Where's God?

[InterestedAtheist]

It and other arguments for God HAVE been published in peer reviewed secular philosophical journals.

Doubtless even philosophers enjoy a laugh now and then.
You and I both know that the only people who take the "arguments" for God's existence seriously are apologists.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No all other ancient religions teach that there was some other universe from the which the creator had to operate from to create this universe

Please show me where the Bible speaks of God being in some other universe. The Bible seems to be unaware that there is anything beyond the visible stars. And the Bible claims these stars are in the firmament, which sure sounds like the ancient view of a heavenly structure holding up the stars over a flat earth.

and also all other ancient religions teach that it was created from pre-existing matter.

And they got it right? We don't know where the materials for the Big Bang came from, but quite possibly it came from the matter of previous universes, or sources that are indeed analogous to what we call matter. We don't know.

Only you is arguing, that, since we don't know, that therefore you know where it came from.

That is just one verse among many and in the original hebrew the word stretching actually means an ongoing stretching just like the universe.

Puhleeze. Now you are going to turn to the nuance of ancient Hebrew words to make your point?

The verse in Isaiah that speaks of stretching out the heavens like a curtain uses the Hebrew word Natah which can mean stretch out, incline, turn, stretch forth, turn aside, bow, etc. (See H5186 - natah - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV) (blueletterbible.org)). Most of the time, if not all the time, it is used to mean something other than "continuously stretch."

In Exodus 7:19, we are told that Aaron natah his arm out across the waters. Are you going to tell me that Aaron's arm was continually stretching, like Stretch Armstrong? I don't think so.

Isaiah says God natah the heavens like a curtain. Somehow you interpret this as a miraculous revelation of cosmic inflation. But sorry, curtains are not continuously stretching like the stretching of space time in the inflationary period of the Big Bang. It is more likely that the ancient who wrote this visualized God laying out the local stars just like people set up a tent or curtain.

I used to teach Sunday School. I know how this works. One simply interprets the Bible to match what one sees. For instance, back when we found 10 nations in the European Common Market, aha, these are the 10 toes of Daniel! When more nations joined, oh, that was just metaphor for a lot of nations.
You appear to be doing something very similar.

Because the teachings of the Bible have resulted in everything good about Western civilization

You referring to the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? The Thirty Years War? The Salem Witch Trials? Slavery? Segregation? The invasion of the U.S. Capitol by an angry mob? All were justified by the Bible.

And atheists have been at the forefront of bringing good into society, as well as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and many others. Why not admit the good that others have done?

and Koran has resulted in mostly evil and horrible societies.

During the Middle Ages Muslim society was more advanced then Christian Europe.

Yes, there have been major advances since then in Europe, but I contend this has more to do with the printing press and the Enlightenment as opposed to the Reformation. When you credit only the Reformation, you are committing a Post Hoc Fallacy.

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: 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: 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.

Unlike man made religions and gods, we dont know why God did alot of things. In fact that is evidence that He was not manmade. If He had been manmade, his inventors would have come up with an answer for just about everything.

dm: 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.

Actually while not mentioning it explicitly it is plainly implied throughout both OT and NT. Tertullian was first one to start figuring it out and gave the basic outline of the doctrine. Arianism is the heresy that started greater research into the doctrine because over time the Son was being downgraded more and more in either the direction of being less human or too human so theologians felt like it was important to give a more complete picture of the nature of Christ and God.

dm: 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.

Actually most of the books that we call the bible became unofficially authoritative long before the official recognition. All the churches were using those books and recognized them as Gods word in the 2nd century.

dm: 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.

No, they never taught that the trinity was one person. And now we know why the Universe is a diversity within a unity, because a Triune God created it. No other god has such a nature, thereby eliminating any other god as the creator of this universe.

ed: 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: 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.

No, just like any other book or text, the definition of the word used is determined by the context.

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

dm: 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.

No, the three persons are divine but they are not three individual gods. There is only one God. I dont deny it is a difficult doctrine but it has been confirmed by the nature of the universe and the existence of love and language.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Many of those problems dont apply to a flood that occurred 2 mya.

