Where's God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There have been so many bad arguments on this thread for the existence of God, sometimes it feels like reading this:
ExChristian.Net - Articles: Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence
Strange that @Ed1wolf should think it obvious that God is likely to exist, yet the whole world disagrees about who or what this god or gods is or are, and even Christians disagree with each other over the matter.

Ed, we're on Christian Apologetics. What is convincing to you does not really matter. If you can't make a good argument, then why not just admit it? What's wrong with just saying "I may not be able to make a case for it, but I have faith that it is so."
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Strange that @Ed1wolf should think it obvious that God is likely to exist, yet the whole world disagrees about who or what this god or gods is or are, and even Christians disagree with each other over the matter.

Quite true.

I am reminded of the ending of some versions of The Blind Men and the Elephant:

So, oft in theologic wars,
the disputants, I ween,
tread on in utter ignorance,
of what each other mean,
and prate about the elephant,
not one of them has seen!
In real life, theologans don't see the "elephant", because it can never be seen.


 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
dm: 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.
All of those things violate the actual teachings of Christianity.

dm: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?
I dont deny that they have done good things but most of Western society is based on Judeo-Christian principles. Not on atheist principles, or muslim principles, or buddhist principles.

dm: During the Middle Ages Muslim society was more advanced then Christian Europe.
In some ways yes, in other ways no.

dm: 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.
No, the key is the Christian principles but the printing press was certainly instrumental in spreading those principles to more people. That way the corrupt RCC couldn't restrict peoples access to Gods word. The Enlightenment actually would probably have never occurred if not for the Reformation.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: Many of those problems dont apply to a flood that occurred 2 mya.

dm: 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.
Not really, as I posted earlier evidence just came out in last few weeks that sapiens and erectus interbred. So that is evidence that they are the same species. They are probably just a different race. The only real difference between erectus and sapiens is their skull. It is similar to comparing a German shepherd skull and a bulldog skull, if you found just the skulls you would think they were two different species, but in fact they are the same species.

ed: 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.

dm: 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.
No, Genesis 2:19 can also be translated as "God HAD formed every beast".

ed: 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.

dm: 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.
Yes, that is part of it. People that eat healthier live longer. In addition, where humans lived may not have had as many igneous rocks thereby reducing exposure to the decay of radioisotopes, ie radiation, less supernovae during that time also reducing radiation exposure, eating less meat which increases life spans, an increase in telomerase activity and many other factors.

dm: Just curious, can you describe what you do as a biologist?
I conduct endangered species and wetland studies.

ed: 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.

dm: Irrelevant.
Hardly, it confirms the biblical account that prior to Babel that there was one original language.

dm: 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.
Of course, over a period of 1.5 million years the languages at Babel would evolve and change into even more languages as groups spread over the earth and became isolated.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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) .
The Muratorian canon dates to the 2nd century so that shows that most of teh present canon was already accepted by then. Canonization was a process based on widespread use by churches and analysis of the content and was not finalized by the leadership and church scholars until 397 AD when a few books were rejected and a few added to what was accepted in 200 AD.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
^_^
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The jokes's on you, Ed. Although since what Donald Trump was up to around the time @doubtingmerle posted this was inciting insurrection against the government of the United States of America, it's a pretty black joke.
Seriously. At this point, Merle is right. Anyone who can say Donald Trump doesn't carry a huge amount of blame for the catastrophe that is the coronavirus in the US, or indeed that he did a good job - well, the only response to such a person can only be:

^_^
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: No, there is an unusually widespread number of them around 2 mya.

dm: Please document your claim that there were unusually widespread number of marine fossils 2 mya. Are you just making this up?
No, that is not what I said. I said there were widespread hydraulically caused fossil graveyards all dated around 2mya and associated with what are called "rubble drift in ossiferous fissures".

ed: 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.

dm: First, that is not from wikipedia.

Fraid so, that was a direct cut and paste from wikipedia.

dm: Second, the last ice age was about 10,000 years ago, not 2 million years ago.
The change in climate that started moving toward an ice age began then.

dm: 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.
Five_Myr_Climate_ChangeC.jpg
Who said anything about abrupt beginning? But the gradual change in climate began around that time period 2-2.5 mya, just as your figure shows.


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

Anthropologist Stephen Molanar has documented many normal humans with cranial capacities between 700 and 800 cc. So what? 900 is still within the normal human range. And erectus were generally much shorter than modern humans so the brain to body size is not that much different.

dm: And again Homo erectus bones are completely different from humans.

Actually no, not according to Drs. F. Clark Howell and Bernard Campbell experts on erectus. They said "Below the neck the differences between erectus and modern sapiens can only be detected by an experienced anatomist." So yes there are differences but only very minor, similar to differences between races. Which is probably what erectus was, just a different race of humans.

dm: 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?
He was a member of the erectus race.

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

As the recent research I provided above shows what may be erectus DNA in sapiens, then that means the hybrid produced fertile offspring, unlike the mule. If two apparent different species produce fertile offspring, then that is evidence they may actually be the same species.

ed: 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: Why all the miracles? If God wanted to kill all the people, why not just kill them?
I dont know.
dm: And why kill all the babies?

