Where's God?

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1Wolf, I called "Strike Three!".

You going to argue with the ump?


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!

No, it did happen. Jews from both Israel and Judah returned from exile after 70 years. Rachels children did return from exile, all historians agree on this.

dm: 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!

Fraid so.

dm: 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.....

STTTTTTTRRRRRRRIIIIIIKE THREE! You're out of here.

Mark is not referring to the kingdom of Israel and Judah. Jesus in Mark is referring to the coming of the new kingdom under the new covenant. This began in 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple just as Christ predicted. And no it was not written after the fact, most scholars agree that Mark was written in the 50's or 60s before 70 AD. If it had been Mark would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple as fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy but he didnt.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1Wolf, you are still missing the basics of the laws of thermodynamics. I gave you the formula. When heat transfers from one body to another, the object transferring heat loses entropy by an amount q/T, where q is the amount of energy transferred, and T is the temperature of the hot body. The body gaining heat increases in entropy by q/T, where T is the temperature of the cold body.

When the sun transfer heat to the earth, it loses energy and entropy. The earth gains energy and entropy. Likewise when the earth transfers heat to space, the earth loses energy and entropy.

On the average, the earth gains as much energy as it loses, so we stay about the same temperature (although recent changes in atmospheric CO2 are slightly changing the energy balance).

However, earth loses entropy. The surfaces of the earth that receive heat are, on the average, hotter than the surfaces that radiate heat. Since T (temperature) is in the denominator, q/T outgoing is greater than q/T incoming, even though q in equals q out. Hence the outside universe causes the earth to decrease in entropy.

But internal processes within the earth increase the earth's entropy. The increase in entropy due to earth's processes are roughly equal to the decreases caused by the outside universe. So life goes on.

See Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (gmu.edu) .



This is absolutely false. Every time a body decreases in entropy, someplace else in the universe must increase in entropy by at least that amount. Living things are no exception. Measure the differences in the entropy of what you take in (food, oxygen) and what you put out (waste, CO2) and you will see that the net result of food/oxygen/work/waste/CO2 is a net increase in entropy. But if you look at just the human work, and ignore everything else, well uh, that's amazing!



So does life.

Yep. And it is all caused by the processes described above, and by a similar process involving radioactive heat from within the earth. Hot and cold areas in the earth cause continents to move and mountains to be pushed up. Hot and cold areas in the atmosphere cause wind and water cycles that cause erosion that buries things under high pressure to form things like petroleum and diamonds.


Yep. And yet the atmosphere, in turn, is able to radiate that increased entropy into outer space. As long as there is a mechanism to transfer entropy from water vapor to the atmosphere to outer space, then low entropy snow can form spontaneously.

Low entropy snow forms by itself. Unlike things you buy on Amazon, no human assembly is required.


Likewise proteins are the result of natural systems seeking that state which is driven by the laws of thermodynamics.



More correctly, they are designed to use low entropy resources like food and oxygen to drive processes that decrease entropy locally, while producing even more high entropy waste products.

None of this in any way refutes the second law of thermodynamics. None of this in any way refutes evolution. As long as the mechanism is there to utilize the high energy, low entropy source, things can happen. And that is the marvel of carbon. In the right circumstances, carbon spontaneously forms things like petroleum, diamonds, proteins, RNA, amoeba, trees, and persons.

I am not denying that living things dont require a net increase in entropy, but just like life this is true of human designed of similar highly complex things. So this is evidence that living things require intense input of intellectually directed entropy. Creating order requires directed, external interference. Some of the significant scientific advances in the past 75 years in this context:

• Widespread vaccinations in the mid-twentieth century, minimizing or eliminating many diseases
• Transistors in 1947, followed by integrated circuits and the microchip decades later
• Satellites in the 1950s and humans on the Moon in 1969
• Mainframe computers using punch cards in the 1950s and personal computers in the 1970s
• Hand-held electronic calculators replacing slide rules in the early 1970s
• CT scanners in the 1970s, making most exploratory surgery unnecessary
• Readily available cell phones in the 1980s
• Universal access to the world wide web in the 1990s
• Today’s smart phones with more computing power than the systems that put men on the Moon

All these inventions and advancements involved the principle of increasing entropy with intelligent, directed external energy input.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

No, all humans derive meaning from God whether they want to or not.