Except if Noah lived 2 million years ago, then Noah wasn't a Homo sapiens. For Homo Sapiens only go back about 300,000 years. Before that, all the fossils we find are things like Homo erectus, which are a totally different species. The bones of homo erectus are completely different from Homo sapiens.

There is evidence that the Chinese in the Middle ages built wooden seaworthy ships 450 feet long.

Please give a source that the Chinese were building 450 foot long wooden boats in the Middle Ages.

The longest wood boats made are about 300 feet long. They require steel strapping to keep them together, and pumps to keep them dry. None of this would have been available to Noah.

And Noah's technology would have been far more advanced prior to the scattering to the languages at Babel similar to Middle Age technology.

Huh? If Noah lived 2 million years ago, he was Homo erectus or something even more primitive. The only tools they had were crude stone tools made by striking stones together. How can you build a 450 foot long ship with such tools?

And his brain would have most likely been much smaller than ours.

No, we know from studying ancient documents that very often ancient writers give a summarized list of chronological events and then "zoom" in on the key event. This is what the story in Genesis 2 is, it is a zoom in on the sixth age which is the most important because Man was created in that age and establishes His relationship with God on a day in that age.

The problem is that the two accounts of creation differ. Genesis 1 says the other animals were made before humans. Genesis 2 says they were made after humans.

As long as man ate from the Tree of life no poison could kill him. This was how he could potentially live forever, the tree of life provided the necessary chemicals to protect humans from death.

Wait, you tell me that you are a biologist, and you believe people will live 900 years old if they ingest the right chemicals? I'm not a biologist, but I would have thought otherwise.

Just curious, can you describe what you do as a biologist?

Actually linguistic experts like Chomsky say that there is evidence that our brains have a built in syntax and grammar. That shows that at one time there was one language.

Irrelevant.

Like I said, the evidence indicate that languages evolved over a long period of time.

By contrast, Genesis says the languages were made at one time at the tower of Babel. This is wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually most of the books that we call the bible became unofficially authoritative long before the official recognition. All the churches were using those books and recognized them as Gods word in the 2nd century.

Huh? Please show me a list of the books of the New Testament before the 4th century that is close to the list we have today. The early lists of books are quite different from ours. They include many books that are not in the New Testament, and exclude many that are. See The Formation of the New Testament Canon (infidels.org) .

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think we both know that referring to an opinion as cat vomit isn't funny to the person who offers that opinion. Adding a winky face doesn't make it funny. Calling it sarcasm doesn't make it funny.

This is complete and utter nonsense. I never called another person's argument cat vomit.

Why would you call someone's argument cat vomit and then think they'll be happy with a winky face. That makes no sense.

This is complete and utter nonsense. I never called another person's argument cat vomit.

This is why I so strongly suggested that you are hard-hearted.

Calling people hard-hearted is an attack on the person. It is against the forum rules to attack the person. You can attack the argument, but not the person.

If your kid came home from school and said all the other kids called their drawing cat vomit and then laughed, you'd know that wasn't just a joke. You would know that your kid was being bullied.

This is complete and utter nonsense. I never called another person's argument cat vomit.

Go ahead, be upset with me for hurting your feelings.

I am not upset with you for hurting my feelings. I have a problem with you deliberately violating forum rules by attacking the person. You have been told this is against the forum rules. You just keep doing it anyway.

You may attack the argument, but you may not attack the person.

 

[John Helpher]

This is complete and utter nonsense. I never called another person's argument cat vomit.

I believe you are appealing to semantics, here. This is what Ed said:

Ed
"Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is the basic characteristic of the Triune Christian God. It is His fingerprint on the universe".

And this was your response from Post #888:

"When my cat vomits, there is a diversity within a unity. Ergo God"?

Technically, you did not say, "your argument is cat vomit", but intellectuals tend to fancy themselves as clever and as you've pointed out, there are rules here against insulting others, so you're faced with a somewhat tricky situation. You're a clever Atheist. There are rules here about not insulting others. But you want this guy to understand just how foolish you think his argument is. He doesn't seem to be responding to normal replies so you need to turn up the volume a bit, but in a way that does not obviously come across as doing so.

