Ask God for Me

[Clizby WampusCat]

no

But humans can be pretty chicken.

Then you need to write a paper and submit it to scientific scrutiny and get your noble prize.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I thought I had given you some of those earlier. I don't want to go back through right now. If not I will give you a list.

Fair enough.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again, not the question I asked. Do YOU believe humans and chickens have a common ancestor?

I do believe that humans and chickens may have had a common ancestor, as with many lineages we don't know for sure.

 

[Kylie]

No, it actually doesn't say anything about how information came about. This is a good summary of Evolution and nothing more.

And evolution is the process by which new "information" comes about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And evolution is the process by which new "information" comes about.

That wasn't the question. How did information come about? New information is not an issue, how did information come into existence to allow for evolution?

 

[Kylie]

I guess my bias was I wasn't sure and I should ask His permission . . . just in case. But I had no game plan for making sure. I had no standards that I had thought out before deciding to make sure. So, there were no standards to bias how I evaluated. And then I, like I said, I went with what I would say had nothing to do with it > what a lot of people believe.

Now, of course, I realize that a great number of people being called the same thing does not mean they all are that. And I went with my religion because adults I trusted told me things I trusted.

But I see, too, how others can be biased in what they choose to use to evaluate if God exists.

Yeah, this sounds like a bias to me.

You were more inclined to believe that God does exist than that he doesn't.

 

[Kylie]

That wasn't the question. How did information come about? New information is not an issue, how did information come into existence to allow for evolution?

You mean amino acids? You know those are easy to produce with just some chemicals and heat and stuff, right? Amino Acids, Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[coffee4u]

Not quite. It is not that I am saying the supernatural no longer exists, it is that I cannot demonstrate that it does to warrant a belief.

That sounds confusing. I have talked to other atheists on here who do not believe the supernatural exists at all.

Also, I do have a sister and that relationship is different than that of a god. I can have a long conversation with my sister, I can demonstrate that she exists, I can hug her and I can tell you what she thinks and believes without interpretation etc. Can you demonstrate your relationship with Jesus is with a real person? You call it a relationship but it is nothing like a relationship any of us actually have.

Of course it is different, God is spiritual not flesh and blood.
But at times I do feel God speaking to me or answering prayer.
Most times when we don't hear or feel God its because we moved away not God.

Why? Why would god not give each person the level of evidence they need to believe? At least then they would have a choice to follow him or not. Paul got a theater show, why not anyone else? Does god play favorites?

All I can say is that God is outside of time and can see the beginning middle and end all at once. He already knew you would become an atheist long before you did, the Bible says he knows us before we are born and all the hairs on our head.
Some people call it predestination and say God picked us, but it was from foreseeing not arbitrary picking because he liked someone's face. Paul got a theatre show because God knew how he was going to respond and had a huge task for him to spread the church and he knew that he would do it. It wasn't random, you will do, zap. No, it was for an express purpose. Paul was like a necessary jig-saw piece.

No, an immoral or cruel God would tell masters they can beat their slaves, tell a woman she must marry her rapist, admonish people for not killing every last child in a tribe, force abortions as punishment, commit genocide, kill homosexuals etc. etc. Just because God may do some good things does not make him good.

God never wanted any of those things. He gave them laws because of how the people were, left to themselves the people were far, far worse. At this point the world did not have the Holy Spirit, the moral code was not on peoples hearts. We have an inner compass that says murder is horrible, they did not. So God gave them laws that should have been possible to follow but he also gave a lot of leeway, not because he wanted them to do these things but he knew they would never even try to keep the many many restrictions.
So he gave them laws that had a chance of being followed or attempted to be followed.
Looking at your first point
"God would tell masters they can beat their slaves"
God didn't want them to beat their slaves at all. (by the way, slave here actually meant servant or bondservant who was paid a wage not the kind of slave we all think of)
Exodus 21:20–21: And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
They are not laws for us nor are they meant to be looked at as some kind of goal that God wanted, they were rules given to lawless rule breakers. Rules that had some chance, at least for a good proportion of the population, to keep. The slave owner would be punished if he beat his slave to death. If the Mosaic Law is followed, this could include the death penalty for murder (Exodus 21:12) With this incentive the aim was to make slave beating stop not encourage it.
You could say God made a lot of bargains with them. Like Abraham did with God over the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The people God condemned to death were far far worse. I bet if God had let them live other people would be moaning "God why do you let these evil people live?!" God gets blamed when he does and blamed when he doesn't punish it seems. Meanwhile, its mankind doing the evil, not God.