Babies have a sinful nature too and deserve to die according to the universal law of justice. And possibly God wanted to not to have them around to remind the descendants of Noah to be reminded of the all the evil done during the pre-flood days, they may be tempted to engage in it.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Quite true.

I am reminded of the ending of some versions of The Blind Men and the Elephant:

So, oft in theologic wars,
the disputants, I ween,
tread on in utter ignorance,
of what each other mean,
and prate about the elephant,
not one of them has seen!
In real life, theologians don't see the "elephant", because it can never be seen.


Well, exactly!
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
All of those things violate the actual teachings of Christianity.
Your answer is a textbook logical fallacy.

I dont deny that they have done good things but most of Western society is based on Judeo-Christian principles. Not on atheist principles, or muslim principles, or buddhist principles.
That's because most of western society was Christian. That doesn't mean, however, that Christianity can claim credit for the advances of western civilisation, just that these advances were made by people who happened to be Christians. So what?

In some ways yes, in other ways no.
Good of you to admit it.

No, the key is the Christian principles but the printing press was certainly instrumental in spreading those principles to more people. That way the corrupt RCC couldn't restrict peoples access to Gods word. The Enlightenment actually would probably have never occurred if not for the Reformation.
Quite possibly you're right. But that does not in any way contradict Merle's saying that the Enlightenment was more valuable to society than the Reformation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: doubtingmerle
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, that is not what I said. I said there were widespread hydraulically caused fossil graveyards all dated around 2mya and associated with what are called "rubble drift in ossiferous fissures".



Fraid so, that was a direct cut and paste from wikipedia.


The change in climate that started moving toward an ice age began then.


Who said anything about abrupt beginning? But the gradual change in climate began around that time period 2-2.5 mya, just as your figure shows.




Anthropologist Stephen Molanar has documented many normal humans with cranial capacities between 700 and 800 cc. So what? 900 is still within the normal human range. And erectus were generally much shorter than modern humans so the brain to body size is not that much different.



Actually no, not according to Drs. F. Clark Howell and Bernard Campbell experts on erectus. They said "Below the neck the differences between erectus and modern sapiens can only be detected by an experienced anatomist." So yes there are differences but only very minor, similar to differences between races. Which is probably what erectus was, just a different race of humans.


He was a member of the erectus race.



As the recent research I provided above shows what may be erectus DNA in sapiens, then that means the hybrid produced fertile offspring, unlike the mule. If two apparent different species produce fertile offspring, then that is evidence they may actually be the same species.


I dont know.


Babies have a sinful nature too and deserve to die according to the universal law of justice. And possibly God wanted to not to have them around to remind the descendants of Noah to be reminded of the all the evil done during the pre-flood days, they may be tempted to engage in it.

This thread is too big. I have moved this discussion here: Did a Homo Erectus build an Ocean Liner? | Christian Forums .
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Babies have a sinful nature too and deserve to die according to the universal law of justice. And possibly God wanted to not to have them around to remind the descendants of Noah to be reminded of the all the evil done during the pre-flood days, they may be tempted to engage in it.

Let me get this straight. You claim that atheists were not able to come up with a good moral system on their own, but rather, needed to rely on Christians who gave them their moral system. And Christians got their moral system from the Bible. And from the Bible you find that, "Babies have a sinful nature...and deserve to die according to the universal law of justice. And possibly God wanted to not to have them around to remind the descendants of Noah...of the all the evil done during the pre-flood days"

Sorry, but I think I can find better sources of moral teaching than this.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Ed1wolf, I am not a biologist, so it is always nice to get a perspective from someone like you who is a professional biologist.

Below are your comments in response to: "you believe people will live 900 years old if they ingest the right chemicals? "
Yes, that is part of it. People that eat healthier live longer.
Understood, but 900 years?!?
In addition, where humans lived may not have had as many igneous rocks thereby reducing exposure to the decay of radioisotopes, ie radiation,
Danged igneous rocks.

So this woman could be good for another 786 years?

Iris-Westman.jpg


less supernovae during that time also reducing radiation exposure,
Ah, killer supernovae are the problem. Good to know.

eating less meat which increases life spans,
That does it. I will become a vegan.

market-cafe-hyatt-hotel-manila-buffet-jotan23-grilled-steak-oysters-shrimps-and-lobsters.jpg


Uh, on second thought...

an increase in telomerase activity and many other factors.
Add a year here, add a year there, soon we are up to living 900 years. Cool!
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
... evidence just came out in last few weeks that sapiens and erectus interbred. So that is evidence that they are the same species.
Not really. Neither species nor race are well-defined scientific terms. The popular definition of species as being a limitation on interbreeding is just a convenient rule of thumb, but there are many exceptions and a variety of other criteria, depending on the context. Designating a species is basically a way of indicating that a population is sufficiently different to show clear evidence of a separate evolutionary path - this doesn't necessarily mean they can't interbreed or even merge with populations of closely related species.