I also suggested that people who engage in such clever ridicule rarely realize themselves that they are doing it. To them, they simply think they are refuting an argument in a clever way or helping the other person to understand how foolish they are.

You're not a bad person. It was just a funny, right? This is why I suggested that you are being hard-hearted, at least in this area. It's not an insult. Don't take it personally. Really consider what I'm saying. You did not directly call Ed's argument cat vomit, but you did compare it to cat vomit. The insult is hidden behind what appears to be a simple reply. It's like asking, "Do you still beat your wife"? Hey, it's just a question. But any sincere person can see there is an insult inherent in the question.

It's like someone saying, "Hey look at this picture I painted" and your response is, "Heh, my cat sometimes paints pictures, too; when he vomits". Technically you did not call the picture cat vomit, but the implication is still there. What do they call that...uhhh, ah! Passive aggressive.

I am suggesting that under the surface you were annoyed with Ed. You guys have had a lot of back and forth. You yourself have complained to him about the number of times you've had to repeat yourself as you believe Ed is not listening to, not thinking about, or just plain ignoring your well-thought-out responses to him. I believe your cat vomit analogy was a bit of that frustration leaking out.

But even with someone pointing out there's something wrong with the response, you still argue tooth and nail that it's perfectly fine, that your motives were nothing but innocent, that the winky emoji was just to indicate your sarcasm. I understand. On these forums we often get the idea that any kind of mistake or weakness will reflect on our arguments. We get locked into this belief that we can never back down or admit to venting (or sometimes dumping) frustrations. It's even more difficult since you've taken the position that I need to be corrected about respect. If you were to look inside and consider that perhaps the cat vomit comparison really was a snipe at Ed, you would also appear as a hypocrite.

It's not like this is a special problem you have. All humans struggle with this. If it makes you feel any better, there are areas where I am hard-hearted, stubborn, and rebellious and I probably will be for the rest of my life. In Christianity we call these areas besetting-sins; those which present a struggle for us day after day.

I think the cat vomit thing is a pretty small issue. We all snipe at one another from time to time. What makes it a bigger problem is when we refuse to recognize it, as this tends to give us the impression that we are better than we really are. I'm quite certain I've done this many times, some of which I still remember with vivid embarrassment and probably still do without realizing.

Anyway, it feels like I'm getting a bit preachy. I better stop while I'm ahead...

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: 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.

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

Who is we? I have known and read about many couples over the years say that they dont need government sanction to believe that their marriage is real.
↑

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

ia: 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.

Well why are you not pushing the government to recognize such marriages? How about two brothers? or Three brothers?
↑

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

ia: 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:

You cant prove anything you say either.

ed: 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: 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.

What is your evidence that the mind is what the brain does? I admit I cant prove that the mind/spirit is nonphysical, but there is evidence it exists. Personal identity thru time and if transgenderism is real, these two phenomenon plus the points I made above are strong evidence that the mind is primarily not based on the physical. In addition, some NDEs have not been explained by purely physical processes. If the mind is based purely on the physical then how do we have free will?

ed: 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.

ia: 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.

What is your evidence that the nonphysical mind doesnt exist?
↑

ed: Not according to the studies I referenced earlier.

ia: 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?

There is no such right as I proved earlier.
↑

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

ia: 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.

No, just take that one little step in logic and you will know the cause of the universe.

ed: Many former atheists consider it evidence.

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

Like former atheist cosmologists who never had any contact with Christians much less Christian apologists?

ed: Because we have a moral conscience.

ia: How do you know that your "moral conscience" is reliable?

The same way I know my physical senses are reliable.

ed: 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.

He doesn't have to be to give us a reliable moral conscience. He may or may not be good when He gives us the conscience. Or He may be good yet not prove it to us but rather He gives the moral conscience to us so we can make our own determination of whether He is good. And it turns out that is the case.


↑

 

[Ed1wolf]

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

ia: 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.

No, a better analogy is God is our programmer and He created each computer/person slightly different and He created us to solve moral problems to test our problem solving ability and those that dont do a good job doing so are junked and only keeps the computers that do the best job.

