Where's God?

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf, do team meetings in your office go something like this? (The content of the "Worker X" replies are copied from your posts listed below.)

The boss: Good morning team. Let's go over some of our company rules. First, we ask everybody to treat their fellow employees with respect.

Worker X: Since both your and Hitlers morality comes from the same source, why is yours better than his and on what basis, taking into account that there is nothing intrinsically valuable about humans if there is no God?

The boss: Excuse me, but we ask our employees to show respect because we find that this is the right things to do.

Worker X:You do have a reason but it is not objectively rational, it may be subjectively rational, but it is based on an irrational sentimentality for homo sapiens.

The boss: Again, we ask everybody to treat each other respectfully. Second, we ask that you do not discriminate based on race, national origin, or religion.

Worker X: Christian morality is based in the objectively existing moral character of the Creator as revealed in the Bible. Not pure emotion as humanism is.

The boss: Listen sir, we come from many backgrounds here. All of us can see the value of treating each other in moral ways. Your religion does not have a monopoly on good morals.

Worker X: Everything I said was based on the correct interpretation of the revealed moral character of God. It was revealed objectively in His word and His word gives us objectively true wisdom. Your wisdom is just based on personal preference.

The boss: Please, please, our company rules are not just based on personal preference. We find that following these rules really help to make the company run smoothly.

Worker X: How is your personal preference better than someone like Jeffrey Dahmer?

The boss: Uh, Dahmer killed people. If we did that, it would destroy all that we try to accomplish in this company. We ask that people work together without violence, with respect, and without discrimination.

Worker X:But human wisdom is just based on emotion for homo sapiens, not anything objectively rational.

The boss: No, sorry, our rules are not based on mere emotion. We find these rules to be genuinely helpful. We are opposed to violent and offensive behavior.

Worker X: But your opposition has the same foundation as those that committed the Holocaust. Irrational Human emotion.

The boss: Uh no, our rules are based on solid moral reasoning. Hitler's reign was based on confused thought. Whatever objections you have to our rules, please do not compare me with Hitler.

Worker X: Why are your brain chemicals that caused your emotion to oppose [the Holocaust] "better" than the chemical reactions causing the emotions by the Nazis that implemented "bad". How can chemical reactions before an act cause that act to be moral or immoral if the chemical reactions are basically the same?

The boss: Please. We have reasons for our company policies. Let's move on. Please refrain from crude comments with sexual overtones that some employees will find offensive.

Worker X: How can [you] condemn someone for acting their emotions just like you do but they just have a different conclusion from you on which homo sapiens deserve to live and which deserve to die?

The boss: Please, if your emotions cause you to want to blurt out crude sexual references, or threaten other employees, we ask you not to do that. Let's move on. Please be respectful of fellow employees that may differ with you on religion.

Worker X: I have an objectively rational basis for condemning the Holocaust and murder in general, the moral law of God which is based on His objectively existing moral character.

The boss: Sir, I am glad you have a good moral code, but please understand that others also seek to follow good morals. They may come from a different religious background.

Worker X: Your brain and Mengele's are the result of the same random impersonal processes and you both use that brain to make moral decisions. Yet you claim that your moral decisions are right and his were wrong, how is that possible if both of your moral decisions have the same origin...?

The boss: Oh for crying out loud! Now you are going to compare me with Mengele? What can possibly be wrong with asking everybody to respect other employees and refraining from offensive conduct?

Worker X: If atheistic evolution is true then there is no real difference other than being the most intelligent animal.

The boss: Sir, the atheists in our company also have good moral values. They value and respect other humans, just like the rest of us do.

Worker X: I believe I can provide sufficient evidence that my moral system is both absolute and objective. And I dont think you can provide evidence that yours is objective.

The boss: The evidence shows that companies that work with rules similar to the ones I am stating perform much better. The rules you are suggesting involve insults to employees with different sexual orientations or religion. If you are going to work here, we ask that you please show respect for other employees. We believe that works better.

Worker X: It depends on what your definition of better is. Without an absolute and objective morality there is no such thing as better.

The boss: Sir, I believe that treating each other in a loving manner is better than discord, threats of violence, and offensive behavior.

Worker X: Hitler claimed that what he did was out of love too for the German people. Whose love is right and what is the objective reason for it being right?

The boss: Would you please stop comparing me to Hitler? The Holocaust was not an act of love. The killing of six million Jews was not a loving act. It was wrong. Now would you please be quiet while I go through the rest of our rules of conduct?

Worker X: My basis for morality is God and His objectively existing character.

The boss: Our company rules are based on what works. Treating others with respect helps companies to perform better, with better morale. It is simply how nature works.

Worker X: Evolution and nature may tell us what is, but it doesnt tell us what ought to be. The Nazis thought evolution did tell us morally what to do, ie eliminate the unfit. Why do you disagree with what evolution taught the Nazis?

The boss: You're fired!


======================

The worker X comments were taken from the posts quoted below.

Since both your and Hitlers morality comes from the same source, why is yours better than his and on what basis, taking into account that there is nothing intrinsically valuable about humans if there is no God?

You do have a reason but it is not objectively rational, it may be subjectively rational, but it is based on an irrational sentimentality for homo sapiens.

Christian morality is based in the objectively existing moral character of the Creator as revealed in the Bible. Not pure emotion as humanism is.

No, everything I said was based on the correct interpretation of the revealed moral character of God. It was revealed objectively in His word and His word gives us objectively true wisdom. Your wisdom is just based on personal preference.

How is your personal preference better than someone like Jeffrey Dahmer?

But human wisdom is just based on emotion for homo sapiens, not anything objectively rational.

Yes, but your opposition has the same foundation as those that committed it. Irrational Human emotion.

