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

[Bradskii]

The nature of systems is that they can easily be broken down. The more complex the system, the more easily it could be broken.

That's right. So if it's pointed out that the design of the human body is monstrously complicated (and badly designed at that) and because of that it is always breaking down, couldn't we ask 'Well, couldn't it have been made more simper to avoid all the problems?' But perhaps the designer wasn't up to it. But if we're told that He's omnipotent then you've simply got to ask 'Then why badly design a complex system when a well designed simpler one would solve the problems?'

Again, your initial argument is one rejecting God's influence.

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

Yes, the two aren't incompatible. You can over engineer a system that has its pieces held together with pins, string and duct tape. Evolution can only work with what it's got. So it's not perfectly engineered from first principles. Quite often you'll start to design something and get to a point where any improvements make it vastly more complex. You'd be better off starting again. Evolution can't do that.

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."

When there's a lack of food then your body will start to metabolize fat. But it will also convert protein in your muscles to glucose at the same time, so you lose muscle as well. That's bad news. That's bad design.

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?

Is God is looking for fame?

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

Well, we're still looking for answers as to when it all started. And how. And even if there was a specific start point. The rest is all natural processes. If you want to say that God lit the blue touch paper to start it all off then be my guest. When I was relatively young the argument 'I can't imagine it happening like that, therefore God' was one of the positions given to me that made me question it all.

 

[Zceptre]

There is no paranormal in evolution.

Interesting. I've experienced untold quantities of paranormal things. I also continue to hear witnesses and see much evidence for it in the world today. They have people that do literally nothing else but spend their life documenting paranormal evidence. But, hey, maybe that's "nothing." To each their own.

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).

I've seen no transitional designs myself, although I don't harp on it either to be honest. Just kind of an unspoken obvious issue to me. The eyes on the head is a pattern that resembles a template. Quad-legged creatures are common, six legs for insects.. large swaths of the fauna fall into these categories. Two ears, one head, nose. Heart for blood, blood at all, why is 95% of blood red? These are absolute mass saturation of the designs found in the world, and they even seem to be patterned into the insect realms. Aren't two heads smarter than one? Why not find animals with two, three, or 5 heads?

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 group 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.

I don't mean between different separate forms, I mean symmetry within each form. The overwhelming majority by an insane degree of every "creature" we observe has symmetry built into it. There's no reason we should not find a 3 eyed anything, or 7. When we do find 8 eyes and eight legs, they are also symmetrical. It wouldn't kill anything to have three or five legs, or three or nine ears for that matter. Not to mention the insane capabilities for the creatures that have extended capabilities, like octopi having skin that operates like an LCD tv screen to automatically camouflage? Took work for human beings, but octopi just fall into it by sheer chance. Coinkidenkz.

Mmm. Water must have been designed, therefore God.

Well, while that's a cute reverse representation and all, it (water) follows a very strict and determined observably patterned behavior. That doesn't necessarily scream "oops." It responds the same every time, as if it has a set of rules, and it follows those rules. Where do rules pop up without cause for the effect?

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 conditions.

So the bees are using a very powerful design that is beyond their own intellectual capacity, so that indicates that they used circles for awhile or triangles, but it wasn't bad enough to kill them until they go to (eventually) hexagons?

I'd like to see the triangles and circles for starters, and I personally just think someone who knew the best design included it in the instincts of the creature. I don't credit bees for their building abilities any more than I credit a baby for it showing up in the world and knowing it wants food.

So because bees use the best design, we must rule out anything intelligent with a mind of creative power to the causality of the bees? Says who? lol




Even if evolution were true, which of course I personally hold to the claim it is not, the software that is running all of this intrinsic development and advancement of the life-forms would have to arise from somewhere. Software is needed to manage autonomous and manual, voluntary and involuntary, processes of the creature and anyone who knows coding knows errors don't make improvements. It's a well know fact.

 

[Fervent]

What does?

Imperative statements from God would be a good starting point.