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

ia: 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.

By living them out and looking at the results. So as you live them out you discover your life more fulfilling and successful than previously, that shows they are good for us.
↑

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?

It is part of the self existing creator. It does not have a beginning.
↑

ed: 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.

ia: Courts didn't decide what science was in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Dictators did, for their own ends.

Courts are part of the government and so are dictators, same thing.

ia: 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.

The whole thing was based on our secular humanistic government arbitrarily deciding that science must be based on the philosophy of naturalism which is narrowminded and unAmerican. Some of our greatest scientific discoveries were the direct result of good science done by non-naturalistic scientists. And in fact, all the major branches of modern science were founded by non-naturalistic scientists. So by being open to the supernatural has no effect on the scientific method and preventing great scientific discoveries and in fact by limiting scientific endeavor in this way limits the possibility of even greater scientific discoveries.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Sheer delusion.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, what did Trump do?
He refused to wear a mask, he discouraged others from wearing masks,

Evidence he discouraged others from wearing masks?

ia: he mocked others for wearing masks, and he held mass public events that turned out to be super-spreaders.

He left the choice up to the people. Our nation was founded on free choice. The people that went knew the risk.

ia: He told people to do ridiculous things with UV light and drink bleach.

Not true.

ia: He said the virus would just go away, suddenly, like a miracle.

What is wrong with being optimistic?

ia: Just an example of Trump's malicious incompetence:
This coronavirus timeline is incredibly damning for Donald Trump - CNNPolitics

CNN is not a reliable source of news about Trump. they still beiieve in the Russian hoax after having been refuted by multiple investigations.

ia: "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.

He said HOPED to have churches meeting by Easter. He did not say that they could start going to church on easter. Trump said to do everything Fauci said to do. Why do you think Fauci was at almost every news conference?

ia: 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?

Evidence? That is not what Fauci said. Even he admits now that they were not prepared.

ia: 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.

Evidence that he ignored warnings? Pelosi and Biden said there was nothing to worry about in March. She even visited Chinatown. And Fauci said you dont need masks in April.

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

Why is it ravaging California the most, when they have the strongest lockdown?

ia: 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.

He said to do everything Fauci told us to do.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Evidence he discouraged others from wearing masks?


He left the choice up to the people. Our nation was founded on free choice. The people that went knew the risk.


Not true.


What is wrong with being optimistic?


CNN is not a reliable source of news about Trump. they still beiieve in the Russian hoax after having been refuted by multiple investigations.


He said HOPED to have churches meeting by Easter. He did not say that they could start going to church on easter. Trump said to do everything Fauci said to do. Why do you think Fauci was at almost every news conference?


Evidence? That is not what Fauci said. Even he admits now that they were not prepared.


Evidence that he ignored warnings? Pelosi and Biden said there was nothing to worry about in March. She even visited Chinatown. And Fauci said you dont need masks in April.


Why is it ravaging California the most, when they have the strongest lockdown?


He said to do everything Fauci told us to do.

I could respond to this, but it would basically involve reading you the evening news. There is just so much here that is completely out of touch with reality. I think I will just put this post down and shake my head in sorrow.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: I also mentioned the worldwide hydraulically caused fossil graveyards such as the one at Gibraltar. And there are others.

dm: What you failed to mention is that fossils buried by water have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. There is no distinct hydraulically caused fossil graveyard 2 million years ago.

No, there is an unusually widespread number of them around 2 mya.

dm: Mark 16:8-20 is widely regarded to have been inserted long after the original book was written. It says that if Christians drink deadly poison it will not hurt them. If I was about to drink deadly poison, I would think it was important to know if it would hurt me. So yes, this is an important teaching that changes depending on whether we include these verses.

These verses even if included did not mean if you intentionally drank poison God would protect you. It meant that if you unknowingly did so God would protect you. This is also where the snake handling denominations get it wrong. If you handle snakes or drink poison intentionally, you are plainly violating Christ's teaching against testing God.

ed: Does the Negev’s Ancient Rock-Art Help Turn the Bible Exodus Story into Fact? | Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)
dm: Finding references to people who believed in Yahu (which is close to Yahweh) is far from verifying Exodus. The evidence indicates that the early Jews were Canaanites who were already living in the mountains of canaan. Their settlements are virtually identical to other Canaanite settlements, other than the lack of pig bones. They worshipped the same God, El. They came to dominate the more prosperous coastal areas and eventually incorporated the name Yahweh for God.