Why are your brain chemicals that caused your emotion to oppose it "better" than the chemical reactions causing the emotions by the Nazis that implemented "bad". How can chemical reactions before an act cause that act to be moral or immoral if the chemical reactions are basically the same?

How can [you] condemn someone for acting their emotions just like you do but they just have a different conclusion from you on which homo sapiens deserve to live and which deserve to die?

I have an objectively rational basis for condemning the Holocaust and murder in general, the moral law of God which is based on His objectively existing moral character.

Your brain and Mengele's are the result of the same random impersonal processes and you both use that brain to make moral decisions. Yet you claim that your moral decisions are right and his were wrong, how is that possible if both of your moral decisions have the same origin...?

If atheistic evolution is true then there is no real difference other than being the most intelligent animal.

I believe I can provide sufficient evidence that my moral system is both absolute and objective. And I dont think you can provide evidence that yours is objective.

It depends on what your definition of better is. Without an absolute and objective morality there is no such thing as better.

Hitler claimed that what he did was out of love too for the German people. Whose love is right and what is the objective reason for it being right?

My basis for morality is God and His objectively existing character.

Evolution and nature may tell us what is, but it doesnt tell us what ought to be. The Nazis thought evolution did tell us morally what to do, ie eliminate the unfit. Why do you disagree with what evolution taught the Nazis?

 

[doubtingmerle]

When I realized I was compartmentalizing my "modes" I made the conscious effort to stop and what a difference. But for me that didn't mean a change in behavior, just mindfulness.

We were discussing those who live in a spiritual world on Sunday, and use methodological naturalism to do science on Monday. Are you suggesting they stop using methodological naturalism in their science? How can one do science outside the framework of methodological naturalism?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is referring to a different person but not a different being.


No, all three members of the Trinity loved the world but only the Father could send his son.

In this case it is referring to the Father and the Spirit, because only the Son is being forsaken.

Luk 2:52

Again this is referring to the Father and the HS.

Jhn 13:3

Obviously refers to the Father.


Act 2:22

The Father and the HS.


God the father obviously. This verse also equates Jesus and the God the father because only God can bestow grace.


God the father raised him.


God in this verse is referring to the entire Trinity.

​

They are different persons but not different beings. See above how you can tell which person is being referred to.

Looks like you go through a lot of hoops to make the Bible say what you want it to say.

It seems obvious to me. The Bible writers thought the word "God" refers to a being named God. The word "Jesus" referred to a being called Jesus. There are a few special verses like John 1:1 where "the Logos was God" probably means something like "The Logos was divine". But other than that, the interpretation that God means God and Jesus means Jesus seems clear to me.

But then you run into the issue where Jesus is said to be equal with the being named God, which is certainly not something the Old Testament would allow. So folks came up with this odd interpretation where "God" in the Bible can refer to a set of 3 persons, or a set of two of the persons, or just one of the persons, whichever we need it to mean. And by switching definitions back and forth at will, the problem can be worked out. But I just look in amazement at the verbal gymnastics you need to do to pull this off.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What an odd way to write a book. Sometimes the authors use the word "God" to mean one of the three persons, and sometimes they use it to mean "all three persons collectively"? And it never occurred to them that they should mention what they are doing?

Suppose a man writes your biography. Sometimes when he says Ed1wolf he is referring to you. Sometimes he is referring to your wife. Sometimes he is referring to both of you together. Suppose he never tells us he is using this convention. If he wanted to be clear in his writing, is this a good way to do it?

The Trinity is a very complex subject, God chose not to reveal it fully at the time the writers wrote the bible. Why? We dont know for sure. Maybe He wanted us to use our large brains to discover it in His word. Just like He does with other sciences. He doesnt give us all the answers when we want them. That is why the Bible generally does not touch on scientific issues. But when it does, it is correct.

dm: Perhaps the authors actually meant what they said. Perhaps they believed in one God that had at least two emanations, Christ and the Holy Spirit, by which the one God revealed himself.

A careful analysis of the texts reveals that the authors are actually meaning what they say though they themselves may not have fully understood it at the time. And it reveals that God is a Trinity, ie a diversity within a unity. Just like the universe He created, that is His fingerprint on this universe.

dm: You say, "There is a person called God the Father and a person called Jesus who is God the Son and a person called the Holy Spirit, but they are composed of only one divine essence. " Suppose a person teaches, "There is a God called God the Father and a God called Jesus who is God the Son and a God called the Holy Spirit, but they are composed of only one divine essence. " Is that person teaching heresy? What is the difference between the two statements, other than the choice of wording? Is this nothing more than an argument of linguistics, an argument that condemns people as heretics for using the wrong noun to describe something?

That statement is partially correct, and if you acknowledge that all three are personal beings then I would consider that orthodox.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: If the Christian God exists and I have demonstrated that He probably does, then we have rights endowed by God.

ia: As @doubtingmerle said - I must have missed where you did that.
Perhaps you mean that you have demonstrated that God exists to your own satisfaction.

Earlier in this thread I briefly mentioned that the BB theory combined with the law of causality demonstrates that He most likely exists. We can discuss in detail if you desire. Not just my satisfaction, thousands have been convinced by that argument over the years.
↑

ed: No, our bodies are designed for marriage biologically, we are not designed biologically for painting.

ia: Our bodies are designed for marriage biologically? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Our bodies are certainly designed to have sex and produce children. Is that what you believe the definition of marriage is?

That is the primary purpose for which marriage was created.
↑

ed: That is not the crux of my argument, the crux is biologically.

ia: When you make the claim that we should keep doing something because we've always done it before, expect to have your illogical argument highlighted.

