What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[BCP1928]

He gave us His will and testament in Writing.

Which is the authority being invoked for the Divine Command Ethic being presented to us here.

 

[Fervent]

Even when he commands to bash in children’s skulls?

Psalmists venting does not a divine command make. Though as God is sovereign over all life, when and how it ends is His prerogative.

 

[BCP1928]

Psalmists venting does not a divine command make. Though as God is sovereign over all life, when and how it ends is His prerogative.

What does?

 

[Bradskii]

It is not so much the "stilts on stilts" complexity of lifeforms that is so breath taking but that the various constructions find a way to hang together as a coherent whole.

Is it because with every step along the way in the development from one generation to another this overall coherence is required for any further step to proceed? (and we all ride the tiger of time so no standing on laurels is "allowed")

It's almost like the various life forms evolved as opposed to being designed, isn't it...

The biggest puzzle regarding evolution is why it took so long before it was understood as the process that gives us the variety.

 

[Larniavc]

Psalmists venting does not a divine command make. Though as God is sovereign over all life, when and how it ends is His prerogative.

Charming.

 

[Larniavc]

What does?

They seem to be saying if God says “dash the skulls of the little ones” it’s okay cause it God.

 

[AV1611VET]

They seem to be saying if God says “dash the skulls of the little ones” it’s okay cause it God.

From AI Overview:

Eternal Mercy: One perspective suggests that the death of children before an age of accountability can be seen as an act of eternal mercy, preventing them from being raised in wickedness and facing eternal punishment.

 

[Bradskii]

Psalmists venting does not a divine command make. Though as God is sovereign over all life, when and how it ends is His prerogative.

The point is not whether it actually happened. It's accepting that it was perfectly acceptable if it did.

If someone you trusted said that he'd received a message from God that you were to vote yes on the island, then I would have hoped that you'd have thought 'Hang on, that can't be right.' Because, as you said, it was blazingly obvious that you should vote no. Your comment above seems to have dashed my hopes.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is not whether it actually happened. It's accepting that it was perfectly acceptable if it did.

Perhaps those who interpret the Bible allegorically see the Bible condoning abortion?

After all, perhaps he reads ...

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

... as ...

AI Overview: Fetal skulls are sometimes damaged during abortions, particularly in second-trimester procedures like Dilation and Evacuation (D&E). This is done to facilitate the removal of the fetus, as the skull may be too large to pass through the birth canal. In D&E, forceps are used to grasp the fetus's limbs and the skull is crushed to aid removal.

 

[Zceptre]

So it was just another pointless and unfounded design argument...

... and still not related to the topic.

It was pointless preaching...

...and I'm not going to read it.

So you should have been muting me rather than complaining. No worries. I'll manage that.

You're welcome to respond to me, but I won't be aware. I won't be waiting for more "data." I have enough.

Your opinion has been noted and I wish you well on your life's journey.

 

[Zceptre]

You mean like a human heart? Why is that relevant to this discussion? Are you suggesting a human heart evolved independently to the rest of the body?

I wouldn't follow Han's lead, it isn't a productive mentality and I won't take to it too kindly. Silence will be the result, unless that is the goal... of course. Respectfully.

I clearly did not use the line of reasoning you just mentioned. Engineering as a whole, read Bradskii's comments for a relevance scale.

 

[Zceptre]

They are massively complex. So much so that we need a myriad of different scientific disciplines to understand even relatively simple life forms. All parts interdependent. Get a problem with one small part and left untreated (as it always has been for millions of years) then it would kill you. I wonder how many pre modern sapiens died of a mundane tooth abscess.

So the question then becomes...why does it need to be that massively complex? Why does it have the appearance of being monstrously over-engineered. Let's face it. God is omnipotent. He could have literally made us animated mud (see Genesis for further details).

Your wonder at the complexities of it all is not the argument for God that you think it is. It's just the opposite.

The origin of the engineering to begin with would be my rebuttal to such a thought.

I'm not sure I would call it over-engineered. Why the need for such complexity? To accomplish the purposes of the designs themselves. I don't want to get into an engineering topic per se, but just to analogize, why make cars more complex now, than we did previously? It accomplishes more and increases efficiency using more advanced designs, such as fuel economy, traction and handling, navigational abilities and even power output.