Yet he did this once because he regretted making man.

The god as described in the bible is an immoral and cruel God and I can demonstrate that. Have you read your bible?

God destroyed the world by flood not fire and this was because mankind was evil. Even then they could have repented and still chose not to.

Your perception of God and mine is as night and day. I see a loving and caring but also a righteous God. He will punish sin and sin cannot stay in his presence.

6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
God did not have to do this.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I do believe that humans and chickens may have had a common ancestor, as with many lineages we don't know for sure.

So you believe evolution happened. So are you asking how did life begin when you are asking where did the information come from?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That sounds confusing. I have talked to other atheists on here who do not believe the supernatural exists at all.

You can talk to them about what they believe. My position is that the supernatural has not been demonstrated to exist so I will not believe it exists until it can be. I am not saying that it does not exist.

Of course it is different, God is spiritual not flesh and blood.
But at times I do feel God speaking to me or answering prayer.
Most times when we don't hear or feel God its because we moved away not God.

Ok, but then your analogy about denying the existence of my brother is wrong.

All I can say is that God is outside of time and can see the beginning middle and end all at once. He already knew you would become an atheist long before you did, the Bible says he knows us before we are born and all the hairs on our head.
Some people call it predestination and say God picked us, but it was from foreseeing not arbitrary picking because he liked someone's face. Paul got a theatre show because God knew how he was going to respond and had a huge task for him to spread the church and he knew that he would do it. It wasn't random, you will do, zap. No, it was for an express purpose. Paul was like a necessary jig-saw piece.

So god does play favorites.

God never wanted any of those things. He gave them laws because of how the people were, left to themselves the people were far, far worse.

So instead of making laws to show them how to live morally he gives them immoral laws because if he did not people would just make worse laws?

At this point the world did not have the Holy Spirit, the moral code was not on peoples hearts. We have an inner compass that says murder is horrible, they did not. So God gave them laws that should have been possible to follow but he also gave a lot of leeway, not because he wanted them to do these things but he knew they would never even try to keep the many many restrictions.

Leeway to kill homosexuals? Leeway to beat slaves?

So he gave them laws that had a chance of being followed or attempted to be followed.
Looking at your first point
"God would tell masters they can beat their slaves"
God didn't want them to beat their slaves at all. (by the way, slave here actually meant servant or bondservant who was paid a wage not the kind of slave we all think of)

Only for Hebrew slaves. Read the Bible, God said to take slaves from surrounding nations. These were not bondservants that were paid.

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Lev 25:44-46 ESV.

These people were taken forcibly considered property by God they could be bought or sold and even given as an inheritance. So no, salvery in the bible was not just bondservents.

Exodus 21:20–21: And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

Notice God says here that people are property.

They are not laws for us nor are they meant to be looked at as some kind of goal that God wanted, they were rules given to lawless rule breakers. Rules that had some chance, at least for a good proportion of the population, to keep. The slave owner would be punished if he beat his slave to death. If the Mosaic Law is followed, this could include the death penalty for murder (Exodus 21:12) With this incentive the aim was to make slave beating stop not encourage it.

So God in his wisdom said you could beat a slave as long as you don't kill him to encourage people to stop beating slaves? That makes no sense.

You could say God made a lot of bargains with them. Like Abraham did with God over the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The people God condemned to death were far far worse. I bet if God had let them live other people would be moaning "God why do you let these evil people live?!" God gets blamed when he does and blamed when he doesn't punish it seems. Meanwhile, its mankind doing the evil, not God.

So killing little children and keeping unmarried women as sex slaves is a good thing?

Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. - Numbers 31:15-18

God destroyed the world by flood not fire and this was because mankind was evil. Even then they could have repented and still chose not to.