Eating nutritious food is something people have always done before too, do you think we should stop doing that too?
↑

ed: How am I losing the argument? We have never discussed where our moral conscience comes from. But of course, it is more rational that it comes from a preexisting morality, rather than from an amoral impersonal process.

ia: The argument is about whether or not you are able to resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma. Since you can't, you are unable to justify the foundations of your morality. You try to resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma by saying that goodness is simply God's nature, but since this is a tautological statement, it fails.
Therefore, you have lost the argument.

Survival of the fittest is tautological too but it is nevertheless true.
↑

ed: Non sequitur, I never made that claim.

ia: You claimed that you could answer Euthrphro's Dilemma, but of course you can't.

I think I did. See above.
↑

ed: Never made the claim that we could prove with absolute certainty that God is good in this life.

ia: So God might be evil? I'd say that counts as losing the argument, for a Christian.

Only before you convert, once you get to know Him personally you quickly learn He is good. You learn it everyday. Just like any other person, you find out what their character is the more time you spend with them.
↑

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Earlier in this thread I briefly mentioned that the BB theory combined with the law of causality demonstrates that He most likely exists. We can discuss in detail if you desire. Not just my satisfaction, thousands have been convinced by that argument over the years.

As I said: "to your own satisfaction." Which I think is probably a pretty low bar to clear. Ed, nobody is interested in what you or any other Christian apologist considers "demonstrates that God most likely exists." Let's see logical arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Post links to a few of those showing that there is good reason to think that God created the universe, and I might think you actually have something.

ed: No, our bodies are designed for marriage biologically, we are not designed biologically for painting.

ia: Our bodies are designed for marriage biologically? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Our bodies are certainly designed to have sex and produce children. Is that what you believe the definition of marriage is?

ed:That is the primary purpose for which marriage was created.

That sounds like just an empty claim. Please provide evidence that (a) having children is indeed the primary purpose for which marriage was created; (b) a reasoned argument as to why this should prevent gay people for getting married; and (c) a reasoned argument as to why the existence of (a) does not also prevent all other people who are unable and/or unwilling to have children from getting married.
We've been over this point a number of times, and if you have given any answer it has eluded me. You say that gay people can't get married because they can't have children. First, so what? And second, why are you then okay with other children who can't or won't have children getting married?

ed: That is not the crux of my argument, the crux is biologically.

ia: When you make the claim that we should keep doing something because we've always done it before, expect to have your illogical argument highlighted.

ed: Eating nutritious food is something people have always done before too, do you think we should stop doing that too?

There's nothing wrong with continuing traditions that exist for good reason. If anyone says, "Why should we eat nutritious food just because we've always done so?" I can easily explain why.
On the other hand, when you say "We should keep marriage between a man and a woman because we've always done this," but can't give any good reason why we have always done it like this or why we should not change it, then expect to have your illogic called out.

ia: The argument is about whether or not you are able to resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma. Since you can't, you are unable to justify the foundations of your morality. You try to resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma by saying that goodness is simply God's nature, but since this is a tautological statement, it fails. Therefore, you have lost the argument.

ed: Survival of the fittest is tautological too but it is nevertheless true.

Of course it isn't. "Survival" and "fitness to survive" are not identical concepts. However, in your worldview, "God" and "goodness" are identical concepts. Therefore, saying that "God is goodnees" is a meaningless tautology.
And therefore, you lose the argument.

ia: You claimed that you could answer Euthyphro's Dilemma, but of course you can't.

ed: I think I did. See above.

Not only did you not answer it, but you admitted that you couldn't. As soon as you gave your answer - that goodness is God's intrinsic nature - I pointed out that this was circular reasoning, and you've spent the rest of the discussion simply going round and round in that very circle.

Only before you convert, once you get to know Him personally you quickly learn He is good. You learn it everyday. Just like any other person, you find out what their character is the more time you spend with them.

That's nice. It's also an admission of failure. You're on a debating forum, and you've been reduced to admitting that you can't prove what you say to be true.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I pointed out that this was circular reasoning, and you've spent the rest of the discussion simply going round and round in that very circle.

Which about sums up this thread. One would think, if he keeps running in circles, he will eventually get dizzy.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Trinity is a very complex subject, God chose not to reveal it fully at the time the writers wrote the bible. Why? We dont know for sure. Maybe He wanted us to use our large brains to discover it in His word. Just like He does with other sciences. He doesnt give us all the answers when we want them. That is why the Bible generally does not touch on scientific issues. But when it does, it is correct.

Ah, yes, we are back to the limited bandwidth argument. God would have liked to have told us all this, but how much can he squeeze into one book? Uh, if you are omnipotent, don't you just write a sequel? If there is room for all the genealogies and repetitive rants of the prophets, why not a brief introduction to the Trinity? Better yet, why not devote a few verses to the basics of germ theory, the scientific method, or how to build a printing press? A few verses could have mitigated much human misery.

Not only does the Bible not discuss the Trinity, the earliest writings in the church don't seem to know about it either. Why not? They probably didn't see the problem. In the first 3 centuries, there were only a few copies of the New Testament books scattered in different places. Probably few if any people had read the whole New Testament. But in the fourth century, when the books of the New Testament were being collected and regarded as authoritative, the problem became embarrassing. The Jehovah God of the Old Testament was a jealous God that insisted none was his equal. But a few verses in the New Testament treat Jesus and the Holy Spirit as equal to God. So the apologists set out to resolve the conflict. They came up with a doozie. There are indeed 3 equal personal beings that are God, but the word "God" does not always refer to the Father God. Sometimes it refers to the whole set of 3 Gods. Sometimes it refers to the Father God. But how can a whole set of Gods perform as though they were one being, with no explanation that these were the acts of a team? Along comes the idea of the Trinity. There is something about being God that allows a team to be considered one person. Call it the Trinity. Amazingly, the ancients found that an acceptable explanation. Even more amazingly, highly educated modern people fall for the same argument. Go figure.

