(September 13, 2021 at 6:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote: False. We can't even say that our own universe required a beginning or else is past eternal, much less a universe we know nothing about.
For any existing universe, the two propositions, P :"A universe began to exist" and Q :"A universe has an eternal past" are mutually exclusive, one of them must be true, Q is simply non-P. This is the basic law of excluded middle.
Unless you're willing to deny the most basic rules of logic and delve into sophistry, you are forced to pick one of these propositions.
(September 13, 2021 at 6:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote: You are simply wrong in your claim that any universe that did not begin to exist must be past eternal. How would you even know such a thing?
Splash your face with water and re-read what's above.... I guess ?
(September 13, 2021 at 6:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote:(September 8, 2021 at 3:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: It's possible to argue for benevolence on the grounds of the ability of creation to fulfill good deeds, our inner moral compass, the maternal instinct, etc. All these mundane observations can serve as premises to prove some property that a deity likely has. Something can't give or cause what it doesn't have, if this rule holds (or, at worst, is probable), then a malevolent deity is unlikely to have created mothers who instinctively protect their children.[emphasis mine]
As pointed out, the rule is not valid in this context and it doesn't justify thinking it unlikely that a malevolent deity would create the maternal instinct.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth in more ways than one. If the existence of evil is compatible with a benevolent deity, then the existence of good is compatible with an evil deity. You can't carve out a greater likelihood for one or the other, as both depend upon the same argument.
You say, "You can't carve out a greater likelihood for one or the other", as if I didn't give plenty of reasons already for why the balance tilts towards benevolence.. This is not rocket science, we evaluate this "likelihood" based on what we observe. And what we observe is that peace, empathy, sense of community, our inner moral compass, our sense of justice, etc. are all the default state of our species. Going to war is an exceptional occurence, perpetrating genocide and other gravely immoral acts is exceptional, etc.
My argument for compatbility serves only to prove that theism is coherent, regardless of its truth value. Proving that benevolence is the actual state of affairs -if God exists- can only be done by inference, i.e. by infering God's character based on his creatures'.
(September 13, 2021 at 10:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: In order to sidestep the obvious problem of not having any evidence
As I explained repeatedly, countless observations about the world -that atheists recognize too- can, and are, used as premises in arguments in favor of God's existence.
If by evidence you mean repeatable phenomena, then this is simply a category mistake that should be avoided. That's because a deity purportedly intervenes through rarely occuring miracles, and rarely occuring events can't also be repeatable or reproducible....