That is one possible interpretation but it also fits the jews wandering in the wilderness. In addition, hieroglyphics have been found on two New Kingdom Egyptian Temples and a Temple pillar in Sudan. They mention the "land of the nomads of Yahweh" referring to a land east of Egypt, ie the Sinai and Canaan. The two areas at that time when the hebrews were living in tents and in fact the inscription mentions them as tent dwellers.

dm: This is a long cry from the story that Egypt was devastated by plagues including the death of every firstborn; that 2 million Jews escaped to the desert and lived there 40 years; and that they came into Canaan from outside in an enormous invasion. That simply did not happen.

The Sphinx Dream Stele shows that the first born of the probable Pharoah of the Exodus had mysteriously disappeared or died. And then there is the evidence for the destruction of Jericho at right around the right time.

dm: Again, there was no distinct ice age 2 million years ago.

Fraid so, from wikipedia: "The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth."

dm: There have been distinct ice ages that have occurred in a regular pattern the last 1 to 2 million years due to the wobble of the earths axis. These occur in a fixed pattern due to the dynamics of the planetary movements.

As shown above, the initial wobbling began around 2-2.6 mya. This may have been caused by the floodwaters weight.

dm: Homo sapiens have only been around for 300,000 years. There were no homo sapiens 2 million years ago.

You are referring to Homo erectus, who have distinctly different bones from Homo sapiens. The skulls clearly have a different shape. The earliest Homo erectus have brain capacities significantly below the range of homo sapiens. The earliest homo erectus also appear to be more like the earlier homo habilis, which are even more apelike.

There is growing evidence that erectus and sapiens are the same species. The Kow Swamp fossils point to interbreeding between sapiens and erectus. Now recent research is confirming that: Mystery ancestor mated with ancient humans. And its 'nested' DNA was just found. | Live Science. Generally if two organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring that is evidence they are the same species. It would be similar to a bulldog breeding with a wolf, their skull structures are very different yet DNA has confirmed that they are the same species. I predict this will be discovered for erectus and sapiens in the not too distant future. As far as brain size, erectus is within the normal human range of 700 cc to 2000 cc. Erectus brain size has been found to be 780cc to 1225 cc.

dm: You tell me that you are a biologist. You must know that a global flood would totally destroy plant life on earth. Some plants would not survive, even as seeds. It would take many thousands of years or even millions of years for the earth to recover from being inundated with salt water for a year. Meanwhile the animals from the ark would try to survive on a destroyed earth with no source of food.

It didn't happen.

I gave you a link with the problems of a global flood. Have you looked at it?

As I explained to you earlier, the Flood was primarily a supernatural event. God could easily protect the seeds and vegetation and cause them to recover very quickly at a "supernatural' rate. Given that rain and the water from under water vents was fresh the ocean salinity levels would be greatly reduced considering how much water was needed to flood the earth.

dm: The scribes had trouble copying anything. The available manuscripts are filled with variations, making it impossible to know for sure what the original said.

No variation is significant enough to change any teaching of Christianity as I demonstrated with your example above.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The primary function of marriage.

Having sex and having children is the primary function of marriage? So all those people who are unable to have sex and/or have children...their marriages aren't really real.
Got it.

First provide evidence that that is NOT why marriage was created.

Burden of proof. You're the one claiming that this is the purpose of marriage. You provide evidence that (a) marriage was created so that people could have children, (b) that is still its primary purpose and (c) a reason why marriage that cannot have children is valid for straight people but not for gay people.

No, that is not what I claimed go back and reread my posts, I am not going to rehash it all again.

That's exactly what you said, and you just said it again just above.
Gay people can't have "proper" sex, can't "unite" and can't have children; therefore, they can't get married.
You need to give reasons why any of your claims are valid, and you haven't. you've just repeated your claims, said that it's a biological fact that gay people can't have sex, and that therefore your arguments are founded on logic and science. Which they aren't.