A careful analysis of the texts reveals that the authors are actually meaning what they say though they themselves may not have fully understood it at the time. And it reveals that God is a Trinity, ie a diversity within a unity. Just like the universe He created, that is His fingerprint on this universe.

Provided, of course, you freely change the meaning of "God" to either mean "God the Father" or "the set of three God persons", whichever you need it to mean in each verse to match your theology.

That statement is partially correct, and if you acknowledge that all three are personal beings then I would consider that orthodox.

I see. The statement you would consider orthodox is, "There is a God called God the Father and a God called Jesus who is God the Son and a God called the Holy Spirit, but they are composed of only one divine essence." That's odd. Earlier I had said it looks like you had 3 Gods, and you denied it. Now you say that the belief in 3 Gods is orthodox. Not only that, but when I ask you what is the difference between this statement of 3 Gods and your view of 3 persons that are God, you do not tell us anything that is different. It appears that you cannot see any differences between the man who believes there are 3 Gods composed of one divine essence and your views. If your views are identical to the view that says there are 3 Gods, then, by golly, I think you have 3 Gods.

 

[Rachel20]

We were discussing those who live in a spiritual world on Sunday, and use methodological naturalism to do science on Monday. Are you suggesting they stop using methodological naturalism in their science? How can one do science outside the framework of methodological naturalism?

Why would I suggest that? The "spiritual world on Sunday" if taken into the natural world, can cause us to ask questions of nature we wouldn't otherwise ask. The methodology remains the same. An example would be Matthew Fontaine Maury, the Father of Oceanography, setting out to find the pathways in the seas mentioned in scripture.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: Since generally such people do not get married without any specific laws about it, there is no reason to make laws about it. We have enough laws.

ia: I think some laws stating that gay people are allowed to get married are a good idea, because otherwise we get people like you trying to stop them from doing so, even when these people cannot explain why.

I didnt say they could not get what they call "married", I just said it should not be endorsed by the government. They can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.
↑

ed; I remember you stating that only two can make a marriage but I dont remember you ever explaining why.

ia: I don't believe that only two can make a marriage. Polygamy is not necessarily an immoral act, though I can see that it is likely to have more complications than monogamy. If three or more people genuinely love each other and wish to get married to each other, I'm fine with that.

How about a brother and sister as long as they are sterile?
↑

ed: No, I think it has more to do with the anonymity. Just like other social media.

ia: Since that doesn't seem to address my answer in any way, I'll just re-state it:
"Regardless, the point is: what you call over-skepticism is nothing more than common sense set in contrast to your illogical arguments."

I think it does address your answer.
↑

ed: Since we are spiritual beings, it is more than that. When man and woman are united physically, they are also united spiritually.

ia; Sounds like a lot of unfounded religious claims to me.
First, prove that we are spiritual beings.

I cant prove it, but there is evidence that we are. For example, the mind is non physical. You cant take a slice of mind or take a picture of a mind. The mind and the spirit are basically the same thing. Also, we appear to have free will, but if the mind were purely physical then we would not have a free will. All our decisions would be determined by the ratio of chemicals in our brain and we would not be able to weigh arguments and evidence to come to a conclusion.

ia: Next, prove that sexual relations between a man and a woman produces "spiritual unity."
Finally, please prove that sexual relations between two men or two women do not produce "spiritual unity."

I demonstrated earlier how they are united biologically, and since for humans biology and spirit are connected while you are alive, then they are both united.
↑

ed: Nevertheless a true scientifically founded claim that stands unrefuted.

ia: In what way is "the organic uniting of two persons reinforces personhood" a "true scientifically founded claim that stands unrefuted"?

I explained it several times earlier, so will not rehash it again.
↑

ed: Having a successful and strong society benefits all members no matter what their sexual orientation.

ia: Having freedom to marry the person you love rather than being denied it benefits a society even more.

Not according to the studies I referenced earlier.
↑

ed: Really? Even in the threads that involve debating non Christians? I didn't know that.

ia: I'm afraid so. There is a rule in Christian Forums that we are not allowed to endorse or support homosexuality.

Well I Learned something new.
↑

ed: Fraid not, it has never been refuted. And there is more evidence for it being discovered for it almost every day.

ia: The cosmological argument has been refuted many times, simply by pointing out its logical inconsistencies. In a nutshell, just because we don't know what caused the universe to come into existence, that does not mean we can simply make up an answer.

I am not making up an answer, I am coming to a logical conclusion using the law of sufficient cause.
↑

ed: Even though I cant prove it, nevertheless there is a great deal of evidence for it.

ia: Probably only Christian apologists consider it to be "evidence".

Many former atheists consider it evidence.
↑

ed: Fraid not, see above.

ia: 'Fraid so. See above.

Where?
↑

ed: No, we can recognize goodness not perfectly but enough to recognize it when we see it, just like we can recognize a dog after we hear a description of one.

ia: Okay then. Explain how we know that God is good.
If your answer is "because He does good things," then please explain how we know what goodness is, so that we can recognise this.

Because we have a moral conscience.

ia: If your answer is that we know because of our moral sense, then please explain where this moral sense came from. (From God? Then you are engaged in special pleading. You cannot use a moral sense originating from God as a judge of anything when it is God's morality that we are trying to evaluate in the first place).

Why? That would be like saying that a computer cannot solve problems given to it by its programmer. It makes no sense.
↑

ed: No, He is just saying that He is a brute fact. He is who He says He is. He is being itself.

ia: Sure, let's accept that. Now, if we accept that God is real, how do you go about proving that morality can be based upon Him?