 

[Zceptre]

When there's a lack of food then your body will start to metabolize fat. But it will also convert protein in your muscles to glucose at the same time, so you lose muscle as well. That's bad news. That's bad design.

Could not disagree more. I would gladly trade a few foot pounds of torque so that I didn't die until I could reach a food source...

Well, we're still looking for answers as to when it all started. And how. And even if there was a specific start point. The rest is all natural processes. If you want to say that God lit the blue touch paper to start it all off then be my guest. When I was relatively young the argument 'I can't imagine it happening like that, therefore God' was one of the positions given to me that made me question it all.

"Therefore God" is based on me having interactions with Him. If I had experienced no response in my dealings and attempts to connect, I would assume the same as you, and I'll readily admit that. But the fact is, just like anyone, I personally feel many people won't give God the time of day or a chance to show Himself to them personally. But that's a thought related to the line of reasoning you are presenting here alone.

The answers to "when and how it all started" will be answered for you soon by someone, but I hope you are as prudent at poking holes in their claims as you are in those who state they have experienced a personal God. I'm pretty aware they don't want to "be friends" as much as people assume. They are sneaky, I will confess.

The mainstream is now speaking of the flying phenomena interacting with military craft on the regular. While I've known of it most all my life in more concrete ways, they are taking it center stage and the visitors will claim to be "gods." (if they don't, you can throw everything I said out, but if they do, then I'm obviously not crazy.

I won't push into it sideways, but I am on the opposite foot. If they show up and depend on "craft" to get around, "therefore we are gods" isn't going to fly.

Maybe some "theists" will accept that format, but I'm more suspicious than many atheists then I suppose. I've questioned the things I believe in much harder than people know.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

But you said that God can decide who dies. You implied that the massacre of the Amalekites was OK because it was God's decision. But God didn't kill them. He told Saul. Who didn't kill them. He told his soldiers to kill them. Are you saying it should have been Saul?

In any case, we can test this. If you were absolutely certain that God had told you to do it, would you have thought 'No, hang on.This can't be right', or would you have killed them? Because you've already told us that harming children is objectively wrong.

 

[Fervent]

But you said that God can decide who dies. You implied that the massacre of the Amalekites was OK because it was God's decision. But God didn't kill them. He told Saul. Who didn't kill them. He told his soldiers to kill them. Are you saying it should have been Saul?

When did we start talking about the Amalekites? And what is the problem supposed to be, exactly?

In any case, we can test this. If you were absolutely certain that God had told you to do it, would you have thought 'No, hang on.This can't be right', or would you have killed them? Because you've already told us that harming children is objectively wrong.

My trust is with God, and if I were among the Israelites I would have done as He commanded. I didn't say harming children is objectively wrong, but torture murder via popular decision. God's will is what makes morality objective, as He is the one who knows man's purpose to say what is right and wrong to be done.

 

[Zceptre]

Is God is looking for fame?

Sorry, meant to touch on this.

Isaiah 42:8
I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.

Apparently, the answer is yes, He doesn't want others taking credit for His work. It seems, at least.

 

[Bradskii]

Could not disagree more.

I'll just note that you are agreeing that It's a bad design by God.

"Therefore God" is based on me having interactions with Him. If I had experienced no response in my dealings and attempts to connect, I would assume the same as you, and I'll readily admit that. But the fact is, just like anyone, I personally feel many people won't give God the time of day or a chance to show Himself to them personally.

He knows where I live. I'm pretty sure He doesn't need an invite. In any case, He had plenty of opportunity in my younger days to make Himself known. He seems to have chosen not to. But me saying that I have not had any interactions with Him and you saying that you have doesn't give anyone a heads up on His existence or non existence.

The mainstream is now speaking of the flying phenomena interacting with military craft on the regular....

I have no idea what the rest of the post is about...

 

[sjastro]

Where is the science in this thread?
Seems like a good reason to have a Philosophy forum open to all individuals instead of the Christian only one.

 

[Zceptre]

I'll just note that you are agreeing that It's a bad design by God.

