A right to choose what? A right to evade a biological consequence and in turn obligation (in dignity)? Women have all the choices in the world to do whatever they see fit with their body. But when they enter into any consensual activity that results in the introduction of a third party, how can there be any sense in that argument?
Thejackster,
Your arguments are based on false representations of the Bible.
First you present the flood as an evil thing. But the story presents the flood as an act of justice toward injustice. Genesis 6 presented how humankind had lost its way, and how the flood was necessary to "reset" history. And it should be noted that the flood tarried for about a hundred years, allowing enough time for people to change their ways. Also there is the view of the angels birthing titans through earthly women and corrupting the world (Enoch described this in detail).
There is also the position that the flood was not worldwide, but regional, destroying an evil civilization.
The point is that God judged an evil generation. God has the ontological ground to judge evil and its perpetrators.
Second, on the killing of the first born sons of Egypt, you must remember that the Pharaoh of Egypt had ordered the genocide of Hebrew males many years before the plagues of Egypt. Pharaoh slaughtered many Hebrew males, of which Moses narrowly escaped, to maintain power over the Hebrews and keep them in perpetual slavery.
And remember that the Hebrews were slaves and untrained in war. Therefore the plagues were the necessary toward setting the Hebrews free from slavery.
How many lives were lost in America's civil war toward ending slavery? Will you argue that Lincoln was evil for fighting the war that cost many fathers their sons, to end slavery?
Pharoah could have yielded after the first plague and let the Hebrews go. But instead, he insisted on keeping the Hebrews in "chains." His evil toward the Hebrews cost his nation the first-born sons.
For further discussions on genocide, you may refer to [http://pastorrexiteke.com/2013/11/28/
Third, Leviticus didn't call for the death of homosexuals, but those caught in the act of homosexual sex. This was to deter homosexual sex (and other sexual practices that were listed) from the public, not to persecute homosexuals.
Fourth, children were not killed simply for disobeying their parents. The text was referring to youths in their late teens and early adulthood who were a menace to society and bringing dishonor to their parents.
"Kill non-Christians"
Fifth, there were no Christians and non-Christians at the time.
"Kill people who work on Sunday"
Sixth, Sabbath was on Saturday. And Jesus challenged the legalism that became a burden to the Sabbath, saying that the Sabbath was intended for humankind, and not the reverse.
Seventh, Genesis 3: 16 apportioned punishment for sin to man and woman. Man gained dominion over woman, while he began to toil for his "daily bread."
On slavery, you may also refer to [http://pastorrexiteke.com/2013/12/23/
Eighth, though men were allowed to take multiple wives, it was not so in the beginning. The formula for marriage in Genesis is that "two shall become one."
Ninth, The rape you purported actually referred to consensual sex. Don't be misled by the language. In that society where a woman's opinion was of little or no relevance, men "took" hold of women as desired. It was a woman's role to submit. Hence we are speaking of a man taking hold of a woman (as in wooing her and receiving her submission) and consensual sex thereafter.
You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts.
"Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics."
But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning.
"It just means we don't know yet."
If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported.
You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts.
"Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics."
But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning.
"It just means we don't know yet."
If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported.
I didn't misrepresent any professional but gave statements on the observation that the universe appears fine tuned. If the universe is fine tuned, one can deduce that it is either fine tuned without any explanation or fine tuned with an explanation. The second deduction will make more sense.
That Robin Collins is a philosopher means nothing. And saying that only physicists have the knowledge to prove theism is true or not is absurd.
You haven't responded to the fact that the universe appears fine tuned and provided an explanation to why it appears so? I'm still waiting for an explanation to why the universe appears or is fine tuned?
I looked up Dr. Dennis Scania and there are some quotes from him, but it is odd that he doesn't have Website or Wikipedia page. My apologies for letting that slip.
As for the rest, especially Hawking who is obviously atheist, I wasn't presenting them as theists, but in the context that scientists concur that the universe appears fine tuned.
"Scientists call this extraordinary balancing of the parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe the "fine-tuning of the cosmos." It has been extensively discussed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists, especially since the early 1970s, with hundreds of articles and dozens of books written on the topic. Today, it is widely regarded as offering by far the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God" (Robin Collins).
http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/
It is reasonable to say that the universe is fine tuned, hence why atheists have come up the anthropic principle based on the multiverse theory. But that falls short of explaining why this universe is fine tuned.
I think it's best to take one argument for discussion and then move to another after thoroughly discussing one.
I will start with fine tuning.
"If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop" (Dr. Dennis Scania).
"If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all" (Dr. David D. Deutsch).
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty” (Stephen Hawking).
Fine tuning has already been established by the top minds and there shouldn't be any argument about that. The question that one should reasonably ask from fine tuning is why and how the universe was fine tuned. My conviction is that God fine tuned the universe.
"I could go on, but there really is no point. You can reply if you like but I have no intention of further wasting my breath."
Best to save your breath because the discussion with you didn't go anywhere. As far as I'm concerned none of your arguments made any sense.
You certainly took the text out context to reach the misguided opinion.
“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
An amplified look shows the second scenario to mean a man violating a virgin by taking away her virginity through the act of fornication, and not rape. "Seize" is more in the context of a man convincing a woman to give up her valued virginity. That she didn't cry for help as in the preceding preceding scenario shows that it was consensual. That they are found shows they had conspired to keep their sexual relationship private, until their sexual relationship could no longer remain private.
To save the virgin from shame of losing her virginity outside of marriage, seeing that no other man would approach her for marriage in the very conservative society, the man must marry her. The payment of money is in the context of a dowry.
And in speaking of progress, scientific inquiry thrived the most in a Christian background.
That the universe began is not an assumption but scientific fact. The Kalam argument argues for a transcendent and timeless cause since the universe would not have caused itself. The argument is a reasonable position and cannot be substituted by any other theory as rational.
Fine tuning argument presents constants that whereby where changed would have greatly altered the universe that we know. Arguing that we evolved to fit into the universe is trumped by the fact that the constants were in place to begin that evolution that you speak of, without that evolution would not have began.
Morality cannot have been solely based on sociobiology since it would have been solely subjective, while there has been a universal understanding of moral principles.
NDEs isn't merely subjective as it has been debated in medical circles. People who have been declared dead all over the world have returned with out-of-body experiences and details that they would not have been known of considering that they were not conscious or even dead at the time the experiences occurred. NDEs thereby qualify as an argument.
It's better you make an argument to show the fallacy of what I present, than simply say that what I present is a fallacy and not produce any convincing argument to show the position. You cannot just make statements like "free will doesn't exist," while free will is still debated and hasn't been conclusively dismissed by skeptics. There are agnostics who believe in free will, without the metaphysical explanation of free will of course. You can say in your opinion free will doesn't exist and present your argument with sources for pure determinism. That would be a better way to discuss than reaching conclusions without even taking the journey. That just shows that you are closed minded and not even willing to engage in a discussion.
"I have given express and detailed rationale, substantiated by examples and external resources."
I differ. The frustrating thing is how you have dodged direct questions, and claim to be rational in this discussion.
It's simple logic. If there are things that can never be acceptable in any context, then we have objective morality. Write a five page essay if you like, but until you effectively show how there is NO objective understanding of right and wrong, you haven't contributed anything to this discussion.