He has revealed His moral law in the Bible which is based on His character.
↑

ed: It is a consequence of being created in His image. It is more rational to believe that our moral conscience came from a pre-existing morality than that it came from a random amoral process.

ia: Then where did that pre-existing morality come from?

The character of the Creator.
↑

ed: I think You only say that because you cant refute it.

ia: I'll go with a very, very long history of legal battle that have established that creationism is not science in any way, shape or form. The battle has already been fought many times, and each time creationism lost it.

Courts dont decide what science is. Science is the study of Nature, it is simple. We dont need for courts to tell us what science is. In fact, it is dangerous for courts and government to decide what science is. That is what happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and looked what happened.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I didnt say they could not get what they call "married", I just said it should not be endorsed by the government. They can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.

In other words, they can't do what we consider to be "getting married." Nice dodge.

How about a brother and sister as long as they are sterile?

Sounds okay to me. There are considerable difficulties in the way, though those would be greatly reduced if (a) they were sterile and (b) they had somehow never known each other until they met and fell in love.

I think it does address your answer.

I know you do, but you're wrong. Something of a pattern.

I cant prove it, but there is evidence that we are.

That's basically your answer to everything. No, you can't prove anything you say, and the "evidence" you provide is of the flimsiest quality.
Your next words demonstrate this:

For example, the mind is non physical. You cant take a slice of mind or take a picture of a mind. The mind and the spirit are basically the same thing. Also, we appear to have free will, but if the mind were purely physical then we would not have a free will. All our decisions would be determined by the ratio of chemicals in our brain and we would not be able to weigh arguments and evidence to come to a conclusion.

The mind and the spirit are basically the same thing? The mind is the effect of the physical brain's activity. Or, to put it another way, the mind is what the brain does. The spirit is an unproven hypothesis based on a prescientific notion, and one that you have yet to prove exists.

I demonstrated earlier how they are united biologically, and since for humans biology and spirit are connected while you are alive, then they are both united.

Since you haven't yet either proven or demonstrated or even given good reason to believe that this "spirit" thing exists, your argument falls apart.

I explained it several times earlier, so will not rehash it again.

Can you send me the post in which you explained it? Because as far as I can tell, you have claimed a great deal in this thread and demonstrated, explained and proven very little of what you claim.

Not according to the studies I referenced earlier.

Studies showing it is good for people to be deprived of the right to marry the people they love, and good for a society to deprive them of that right?

I am not making up an answer, I am coming to a logical conclusion using the law of sufficient cause.

You are saying that since we do not know the cause of the universe we should accept your preferred cause just because we cannot disprove it. Which is, of course, nonsense.

Many former atheists consider it evidence.

As I said: your evidence is of no interest to anyone except Christian apologists - or the people who rely on their arguments.

Where?

Above.

Because we have a moral conscience.

How do you know that your "moral conscience" is reliable? If you are saying that it was given to you by God, your argument is invalid, since you have not yet proved that God is goodness.

Why? That would be like saying that a computer cannot solve problems given to it by its programmer. It makes no sense.

Of course it wouldn't. It would be like saying that a computer is unable to prove its programmer wrong. Which, of course, it can't.

He has revealed His moral law in the Bible which is based on His character.

Okay. If we accept this to be true, how do you go about proving that the things that God says are good, actually are good? You keep avoiding this question. I don't blame you.

ed: It is a consequence of being created in His image. It is more rational to believe that our moral conscience came from a pre-existing morality than that it came from a random amoral process.

ia: Then where did that pre-existing morality come from?

ed:The character of the Creator.

I see you really are unable to address Euthyphro's Dilemma. Not the first, either.

Courts don't decide what science is. Science is the study of Nature, it is simple. We dont need for courts to tell us what science is. In fact, it is dangerous for courts and government to decide what science is. That is what happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and looked what happened.

Courts didn't decide what science was in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Dictators did, for their own ends.
I can see you are completely unfamiliar with the record of desperate legal challenges that creationism has mounted on science and education in the USA, and the repeated string of instances in which courts - fairly, sensibly, and transparently - have shown them to be the lying liars they are.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why would I suggest that? The "spiritual world on Sunday" if taken into the natural world, can cause us to ask questions of nature we wouldn't otherwise ask. The methodology remains the same.

Ah, the spiritual world can inspire you to ask questions. OK. Go ahead. Ask questions.

But I notice that you say the methodology remains the same. That is the point. The methodology that scientists use is called Methodological naturalism. You and @Ed1wolf seem to agree with me on the methodology to use. The only dispute Ed has is on what we call it. He doesn't like the name scientists use for this methodology (Methodological naturalism). He has not yet suggested a better name.

An example would be Matthew Fontaine Maury, the Father of Oceanography, setting out to find the pathways in the seas mentioned in scripture.

Again, Maury's methodology was strictly Methodological naturalism. Was the scripture his inspiration? Perhaps. But that has nothing to do with the method. According to Wikipedia he was a sailor who loved the seas. When a leg injury ended his sailing career, he took to studying old ship logs. He began to see patterns. He organized those patterns and was able to chart wind and ocean currents. Using his findings, ships were able to sail the ocean much more efficiently. But that is simply an application of Methodological naturalism. See Matthew Fontaine Maury - Wikipedia .

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: My point is that Moses revealed knowledge that no one else had at the time and did not until over 3000 years later it was discovered by science.

dm: Please give me an example of knowledge that Moses revealed that others did not know for 3000 years.

That the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable, is expanding, and is energetically winding down.

dm: 13 Scientific Facts in the Holy Quran - The Muslim Vibe and The Science of the Quran: Proving God's Existence through Established Modern Science: Hassan, Ahmad: 9780615499840: Amazon.com: Books .