Homo sapiens also interbred with Homo neanderthalensis, but both they and Homo erectus were significantly different populations genetically and morphologically - sufficiently different that we can identify their genetic signatures in modern Homo sapiens and identify them as separate species from their bones.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
I did not insert became an ancestor, that is actually what the hebrew can literally be translated to mean. And if these verses were original, it can only be understood best when you read them in the context of the entire Bible. It cannot mean intentionally because the rest of the bible plainly teaches against testing God and Christians have always believed and taught the bible is a unified whole. Even some of the greatest believers in the Bible were murdered in various ways so plainly God is not going to protect every believer from every attack on their life. But as I stated earlier these verses are probably not part of the Bible.

dm: 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.
As I said above, it probably is not part of the Bible. But God has said in many other places in the Bible He will protect you in many situations if He so chooses. He protected Paul when he got bitten by a poisonous snake in the Book of Acts.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
They were not an army, they included women and children.

dm: 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.
Considering that the Pharoah was considered a god, it would be very unusual news. And given that a large part of the population was the hebrews whose first born did not die, it may not have been that noticeable at first, and any inscriptions to it may be lost. Maybe someday we will find it.

dm: 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.
Maybe but most of the evidence says otherwise: Biblical Sites: Three Ways to Date the Destruction at Jericho – Bible Archaeology Report
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
I did, almost every COVID press conference that he attended.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
Mark 16:17-18)
All of the edits in the Bible have been identified by scholars and none are significant.

dm: 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.
No, that is not what I said. I said later scientists were inspired to use that methodology by their understanding of God from the Bible. The apostles and writers of the gospels dont deny that God at certain times does intervene supernaturally but it is rare and on special occasions such as when He is aiding the spreading of the gospel.

dm: 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?
No, see above.

dm: 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?
There is no evidence of major editing, as I stated above all the edits especially in the NT have been identified and none of them are significant. Matthew was authorized by God to write his text. There is no evidence of later edits.

dm: 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??
Actually you dont need to believe everything in them, just the essentials. But you will never grow spiritually if you dont. The church guided by God chose the correct books and that has been confirmed by historical evidence and research.

ed: Nothing in Luke contradicts Matthew.

dm: 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.
Exactly. No contradiction there. They were from Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census and the birth and then returned to Nazareth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
All of the edits in the Bible have been identified by scholars...
How could you possibly know that all Bible edits are identified? We have no idea what edits might have been done in the first century before the books were widely circulated.

...and none are significant.
So it is not significant to you to know if poison will never hurt you as one disputed verse says? That is odd. I would want to know if that is true.

There are over 200,000 known variant readings in the known Greek manuscripts. What procedure did you use to verify that none of those 200,000 variations is significant?

And what procedure did you use to prove that the unknown variations are not significant?

No, that is not what I said. I said later scientists were inspired to use that methodology by their understanding of God from the Bible.
You have claimed that the Bible inspired people to use methodological naturalism, and that this is a sign that the Bible is God's word.

You teach that the sign that follows Christianity is that Christians will know that miracles are rare. Mark teaches that the sign that follows Christianity is that all will know that there are many miracles.
That is the opposite.
The apostles and writers of the gospels dont deny that God at certain times does intervene supernaturally but it is rare and on special occasions such as when He is aiding the spreading of the gospel.

Have you ever read Deuteronomy 28? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this chapter teaches that divine interventions are rare?
There is no evidence of major editing, as I stated above all the edits especially in the NT have been identified and none of them are significant.
Actually there is huge evidence of editing. See Amazon.com: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (0884915134810): Ehrman, Bart D.: Books

And the entire book of Matthew is a rewrite of Mark, copying 90% of the verses with edits, and then adding a lot of material on top of that.

Matthew was authorized by God to write his text. There is no evidence of later edits.
How do you know Matthew was authorized to rewrite Mark? Maybe the fallible person who told you that was mistaken.
Actually you dont need to believe everything in them, just the essentials.
What are the essentials that we need to believe? You have told me that if one believes the Son of God was named Pedro and died in Mexico for our sins, that this mistaken person will go to hell.

What if one thought the Son died in Athens? If believing it happened in Mexico City dooms you to eternal hell, what about Athens? Is that close enough, or will that person also scream in torment for eternity for getting the city wrong?

If there is going to be a final exam, and I need to score 100% to get in, I would want to know what is on the final. Please list all the things one must believe to go to heaven.

The church guided by God chose the correct books and that has been confirmed by historical evidence and research.
How do you know the church picked the right books?

And why is it that every single list of books before the 4th century differs from the list we have today?

If there is going to be a final, one would think God would tell us which books are going to be on the final.

Exactly. No contradiction there. They were from Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census and the birth and then returned to Nazareth.

Uh, that is what Luke says. But Matthew indicates Joseph and Mary were not going home to Nazareth, but were moving there to avoid Herod. They contradict.

So is the final going to be based on Matthew or Luke? Which one truly has the essentials?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.