Where's God?

[Ed1wolf]

He does? This is what I Peter 1:24-25 says about humans:

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.​

Yes, he is talking about our temporal corrupted by sin bodies. But we are more than our bodies and He will give us resurrected bodies that will last forever when He creates the new universe. That is how much He values us.​

dm: And here is what the Apostle Paul says about humans:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

--Romans 3:11-19
​

It sounds to me like they had a very low view of humanity.

He is referring to humanity after we rebelled against God and became corrupted but those who return to God will be restored to spiritual greatness in this world and physical greatness in the next universe. The Bible also says we are the only beings created in His image and are only a little lower than angels in power and glory.

dm: Humanism, by contrast, says things like:

We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.​

Source: Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association​

All words are meaningless squeaks by little bags of chemicals on a small blue rock in an impersonal universe and its eventual heat death.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: But not all humans love other humans and some think they have very little value

dm: Then they are mistaken. For it is impossible for anybody to have any kind of a good life without the contributions of others. If they seek to have the good life, and they rely on others, but do not love those who give them the good life, then they are wrong.

But if there is no God then words like love, good, right and wrong ultimately mean nothing. If there is no objective foundation for language then it means nothing more than squeaks do.

ed: and in fact some environmentalists think the population should be radically reduced because humans are in fact destroying the planet and therefore should be encouraged to go extinct.

dm: Can you give me the name of someone who thinks we should encourage people to go extinct? I never heard that one.

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - Wikipedia

dm: A strong case can be made that there are too many people on this planet. If somebody thinks that the population should stop growing, that is not the same thing as hating people. And it does not mean they want people to go extinct.

See above.

Let's try another thought experiment. Suppose the population of the world grows to the point where there is one person per square meter. Suppose there is mass starvation because the planet cannot feed them all. Do you agree with me that it would have been better to limit the population so we did not get to this point?

Yes, actually I think we are at a good population level right now. As long as we do not use abortive contraception to limit it.

dm: Personally, I think we should have stopped at 2-4 billion people. The planet seems to be able to handle that size population sustainably with a decent standard of living. We now have 7 billion people, and are rapidly depleting world resources. That can have serious consequences. Since I love people, I would rather have seen 2 billion people on this planet at a time for millions of years, as opposed to a burst of billions and billions of people that overrun the planet. But that ship has already sailed. One only hopes that we limit future population growth.

Our food resources are actually increasing the problem is that corrupt governments in some nations dont distribute it well.

ed: And some humans believe certain categories of humans do not have the right to live, such as unwanted unborn children.

dm: My assertion has never been that we should end the existence of cognitively aware persons. Rather, I have stated that, "In my opinion, it is better not to bring another person into the state of existence as a cognitively aware person if I know that this new person will experience nothing but pain, misery, and suffering." There is debate as to what point in time a body reaches the point that it should be considered a cognitively aware person. Traditionally, birth has been regarded as the beginning.

Some people are cognitively aware that appear not to be. There have been people who have been clinically brain dead and have recovered and reported having awareness of their surroundings. Have you ever asked a mentally healthy person that has experienced pain, misery, and suffering who wished that they had been aborted and never lived? I think most would say no.

dm: If I ask you how old you are, where do you start counting? Do you go by when you were conceived, when you had your first heart beat, when you had your first brainwave, or when you were born? Most of us measure our age from the moment of birth.

That is just a human tradition, from prescientific times because it is only after birth you can have direct physical contact but now during the scientific age we know that a genetically unique human individual exists at conception with all the same characteristics as you and I just in genetic form.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All words are meaningless squeaks by little bags of chemicals on a small blue rock in an impersonal universe and its eventual heat death.

My squeaks mean something to me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sadly, many of us could get COVID, but you look on the bright side, it could kill us?

Like I said before death to a Christian isn’t any where near as fearful as death to an atheist.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Like I said before death to a Christian isn’t any where near as fearful as death to an atheist.

Is death fearful to you? Death is not fearful to me.

The possible painful suffering while dying, yes, that I fear.

The fact that people that need me will miss me, yes, that I fear.