I have demonstrated using biology and logic to explain why in my earlier posts and will not rehash it.

See what I mean?

Fraid so, you wont survive if you dont have what it takes to survive, ie fitness.

"Survival of the fittest" is not a tautology. "The fit" don't automatically survive. The phrase, in evolutionary science, means they are more likely to survive. Which is just plain common sense.
What you are saying, however, is a tautology. "God is goodness, and goodness is God," tells us nothing about what goodness is. It does not help, in any way, to resolve the questions "What is good, and why?" because goodness is whatever God decides that it is.
You've been struggling with this question for quite literally dozens of pages, and you're still stuck on it.

No, I said His character is the Good. Goodness is not His totality. He is also a person. Goodness is an attribute not a person.

and

No, I said that His character is Goodness, not His totality. No circularity there.

But what is goodness? God's nature. And why is that nature good? Because it's God's, and His nature is to be good.
Sounds completely circular to me.

You cant PROVE what you say is true either. But I did demonstrate that a Good God probably exists and I proved that atheists have no rational basis for believing that good exists.

Trying to distract us again, eh?
I love that wiggle word - "probably." Yes, to a person who believes that God exists, it's quite easy to say that it's likely He does. And all I am saying is that you are unable to resolve Euthyphro's Dilemma. Which is self-evidently true.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

We strongly disagree regarding evolution, but we are very much united on this point. His behavior is entirely inconsistent with what it means to be Christian. It is my belief that God and science are completely compatible. After all, science is simply the study of reality; how and why it works the way it does. That reality is created by the creator; it makes sense, not only that we would want to explore it, but that he would want us to explore it, because doing so would more convincingly illustrate his magnificence to us. This is why it makes no sense for Atheists to essentially say, "The more complex we discover reality to be, the less need there is for any intelligence behind that complexity."

We have the scientific ability to understand what viruses are. We can see microscopic particles. We can understand how these particles affect us. And, by extrapolation, we can devise means of preventing harmful particles from affecting us. God gives us the spirit of a sound mind; he expects us to use it. Wearing masks is rather obvious based on the information we have. As for those people who say we should not wear masks, they are not doing so based on any kind of Christian reasoning; rather they are abusing Christianity as a cloak to legitimize their politics.

It is up to sincere people to recognize when this is happening. Christianity is not the problem here, but rather selfish motivation. That is not a religious problem; all humans struggle with such motivations in one way or the other.



It's crazy, right? I mean, I feel your incredulity; I really do. How is it possible that so many people could support such an obvious liar? You've probably heard the reasoning some professing Christians use to justify their support for Trump, that the Bible says God ordains the leaders of the land and therefore we are required to support them.

I believe this is a misinterpretation of the concept at best, and a deliberate twisting at worst. One of the most notable examples is that of Pharaoh. The record explicitly states that God raised Pharaoh up. You could imagine the people of Pharaoh's day rejoicing in such a message, using it to support all his political agendas as though he was the messiah.

But, when considering the bigger picture from a distance, it becomes clear why he did this; God wanted to demonstrate that no matter how powerful a human leader is considered to be, he is nothing compared to God. Most people don't realize this, but Pharaoh begged God to cease each of the plagues inflicted on Egypt, agreeing to let the slaves go, and each time God did, indeed, relent, and each time Pharaoh reneged on his agreement, thus leading to the next plague. It had become a test of wills. Pharaoh tried to fight God and he was utterly destroyed.

I think something similar is happening with Trump, but with a different emphasis. Somehow, someway, Trump has managed to get away with more than any other politician in history has been able to. It seems like every day there is some new report about how unprecedented, non-normal, and untraditional his bad behavior is, to the point that I feel nauseated just hearing such phrases. How? How is he able to continue getting away with so much? I believe there is some supernatural component at work here, not in support of Trump, but rather in suppression of goodness.