Surely not, your design forfeits the opportunity to tradeoff horsepower for immediate death. The one we are alluding to allows the tradeoff and prevents me from dying before I get to the next "fuel station."

I mean, if dying were better than reduced locomotive power maybe, but I'm not sure that is logical even in an evolutionary worldview's terms.

He knows where I live. I'm pretty sure He doesn't need an invite. In any case, He had plenty of opportunity in my younger days to make Himself known. He seems to have chosen not to. But me saying that I have not had any interactions with Him and you saying that you have doesn't give anyone a heads up on His existence or non existence.

Well, I didn't say I was the teachers pet and they didn't like you so you aren't in the club. Your asserting that I am "loopy and hallucinating" (indirectly, of course, by default) doesn't offend me or make me doubt my own experiences. There are vast numbers, on both sides of that fence. But to claim "I don't see therefore it is not," seems a stretch. Radio waves... etc etc etc.

I have no idea what the rest of the post is about...

Lol!

Time tells all things. Yester-year they were saying humanity was too advanced and altruistic for war. Now everyone is at war.

There are people here already claiming the "visitors" are going to show up soon and they are already calling them "gods" and "creators." Hey, I'm not buying that for a second, and if it doesn't happen, you can eat bon bons and and go curtain shopping.

But then there is still warfare, ai, social unrest... It's a bit hectic.

Ties back to the "glitches" (evil) in the virtual world I described earlier. Honestly... Humans, if things were as simple as evolution, shouldn't be doing the things they are doing. It's at the very least, intellectually counterproductive.

 

[Bradskii]

My trust is with God, and if I were among the Israelites I would have done as He commanded.

The rank and file had no command. It was Saul. I thought you'd need a direct order from God. Apparently not.

I didn't say harming children is objectively wrong, but torture murder via popular decision.

I'm not sure that that statement instills a lot of confidence in your standards of morality. Highlighted for clarity. So you're not saying that torturing children is wrong. But having a vote on it? What? That's...that's...simply unacceptable!

God's will is what makes morality objective, as He is the one who knows man's purpose to say what is right and wrong to be done.

So if he'd told you to vote yes then you would have. Let's hope He doesn't tell you to fly a plane into a building, shall we..?

Incidently, if someone comes to your place and massacres your family and he says 'God told me to do it', how do you know he's mistaken? Which actually means: How do we know you are mistaken when he tells you to kill the children. When what I really mean is: How on earth do you know when you are mistaken'?

It seems, horrifyingly enough, that there are no guard rails. That there will be no 'Hang on, that can't be right' moment. You've already told us you'd massacre children so a kid on an island or a family is no problem.

 

[Fervent]

The rank and file had no command. It was Saul. I thought you'd need a direct order from God. Apparently not.

Saul was the commander of the military, a command given to him is a command for those under him as well. If the president gave commands to a general, that command stands for corporals and lieutenants as well.

I'm not sure that that statement instills a lot of confidence in your standards of morality. Highlighted for clarity. So you're not saying that torturing children is wrong. But having a vote on it? What? That's...that's...simply unacceptable!

Your hypothetical rests on faulty grounds, and you've quite escalated from harm to torture.

So if he'd told you to vote yes then you would have. Let's hope He doesn't tell you to fly a plane into a building, shall we..?

Why would we hope for that? If He commands it, it is right. But your hypothetical rests on faulty premises since God is not capricious.

Incidently, if someone comes to your place and massacres your family and he says 'God told me to do it', how do you know he's mistaken? Which actually means: How do we know you are mistaken when he tells you to kill the children. When what I really mean is: How on earth do you know when you are mistaken'?

When God speaks directly to you, there is no mistaking it. There's no deciphering the message, or guess work involved. It's clear and unambiguous. Now, since you haven't had this experience I suspect that answer won't satisfy you. As for the one claiming God told him to maassacre my family, I suppose I would interrogate him regarding how exactly he came by that idea. My experiene is that most of the time when people have "a message from God" that is fishy there is a good deal of guesswork involved. Dreams, vague visions, coincidental signs, that sort of thing. Not the clear, distinct, unequivocal message that a direct experience of the Divine entails.