You're still confused.

You purport to derive your life's meaning from Yahweh, so your life is meaningless without him.

Kindly do not project your bizarre brand of theistic nihilism onto other people.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: 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.

ia: Sure, if God exists. Since you haven't yet proved this, your argument collapses. You are trying to prove God's existence by with an argument that asks us to assume that God exists. This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.

I didnt assume God exists, I only assumed persons exist. Also, see my argument using the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause earlier in this thread.
↑

ed; Nevertheless in both cases the ultimate cause is a personal being.

ia: Prove it. Because if you don't have proof for what you're saying, it's nothing but an empty claim.
We know how humans came about. Evolution. It's just stating the obvious. No, it's not true to say that no personal being was ever produced except by a personal being. Personal beings, quite simply, evolved from "lower" forms of life.

See above. Also, you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

ed: 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.

ia: (shrug) So what? These are just manifestations of intelligence. Intelligence is just something that happened to evolve.

Again you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

ia: It's time for you to drop this argument now. It just doesn't make sense. "The universe contains personal beings, and since personal beings have only ever been produced by personal beings, the universe must have been produced by a personal being," is just faulty logic. It makes no more sense than saying that a football is round, an orange is round and that an orange grew on a tree - and then going off to look for the Football Tree, which must exist because footballs are round, like oranges (see earlier in this sentence for the proof).

Ed, there's nothing wrong with saying that you're wrong about something. I've done it before now myself. It doesn't mean you have to stop being a Christian. It just means you realise that one of the many arguments you used has been found to be unsound.

You have yet to prove it unsound. BTW, footballs are not round at least in America.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I didnt assume God exists, I only assumed persons exist. Also, see my argument using the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause earlier in this thread.

You said: "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."
I then pointed out that this is meaningless, since it only matters if God actually exists, and you haven't given us any reason to think this is true. I then pointed out that this is a logical fallacy known as begging the question. Which it is.
As for your BB theory and sufficient cause argument, I did look at it. It is unconvincing.

See above. Also, you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

By saying that we know that life was produced by evolution? Of course I'm not. What are you talking about?

Again you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

Evolution produced intelligence. End of argument.

You have yet to prove it unsound. BTW, footballs are not round at least in America.

You are 100% right about footballs, and right to correct me. I should have chosen an internationally acceptable sphere.
But I'm afraid that's the only thing you're right on, because quite frankly you've been wrong - completely and utterly wrong, proven wrong on every page of this amusingly interminable thread - right from the start. Just give it up, will you? You're just making yourself look silly.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am not denying that living things dont require a net increase in entropy, but just like life this is true of human designed of similar highly complex things. So this is evidence that living things require intense input of intellectually directed entropy. Creating order requires directed, external interference.

Nowhere does the second law say that anything needs to be intellectually driven. There are plenty of low entropy things forming as long as the mechanism is there. The mechanism does not need to be intelligent. I have given you multiple examples.

Some of the significant scientific advances in the past 75 years in this context:

• Widespread vaccinations in the mid-twentieth century, minimizing or eliminating many diseases
• Transistors in 1947, followed by integrated circuits and the microchip decades later
• Satellites in the 1950s and humans on the Moon in 1969
• Mainframe computers using punch cards in the 1950s and personal computers in the 1970s
• Hand-held electronic calculators replacing slide rules in the early 1970s
• CT scanners in the 1970s, making most exploratory surgery unnecessary
• Readily available cell phones in the 1980s
• Universal access to the world wide web in the 1990s
• Today’s smart phones with more computing power than the systems that put men on the Moon

All these inventions and advancements involved the principle of increasing entropy with intelligent, directed external energy input.