I believe the creator has allowed all this to happen as a demonstration of just how obscene America has become. Trump is not the problem. He is simply a barometer. He is, perhaps, the last gasp of warning to any sincere American; it is time to leave before that country is destroyed. It truly has become depraved.

Apologies for not replying sooner, or at length. I'm afraid I'm rather busy at the moment. I am certainly pleased we agree on some things, and I agree with most of what you say here.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, there is an unusually widespread number of them around 2 mya.

Please document your claim that there were unusually widespread number of marine fossils 2 mya. Are you just making this up?

Fraid so, from wikipedia: "The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth."

As shown above, the initial wobbling began around 2-2.6 mya. This may have been caused by the floodwaters weight.

First, that is not from wikipedia.

Second, the last ice age was about 10,000 years ago, not 2 million years ago.

Third, there was no abrupt beginning of ice ages 2 million years ago as you claimed. Again, here is the chart of ice ages. Ice ages became gradually more common about 2.5 million years ago. There was no abrupt beginning of Ice ages 2 million years ago as you claim.

There is growing evidence that erectus and sapiens are the same species. The Kow Swamp fossils point to interbreeding between sapiens and erectus. Now recent research is confirming that: Mystery ancestor mated with ancient humans. And its 'nested' DNA was just found. | Live Science. Generally if two organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring that is evidence they are the same species. It would be similar to a bulldog breeding with a wolf, their skull structures are very different yet DNA has confirmed that they are the same species. I predict this will be discovered for erectus and sapiens in the not too distant future. As far as brain size, erectus is within the normal human range of 700 cc to 2000 cc. Erectus brain size has been found to be 780cc to 1225 cc.

False. Human brains are usually 1000 to 1800 cc. Homo erectus brains before 1.5 mya were never above 900 cc.

And again Homo erectus bones are completely different from humans.

No Homo sapiens lived before 300,000 years ago. And yet you claim Noah lived 2 million years ago. How could he be Homo sapiens if there were no Homo sapiens?

And no, interbreeding does not mean two creatures are the same species. Ever hear of a mule?

As I explained to you earlier, the Flood was primarily a supernatural event. God could easily protect the seeds and vegetation and cause them to recover very quickly at a "supernatural' rate. Given that rain and the water from under water vents was fresh the ocean salinity levels would be greatly reduced considering how much water was needed to flood the earth.

Why all the miracles? If God wanted to kill all the people, why not just kill them?

And why kill all the babies?

 

[doubtingmerle]

These verses even if included did not mean if you intentionally drank poison God would protect you. It meant that if you unknowingly did so God would protect you. This is also where the snake handling denominations get it wrong. If you handle snakes or drink poison intentionally, you are plainly violating Christ's teaching against testing God.

Ah, you insert the word, "unintentionally" into Mark 16:18 (They shall take up serpents; and if they [unintentionally] drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.) So just like you need to insert "became an ancestor of" in Genesis, and "only when wise to do so" in Luke, you insert "unintentionally" into Mark. Sorry, but that simply is not what the Bible says.

But even if it means unintentional drinking of poison, it would be nice to know if, should you ever unintentionally drink any poison, it will not hurt you. Unfortunately, you don't know if Mark 16:18 is really part of the Bible. That is just one example of an important thing to know that differs depending on whether this verse is there.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is one possible interpretation but it also fits the jews wandering in the wilderness. In addition, hieroglyphics have been found on two New Kingdom Egyptian Temples and a Temple pillar in Sudan. They mention the "land of the nomads of Yahweh" referring to a land east of Egypt, ie the Sinai and Canaan. The two areas at that time when the hebrews were living in tents and in fact the inscription mentions them as tent dwellers.

There were people in tents that worshipped Yahweh? You still haven't found evidence that a massive army of Israelites left Egypt and conquered Canaan.

The Sphinx Dream Stele shows that the first born of the probable Pharoah of the Exodus had mysteriously disappeared or died.

The Bible says all of the firstborn in Egypt died.

If the firstborn of the Pharoah died, that is not unusual news. If the firstborn of everybody died, that is huge news.

That is what you need to find evidence for.

And then there is the evidence for the destruction of Jericho at right around the right time.