But you and I can see through their claims that these ancient words are miraculous, yes?

Ok, I will deal with the 13, I dont have time for all the others.
1. He incorrectly quotes the Koran. Sura 21:30 says that "by means of water we give them life to everything".
2. I can give them that one, you could say it is a rough description of the BB. But remember the bible was written long before the Koran.
3. The big crunch theory is not supported by most of the scientific evidence, so they can have that one.
4. They are taking it out of context, the actual verse in the Koran is referring to the original creation of man, not his formation in the womb.
5. The koran calls the sky a ceiling, which is a hard object. The Bible refers to the sky as the firmament which is open space. So plainly the Koran is wrong.
6. This is wrong because iron is a natural part of the earth there is a molten core of iron in the earth that did not come from meteorites.
7. This is incorrect because it says that there are only two seas on the earth.
8. I will give him this one except again the koran was written 2000 years after the OT,
9. There is not scientific evidence that the mountains act as stakes holding the earth down.
10. He quotes the koran wrong, it just says that We have the heavens its expanse, it does not say it is expanding unlike the bible.
11. I will give him that one.
12. This one is a stretch, it does not say there are internal waves in the sea.
13. This is anoher stretch but if true refutes the whole religion, because if man lies because of his brain and not because his mind or spirit freely chose to lie, then Allah sending him to hell for lying is unjust.

So maybe four of the verses are scientifically correct, so these words could be supernaturally revealed but if so it was not revealed by God because there is evidence that the Koran came from Satan, not God. There are horrifically immoral teachings in the Koran. And there is even some verses that the Koran itself admits came from Satan. And Satan knows science too.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable, is expanding, and is energetically winding down.

Can you not understand how many of us think this is flimsy evidence for divine inspiration of the Bible? There were many accounts of Creation written before Genesis that have many similarities to Genesis (source: astronomy - What are the similarities and differences between the Genesis creation account and other creation stories of the time - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange )

It is difficult to see how saying "In the beginning God created" is anything more than an obvious thing ancients might think.

And you think the Bible says the universe is expanding? I take it you are referring to Isaiah 40:22 which says God stretches out the heavens like a curtain or tent. This is obvious metaphor. Were the heavens somehow curtain shaped or tent shaped, there would be no end of your marveling that the Bible knew this. But seeing no reality to the metaphor of the curtain or the tent, and seeing a reason to take the stretching as literal, you can jump to the conclusion that this part of the metaphor is literal science. Some of us just shake our heads in sorrow when we see this kind of reasoning.

Several chapters later, Isaiah says carpenters stretch out their rules. Must I take that literally also? Are carpenter's rulers made of rubber, so they just stretch them out to get any measurement they want?

Seeing the variations of meaning of the word translated "stretches" (H5186 - natah - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV) (blueletterbible.org) one wanders how you can hang so much weight on the presence of this one word as proving that Isaiah was writing about Hubble's law.

Ok, I will deal with the 13, I dont have time for all the others.
1. He incorrectly quotes the Koran. Sura 21:30 says that "by means of water we give them life to everything"

2...

You went to a lot of work to prove the Koran wrong. Like I said, you and I can see through the argument that the "science" in the Koran proves it is God's word.

So maybe four of the verses are scientifically correct, so these words could be supernaturally revealed but if so it was not revealed by God because there is evidence that the Koran came from Satan, not God. There are horrifically immoral teachings in the Koran.

I disagree that the Koran writers got information from the spirit world, but suppose they did? If the writers in the Koran got supernatural knowledge from Satan, how can you know for sure that the Bible writers didn't get their knowledge from a friend of a friend who got his information from Satan?

Your logic seems to be:

1. Anything the Bible says is, by definition, moral.
2. The Bible agrees with the Bible. The Koran does not.
3. Therefore the Bible is moral and the Koran is not.
4. By definition, anything God says is moral.
5. Therefore the Bible is God's word. The Koran is not.
​

I find it amazing that you cannot see that as one big circular argument.

​

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Maybe, but I gave some evidence for a global flood earlier in this thread though I admit there is not a great deal of evidence because it was primarily a supernatural act.

dm: Evidence? All you said is that there was an ice age 2 million years ago. Somehow you attributed that to a global flood. But I pointed out that there have been regular ice ages, and that Genesis clearly does not indicate Noah lived 2 million years ago.

I also mentioned the worldwide hydraulically caused fossil graveyards such as the one at Gibraltar. And there are others. Scientists are not sure what caused the perturbations to the earths axis that produced each ice age, but one of them could very well have been caused by the large amount of water on the earth 2mya. Genesis does not say exactly when Noah lived other than maybe around 1000 years from the first humans and the fossil evidence points to the first humans having lived around 2 mya.

dm; So the fact that Genesis says there was a global flood in modern times is just one example of a glaring error.

No see above.

And by the way, there could have been no global flood 2 million years ago either. Such an event would have totally destroyed the global ecology. I understand you are a biologist, so you must surely know that.

Not if it was relatively tranquil. Ecosystems are very resilient, look how fast the ecosystems around Mt. St. Helens recovered from the volcanic eruption.

dm: For good measure, here is another scientific error: Genesis says plants were created before the sun. We know this is not the way it happened.

No, the sun was created in Genesis 1:1. The hebrew constructive phrase "heavens and earth" means the entire inorganic physical universe. Many biblical scholars believe there is a shift in perspective at verse 2 from outer space to the surface of the earth. An ancient hebrew observer on the surface of the earth. We know that in the early history of the earth it was surrounded by dust and debris. That debris did not clear until day four and sun could be seen from the observer's perspective. The hebrew in that verse usually translated "let there be lights" can also be translated "let the lights appear".

ed: Some scholars believe the number of Isrealites is a copying error, numbers in hebrew are very easy to miscopy.

dm: Ah, now we have copying errors. So we are looking at a book that has many errors. We can't tell if those errors were in the original, since we don't have them. But the book we have has errors. Good to know.