Got it. All of these things require intelligent input. That does not prove that things like glaciers, diamonds, apes, and rivers require intelligent input.

 

[doubtingmerle]

because quite frankly you've been wrong - completely and utterly wrong, proven wrong on every page of this amusingly interminable thread - right from the start. Just give it up, will you? You're just making yourself look silly.

Ah, but what would we do without our Ed1 entertainment with our coffee in the morning?

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, it did happen. Jews from both Israel and Judah returned from exile after 70 years. Rachels children did return from exile, all historians agree on this.

Excuse me, but historians agree that the northern kingdom ("Rachel's children") had been taken into captivity by Asryria long before the southern kingdom fell to Babylon. It was only the southern kingdom that returned from Babylon. The northern kingdom lost all identity in Asyria.

STRIKE ONE!

Fraid so.

If the prophecy of 70 years had been fulfilled, why was Daniel in Daniel 9 so troubled about Jeremiah's prophecy? And why did the angel need to prophecy a delayed fulfillment after 70 *7 years, if it had been fulfilled in 70 years?

Once again, STRIKE TWO!

Mark is not referring to the kingdom of Israel and Judah.

Mark 13:14 plainly says he is referring to the Abomination of Desolation of Daniel 9. He even says, "Let the reader understand" when he refers to Daniel, so he makes it quite clear what he is referring to. He is referring to the prophecy of 70 years that had been stretched to 490. He now stretches it again. He says immediately after this abomination, in the lifetime of the apostles, the kingdom will come. Although he may have a different interpretation of "kingdom" he is clearly saying the kingdom --promised first by Jeremiah (Strike one) and then by Daniel (strike two)-- will come shortly after 70 AD.

Here's the pitch.....

STRIKE THREE.

Jesus in Mark is referring to the coming of the new kingdom under the new covenant. This began in 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple just as Christ predicted.

That is a creative interpretation of Mark 13. Here is what Mark 13 says will happen shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem.

24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

25And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

27And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

28Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:

29So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

30Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.​

Did it happen that way? 'Fraid not.

​

The instant replay verifies the call. That was strike three.

And no it was not written after the fact, most scholars agree that Mark was written in the 50's or 60s before 70 AD. If it had been Mark would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple as fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy but he didnt.

If you look beyond the tiny circle of fundamentalists, you will see an overwhelming consensus of Mark being written after 70 AD.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Nazis thought they were having good lives. So at the foundation, you and the Nazis have the same basis for morality. They were doing what they thought was giving them good lives and you do what you do to have a good life.

Seriously, how many times do you want us to answer the same question?

Again, what you say above is nowhere close to what I am saying. Nowhere did I say that morality is based on picking whatever we want to get a good life. I have repeatedly told you that getting what one wants in ways that break the cooperative trust relationship of humans is wrong. I have told you that over and over. You just clamp your hands over your ears, and pretend you cannot hear me. None of this stops you from repeating the same false charge over and over. To what benefit is if for you to make up things about others, and then to repeat those false charges over and over?

Once again--sigh--we need to build cooperative trusting relationships with others to survive and live a good life. My morality works to built those relationships. The Nazis were breaking the trust relationship necessary to build that cooperation. They were trying to reap the benefits of society, while breaking the trust relationships needed. As such, they were wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Some were, some were not.

You are joking, right?

I asked you if the Jews killed in the Holocaust were Christians. There may have been a few Christian Jews there. But most of them certainly were not. And you have referred to non-Christians as "corrupted rebels". If in your view the Jews were corrupted rebels, you certainly are not making much of a case against the Holocaust.

I, on the other hand, consider all people to be of value.

Some may have converted before they died.

Seriously, how many of those Jews would have converted?

