know how well known he is, but he simply believes that there is a necessary part...

He’s eternal. I meant he’s posited as the explanation for the universe.

He exists as the universe’s explanation and his timelessness makes him eternal.

Magical because it exists for no reason, by virtue of nothing except its own inexplicable nature. Call that something else if you want, I call it magi...

You’d have to be a bloody fool to, so go ahead.

It’s magical, and God isn’t. You’ll disagree, of course, but I think we’re about finished with this argument for the time being. Your definition does ...

Yeah, fine.

Nothing. But that’s exactly what I’m calling magical thinking. I’ll just say it again. Your definition of “universe” makes it impossible to talk prope...

Well if there wasn’t anything prior to the Big Bang then either the universe brought itself into existence or it was created. Everything else you said...

God is necessarily timeless, and has his eternality by virtue of this. The universe is not timeless, so if it has eternality then it just has it, for ...

It changes everything. As I’ve pointed out and demonstrated, it makes it impossible to talk properly about God.

Yes, but God has always existed by virtue of his own, necessary, nature. The universe, if it has such a nature, cannot have it necessarily, but rather...

The reason is either within the universe, in which case the universe is its own source, or it is beyond the universe, in which case it is God. Unless ...

He is posited as the source of the universe, so necessarily exists, and is necessarily timeless, so He can’t possibly have begun to exist, and therefo...

Which is nonsense, because God as defined by classical theism is the source of the universe, all of it. Your strange definition makes it impossible to...

To say the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed for no reason is magical talk. You’ll have to explain why it’s special pleadi...

I’m not misunderstanding the way you’re using the word. Your definition is problematic because it makes it impossible to speak properly about God, who...

No, but believing that the universe accounts for its own existence is, in my humble opinion, magical thinking.

My justification is that to avoid atheism’s universe-by-magic, you must posit a source beyond the universe, which, being beyond the universe, is neces...

I’m not arguing that. I agree that unborn children are incapable of deciding whether they would like to live or not, and asking does that make it appr...

Saying it’s a dodge does not make it a dodge.

Settle down. So if x is a pencil, you label the pencil “the universe”? Perhaps you’ve mistyped. God can’t be “had” by the universe for the same reason...

God is a logical alternative to atheism’s universe-by-magic. If the universe is not the source of itself, then its source is beyond it, and so necessa...

Either the universe accounts for its own existence - by some inexplicable magic - or an entity beyond it does, which necessarily has the attributes of...

Of course you’ve been given things to work with. Simply characterising them the way you do is a cop-out.

Looked it up:

Look. Here’s the first definition of “universe” from my Dictionary app: “the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space”. Th...

I’m suggesting that you shouldn’t use a question-begging definition in your argument. It’s unreasonable and clearly driven by your motive.

How about that life isn’t automatically bad? But as for unborn children, we’re allowed to decide for them? My understanding is that suffering in Chris...

It’s only a contradiction in terms if you’re using your question-begging definition of the universe.

And this could be used as a justification for killing anyone you saw as living a sad life. Yeah, again, this is all justification for killing people, ...

Your translation omitted an important line. So it could be used to justify arbitrarily killing only holy people, then, which is also absurd. This is a...

Your first quote omits an important line: It’s also worth noting that the despairing nature of Ecclesiastes is a dissent from the rest of the Old Test...

I was making the point that the “don’t like abortions, then don’t have one” argument is fatuous, even if you assert that it isn’t, because it doesn’t ...