Where is your evidence creationists?

[AV1611VET]

If we use the marble example, is your claim of it having been created out of nothing compatible with having an opened bag of new marbles in your pocket, and a receipt for them in your wallet?

So, like the universe, we have your claim of how and when it was created, no evidence (as you say) to support your claim, but there still exists evidence to the contrary?

I'm just answering a question, that's all.

 

[AV1611VET]

3. Why not just make all the wicked people disappear? Why flood the entire earth?

3. Because had He just made them disappear, there would have been no chance for repentance and salvation on their part. One minute, they are living a productive life, the next moment they are in Hell. At least with the Flood, they had a chance to cry out for salvation, and I'm sure many did. As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.

Yes, the flood was a much better way to do it.

It is a shame that all of those children had to die that way, but, obviously, God was limited in His choices.

You're welcome.

 

[CabVet]

Hey, where is that other thread that says humans are so perfect that they are evidence for a designer again? We are so perfect that God had to flood the entire earth and exterminate us because of our wickedness.

 

[Jazer]

There are no atheists in foxholes.

Maybe they are to big to fit in a little fox hole.

 

[Jazer]

If organisms do not evolve from other organisms than that means that they have to pop into existence.

They do not have to anything. You just mention two popular theorys. No one questions that God uses DNA. We just question the theory of random mutation. Without random mutation then Darwins theory falls apart.

 

[OllieFranz]

They do not have to anything. You just mention two popular theorys. No one questions that God uses DNA. We just question the theory of random mutation. Without random mutation then Darwins theory falls apart.

Sorry, but no. Care to try again?

Random mutation is an observed fact. All mutation is random. Chemical contamination or radiation knocks a piece out of the DNA, or two pieces of DNA get switched, and there is no way to predict the result. Most of the time, it happens within a soma (body) cell, and there is either no appreciable effect (other than perhaps the cell dying) or the cell becomes cancerous. Either way, the mutation does not affect any other individual organism. When it happens in a germ cell (egg or sperm), or in a zygote (fertilized egg), then the offspring individual may have a new (mutated) trait. The mutation may be positive, negative, or neutral. But mutation is not evolution. Mutation happens to individual organisms. An individual organism does not evolve (although positive, neutral and weakly negative traits may be passed on to later generations).

Evolution happens to entire populations, not to individual organisms. The mechanism for evolution is natural selection, and selection is the opposite of a random event. The traits selected for are those best suited for the specific environment.

 

[CabVet]

They do not have to anything. You just mention two popular theorys. No one questions that God uses DNA. We just question the theory of random mutation. Without random mutation then Darwins theory falls apart.

You should go tell people with genetic diseases caused by random mutation that there is no mutation, I would like to see how they react. There are about 4,000 human diseases caused by mutation, errors in DNA copy, or interactions between mutations and the environment, including many types of cancer, some types of hemophilia, etc.

 

[revo74]

1. God did not embed Murphy's Law into His creation. They turned out all (not almost all) wicked because of their freewill.

2. And what result was that? Yes, He could have produced robots, but He didn't. As the saying goes: If you love someone, set them free.

3. Because had He just made them disappear, there would have been no chance for repentance and salvation on their part. One minute, they are living a productive life, the next moment they are in Hell. At least with the Flood, they had a chance to cry out for salvation, and I'm sure many did. As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.

4. You keep bringing this 'deliberately designed' thing up. He designed it, we did the deliberating.

1. I specifically wrote "almost all" because I was under the impression Noah wasn't wicked and that is why he chose him.

1 & 2. You cannot blame free will for the fact that all men or almost all men turned out wicked. At the very least god shares the blame if he is not entirely responsible himself, which I believe is the case. There are many if not an infinite amount of ways that god could have created a natural world where free will exists. He decided to choose a world where he knew in advance (because he is omniscient) the people would all or almost all turn out wicked. These human emotions of grieving and repenting were brought onto him by his own hand. This is a problem that you cannot account for.

What is god's purpose for man? From my understanding it is that man inherits the kingdom of god. God wants the maximum number of men through their own free will to come to know and love god. Well he obviously did a very poor job his first time at it, so much so that he had to erase the drawing board and start over. This does not sound like the work an agent with infinite powers.

If god is the creator and he is also omniscient then he knew what the result of his actions would be. He knew that all of man or most of man would turn out wicked and that it would bring himself grief. He knew that he would hit the reboot button and start all over. I am sorry sir, but this is a major problem that you need to address.

If god was not omniscient then this problem would go away. Well...perhaps only partially because he is would be omnipotent. It would still be a mistake for an omnipotent all wise being to get things so wrong. God is said to be perfect. Perfect beings don't make mistakes like these, perfect beings don't have mortal emotions (which you had no response to).

The attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence cause many, many logical problems for god. As does the notion of perfection.