The problem for you is that you say unbelievers deserve death and hell. You say Amalekite babies deserved to be killed in war. You say Mideanite babies deserve to be killed in war. You say the babies in the flood deserve to be drowned.

Your book says that all are unprofitable, and do nothing good. You say that this evaluation only applies to non-Christians. In other words, you think most of the Jews in the Holocaust (including the babies) were horrible worthless people who deserve hell. (See Romans 3)

How is that helping the case against the Nazis?

But as I demonstrated earlier Christ taught that there are different levels of hell, so depending on why they rejected Christianity and how they lived their lives they may have been sent to the better parts of hell which may not be much worse than an ordinary life on earth.

You believe that unbelieving Jews were destined to banishment in hell with no possibility of
reversing that course after death. That does not sound like value to me.

I believe that all people have value.

The fact that their decisions have eternal consequences shows they have infinite value.

A mosquito's decision to bite a person (and pass on malaria) has eternal consequences (according to you). Do mosquitoes have infinite value?

Apparently you dont always need people that live in the womb.

Apparently you don't need people that are half egg and half sperm.

Same thing.

I don't think unfertilized eggs or fertilized eggs are people.

What is in everybody that is of great worth?

Answered many times. Why bother to repeat it when you ignore everything we say?

You say that they had worth but the Nazis thought they didnt. How do you know who is right?

Pretend you had never heard of God or what he says. Would you or would you not be able to determine on your own that people have worth to you? If you can figure out why a person could think that people have worth, why ask me to tell you that time and time again?

Uhh you do know this was a seige right and there was no food? The king was showing his shock and outrage about what both women had done by ripping his clothes and wearing sackcloth, that is what the ancient hebrews did.

You are simply making that up. The Bible says nothing about the king objecting to canabalism. It says the king was angry with Elisha, who was speaking for God. It does not say he was angry at the canabalism.

The problem for you is that the Bible talks about women eating their own sons, with the story making absolutely no inference that this is wrong.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Ah, but what would we do without our Ed1 entertainment with our coffee in the morning?

You're right. We should count our blessings, and be grateful for that which we have received.

 

[Pommer]

You're right. We should count our blessings, and be grateful for that which we have received.

Oooo, a Brit living in China who just oozes diplomacy, (irony excepted), nicely done!
My Is it 5 to one already?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Oooo, a Brit living in China who just oozes diplomacy, (irony excepted), nicely done!
My Is it 5 to one already?

It's all in the picture. Edmund Blackadder is my model.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Something not obeying the laws of physics is supernatural by definition.

dm: Nobody said the early universe did not obey the laws of physics. All we said is that we do not know, and perhaps will never know, what happened in the first fraction of a second.
And no, saying "we don't know" is not the same thing as same "only Ed1wolf knows."

And no, saying we don't understand the physics is not the same thing as saying it is not physics.

No, cosmologists say the laws of physics break down. The laws of physics breaking down is the way methodological naturalists say "supernatural" without saying it, because if they did they would be fired.

ed: Only a being that is nonphysical can transcend a physical universe. You are a physical being thereby eliminating you as the cause of the universe.

dm: Why can't physical forces transcend the universe? Why can't matter itself transcend the universe? There is nothing saying matter cannot simply exist forever and go in and out of different universes through singularities.

So far most cosmologists believe that the expansion rate and the amount of dark matter will cause the universe to expand forever. All physical forces and matter are within the universe and therefore cannot transcend it.

ed: One of the characteristics of the Christian God is that He is nonphysical, thereby making Him a likely candidate.

dm: First, you have not proven the creator is nonphysical.

Yes, I have, according the laws of logic, a cause cannot be part of an effect. Since the effect is a physical universe, then whatever caused it, cannot be part of the physical universe.

dm: Second, you have not proven God.

I never claimed I could. Just that I can demonstrate that He probably does exist.

dm: Third, you have not proven that God is nonphysical. (And saying that certain ancient sheep herders said he was nonphysical is not proof he is nonphysical.)