Just think about being one of those people with children.

Your perception of God and mine is as night and day. I see a loving and caring but also a righteous God. He will punish sin and sin cannot stay in his presence.

I think this is because I have read the bible.

6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
God did not have to do this.

He also did not have to have cruel rules for enslaving people, order the killing of children etc. I think you need to come to grips to what the Bible actually says about Gods morality.

Look, in the end I used to defend these passages as well. I just think that they plainly say God ordered immoral acts. I know that you have a better morality than this.

 

[miknik5]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting my husband should leave me because he's a Christian and I'm an atheist?

What point exactly are you trying to make?

As long as the two of you are at peace with one another, as the WORD states, you are sanctified because of your believing husband.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean amino acids? You know those are easy to produce with just some chemicals and heat and stuff, right? Amino Acids, Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

No, I don't mean amino acids. I mean the biological information from which the materials of DNA instruct and specify towards function and form.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you believe evolution happened. So are you asking how did life begin when you are asking where did the information come from?

Biological information has everything to do with the beginning of life but the information itself is what I am referring to. Abiogenesis is not just how life began but more importantly how the biological information within it arose. That is what I am asking about.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Biological information has everything to do with the beginning of life but the information itself is what I am referring to. Abiogenesis is not just how life began but more importantly how the biological information within it arose. That is what I am asking about.

The answer is we don't know if I understand you correctly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The answer is we don't know if I understand you correctly.

We know, but the answer is not what people want to think about. Intelligence is the only KNOWN factor for being a producer of information and specified language or code.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

We know, but the answer is not what people want to think about. Intelligence is the only KNOWN factor for being a producer of information and specified language or code.

How can you know that? Also, DNA is not a language or code as you are using the words.

If it is an intelligence behind it what intelligence is it? It is just as likely aliens as a supernatural explanation. In fact aliens is a more reasonable answer. If you can provide evidence for this intelligence I will believe it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How can you know that? Also, DNA is not a language or code as you are using the words.

If it is an intelligence behind it what intelligence is it? It is just as likely aliens as a supernatural explanation. In fact aliens is a more reasonable answer. If you can provide evidence for this intelligence I will believe it.

Had I someone to bet with, I would be wealthy right now. I knew you were going to say this.

1. It is a language or code just as the words have meaning.
2. You have no evidence anymore for aliens than God but you claim it would be a more "reasonable answer".
3. Biological information is the evidence for intelligence. Now you can claim like you did that it could come from Aliens; however, you know as well as I do that you understand that chance had nothing to do with it. Chance is all materialism has to offer for evidence of intelligence for biological information. Chance doesn't cut it. Natural selection has to have something to select from and a way to replicate that which is selected which needs already established systems to do so.
4. You have just confirmed that you chose to believe what you want to believe and all the evidence to the contrary will be thrown out due to it being 'supernatural'.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There's no biological information. Information is a quality we ascribe to what we see. There are just chemicals in combination in DNA/RNA. We impute information when we can infer a consequence from what we see. GATTACCA doesn't mean blue eyes (hypothetically). But if that sequence were to exist in a particular location in a sequence consistently and for each time we saw it, the owner of that DNA had blue eyes, then we can infer that someone we've never met with that sequence in that position has blues eyes. That sequence exists in a particular locations allows us to infer blue eyes. But it doesn't mean anything inherently.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There's no biological information. Information is a quality we ascribe to what we see. There are just chemicals in combination in DNA/RNA. We impute information when we can infer a consequence from what we see. GATTACCA doesn't mean blue eyes (hypothetically). But if that sequence were to exist in a particular location in a sequence consistently and for each time we saw it, the owner of that DNA had blue eyes, then we can infer that someone we've never met with that sequence in that position has blues eyes. That sequence exists in a particular locations allows us to infer blue eyes. But it doesn't mean anything inherently.

What you seem to be implying is that the material carrier is the cause of the information. Is that what you are implying?

 

[Tinker Grey]

What you seem to be implying is that the material carrier is the cause of the information. Is that what you are implying?

I don't know what you mean by material carrier. The person doing the observing has the information. It is something the observer derives from his/her observations.