A Civil Religious Debate

The source which states that god has those three properties is irrelevant to the analyzes of them.

Given the power to stop evil, is it good to allow evil to occur? For example, it is good for me to watch over a man raping a women when I hold a gun, or should I wait till he is finished to shot him?

It holds no benefit to punish someone after their death, in life it hold a benefit to imprison people because it isolates them from committing similar acts, and grants time for them to change. Punishment after death only holds loses, and no benefit. There is nothing good in it.

Why bother creating those in need of weeding out? Especially if you are ominiscient, and omnipowerful. you would have full knowledge of the evil they will impose on others, it is no different than pulling a trigger of a gun to someone's head and saying, "hey the bullet had a chance of being a dud".

1. You failed to considered the meaning of omnibenevolent, and what that means when combined with the two other properties. The bible is irrelevant to the logic of combining those three properties.

2. Free will is an absurd concept. Further more, punishment for such things(especially the type god is typically said to enforce) is not an act of a Omnibenevolent god.

So religion is everything?

if so, then religion doesn't signify anything, and is meaningless.

Religion is measured by conviction, conviction alone however may not lead one to act on that conviction. For example, an smoker might believe people shouldn't smoke, but finds his addiction to be too difficult to overcome. How then do you measure conviction if not by action, all that is left is the person's word. Sure the person could be lying, but its the best method we have.

Remember that republicans also claim that republicanism isn't a religion, but continue to preach.

Remember that psychologist also claim that their theories are not religions, but continue to preach.

Remember that marketers also claim that their brands are not religions, but continue to preach.

.......

Remember that republicans also claim that republicanism isn't a religion, but continue to preach.

Remember that psychologist also claim that their theories are not religions, but continue to preach.

Remember that marketers also claim that their brands are not religions, but continue to preach.

.......

Person B just pushes their faith back into the abstract.

Their response is basically that there is micro-evolution because they perceive it to be true and their perception is accurate, unless their perception Randomly/Unpredictably changes due to a change in their perception.

They assume their perception is accurate.

How can you use perception to verify perception? you can't without it being circular reasoning.

Although the point is, that the change in their perception is unpredictable/random to them.

This could be because we lack information in a deterministic world with one path of cascading results, or because the world is statistically defined. Why should we pick one over the other?

Every system requires something unproven to rest itself on, or else you have circular reasoning.

I am a bit of an absurdist for a reason, or are there not limits to reason?

Some Variables change with changes in time and are never the same value.

Time changes, thus you never have the same variables.

Consider the system described by the following equation:

Y(t) = x(t)u(t)

where u(t) = 1 for t>=0 and 0 otherwise.

The past performance of Y(t), can not be used to predict the future performance of Y(t). If you did, you would have 0 for all time before now and expect 0 for all future values, and suddenly start having non-zero values. The truth is that any system might have some unknown variable that kicks in only after a certain time, and you can't predict when that is going to be from past performance.

Logic even requires faith, in that logic is nothing without assumptions.

I think you agree, or else you wouldn't of thrown in all those statements about how the past can be used to predict the future unless your missing information, simply put past information doesn't necessarily give you all information about the future.

Anything with a probability of happening at some time of .5 is unknowable when it will happen, there are things in this universe with such a probability, and the universe is a chaotic system. We could be a coin flip away from gravity repealing instead of pulling, and it could be because of a butter fly.

The scale of time your using isn't long enough to have a grasp on all the possibilities, Nor do we understand why some physical laws are as they are. There may very well be meta-physical laws so to speak. For example, the gravitational constant could theoretically switch from positive to negative every few trillion light years and we would never know. That could happen tomorrow when you go to start your car. To assume that it doesn't is just that, an unfounded assumption. Of course, to assume that it does is also an assumption. Sure you could consider time to be a condition, intill you realize that time is relative to the density of mass, which is relative to its distribution, which is relative to time. All conditions melt into each other, because a thing separate from something else is a illusion of the mind. Even if that wasn't the case, you can't tell the behavior of a system based on what time it is, because that system might have a few unit impulse and other functions as sub functions which change the behavior of that system at some future time, or it might not be time-invariant, resulting in the system changing behavior as its co-efficients pass over bifurcation values. To assume the system isn't time-dependent like that is one made on faith. To assume you can start your car tomorrow because you always could on previous days is to assume previous conditions remain the same and that those conditions continue to have the same effect irregardless of time.

I suppose you could just say that time is never a constant condition though. That might be considered equivalent to the above two paragraphs.

The premise that past results are indicators of future results is one believed by faith.

In the example of your car, you have

[(For all x)N(x)-->(For all x)p(x)], (For all x)n(x) thus (For all x)p(x), which is valid.

where (For all x)n(x) is there being no problems before with your car started for every day you did start it before and p being it starting up today.

However, only (For all x)n(x) is given to you by evidence, [(For all x)N(x)-->(For all x)p(x)] can not be given by evidence, at best: [(For all x)N(x)-->(For some x)p(x)] can be.

"they demonstrate a distinct lack of faith in their factual support."

or a lack of belief in peoples ability to be effectively persuaded by factual support.