See above why He is nonphysical.

dm; Fourth, if God is nonphysical, how did Jacob get in a wrestling match with God?

The biblical evidence points to that being an angel in human form.

ed: No, as I explained earlier the hebrew term translated firmament in the KJV can also mean an open expanse.

Hebrew Concordance: hā·rā·qî·a‘ -- 5 Occurrences (biblehub.com)

dm: Yep. Just like the word "God". You make up multiple definitions, then use the one that matches your theology in each verse. Sorry, that is not legitimate.

No, I get my definition from the Bible.

 

[Pommer]

It's all in the picture. Edmund Blackadder is my model.

I can do a mean Lord Melchett!

 

[Pommer]

No, cosmologists say the laws of physics break down. The laws of physics breaking down is the way methodological naturalists say "supernatural" without saying it, because if they did they would be fired.

So were quarks “supernatural” in the nineteenth century?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I can do a mean Lord Melchett!

Baaaaaa!

 

[doubtingmerle]

So were quarks “supernatural” in the nineteenth century?

No doubt the affects of quarks were caused by the God of the Gaps, until quarks were discovered, then the God of the Gaps went on to find a different domain.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, cosmologists say the laws of physics break down. The laws of physics breaking down is the way methodological naturalists say "supernatural" without saying it, because if they did they would be fired.

Flapdoodle.

When scientists speak of the laws of physics breaking down as one approaches the Big Bang, what they mean is that we have not worked it out yet. See When the Laws of Physics Break Down – The Platonic Realm (platosrealm.blog) .

Please read something written by a mainstream scientist on the Big Bang before you try to represent what they say. They simply are not saying what you claim they say.

So far most cosmologists believe that the expansion rate and the amount of dark matter will cause the universe to expand forever. All physical forces and matter are within the universe and therefore cannot transcend it.

Understood, the universe appears to be expanding out of control. But there is nothing within the laws of an expanding universe that prevents quantum effects from creating another universe as this one expands.

Yes, I have, according the laws of logic, a cause cannot be part of an effect. Since the effect is a physical universe, then whatever caused it, cannot be part of the physical universe.

But the cause can be very much like the effect.

Go outside of a hurricane, and you will find that the physical phenomenon that caused the hurricane are very much like the phenomenon that work inside the hurricane. There is nothing in science that rules out something very like our universe working "before" our universe and causing our universe.

I never claimed I could. Just that I can demonstrate that He probably does exist.

Only if people buy your convoluted arguments, such as the one I call The Argument from Cat Vomit. I personally did not find them very convincing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Judges 1:19

No, the he in that verse is referring to Judah, not God. Judah could not drive them out because they had iron chariots and the Judah did not. Remember 99.9% of time God operates by His natural laws.

ed: No, It means that in order to prove the consistency of a system such as nature, science, or mathematics, it is impossible to prove it from within the system. You must go outside the system. So for nature, you must go outside nature, ie the supernature or supernatural. Or to explain the physical you have to go to the metaphysical.

dm: And in order to prove the metaphysical you need to go outside the metaphysical?

No, Godels theorem only applies to physical systems or systems based on the physical like math.

ed: While apes have some simple aspects of personal beings, they dont have the full orb of personhood.

dm: Duh. We agree.

At least we agree on something!

ed: No, Chomsky and other language experts say that only the human brain has a built in grammar and
syntax abilities, that point to a primordial single language from which all others originated. Dolphins dont have a real language.

dm: Koko the gorilla recognized 2000 words and could put them together. Her syntax was crude, but she had crude language abilities.

No, without grammar it is not true language.

ed: Maybe but unlikely as i stated above, QM needs time to occur.

dm: What I said was that something like quantum mechanics could always have existed. We know quantum mechanics as it works within our space time, but that is not proof that it, or something like it does not work outside our spacetime.

That means it is supernatural. So now you agree there is evidence for the supernatural? Glad to hear it!