Jericho was a walled city in the stone age, but in the bronze age when the reported invasion occurred, it was just a small town.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: No, you need to believe there are three persons and only one God or divine essence.

dm: What if I only know about two persons? Am I doomed to eternal torture because I only knew about 2 of the persons?

Possibly, since any other being is not the true God. But I will let God decide that. Part of it depends on how you were explained the trinity by others, maybe you were misled, if you were, God would not hold that against you.

dm: If a person needs to believe these two assertions (There are three persons. There is one divine essence.) please show me where the Bible says you need to believe these two things to go to heaven. Are you going to tell me God didn't have enough bandwidth to tell us this?

If you dont know who God is, how can you believe in Him? Romans 10:14,17. If you dont want to get to know Him by using your brain He gave you by studying His word, then yes you will probably not make it to heaven. But also read my statement above in your first question.

dm: Mark 16:8-20 is commonly thought to be added later. Do I need to believe Mark 16:8-20 or don't I?

You dont need to believe that those verses belong in the bible because they probably don't. But there are some important truths in those verses that dont contradict other parts of the bible as I explained earlier.

dm: And for that matter, the whole book of Matthew is basically an edit of the book of Mark. Do I need to believe the things in Matthew, or just Mark?

That is an oversimplification. You should believe both since both are part of Gods word.

dm: And if I need to believe the things in Matthew, do I also need to believe the things in Luke that contradict Matthew? How can I believe contradictory things?

Nothing in Luke contradicts Matthew.

dm: And do I need to believe that grasshoppers have four legs? (Leviticus 11:21-22)

The hebrew phrase translated "going on all fours" is just a generic phrase for "crawling". It is not meant to provide an exact number of legs.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Evidence he discouraged others from wearing masks?


He left the choice up to the people. Our nation was founded on free choice. The people that went knew the risk.


Not true.


What is wrong with being optimistic?


CNN is not a reliable source of news about Trump. they still beiieve in the Russian hoax after having been refuted by multiple investigations.


He said HOPED to have churches meeting by Easter. He did not say that they could start going to church on easter. Trump said to do everything Fauci said to do. Why do you think Fauci was at almost every news conference?


Evidence? That is not what Fauci said. Even he admits now that they were not prepared.


Evidence that he ignored warnings? Pelosi and Biden said there was nothing to worry about in March. She even visited Chinatown. And Fauci said you dont need masks in April.


Why is it ravaging California the most, when they have the strongest lockdown?


He said to do everything Fauci told us to do.

I'll go with @doubtingmerle on this one. Just watch the interviews Donald Trump made, and you'll see that he was, quite simply, neither competent nor interested in handling the pandemic. You want evidence? Sure. Go and see for yourself.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You dont need to believe that those verses belong in the bible because they probably don't.

Got it. I don't need to believe Mark 16:9-20. They probably don't belong. One wanders how many other verses got inserted into the Bible.

But there are some important truths in those verses that dont contradict other parts of the bible as I explained earlier.

Do you consider this an important truth:

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:17-18)​

You keep on telling us that the sign that Christianity is true is that they practiced (Theistic) Methodological Naturalism. Do these verse look like Theistic Methodological Naturalism to you? They look like the opposite to me.

So are the "signs that follows them that believe" going to be miracles, or Christians who tell the world to ignore miracles when they study the world?

That is an oversimplification. You should believe both since both are part of Gods word.

Ah we should believe Matthew and Mark are God's word because they are God's word. Isn't that circular?

No, it is not an oversimplification that Matthew was an edit of Mark. He copies 90% of the verses in Mark, often nearly verbatim. He adds in his own material, just like the editor of Mark 16:9-20 did. Once you agree that people like the author of Mark 16:9-20 were probably freely copying major portions into the gospel texts, and these additions were being accepted by the churches, how do you know that others were not doing the same? How do you know Matthew was authorized to do his edits?

And if you really need to believe everything in these books to get to heaven, you are up a creek if you believe the wrong books, yes??

Nothing in Luke contradicts Matthew.

Sure they do. For example, Luke says Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth before Jesus was born. Matthew says they moved to Nazareth after his birth.