But the fact that I will someday be dead, no, I do not fear that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

He is referring to humanity after we rebelled against God and became corrupted but those who return to God will be restored to spiritual greatness in this world and physical greatness in the next universe.

And the Jews that were killed in the Holocaust, do you say they were "corrupted rebels", or that they were destined to spiritual and physical greatness?

You have told us the only way to this greatness is by believing certain stories such as the virgin birth and the resurrection. I think most of the Jews in the Holocaust rejected such stories as fables (for good reason). Since that was there opinion, and most likely would have been their opinion for life, were they headed to a hopeless destiny as corrupted rebels? And were they headed for horrors that were millions of times worse than the Holocaust? And was the only way out by somehow believing a tale that they saw no evidence for?

You are not making much of a case that the Jews in the Holocaust had infinite value.

I, on the other hand, can make the case that we all need each other, and that there is something within everybody of great worth. The Holocaust was a travesty against people of worth.

Speaking of tales in the Bible, here is our story for today:

And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king.
And he said, If the LORD do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barnfloor, or out of the winepress?
And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow.
So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.
And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes; and he passed by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh.
Then he said, God do so and more also to me, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day. (2 Kings 6:26-31)​

Wait, what? Women arguing that since I left the other woman eat my boiled son, therefore I get to eat hers? Outrageous! Where is the moral outrage at the loss of respect for human dignity?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Like I said before death to a Christian isn’t any where near as fearful as death to an atheist.

I am not in the slightest bit scared of not existing. There is, quite literally, nothing to fear.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

But if there is no God then words like love, good, right and wrong ultimately mean nothing.

Speak for yourself. You purport to derive meaning from Yahweh. So you are without meaning if he doesn't exist.

Yahweh could exist or not, and it would make no difference to me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am not it the slightest bit scared of not existing. There, quite literally, nothing to fear.

or you could be in a lake of fire for all eternity.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

or you could be in a lake of fire for all eternity.

I am exactly as scared of going to Hell, as you are scared of going to Tartarus.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am exactly as scared of going to Hell, as you are scared of going to Tartarus.

Ok

 

[doubtingmerle]

or you could be in a lake of fire for all eternity.

And if you survived death and picked the wrong god?

 

[Ed1wolf]

mm: And you just shot yourself in the foot, because you made it remotely relevant as to the truth of something being dependent in any way on how many people believe something. So in the context of eugenics' popularity, it was apparently justified when most of the world had no issue with it, but now we don't, making the whole thing relativistic

So the fact that most people think murder is wrong is irrelevant? Why do so many atheists I debate say when arguing for evolution "the overwhelming majority scientists believe it is correct."? Actually, your argument about eugenics only applies to the Establishment, most ordinary citizens were against it, at least in the US. And the Establishment only turned against it because of the horrors of the Nazis taking it to its logical conclusion. And in fact it is starting to rear its ugly head again, with the around 80% abortion rate for Downs Syndrome, among other things.

ed: So if Castro felt it was his purpose to destroy the Cuban upper class, that was a legitimate purpose for him?

mm: Legitimate purpose for an individual does not always jive with being a social animal in the first place, which is of more importance, because you can't really get anything done without cooperation in society

Well Castro got a great deal of cooperation in his society. So does that mean he was innocent of wrongdoing?

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: The prophecy in chapter 34 occurred before his death. Dying in peace means he did not die in a war and he didnt. So the prophecy was correct. So the prophecy was fulfilled exactly in the events recorded in chapter 52.

dm: Wait, what?

In chapter 34 Jeremiah predicts what he writes in chapter 52. You find that impressive?

King Zedekiah's enemies captured him, bound him with chains, killed his sons and princes while Zedekiah watched, exiled his people, removed Zedekiah's eyes, and cast him in prison where he died, or, as you put it, he died in peace.

Well, er, uh, OK then, I guess.