It seems, horrifyingly enough, that there are no guard rails. That there will be no 'Hang on, that can't be right' moment. You've already told us you'd massacre children so a kid on an island or a family is no problem.

There is a rather simple guardrail, God's nature. Though you may be onto something, there is a distinct lack of fear missing in the West today. What a terrible thing it is to fall into the hands of God.

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting. I've experienced untold quantities of paranormal things.

No really interested in things that go bump in the night. Let's not waste both of our times.

I've seen no transitional designs myself...

Everything is a transitional 'design'.

although I don't harp on it either to be honest. Just kind of an unspoken obvious issue to me. The eyes on the head is a pattern that resembles a template.

Eyes at the front of the organism? Now where would you think the optimum spot would be. I'd suggest put them where they'd be looking in whatever direction the organism travels. It's always beneficial tomsee where you're going as opposed to where you've been.

Quad-legged creatures are common, six legs for insects.. large swaths of the fauna fall into these categories. Two ears, one head, nose. Heart for blood, blood at all, why is 95% of blood red? These are absolute mass saturation of the designs found in the world, and they even seem to be patterned into the insect realms. Aren't two heads smarter than one? Why not find animals with two, three, or 5 heads?

The human brain uses about 20% of the bodies energy output. It's a matter of the best utilisation of resources. If we lived in the dark like cave fish then we wouldn't need eyes. If we have artificial means of keeping warm then we'd lose a lot of hair. And I'm beginning to realise that you aren't up to speed with biology or the evolutionary process. I'm not going to explain every facet of biology that comes up. Might be a good idea not to bring up any more.

I don't mean between different separate forms, I mean symmetry within each form. The overwhelming majority by an insane degree of every "creature" we observe has symmetry built into it. There's no reason we should not find a 3 eyed anything, or 7. When we do find 8 eyes and eight legs, they are also symmetrical. It wouldn't kill anything to have three or five legs, or three or nine ears for that matter. Not to mention the insane capabilities for the creatures that have extended capabilities, like octopi having skin that operates like an LCD tv screen to automatically camouflage? Took work for human beings, but octopi just fall into it by sheer chance.

It wha the evolutionary process gives us.

Even if evolution were true, which of course I personally hold to the claim it is not,

Aye, and there's the rub. You are trying to pick holes in something that you don't understand and don't accept exists. Maybe this conversation has run it's course.

 

[Zceptre]

If we lived in the dark like cave fish then we wouldn't need eyes. If we have artificial means of keeping warm then we'd lose a lot of hair. And I'm beginning to realise that you aren't up to speed with biology or the evolutionary process.

Yet, fish that are blind are found in caves and caverns with eyes.

Spare me the condescending "you aren't smart enough" lecture. It's quite worn.

It wha the evolutionary process gives us.

I have no earthly clue what this response is meant to indicate. It certainly addresses nothing I presented clearly and the problem is not resolved.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where is the science in this thread?
Seems like a good reason to have a Philosophy forum open to all individuals instead of the Christian only one.

The problem is that the thread was always just an excuse for apologetics against non-theistic ideas in cosmology and non-theists.

 

[Bradskii]

Saul was the commander of the military, a command given to him is a command for those under him as well.

But you said...

I'd only take it from God Himself.

It wasn't given to the rank and file soldiers. It was only given to Saul. But, as younsaid, if you thought He'd commanded you then you'd do it.

Your hypothetical rests on faulty grounds, and you've quite escalated from harm to torture.

It was the original hypothetical.

Why would we hope for that? If He commands it, it is right. But your hypothetical rests on faulty premises since God is not capricious.

So are you assuming that killing the Amelikites was not capricious but flying a plane into a building would be? Ah, so you have an internal debate as to whether you consider it to be a capricious command. You could possibly see a reason for killing the Amelikite children, so would obey the command (if you personally received it) but wouldn't be able to see any benefit in flying the plane into the building. So in that case there would be a 'Hang on, that doesn't seem right' moment.