I've yet to see people stumble ("accidents") into engineering complex projects like hydraulics, or pneumatics, or fuel systems.

I see any and all engineering arise from mental work. For arguments sake, while a person can assume the mud and sticks blocking the waterway and damming it up to increased water levels is random, we know most of these are created by a busy little mind, not by sheer chance and time.

I personally don't see how animated mud would have brought the Creator of all things much glory.

To be an inventor, to create, to construct and build, to be artistic. If it is easy for God to do, why shouldn't He accomplish a masterpiece, as opposed to a mundane pile of mud that moves?

The breakdown of systems is, according to the Bible (and a host of sources that agree), stated as caused by a disgruntled individual aimed at destroying things because he is jealous. While this carries into a tangent, it is in the least to say that I've already mention good and evil and the evil is quite obviously the source of destruction. Negative things exist here without question, and they destroy other things.

This will lead into the "if God is good and all powerful, why evil" line of questioning. This simply reinforces though, the point, that there is a dichotomy of good things (production/creation) and evil things (destruction/decay) and they are forces that are directly in conflict.

It often breaks down into emotionally driven arguments from there...

But I don't see an architect building a grass hut in the mud and gathering everyone around to proclaim his glorious masterpiece.

If God is to create something, it would be extravagant, else why create and proclaim it as evidence of His existence and power? (Romans 1:20)

Why do men make extremely over-engineered structures and towers and skyscrapers?

They could simply make a building that was stronger, yet they seem to be unable to do that without attempting to make them in every way, every shape, with complicated patterns and nearly impossible angles and designs.

What for? To be artists and showcase their abilities.

Because they can. Why not?

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you should have been muting me rather than complaining. No worries. I'll manage that.

You're welcome to respond to me, but I won't be aware. I won't be waiting for more "data." I have enough.

i did respond to you. When I told you I didn't read the last 2 pages of text because it was pointless preaching I meant it.

Your opinion has been noted and I wish you well on your life's journey.

So many who run away from actual discussion of the topic.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not sure I would call it over-engineered. Why the need for such complexity? To accomplish the purposes of the designs themselves.

That's circular reasoning. If the design wasn't massively complex to start with then the engineering wouldn't have to be complex as well. Don't forget, God is actually omnipotent. He literally can do anything. There is, again literally, no need for a monstrously complex system that is prone to breaking down. Animated Mud would do just fine.

Notwithstanding that the design itself leaves a lot to be desired. The spine, knees, eyes, trachea, pelvis...the list of badly engineered parts of the body are legion. They show every indication of jus being randomly (literally) duct taped together from whatever previous design was available. Which itself was cobbled together from a previous design that was no longer fit for purpose.

So there are two arguments. One, if God designed it, it is massively overdesigned with no logical reason for that. And two, it is an extremely bad design indeed.

What for? To be artists and showcase their abilities.

So they wanted to show off what they could do. Well, I certainly believe that as I used to work in building services and run-ins with the architect on every project was par for the course. Don't get me started. But is that your argument for God's design of the body? That he was showing off? The literal creation of the whole universe and life itself wasn't enough?

And again, it might look pretty on the outside, but as with so many architectural delights I have had to work with over the years, when you look at the problems on the inside you realise that the guy had no idea at all.

 

[Zceptre]

It's almost like the various life forms evolved as opposed to being designed, isn't it...

The biggest puzzle regarding evolution is why it took so long before it was understood as the process that gives us the variety.

Kindly, I (obviously) disagree.

Evolution doesn't account for the paranormal.

Templates are used in designing things to an insane degree. Hence, we find insanely prolific patterns of patterns.

Symmetry in practically all fauna, and much of the flora, seems to be problematic to "randomness."

Physics still supersedes the life forms we are observing, as they cannot exist without the laws and rules that concretely support life to begin with whatsoever.

The mathematical formula found in life-forms should not exist there if randomness is the creating force, as randomness doesn't pander to the golden ratio or pi, not to mention the Mandelbrot set. (The fractal geometry of nature)

Just a few. Will keep it concise.

 

[BCP1928]

The origin of the engineering to begin with would be my rebuttal to such a thought.