Thanks for admitting he got that one correct.

ed: Jeremiah 25:11-12, the prophet said that the Jews would suffer 70 years of Babylonian domination. Jeremiah also said Babylon would be punished after the 70 years. Both parts of this prophecy were fulfilled. In 609 BC, which is about 2600 years ago, Babylon captured the last Assyrian king and ruled over a vast part of what had been the Assyrian empire, to which the land of Israel previously had been subjugated. Babylon later asserted its dominance by taking many Jews as captives to Babylon, and by destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. The domination ended in 539 BC, when Cyrus, a leader of Persians and Medes, conquered Babylon and brought an end to its empire. Cyrus later offered the captive Jews the freedom to return to their homeland.

dm: Uh, Jeremiah was not talking about the fall of Assyria. He was talking about the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, when the Jews were exiled to Babylon. They remained there until 548 BC, when Cyrus allowed them to return. In all they spent approximately 49 years in Babylon. Jeremiah predicts it would be 70. He was wrong.

No, he was talking about how long the jews were oppressed in exile. And it was roughly 70 years since the first exile started around 605 BC until the first return around 538 to 535 BC. So you are wrong.

dm: Jeremiah predicts that both Judah and Israel would return to a united kingdom under the throne of David. This did not happen.

Strike one.

Where did he prophesy that?

dm: In Daniel chapter 9, we find Daniel troubled by this whole prophecy of 70 years. He is answered by the angel Gabriel, who in essence says "70 years? Don't be silly, we meant 70 weeks, that is, 70 x 7 years!" The writer of the book that talks about Daniel, writing in the time of Antioches, incorrectly thinks the 490 years period ends within a couple of years of his book, and then the great kingdom will be restored.

Strike two.

Actually there are three different interpretations among conservative scholars of these passages. 1. It refers to events surround Antiochus IV. 2. the 70 sevens are to be understood figuratively or 3. the passage refers to events around the time of Christ. What is your evidence that the writer thinks the 490 years ends within a couple of years of his book?

dm: Along came Mark who explains that the last "week" ends shortly after 70 AD, then we get the kingdom.

See above.
Sorry no strikes.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thanks for admitting he got that one correct.


No, he was talking about how long the jews were oppressed in exile. And it was roughly 70 years since the first exile started around 605 BC until the first return around 538 to 535 BC. So you are wrong.


Where did he prophesy that?


Actually there are three different interpretations among conservative scholars of these passages. 1. It refers to events surround Antiochus IV. 2. the 70 sevens are to be understood figuratively or 3. the passage refers to events around the time of Christ. What is your evidence that the writer thinks the 490 years ends within a couple of years of his book?


See above.
Sorry no strikes.

@doubtingmerle - it seems you've won.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But if there is no God then words like love, good, right and wrong ultimately mean nothing. If there is no objective foundation for language then it means nothing more than squeaks do.

Previously you have told me that Webster's Dictionary is biased and has incorrect definitions.

Now it turns out that God has objectively defined the English language? I wasn't aware of that. Can you please refer me to a resource that tells me how God defines the words we use in English?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf, I called "Strike Three!".

You going to argue with the ump?

Where did he prophesy that?

You are replying to, "Jeremiah predicts that both Judah and Israel would return to a united kingdom under the throne of David. This did not happen."

In Jeremiah 30:3-9 Jeremiah prophesies that God would restore both Israel and Judah under "David their king" after the 70 years. In Jeremiah 31:15-16 it says Rachel will be comforted. (Rachel refers to the supposed mother of the two most powerful tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel.) This never happened.

Strike one!

Actually there are three different interpretations among conservative scholars of these passages. 1. It refers to events surround Antiochus IV. 2. the 70 sevens are to be understood figuratively or 3. the passage refers to events around the time of Christ. What is your evidence that the writer thinks the 490 years ends within a couple of years of his book?

Jeremiah steps away from the plate. Daniel steps in to pinch hit.

In Daniel 9 "Daniel" is in anguish that the 70 years (actually 49) did not result in a restored Kingdom. An angel tells him it didn't mean 70 years, but 70 x 7 years until the kingdom. The book of Daniel ties in the desecration of the temple by Antiochus with the middle of the last period of 7 years. Hence, the kingdom will come 1290 days after Antiochus desecrates the temple:

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12:11)​

And yes, of course, fundamentalists have found all kinds of creative interpretations of Daniel. I don't buy it.