There are no significant errors that change any Biblical teaching. Hebrew scholars know that the ancient scribes sometimes had trouble copying numbers, so there may be copying errors here.

ed: But even if there were millions, nomads which is what they were in the desert dont leave many permanent artifacts after 3500 years.

dm: Uh, if a camel does number two in the desert, it stays for centuries. If many people had wandered in the desert for 40 years, there would be evidence.

Even in the desert the conditions have to be exactly right for poop to survive 3500 years. There is some evidence. Read this:Does the Negev’s Ancient Rock-Art Help Turn the Bible Exodus Story into Fact? | Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)

ed: No, it is a rabbinic hyperbole, He is teaching an attitude not meant to be literal, ancient historians know this is how ancient jewish rabbis taught.

dm: Ah, so when I read a verse that says to give to everybody that asks of me, that is just rabbinic hyperbole?

Actually that is true in a way, but also I provided the other teachings of Christ that explain why it was not meant literally when you brought this up the first time.

dm: And when I read that gays are wrong, that is hyperbole too?

No, that is an explicit moral teaching that all ancient hebrews believed.

dm; And when I read that we can't wear clothes made of two materials, uh, hyperbole, yes?

No, that was an ancient ceremonial law to make the hebrews stand out from the surrounding pagan nations.

dm: How can you claim that there is an absolute morality, as revealed in the Bible, when it includes rabbinic hyperbole? Wouldn't a three-person God have been able to keep that out of his/their book?

Nothing about rabbinic hyperbole disproves absolute morality, it is just the proper way to interpret an ancient jewish text. God chose to reveal His truth thru the jews. Why? We dont know.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The evidence indicates there was a quid pro quo, in which Trump held back aid that had been appropriated by congress in order to get a political favor. That is a crime.

No, the whistleblower who claimed there was quid pro quo was not really a whistleblower. He was relating second hand information, all the witnesses that had first hand information said there was no quid pro quo.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I didn't say Luke 12:47-48 was meant to describe an ideal master relationship.

What I did say is that Luke indicates that, in those days, masters commonly beat their servants. And the Bible commands those servants to stay with masters that beat them. In my opinion, that might not be a wise thing for servants to do.

You ignore the direct command in Luke 6:30 to give to everyone that asks of you, because that would not be a wise thing to do.

If you can ignore the literal interpretation of Luke 6:30, why cannot servants that are being beat ignore the literal interpretation of Colossians 3:22?

When we dealt with OT slavery earlier in this thread I demonstrated that the master cannot beat his servant for any minor offenses, it had to be based on lex talonis. IOW the punishment had to match the offense committed. And so also in the OT there were sanctuary cities that servants could flee to if they did not like there master.

 

[Ed1wolf]

How does a monogamous homosexual relationship cause serious physical illness?

And if a person is gay, I find they have better mental health by being true to themselves and a partner in a loving relationship, rather than pretending to be otherwise.

They do need to be true to themselves and admit that their sexual sin is an attraction toward the same sex and then ask God to help them overcome this desire and He will. There are thousands of people that have overcome SSA. It may not happen overnight but God will help you live with it until it is overcome.

dm: There are a lot of reasons gays may have mental health issues, including the negative reactions of society. What you would need to prove is that staying "in the closet" yields better mental health than being true to yourself. You have not done that. See Mental Health for Gay and Bisexual Men | CDC .

Reread that study from JAMA I posted earlier in this thread and you will see it was conducted in the Netherlands which is one of he most gay tolerant societies in the world. And yet they still had much higher rates of mental and physical illnesses than heterosexuals.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: ↑there is a great deal of evidence though it has yet to be determined whether there was enough to change the election result.

dm: Uh, there have been multiple accusations of voter fraud tried in court and thrown out. There simply is no real evidence of significant vote fraud. Trump lost. Give it up.

All of them were thrown out on technicalities none of them actually looked into the evidence.
The Navarro Report: The Immaculate Deception - The Thinking Conservative

dm: Trump Continues Unjustified Attacks On Fauci (forbes.com)

All of Trumps criticisms were based on things Fauci actually said. I think he should have criticized him behind the scenes rather than in public but nothing in your article proves his criticisms were not justified.

ed: He was he was the first to recommend stopping flights from China, possibly saving millions. Even Fauci complimented TRump for doing this.

dm: Oh, puhleeze. Flights from China had already been stopped before Trump said anything. And all that did was delay it.

Not true. As I said even Fauci said he saved thousands of lives.

dm: Once COVID got a foothold, we were woefully ill prepared to contain it.

Only because Obama and Biden had not planned for possible future pandemics. But he worked amazingly quick to get the states everything they needed, even Gov. Cuomo admitted this.

ed: But some states thought it was worth the risk to allow people to maintain their lively hood and visit family members during an epidemic that only killed 0.03% of people that contracted it.

dm: I showed you the numbers. Two percent of the people in America that have been diagnosed with COVID are now dead. Lights out. Stone cold. Belly up. Six feet under.

How do you know the death rate is only 0.03%?

One news source reported that. But even if it is two percent, that is extremely low and not worth destroying millions of peoples livelihoods and mental health.

ed: Doubtful, it is already mid December and we have not reached even 300,000.

dm: You need to understand the exponential. Since November 1, deaths by COVID in America have been increasing exponentially at a rate that doubles every 26.8 days. Round that up to a month. So if 40,000 died in November, then we can predict 80,000 in December, 160,000 in January, etc. unless something changes. Additional measures have been taken. Let's hope that these measures, as well as a vaccine, are enough to make the rates decline exponentially instead of increase exponentially.