I'm not sure I would call it over-engineered. Why the need for such complexity? To accomplish the purposes of the designs themselves. I don't want to get into an engineering topic per se, but just to analogize, why make cars more complex now, than we did previously? It accomplishes more and increases efficiency using more advanced designs, such as fuel economy, traction and handling, navigational abilities and even power output.

I've yet to see people stumble ("accidents") into engineering complex projects like hydraulics, or pneumatics, or fuel systems.

I see any and all engineering arise from mental work. For arguments sake, while a person can assume the mud and sticks blocking the waterway and damming it up to increased water levels is random, we know most of these are created by a busy little mind, not by sheer chance and time.

I personally don't see how animated mud would have brought the Creator of all things much glory.

To be an inventor, to create, to construct and build, to be artistic. If it is easy for God to do, why shouldn't He accomplish a masterpiece, as opposed to a mundane pile of mud that moves?

The breakdown of systems is, according to the Bible (and a host of sources that agree), stated as caused by a disgruntled individual aimed at destroying things because he is jealous. While this carries into a tangent, it is in the least to say that I've already mention good and evil and the evil is quite obviously the source of destruction. Negative things exist here without question, and they destroy other things.

This will lead into the "if God is good and all powerful, why evil" line of questioning. This simply reinforces though, the point, that there is a dichotomy of good things (production/creation) and evil things (destruction/decay) and they are forces that are directly in conflict.

It often breaks down into emotionally driven arguments from there...

But I don't see an architect building a grass hut in the mud and gathering everyone around to proclaim his glorious masterpiece.

If God is to create something, it would be extravagant, else why create and proclaim it as evidence of His existence and power? (Romans 1:20)

Why do men make extremely over-engineered structures and towers and skyscrapers?

They could simply make a building that was stronger, yet they seem to be unable to do that without attempting to make them in every way, every shape, with complicated patterns and nearly impossible angles and designs.

What for? To be artists and showcase their abilities.

Because they can. Why not?

You speak of mental work. What it is, is information processing. Considering the biosphere as an interacting web of stochastic processes, there is enough information processing capacity to do the job.

I'm also a bit troubled as to the way you use "random." Since this is a science forum, we should use a scientific definition. "predictable by no known algorithm" is the one I was taught.

 

[Zceptre]

That's circular reasoning. If the design wasn't massively complex to start with then the engineering wouldn't have to be complex as well. Don't forget, God is actually omnipotent. He literally can do anything. There is, again literally, no need for a monstrously complex system that is prone to breaking down. Animated Mud would do just fine.

Notwithstanding that the design itself leaves a lot to be desired. The spine, knees, eyes, trachea, pelvis...the list of badly engineered parts of the body are legion. They show every indication of jus being randomly (literally) duct taped together from whatever previous design was available. Which itself was cobbled together from a previous design that was no longer fit for purpose.

So there are two arguments. One, if God designed it, it is massively overdesigned with no logical reason for that. And two, it is an extremely bad design indeed.

So they wanted to show off what they could do. Well, I certainly believe that as I used to work in building services and run-ins with the architect on every project was par for the course. Don't get me started. But is that your argument for God's design of the body? That he was showing off? The literal creation of the whole universe and life itself wasn't enough?

And again, it might look pretty on the outside, but as with so many architectural delights I have had to work with over the years, when you look at the problems on the inside you realise that the guy had no idea at all.

Where to begin.

The nature of systems is that they can easily be broken down. The more complex the system, the more easily it could be broken. Especially if some fowl play were introduced into the situation. How many cars broke down because someone's ex knew a car mechanic. Brake lines don't cut themselves, but they will lead to termination of the vehicle ultimately if they are. Initially, you'll pull out of the driveway just fine... There are of course, parts that produce more time-release type breakdowns.

I'm somewhat finding a conflict, maybe you could help me understand. Over-engineered, yet duct-tapped?

I think a machine that can convert its engine/locomotive systems that covers the entirety of its chassis into fuel during periods of fuel shortage and emergencies is a bit better than "bad engineering." I've yet to see anything remotely close to such a design made by men.

So the mud hut is good enough, according to your reasoning, for the claim to fame? As opposed to a steel tower with shiny windows and luxury carpet?