And no, Daniel was not prophesying Anthiochus in Daniel 11. He is quite accurate in his history until Antiochus, then he is completely off track. It is obvious that he was writing around the time of Antiochus. Everything before that was accurate history. Everything after that was wrong.

The kingdom was not restored after 70 years (Jeremiah) or 70 x 7 years (Daniel).

Strrrrike Two!

See above.

Wait, now they are calling Daniel to the bench. Mark comes in to pinch hit.

We have the same problem with Mark. In Mark 13 Mark pushes the middle of the last period of 7 years back to his own time, and relates it to the Roman desecration of the temple. Like Daniel did in Daniel 11, Mark pretends chapter 13 is accurate prophecy. It is actually history, written after the fact. He goes on to relate the desecration of the temple to the middle of the last 7 years. He is saying the kingdom will come shortly, in the lifetime of the disciples.

So it did not come after 70 years or after 490 years. Mark is at the plate: 70 AD anybody?

Here's the pitch.....

Sorry no strikes.

STTTTTTTRRRRRRRIIIIIIKE THREE! You're out of here.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Technically, pretty sure both of you are wrong in that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, and earth is not a closed system because it gets energy from the sun constantly. So the problems of entropy apply only on the scale of the universe and that's if we assume it's a closed system, which we cannot be absolutely sure about.

The problems of entropy apply on much smaller scales also. Even your own bedroom will increase in entropy until you straighten it back up.

mm: The mere positing of the supernatural doesn't add credence because it could literally just fit anything in any argument from ignorance that then cannot be shown to be wrong because of specific qualities granted in the case of God (or anything, really)

No, actually we can test theories of creation because we have an objective definition of God in the bible and also the bible even makes certain predictions about the universe and therefore those can be falsified just like any scientific model.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The point, Ed, is this:

You seem to be impressed with the recurrence of the word "personal" when you say "Nothing personal has ever been produced except by personal beings." But this is nonsense, as I've explained more than once.

To say that a personal being - a baby - was produced by other personal beings is to use the word "produced" in a misleading way. Yes, the baby emerged from a personal being, and yes, a personal being was used to grow the baby, and yes, two personal beings triggered the change that led to the baby being formed. But so what? They didn't invent the process that produced the personal being. Personal beings were made by the same process that all other living things were made: evolution. And that is an impersonal force.

So your "argument" that God must exist because there are personal beings in this universe is simply nonsense - quite literally, non-sense. Personal being exist because of an accident in evolution, nothing more. The personal was produced by the impersonal.

No, just as there are intermediate steps in the production and creation of a baby where the initial cause (the parent) is not directly involved so also there may be intermediate steps in the production of humans where the initial cause, God, is not directly involved like evolution. Nevertheless in both cases the ultimate cause is a personal being. In addition, I am also referring to other aspects of the personal, like personal relationships and personal communication, those have only been empirically observed to have been created by persons.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Really? We have been through this multiple times. You have asserted that "begat" could mean became the ancestor of. In response I worte:



And the words in red are the words that one would need to add to these verses to make them mean what you claim they mean. And as I explained before, that is a very creative interpretation, but surely this is not the author's intention. And you responded to this. And then all of a sudden you act like the conversation never happened and its like:

Good morning! It's groundhogs day!
Ancient genealogies often have a mixture of direct descendents and descendents many generations into the future...​

And so you just repeat the same day all over again with you repeating the same thing you said last time we discussed it, and pretending the previous discussion never happened.

Why won't you acknowledge that past conversations happened?

Again, the writer of Genesis clearly did not think the flood was 2 million years ago. If he thought that, he would not have written it this way. And even if he thought it was 2 million years ago, he was surely mistaken, for no such flood happened.

Well you appear as though you missed my statement about a mix of direct descendants which is probably the case with Araphaxad and descendants many generations into the future. If God revealed it to him in that way then he would have written it in that way whether he fully understood what he was writing or not. There are many things that the Bible writers wrote that they didnt fully understand at the time they wrote them down. That is what is expected if you are recording knowledge from the real God and not a manmade god.