Again, if 100 million Americans are eventually diagnosed with COVID, and if the death rate remains at 2% of those so diagnosed, then 2 million Americans would die.

Since Trump did everything the experts said, those numbers would have occurred no matter who the president was except if Biden had been president thousands or millions more would have died because he did not want to ban travel from China. Then Trump got the vaccine developed in record time faster than any vaccine in history.

ed: Add up all the suicides, drug overdoses, and failures to go to doctors appointments for life threatening illnesses.

dm: Yes, please do that. Add up all the deaths that increased due to these causes and show that it is significant compared to the number of COVID deaths. Until you do the math, I will take this as an empty claim.

I saw the number on one news source but I dont remember the exact number but they were definitely significant.

ed: That is still extremely unlikely and there is strong evidence the number of deaths have been inflated.

dm: Now you are calling doctors liars? Sorry, they are doing all they can to save lives. When they tell us people are dying of COVID, I believe them.

There are definite cases I have seen on the news and heard from personal cases of family members where doctors put COVID on death certificates where the cause of death obviously was not COVID. They are not doing it for personal gain though, it is altruistic, by reporting more deaths by COVID their facilities get more government COVID money. Though that does not justify lying on death certificates.

ed: Only 4 people on the entire planet have gotten it more than one time. He is going to keep Fauci, so the measures are unlikely to change signficantly unless he violates the Constitution like his mentor Obama did multiple times.

dm: Understood, but humans are susceptible to the same cold or flu virus a year later. Few people have had COVID 9 months ago. So we really don't know if survivors are susceptible to another round of COVID a year later. But the evidence is looking good, so let's hope we are limited to one round of COVID per lifetime.

The vaccine will hopefully get everything back to normal.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

All of them were thrown out on technicalities none of them actually looked into the evidence.
The Navarro Report: The Immaculate Deception - The Thinking Conservative


All of Trumps criticisms were based on things Fauci actually said. I think he should have criticized him behind the scenes rather than in public but nothing in your article proves his criticisms were not justified.


Not true. As I said even Fauci said he saved thousands of lives.


Only because Obama and Biden had not planned for possible future pandemics. But he worked amazingly quick to get the states everything they needed, even Gov. Cuomo admitted this.


One news source reported that. But even if it is two percent, that is extremely low and not worth destroying millions of peoples livelihoods and mental health.


Since Trump did everything the experts said, those numbers would have occurred no matter who the president was except if Biden had been president thousands or millions more would have died because he did not want to ban travel from China. Then Trump got the vaccine developed in record time faster than any vaccine in history.


I saw the number on one news source but I dont remember the exact number but they were definitely significant.


There are definite cases I have seen on the news and heard from personal cases of family members where doctors put COVID on death certificates where the cause of death obviously was not COVID. They are not doing it for personal gain though, it is altruistic, by reporting more deaths by COVID their facilities get more government COVID money. Though that does not justify lying on death certificates.



The vaccine will hopefully get everything back to normal.

Sheer delusion.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, what did Trump do?
He refused to wear a mask, he discouraged others from wearing masks, he mocked others for wearing masks, and he held mass public events that turned out to be super-spreaders.
He told people to do ridiculous things with UV light and drink bleach.
He said the virus would just go away, suddenly, like a miracle.

Just an example of Trump's malicious incompetence:
This coronavirus timeline is incredibly damning for Donald Trump - CNNPolitics
"I would love to have the country opened up and raring to go by Easter," he said on Fox News on March 24, adding that it would be great to see "churches packed full of people for Easter."
Easter Sunday fell on April 12 this year.
On April 13 -- aka the next day -- Trump had this exchange with Washington Post editor Bob Woodward about the virus:
TRUMP: And Bob, it's so easily transmissible, you wouldn't even believe it.
WOODWARD: I know, it's --
TRUMP: I mean, you could, you could be in the room -- I was in the White House a couple of days ago, meeting with 10 people in the Oval Office and a guy sneezed, innocently. Not a horrible --
WOODWARD: Yeah.
TRUMP: You know, just a sneeze, the entire room bailed out, OK? Including me, by the way.

Oh, and about your repeating Trump's reflexive blaming of Obama? (a) Donald Trump had been the President of the USA for THREE YEARS when the coronavirus started, so if the USA wasn't ready, the responsibility, and blame, is entirely his. And (b) the Obama administration did have measures in place to deal with the coronavirus. Donald Trump ignored, threw away and/or dismantled them. Do you seriously not know this?
Obama faced disease threats the the USA while he was President. He handled them just fine.
Obama Prepared for a Potential Pandemic. Trump Gutted His Work.
For weeks, Trump has repeatedly blamed Obama for his own slow response, arguing the former president who left office more than three years ago is to blame for the nation’s testing failures and “severe” and “widespread” shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) for doctors and nurses.

He has also insisted that no one could have seen the coronavirus coming. “Nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic of this proportion. Nobody has ever seen anything like this before,” Trump said on March 19.

But Obama and his administration did see it coming, thanks in large part to their experiences with the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) and 2014 Ebola outbreaks. Taking what they learned from those public health crises, the Obama administration sought to prepare Trump and his aides for the next pandemic. The current president, however, spent the first three years of his administration undermining and ignoring those pandemic preparedness efforts; he also ignored warnings from experts during the first three months of the coronavirus outbreak.

And now the coronavirus is ravaging America, and what is Trump doing?
Oh, he's hard at work - playing golf and pardoning undeserving criminals.

When you look at the coronavirus with Trump at the helm, the only thing that makes sense is that Donald Trump does not care in the slightest about any of the American people.

Thank goodness he'll soon be gone.