I would also like to mention that we have a very good understanding about the nature of people through many years of observation and science. There are some people who are inherently kind for example. This knowledge conflicts with the notion that every single or at the very least well over 99% of them turned out to be wicked.

3. Your answer here places god in a real bad light. What you're basically saying is, and what the entire floor story conveys is that god desperately wants free willed creatures to turn to him and the actions he takes to accomplish this fails miserably.

Incompetence, desperation, repentance and grievance are not attributes of an all-powerful god.

4. A definition of deliberate is: To think carefully and often slowly, as about a choice to be made.

God certainly made choices when he designed the Universe did he not?

 

[AV1611VET]

1. I specifically wrote "almost all" because I was under the impression Noah wasn't wicked and that is why he chose him.

Noah was a sinner like you and I are.

God said why He picked him:

Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

And for the record, God created Adam & Eve perfect; His obligation, if there was one, ended after He told Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

 

[CabVet]

And for the record, God created Adam & Eve perfect; His obligation, if there was one, ended after He told Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

Why did he have to tell a perfect creation not to eat a forbidden fruit? Why did he create a forbidden fruit?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did he have to tell a perfect creation not to eat a forbidden fruit?

Because Adam & Eve were not omniscient; and even if they were, they still chose to eat it.

Why did he create a forbidden fruit?

It was forbidden to Adam & Eve; that tree, in my opinion, was there for the others, not them.

 

[CabVet]

Because Adam & Eve were not omniscient; and even if they were, they still chose to eat it.

It was forbidden to Adam & Eve; that tree, in my opinion, was there for the others, not them.

In other words, Adam & Eve were not perfect. Now what are those "others" that you mention? Animals? Other people?

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, Adam & Eve were not perfect.

You have a strange sense of "perfect" then?

Now what are those "others" that you mention? Animals? Other people?

Angels.

 

[CabVet]

You have a strange sense of "perfect" then?

Angels.

Perfect: being entirely without fault or defect, flawless.

You call that strange?

 

[AV1611VET]

Perfect: being entirely without fault or defect, flawless.

You call that strange?

I didn't see the word "omniscient" in your definition.

 

[CabVet]

I didn't see the word "omniscient" in your definition.

Oh, so disobeying a direct order is not a fault then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, so disobeying a direct order is not a fault then?

Disobeying a direct order ≠ not being created perfect.

They were perfect, until they disobeyed.

In other words, they were perfect, until they weren't.

And before you reply, keep in mind: God's obligation ended after His command.

The Fall is assumed by some to have occurred one year after the creation event; this means Adam & Eve were perfect for one year.

Speaking of Lucifer, the Bible says:

Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

 

[selfinflikted]

Disobeying a direct order ≠ not being created perfect.

They were perfect, until they disobeyed.

In other words, they were perfect, until they weren't.

And before you reply, keep in mind: God's obligation ended after His command.

The Fall is assumed by some to have occurred one year after the creation event; this means Adam & Eve were perfect for one year.

Speaking of Lucifer, the Bible says:

Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

But even possessing the ability to become 'not perfect' means that they weren't perfect to begin with. Or something. I think.

 

[1000Flames]

There are several differences between 'no physical evidence' and 'did not happen'.

One possibility is the physical impact of an event. Some events have none. For example, earlier today, I had some chicken. While I was eating that chicken, I thought in my head, "Boy, this chicken is tasty." Now, a thought in my head leaves behind no physical evidence. But it happened.

Now, suppose I was eating chicken in an empty room. And suppose I said out loud, "Boy, this chicken is tasty." Would it leave behind physical evidence? Unless it was being recorded, after a moment or two, no. The sound would have stopped, the echoes ceased, the event just didn't have enough force/impact/whatever to leave a definite trace that I said "Boy, this chicken is tasty."

Now, an event that did NOT happen would have evidence of some kind that it didn't happen, as opposed to a lack of evidence. If I say that Russia launched seven nukes at Antarctica in 1970, you could examine Antarctica, do interviews, consult records, and find out that no such thing happened.

So, after listing my examples, I suppose the difference could be worded like this:

An event that leaves no physical evidence can only have a lack of physical evidence that it happened, while an event that did not happen can have either a lack of physical evidence that it happened OR physical evidence that it did not happen, and often both.

Metherion

I like this kind of thinking quite a bit. Kudos to this post!

 

[Davian]

Then forget the universe -- use a marble.

What is the difference between 'no evidence' and 'did not happen'?

The marble.

If we use the marble example, is your claim of it having been created out of nothing compatible with having an opened bag of new marbles in your pocket, and a receipt for them in your wallet?

So, like the universe, we have your claim of how and when it was created, no evidence (as you say) to support your claim, but there still exists evidence to the contrary?

I'm just answering a question, that's all.

To about the same effect as you just answered mine.