Do you know what this means? It means that if you think it's justified then it's ok. And if you don't, then it isn't. What was that term we used when people make moral decisions themselves?

When God speaks directly to you, there is no mistaking it. There's no deciphering the message, or guess work involved. It's clear and unambiguous. Now, since you haven't had this experience I suspect that answer won't satisfy you. As for the one claiming God told him to maassacre my family, I suppose I would interrogate him regarding how exactly he came by that idea. My experiene is that most of the time when people have "a message from God" that is fishy there is a good deal of guesswork involved. Dreams, vague visions, coincidental signs, that sort of thing. Not the clear, distinct, unequivocal message that a direct experience of the Divine entails.

You'd interrogate him? Is this before you allow him in? Well...OK. So following your questions (I can't believe you said that you'd be doing this) what he tells you is that there is no mistaking the command. There's no deciphering the message, or guess work involved. It's clear and unambiguous. It was a clear, distinct, unequivocal message. A direct experience of the divine.

I guess that settles it. You have to let him in at that point. Maybe ask if he wants a drink or something until the kids come home.

Just in passing, why didn't you say that you'd interrogate Saul?

There is a rather simple guardrail, God's nature.

The God that commanded the massacre of innocent women and children? That God? What sort of guardrail is it that allows that? What sort of guardrail is it that has you say that you'd participate? If that's acceptable then you'd do anything. The guardrails don't exist.

 

[Bradskii]

Yet, fish that are blind are found in caves and caverns with eyes.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/150911-blind-cavefish-animals-science-vision-evolutio

Spare me the condescending "you aren't smart enough" lecture. It's quite worn.

I said that you were uninformed. Ignorant of the process of evolution. That doesn't mean that you are stupid.

I have no earthly clue what this response is meant to indicate. It certainly addresses nothing I presented clearly and the problem is not resolved.

There is no problem. It's simply a lack of understanding.

 

[Zceptre]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/150911-blind-cavefish-animals-science-vision-evolutio

This is a no. Denied. I won't accept telemarketing materials via forum post. Come on man, seriously though. That doesn't negative the potential for a designer. To design something foolishly would be well...

I said that you were uninformed. Ignorant of the process of evolution. That doesn't mean that you are stupid.

I'll accept that as a reasonable assumption even though you don't know my level of knowledge on the subject. It was at least an attempt. A for effort.

There is no problem. It's simply a lack of understanding.

Repetition rather than resolution. I don't want to call it an excuse, but I find it hard to avoid.

You essentially said "you get what you get."

There is absolutely zero logical reason (apart from mental direction of course) for nearly no instances of creatures with odd numbers of anything, including eyes(cameras), ears(microphones), legs. For things to be nearly perfectly symmetrical "just because" simply does not equate. This is a principle of mathematics and probabilities, and I find it telling there are no unhappy accidents.

I'll simply conclude by saying, the answer "you don't know enough," is rather disappointing.

 

[Bradskii]

This is a no.

I think we're done. Thanks for your input.

 

[Zceptre]

The God that commanded the massacre of innocent women and children?

In the given context of the storyline, the book outlines these people groups as genetic hybrids stemming from the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15) that resulted in giants (Genesis 6:4) that were genetic hybrids with additional fingers (1 Chronicles 20:6) (2 Samuel 21:20) and extended stature (Deuteronomy 3:11).

So if these were evil hybrids bent on destroying all humanity, would anyone tell God He is wrong for protecting humanity and destroying evil?

This is a book with the sun standing still, angels appearing, donkeys talking, bushes burning that aren't consumed, God performing plagues and miracles, a man being eaten by a fish and surviving three days later, and the Son of God resurrecting three days after being crucified for our sake.

Removing the context changes the dynamics of the situation.

One can reject the book, or accept what it says, but standing on the fence and claiming both simultaneously is illogical and irrational.

The question then results in, if they were pure evil and going to destroy humanity, would God be wrong for eradicating them?