The human body, an animals included, are extremely resilient and can be hard to stop. The kind of abuse the endure of a long period of time is unthinkable, and to call self replicating nano-bots that read blueprints and follow instructions perfectly called cells "no idea" seems a bit of stretch to me personally.

Blueprints at all, by chances of oopsies, gives me goosebumps (not really, but for arguments sake).

The miracle of nothing creating anything never appealed much to me logically, even as a child.

 

[Bradskii]

Evolution doesn't account for the paranormal.

There is no paranormal in evolution.

Templates are used in designing things to an insane degree. Hence, we find insanely prolific patterns of patterns.

Yes, it's what you expect to find. If, after billions of changes in one area a solution is found to a given problem then you'd expect a very similar solution to be found in another similar area. There are no templates as such (I'veheard this being mentioned when 'types' are brought up).

Symmetry in practically all fauna, and much of the flora, seems to be problematic to "randomness."

All? That's hyperbole. I don't see much symmetry between a cactus, an oak and a primrose. Or between a bee, an eel and a giraffe. But what you will find is that random changes that have optimum results and will fix into any given population because of that - that is, help the organisms survive, will be repeated under similar circumstances for similar organisms. So you'll have wings on birds, insects and some fish. There's nothing mysterious about this.

Physics still supersedes the life forms we are observing, as they cannot exist without the laws and rules that concretely support life to begin with whatsoever.

Mmm. Water must have been designed, therefore God.

The mathematical formula found in life-forms should not exist there if randomness is the creating force, as randomness doesn't pander to the golden ratio or pi, not to mention the Mandelbrot set. (The fractal geometry of nature)

The most beneficial shape for a bee's honeycomb is a hexagon. It's the mathematically most efficient. Any randomly constructed honeycomb that used circles or squares or triangles weren't as efficient as a randomly constructed honeycomb that happen to use hexagons. They were more efficient. They had a small evolutionary edge. So what shape do you think they are?

Yeah, they're hexagon. And with some basic trig and a sheet of paper and a pencil you could find out that they are the best design. But don't confuse that with them having been designed.

Countless random changes don't end up with a randomly useless result. It ends up with an optimum result for the relevant environment.

 

[Fervent]

The point is not whether it actually happened. It's accepting that it was perfectly acceptable if it did.

The point is rather moot considering the Psalms aren't God speaking, they're wisdom literature which has men as the primary speakers. Invective poetry is simply invective poetry, not a command from God.

If someone you trusted said that he'd received a message from God that you were to vote yes on the island, then I would have hoped that you'd have thought 'Hang on, that can't be right.' Because, as you said, it was blazingly obvious that you should vote no. Your comment above seems to have dashed my hopes.

Jesus did say "Those who would not have me as king over them..." As for that sort of command, I'd only take it from God Himself not someone I trusted. After all, God has no grandchildren.

 

[Zceptre]

You speak of mental work. What it is, is information processing. Considering the biosphere as an interacting web of stochastic processes, there is enough information processing capacity to do the job.

I'm also a bit troubled as to the way you use "random." Since this is a science forum, we should use a scientific definition. "predictable by no known algorithm" is the one I was taught.

I agree with that sentiment. It is the processing of information. The only distinction is what is processing said information. A computational CPU can process information, but how did it arrive on earth? A mind created it and set the rules for the logic gates that manages what the binary bits equate to.

My point, is that we know that a mind processes information, as it had to process the information to create CPUs for example, so who can say a mind did not process the information to create what we behold?

The aversion to anything being "created" seems a bit "woo-woo" to me, kind of like a superstition of sorts. What suddenly dictates something could not be created? We observe this occurring daily, and even children accomplish such a thing. For God to do so would be without saying.

What is this? A forbidding of vocabulary? Since when did science forbid descriptive words rather than embrace them?

-------------------

Definition of random adjective from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

random​

adjective

1. [usually before noun] done, chosen, etc. without somebody deciding in advance what is going to happen, or without any regular pattern

2. [only before noun] (informal) (especially of a person) not known or not identified

3. (informal) a thing or person that is random is strange and does not make sense, often in a way that interests you or makes you laugh

-------------------

Seems that number 1 correlates just fine with your personal definition.

Oxford isn't your average school-yard dictionary.

I don't see any disagreement there.